Gun Control

Yep, yet more left-and-right bickering incited by the Tucson tragedy.

This country is, for the millionth time, in a heated debate about gun control. Like in most debates, each side is making callous remarks to each other and completely disregarding what the other is saying. I know what you're thinking: "The gun control debate was around in preschool?" HAHAHAHA no. This, my friends, is modern American politics.

Alright, you wouldn't hear anybody from either side admit this, but as a moderate, unbiased spectator, I can: BOTH sides have very valid points.

On the pro-control side, we have... well, the basis of the whole argument: guns are dangerous and deadly. And this is true, guns do pose a serious risk. Look at last year; 71.8% of all homicides in the USA involved a firearm. This is an ALARMING statistic, and as technology increases, it will be easier and easier to conceal a gun. Some even MORE alarming numbers? About 50% of suicides are by firearm, guns are used in more suicides than homicides, and 83% of gun-related deaths are suicide. Let's be honest: guns are, by far, the easiest way of killing somebody.

On the anti-control side, we have the argument that even if guns were outlawed, those that wanted them could get them, and those who wouldn't want to go through the trouble would just find something else to use. And this, too, makes sense. If somebody absolutely HAD to use a gun, they'd purchase one off the black market; if they didn't have any connections, there is always blunt force or sharp objects. They also argue that if every person had a gun in their house, we would be more protected; I won't elaborate anymore, because though it seems like a sound argument at first, delving deeper than that seem phrase exposes this argument as complete bullsh-- Y'know what? Never mind, just continue reading.

Now, let's compare the two points:

• As far as suicide goes, it makes perfect sense that if they didn't have access to a gun, they'd just use something else. Except for the entire reason they DECIDE to use a gun: the quickness. With most methods, there is an interval in which you can have doubts about your actions, and there is a good possibility of the attempt failing. With guns, once you pull that trigger there is no turning back, and as long as you know where your heart and/or brain are, there's virtually no possibility of failing.
• When it comes to homicides, it's a bit of a tie. If every person had a gun, it would be easier to protect ourselves. Though, judging by the extremely high number of gun-related suicides, giving everyone a gun may NOT be such a good idea. Also, the inability to acquire firearms by "easy" means would cause many people to throw away their notions of murder, decreasing the number of-- you guessed it-- homicides.
• Outlawing guns would tremendously decrease the number of successful suicides, as well as giving psychologists hundreds, if not thousands, more patients, resulting in more money in circulation and an economy hike. Not banning guns, and therefore changing absolutely nothing, would not do anything to the economy that wouldn't already be done regardless.

So, it seems we have 2 wins for pro-control and a tie... Looks to me that gun control wins. And honestly, I don't see how anybody could disagree with that, but I do have a theory. It seems to me that the only people who oppose gun control are the ones who like to play with their guns. I'm not a hunter, so I'm not hopelessly addicted to a dual-barreled shotgun. I think that, much like children fighting over the last LEGO piece, anti-controllers simply don't want to let go of their favorite toy. It could also have something to do with the fact that hunters are an angry, violent people; if they don't like somebody, they want a way to get rid of them. But that can't be right... You know, because they're all for self-defense and whatnot.