I wrote about guns. This is what happened.
Rachael Flanery

If you’re this emotional about the issue, it might be worth some of your time to study some of its history. Meaning well, will never replace hard knowledge of cause and effect.

A little bit of the history of the gun control movement: by the early 90’s, the anti-gun campaign was reeling. It had been on the ballot in two states, California and Massachusetts to ban handguns. Both statewide initiatives failed. Action against handguns in the U.S. Congress was out of reach. Some kind of victory was needed to keep the movement alive. The focus shifted to semiautomatic rifles that looked like their military counterpart. It looked like a good bet. Almost no one had them, fewer wanted them. Who would go to great efforts to defend them?

After the media uproar over this kind of semiautomatic rifle, criminals figured that if these rifles they’d never thought about or wanted were that evil they had to have them. Now when I talk to a new owner of an AR-15 and ask them why, the answer is almost always, “Because I still can.”

Go to great lengths to ban guns if nobility of effort is your primary concern and at the end of the day you want to feel you’ve done your part, but if results are your aim, it might be worth your time to delve deeper into the cause and effect behind crime. Everything isn’t as simple as it appears.

There are thousands of books on the subject, even more people with personal experience. It’s quite possible to spend years studying the issue without reading or talking to anyone with a perspective that isn’t inherently uncomfortable. The problem is, you never really know an issue until you understand the other side.

You might start with the premise, I just want to be safe and I want my children to be safe, but do you really believe anyone disagrees with that, whatever position they ultimately take?

Like what you read? Give Edd Jennings a round of applause.

From a quick cheer to a standing ovation, clap to show how much you enjoyed this story.