Gun control is easy. You hold it nice and steady, slowly squeeze the trigger, and BLAM! What's so hard about controlling a gun?
Now, controlling the people who control guns, that's a horse of a different color. It's a controversial subject because it is complex.
At first you might ask, what's so complex about it? The second amendment to the constitution says: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
Well first of all, that's not a very well-constructed sentence. And it mentions a militia and arms in the same sentence. Does this mean they are supposed to be connected? What exactly does it mean? What's weird is that this amendment passed with hardly a debate at all. Apparently at the time, to the framers of the constitution, it made perfect sense.
I think the intent was to allow the people to be able to protect themselves. From other bad people, and more importantly, from represive governments. The consitution was written shortly after we gained our independence from Great Britain. That could not have been accomplished without the people bearing arms. But times have changed. Now potentially represive governments have more than just guns. They have missiles. They have bombs. They have nukes. So. If I am to be able to defend myself against them, I'd better have my own personal stash of nukes too. Hmmmm? Actually, I bet I can handle them just fine. But the thought of my neighbor having nukes too scares the s--t out of me.
What else is different today? Two things. One -- guns (“arms“) today are much, much more capable of doing much, much more damage much, much more quickly. They can mow down dozens of people in the blink of an eye. Two -- today there are many many more people in more concentrated areas. Most of these people are good and peaceable. So much so that they do not feel the need to pack heat wherever they go. Then a few crazies are not. So a bank is robbed at gunpoint, then the escaping thugs shoot up an entire town in the attempt to get away with the loot. The loss of innocent life is multiplied by the quantity of ammo and the quantity of targets.
Ok, more than two things. Gangs for example. I guess, there have probably always been mobs. But the morality of today's gangs and criminals is at an all-time low. And how about the two snipers who took pot-shots (highly accurate ones) at dozens of people for no particular reason -- a couple of years ago in D.C.? And Columbine? Actually the list can be expanded much more, but I won't bother now.
Some say the solution is to arm everybody. Heck, make it mandatory that everyone must have a gun. I must admit that it is an intriguing idea. I'll bet people would think twice about committing crimes if they knew that the old lady on the corner has had just about enough, and is ready to pull that .44 magnum out of her bra.
Some say the solution is to disarm everybody. It's a nice thought. It's a utopian thought. But this ain't no utopia. The bad guys will figure out a way to sneak their guns around. And it will be a heyday with all those defenseless law-abiding people. Like shooting fish in a barrel. And then there's that pesky 2nd amendment to the consititution. What do we do with that?
I don't know what the solution is. On the one hand, self-defense and hunting are valid reasons to allow the people to keep and bear arms. And it is stupid to think that passing some law like the Brady Bill will prevent kooks from taking pot-shots at the president. That was a knee-jerk reaction. On the other hand, allowing any old schmoe to pack heat makes me nervous. But then, on the other hand... Wait -- I ran out of hands.
To explore the solutions adequately would require bringing up some other hefty topics. As I see it, the problem is not with the laws, but with administering justice when the laws are broken. Why does it take ten years to kill a killer? If someone murders, and it is proven -- shoot 'em. Don't wait. Just shoot 'em. And why can a burglar sue a homeowner for getting shot in the act? That is nothing short of ridiculous. If you break and enter, better be prepared for a bullet to break and enter. Some say that these solutions would not be deterrents to crime. I say hooey. They might not stop all of the nutcases, but it would sure make some of them think twice.
As far as specifically what do do about the right to bear arms... Solutions range from total repression of arms (change the constitution?), to specific limits (like we have now), and then on up to having no limits at all. I don't rightly know where I stand. Somewhere in the middle I guess. I don't like the idea of everybody owning Uzzies. But I want to be able to own a gun. Even a handgun. Not even necessarily for hunting.
If only.... Nope. Wake up, Ken.