A reader Adam LaBonte writes:
In the ongoing debate about the “epidemic of gun violence” in our nation, it occurs to me that this so-called epidemic should be perceived by progressives as a two-part problem: guns and violence. It naturally follows that such promoters of more gun restrictions should be equally committed to supporting anger management classes, tougher sentencing for violent criminals, and whatever other peacenik type things they believe will spread hearts, rainbows, and unicorns across our great country. But they don’t . . .
Violence is part of the human condition, much more a part in some folks than in others, obviously. At times, conflict can only be resolved with violence. Without concerted efforts to address violent behavior both in prevention and deterrence/rehabilitation/punishment, gun control in and of itself serves no purpose. At least not for “the children”.
The notion that if we just removed guns from the equation, violence nationwide would be reduced is a fallacy. As a society, we’d merely trade one tool for another. Furthermore, we all know that a disarmed society would experience an unheard-of level of victimization.
Using objectification to make violence in our nation a gun problem rather than a behavioral one might jibe with the progressive ideology, but at the end of the day it doesn’t accomplish a whole hell of a lot – apart from increasing the number of new gun owners, gun and accessories sales, and agitating an enormous group of Americans who value their Constitutionally protected rights.