In the wake of the Aurora shooting in less than tow days after the events people are calling for stricter gun laws because the shooting and while no politician has come out to say it there are people calling for the repel of gun laws based on the shooting.
This is a tragedy that should not be used as basis to change gun laws. First: it's immoral. This is a tragedy and should not be used to further anyones political goals and/or agendas and anyone who tries to use it to further their political goals and/or agendas should not be in a position of power and should not be listened to. Secondly: This is an extreme and rare event, there is no way to know how or if different gun laws or a lack of gun laws would have effected the event, if different or a lack of gun laws would have effected and it at all and in all likelihood it wouldn't have changed the results of the event.
The most vocal when it comes to gun laws are the people on the extremes and they are not particularly bright. You have on one end the people who would like guns to be outlawed, on the other you have the people who think there should be no gun laws at all. Both sides are equably stupid and equably naïve just in different ways.
Seeing as the people who want to outlaw guns will be the most vocal I will start with them.
The idea that outlawing guns will stop or diminish gun violence is naïve and stupid. Outlawing legal gun sales will not harm the black market for guns in fact will help it. So long as people want to kill each other, the sales of weapons of death will continue legal or not and if someone wants to shoot someone they will find a place to buy a gun. Drugs have been outlawed for decades and they are still being sold, outlawing guns will not stop or diminish gun violence, it would only prevent reasonable law abiding from people getting guns legally.
On the other side you have the naïve people who think that we live in an action movie. They think that if they are in a bank and someone comes in shooting the ceiling and yells to everyone to get down, that they would pull out their gun and shoot the guy, they think that if they are in a post office and some guy comes in and starts shooting people that they would pull out their gun and shoot the guy. In reality they would not, in reality their instincts would kick in and they would get down and do what the robber says, they would try to hide from the shooter. In reality police and solders have to be trained to ignore their instincts, pull out their gun, aim, know when and when not to fire and fire accurately, all with out thinking about it. This is not something Joe and Jane blow can do.
A rebuttal would be: "But a solder or off duty cop may be there and could shoot the guy." Not everyone owns a gun, not everyone wants to own a gun and that applies to police and solders. A lot of people don't want a gun in their home and those who do may not be willing to spend hundreds of dollars to buy a gun.
A rebuttal to that would be: "But if everyone had a gun someone would stand up and shoot." That might be true depending on who's there but you have to remember there are a lot of stupid people out there, there are a lot of people who get drunk or stoned and do stupid things, kids are stupid and do stupid things (even if you tell them "this is not a toy, do not touch it, do not play with it" they will play with it, they are kids). Now imagine they all had guns, if everyone had guns the number of lives saved would be far outweighed by the lives taken in gun accidents and gun crimes. On top of that: guns cost a lot of money. How do you expect everyone to afford to buy a gun?
"If I were in that situation I would stand up and shoot!" It is easy to say "I would to 'X' in 'Y' situation", it is easy to think you would but in real life people don't always do what we think we would when the situation comes up. It's a nice idea and it feels good to think that we would but in real life most people would not, our fight or flight responses and our survival instincts would kick in and even if the logical thing to do is stand up and shoot him in the head, humans are not logical, nether or our instincts.
In the gun laws debate the second amendment is often brought up by those against gun laws. Their argument against gun laws based on the second amendment is a poor one based on a quite mined version of the second amendment. the second amendment is:
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
The part about "well regulated militia" is always left out. Gun laws are not unconstitutional, they are the regulation part of the "well regulated militia".
What do we do about guns? I don't believe guns should be outlawed but at the same time I don't believe everyone should be aloud to have a gun. If you want to own a gun you should have to have a license and to get that license you should have to take a gun safety corse that includes background checks, a psychological examination and true stories of real people doing stupid things with guns that get people hurt or killed. This will not stop gun crimes nor will it stop the illegal sale of guns but it would prevent the legal sale of guns to the majority of people who shouldn't have them.
No laws are perfect, no system is perfect, there is no utopia and gun crimes will not go away no matter what we do. Pandora's box has been opened and you can not put the horrors back in.
© 2012 all rights reserved
The best things about firearms laws is to amend it and get stricter protocols and procedures to really help the society controlled to defend even themselves from these deadly weapons.