The real problem with the gun rights/gun control debate is that it all boils down to who can appeal to the fear of more people. Fear leads people to make decisions that are not inherently in their best interests.

Both sides of the argument want to lead the masses to believe that there will be some impending apocalypse of American society if the other side wins. This simply is not true. I will not fall for the “No TRUE Scotsman” kind of argument whereby someone supposes that because I do not support expanded background checks I hate children and I want to kill everyone. Nor do I think that because I think there are measures that can be taken to mitigate some risks that I don’t support the 2nd amendment.

Let me be absolutely clear: neither extreme will do the American public any good. Criminals use firearms every day to commit crimes. To them, background checks are null and void simply because they are willing to circumvent or flat-out break the law. Conversely, every day there are millions of people who own firearms of all shapes, sizes and classes that carry or own them without a single incident. The conclusion that this leads me to is that criminals are exactly that and will behave in a criminal way when it is convenient for them.

With that in mind, I look at the background-check issue like this: we already have background checks, we have laws that prohibit felons from owning firearms, we have laws that state that it is illegal to knowingly purchase a firearm for a prohibited person. So, why does this still happen? Criminals will continue to behave in a criminal fashion. The same applies to gun-free zones.

I look at this issue through the lens of real-world effectiveness versus feel-good effectiveness. Do background checks actually work? Yes and no. They do work because they occasionally do catch someone trying to purchase a weapon that should not. They don’t because they occasionally miss people. This is not because we need MORE background checks. This is because there’s a need for more data. With some of that data come real-world legal issues. Including mental-health data brings HIPAA into play, it also brings real privacy issues into play in relation to the ACA.

To add to all of that, you’re getting into 4th Amendment issues. You cannot simply deprive someone of property without due process.

So, back to background checks. I mentioned that real-world effectiveness versus feeling good. If criminals disobey the law by definition, background checks are a feel good measure at best and at worst, they are simply a mechanism to control people who have not broken the law. Last I checked, you cannot punish people who have broken no law, which is what I see in a lot of the measures brought up that revolve around background checks.

On the flip side, I do think that there should be stiffer penalties for irresponsible use or criminal use of firearms. I do not understand why someone would object to reporting a stolen firearm to the police. I don’t know about y’all, but my guns cost me a pretty penny. Having that much value taken from me is going to result in a call from police. I also don’t want to be potentially linked to a crime. I also think there should be a safety test for owning a weapon or at minimum a signed affidavit that you understand that you are responsible for handling them in a safe manner. Why? Because guns are dangerous when mishandled. This is not rocket science, people.

You cannot disregard the lives of others no matter how much they want to interfere with your right to keep and bear arms.

Carry-and-conceal licenses should be good in all 50 states and territories, full stop. Every gun owner should be held responsible for mishandling or failing to store their firearm properly. The right to own and carry deadly weapons should come with a few responsibilities attached to them. Those responsibilities should not be regulated into near non existence like New Jersey, New York, Illinois and California. We cannot punish people who have broken no law because a criminal did, that is not justice.

We absolutely MUST, as a society move beyond the fear that each side is peddling in order to come to a reasoned solution. Neither extreme has an answer that is good for the whole. Whether you like the 2nd amendment or not, we’ve got it and it’s not likely to go anywhere. Safe handling and proper storage, particularly when you have children, shouldn’t need to be a formal regulation. It should be a mark of pride for a parent who owns firearms. Education and discarding the language of fears and beliefs are probably good ways to start to come to a mutually beneficial solution.