Gun Regulation-Buying into the wrong argument

The pro-Gun Lobby has framed the issue as: “We don’t need gun restrictions at all because “guns don’t kill people, people kill people.” It is not only unnecessary to buy into the question as they have framed it, but it is strategically foolish. If proponents of sensible restrictions get caught up in any part of an issue of whether it is a human finger that pulls the trigger or a self-shooting gun they are bound to find themselves in a corner protected by a fence of losing arguments. This lets the pro gun lobby focus not on the easy availability of guns that are capable of killing quite a number of people in a matter of seconds, but rather on the vague, and unfunded, mental health aspects of the issue: Their argument is that ‘Since only a mentally unbalanced person would spay groups of innocent people with deadly bullets,’ don’t take or even restrict the right of the sane majority to have the weapons, and protect themselves, instead focus on providing mental help to prevent such shootings.

Now, improving mental health is an issue most can support, but focusing on that aspect of the issue is like a street hustler’s sleight of hand ploy while urging the suckers to: “keep your eye on the ball,” instead, of course, on his hands. It is never necessary to buy into false and dichotomous arguments that others make in an attempt to determine the parameters of the discussion.

If sociopaths are unable to control their frustrations and consequent anger, it seems to me that they can do much less damage to innocent persons with a knife or even a single shot gun than with a readily available Assault Rifle capable of shooting off hundreds of high velocity bullets in a matter of seconds. Even if the attacker is quickly subdued, the damage he caused can be considerable as we have learned in the Columbine and Sandy Hook horrors. This then is the point,prevent such massacres by controlling the availability of weapons built to kill as many people as possible in the shortest amount of time, not some esoteric philosophical discussion about whether it is the gun or the person pulling the trigger that bears responsibility for the killings. Did you know that AK-47s can be mounted to fire off rounds of hand grenades? Imagine the damage that could produce, and still the gun lobby would argue against controlling such weapons-after all it’s the person shooting the gun not the gun doing the damage. Where do you draw the limit? I haven’t heard the gun lobby accepting any forms of control. The mind boggles when one considers how far their line of reasoning could go given the technology of the arms industry. sacres by controlling the availability of these weapons built to kill as many people as possible in the shortest amount of time, not some esoteric philosophical discussion about whether it is the gun or the person pulling the trigger that bears responsibility for the killings. Did you know that AK-47s can be mounted to fire off rounds of hand grenades? Imagine the damage that could produce, and still the gun lobby would argue against controlling such weapons-after all it’s the person shooting the gun not the gun doing the damage. Where do you draw the limit? I haven’t heard the gun lobby accepting any forms of control. The mind boggles when one considers how far their line of reasoning could go given the technology of the arms industry. Sandy Hook was one step too far for me.