One side argues it is counterintuitive to think the solution to gun violence is more guns, and at the very least government should try to control access to firearms and who has them. The other side argues that an armed thug may think twice about attacking others if he believes the would-be victim might shoot back.
Both sides make legitimate points. Giving up and making our country a free-for-all for weaponry doesn't make sense.
We should at least try to curb the flow of firearms to the bad guys through serious background checks and being able to trace guns sold illegally to those who aren't supposed to have them.
The incident which triggered this op-ed piece was a grisly triple-murder and suicide which happened over the weekend. Three brothers died together in the incident and the shooter had a felony record.
This is the message I hear from gun control folks. I believe it's an exaggeration to say gun control advocates want to ban guns or eventually confiscate guns. I believe what we want to do, at least most of us, is find a way to "curb the flow of firearms to the bad guys," as Don Huebscher said.
What's your opinion? Why would pro-gun people oppose attempts to do this? Doesn't common sense dictate that we should work together on this? Rather than gun control proponents fighting against pro-gun people, it could be gun control people and pro-gunners against the criminals. Wouldn't that make more sense?
What do you think?