"Gun control impinges upon the Second Amendment; involuntary commitment impinges upon the liberty clause of the Fifth Amendment; curbing 'entertainment' violence impinges upon First Amendment free speech. That's a lot of impingement, a lot of amendments. But there's no free lunch. Increasing public safety almost always means restricting liberties." Charles Krauthammer

There will never be a resolution to the gun control discussion. The proponents on each side believe they have the moral high ground. It's a minor league version of the Sunni vs Shiite struggle. The anti-control people believe that any impingement of the Second Amendment is starting down the slippery slope and soon the government will know where all guns are, who owns them, and have absolute power to confiscate them. The pro-control people believe that the only way to save hundreds of innocent lives – including children - is to have some control over the weapons. Note that the anti-control people believe that ANY compromise is a loss that they cannot tolerate – so the divide will remain. History has evolved such that they have the political power to control the government, which they distrust so much.

In my ideal world there would be geographically based gun control. I’ve lived in the rural West and enjoyed hunting and I’ve lived in large cities where you fear a stray bullet coming through a window. Guns are needed in rural areas – not in urban areas. But I recognize that if such control was in place, guns would inevitably migrate and thus such a geographical division would be impossible to maintain.

The argument that guns are necessary to protect against a dictatorial government is a red herring. If a rogue government were to happen their possession of tanks, armored personnel carriers, fighter jets, ICBMs, and drones would make a few AK-47s, 30-06s or whatever you’re allowed to have, completely ineffectual.

We already have some gun-control and haven’t plunged down the slippery slope into anarchy. Can you imagine the fun of landing a mortar round in a herd of antelope? It would rival the pleasure of using an AK-47, on automatic, to shoot up a piece of paper. But, alas, private ownership of mortars is not allowed. Gun-control.

Another red herring is the definition of assault weapon. The control people like to attack the phrase as meaningless. It’s sort of like pornography - hard to define, but you know it when you see it. I’m sure a definition could be formulated if the relevant parties tried, but having an enforceable definition is a step down the slippery slope and we can’t have that, so let’s not even try.

Another argument used to maintain school slaughters, is that criminals would benefit from any control laws because they wouldn’t obey the laws. I believe this to be true for a while. But eventually – perhaps in the time frame of decades - via confiscations, buy-backs, customs control, damages, the number of outlawed weapons would greatly diminish. Some solutions just require time to be effective.

Couldn’t we start with background checks, magazine size restrictions, waiting periods, and outlawing assault weapons (whatever they are). Evaluate the results and if they don’t work – get rid of the laws. But at least try.

It was my aim when I started writing this post that I would try to rationally present the arguments of both sides. But I found that my own opinion about what was rational kept getting in the way – so the result is one sided, I’m sure many of you will agree.

2014 Lester C. Welch