On Gun Control

The recent tragedy in Connecticut has brought the multifaceted, vague, and generally convoluted subject of gun control to my attention. I quickly took a stand on it, but soon realized that my stance wasn't perfect, and I fell into a huge argument about gun control. Today I'm going to try and make some sense of this issue and generally organize my thoughts.

Lets start with the two extremes and work from there.

Banning guns completely is generally a bad idea. While they may be awful tools of death, they are needed in war, law enforcement and general defense. Without guns, we as a nation would either be conquered or fall into anarchy pretty quickly. The problem is this: Outlawing guns will make outlaws the only ones with guns. The law does not reach the lawless, and since guns exist, they will exist on the black market, available to criminals, but not to anyone else. It's pretty easy to see why this wouldn't work for very long.

Legalizing all guns is pretty much just as bad. The theory behind gun legalization is that if everyone has a gun, no one will commit crimes at the risk of getting shot by anybody. This would generally create a lot of fear and paranoia for everyone. Furthermore, complete legalization of guns would limit free speech. People get into heated arguments over their opinions all the time, and occasionally physical fights over them. Now give everyone a gun. You no longer have to agree with everyone because if you REALLY don't like them, you have the option to shoot them. Martin Luther King and JFK would have been assassinated a LOT sooner if guns were easily available, and we would have seen a lot more assassinations through the years if this was the case. You may have a gun with you, but they can still draw and shoot you before you can react.

A good quote describing this situation goes like this
"Guns should be illegal because criminals exist, but guns should be legal because criminals exist."

Now lets take a look at the Connecticut massacre. If you don't know the details, I suggest you read up before reading this next part.

The only person anyone can blame is the shooter himself. The one who obtained the gun illegally, shot his way into an elementary school and started killing innocent children. The mother of the shooter is not at fault, she was acting within the law. She was a gun enthusiast, she obtained all of her weapons legally, and trusted her children enough to teach them to shoot them. The next step up is the blame the gun control legislation. My current question is, where should we draw the line? The current legislation is that civilians with no link the the military can own semi-automatic weapons, but not fully automatic weapons.

 I am unwilling to pull the line any further back than pistols. Everyone with no violent history should be able to own a pistol for a home-defense situation. When I have a wife and kids in my home, I want to have the ability to defend them against any intruder. You don't have to kill them, it's just as simple to incapacitate an intruder with a gun as it is to kill them, it's all a matter of where you aim.

Semi-automatic weapons I'm a bit torn on. While I do want to defend the rights of everyone who legitimately owns semi-automatic weapons, such as gun enthusiasts, I cannot think of a situation, short of an army invading, where in individual would realistically need a semi-automatic weapon. I think a reasonable compromise would be to allow the ownership of these guns, but ban the ownership of lethal ammunition for them. Only allow the sale of nonlethal ammunition, or blanks. While this would not keep it out of the hands of  criminals with access to the black market, it would have prevented the tragedy in Connecticut. The shooter may have had the gun, but he wouldn't actually be able to kill anyone with it.

I suppose my position on gun control isn't actually gun control, but ammunition control.

Anyway, food for thought, post a comment and tell me what you think on the issue.