Another day, another mass murder.
What's the rational response? Can the left ever propose something the right can agree on? Is there any middle ground between the competing ideologies?
Sadly, the problem and its solution are much more complex than even most reasonable people suggest.
First, lets talk briefly about what the typical responses are, after a tragedy like today's:
- Ban all/some guns
- Tighten gun ownership laws
- Enforce existing laws
- More guns, by god
All of these "solutions" are sadly out of touch with reality.
One by one then:
Ban guns - First, the constitutional freedom is real, whether it was ever meant to allow Tech 9s, etc., is an ideological argument; what is hard to deny is that the Founding Fathers weren't anti-gun. On top of that, many other countries have lots of guns, not as many, to be sure, but Canada, Switzerland, etc., do have lots of guns, and almost no gun crime. So, in the purest sense, it's not the guns.
Tighten Gun Laws - America is awash with guns. Even if you make the laws tighter, there's so many guns, well... This solution would probably make such a tiny impact and cause such political rancor that its a fairly meaningless solution.
Enforce existing laws - The biggest problem with this solution is that most of the guns used in this mass shootings are legally purchased by sociopaths who are passing background checks. There's not an enforcement strategy that would've stopped the Colorado shooting, Columbine, etc.
More guns - Pure nonsense. Who wants to live in that world? Not me. And of course it wouldn't stop this mass shooting stuff; that's simply an unevidenced right-wing wet dream.
On top of this, NONE of these address the REAL issue.
What's the problem and the solution?
The main issue is that the real problem remains un-discussed. That problem? Americans (and I'm one) are not, as a group, able to be trusted with guns.
The Swiss are, the Canadians are; some cultures can. The Brits tried and then gave up in the 90s. But we are simply not capable, at this point, of owning guns without horrible consequences.
So then what?
A constitutional amendment banning all guns, including a gradual disarming of the police.
Chances of that happening?
Mass murder at the end of a gun is here to stay.
One more thing: That group of pro-gun guys that references their right to defend themselves from the governement, as a justification for the proliferation of guns is just about the most delusional group in this conversation. Why? Simple: if the US governement ever wanted to control the population, they have at their access drones, misses, stealth bombers, etc., etc. As long as the military played along the militias would be wiped out almost instantly. That's the truth. Guns can't protect us from our government any more.
And we're not, as a whole, responsible enough to own them.
But. We're also not capable, as a group, to amend the constitution and ban them.