There are two sides to the gun control / 2nd amendment debate, with each side focusing it’s platform on a question, which if answered, would provide the solution to help reduce our countries number of gun crimes.
The side in favor of more gun control’s mission is to answer “how this killer got this gun that allowed him to shoot so many people.”
And the 2nd amendment advocates view the real solution can be found by answering “why this killer picked up this gun and shot all these people.”
One side thinks these senseless deaths would end if we control (outlaw) the method in which they are committed, while the other side believes the weapon of choice is obsolete in the mind of a person who is intent on killing.
Another point that i think is important to note is extreme anti-gun narratives progressive politicians and media outlets preach in order to distort facts and exploit emotions. Let me be clear that both sides of the political and ideological spectrum distort facts and mislead the public to strengthen their own agendas, and it’s simply in the case of the gun-control debate in which progressives and democrats are guilty.
If both sides equally applied truth and common sense to this issue then the general population would all be privy to the knowledge that less than 3% of gun crimes are committed with weapons legally purchased and stored by the assailant. The public would be made aware that loopholes in background checks and at gun shows, making the legal purchase of guns easier, do not exists. As someone who has gone through the process at both stores and gun shows I can tell you a federal background check, safety exams, permits and license fees, as well as filing out numerous government forms all had to be completed before I entered my 10 day waiting period to pick up my gun.
If both sides equally applied truth and common sense to this issue then the general population would know the firearm sales and manufacturing industry in the USA is highly regulated and highly scrutinized. Almost all, 96%-98% of all gun deaths caused with a legally purchased firearm are suicides and accidents. If you’re now asking yourself if stricter gun laws would weaken the number of suicides victims in the United States, look at Japan and South Korea for the answer. If truth were equally delivered the American people would ALL be aware that almost all gun homicides are caused by illegally purchased guns (not subject to gun control laws) and those homicides are committed in roughly the same inner cities and gang riddled areas year after year.
If both sides equally applied truth and common sense to this issue then the general population would be aware of the actual trends in gun violence (which has been widely and extensively studied despite the CDC not leading the charge) and not be told anti-NRA propaganda meant to weaken the integrity of legal gun owners. The public would be aware that NRA members advocate safety and proper firearm ownership, and generally are not the ones committing the news worthy atrocities. One thing I am most saddened by is the vast number of American’s who do not recognize the insane amount of power and sovereignty they hold simply by the existence of a group like the NRA. Private citizens have this large influential group which does nothing but lobby on their behalf to maintain their right to keep the government accountable with the exact same means in which the government holds citizens accountable, through force.
American’s don’t want to rise up against a tyrannical government anymore than a tyrannical governments wants to be risen up against, which is why the existence of the mutual threat on both sides is so vital to our nations power balance between government and citizen. If a private citizen misbehaves they know, even if just in the backs of their minds, that the government has the power to hold them accountable. The Government holding the knowledge in the backs of their minds that an armed population has the option to exercise the same power is the very definition of a balance of power.
Circling back around to my first sentence will help wrap this up. Is a society more likely to decrease the violence within it by tackling the issue of WHAT inflicted the violence, versus WHY the violence was inflicted?
Are countries with strict gun laws affected with less violence and homicide? If not, then the WHY certainly should be prioritized over the WHAT.