Should we just not do anything? That is not what this country does. When there is a national public health and safety problem, people get to work. They pass laws, they educated, they do something. Seatbelt laws, no smoking laws, breast cancer and colon cancer screenings- all national efforts to get people to take better care of themselves or to mandate things that will make people safer and cut costs to health care, etc. We haven’t even tried with guns so how would we know?
Sometimes nothing is exactly the right thing to do. I don’t get this “We have to do something,” mentality. Especially when something generally involves restricting people’s liberty in the cases of smoking bans and seatbelt laws. I think this is really what probably separates our two sides; we value freedom and they want to be relieved of the burdens of it. I think this more now that we have interacted with them more.
Note the comparison to breast cancer screening and colon cancer screening. Would Joan Peterson favor mandating these? With long prison sentences for failing to show up to your scheduled screening? Because that’s what using gun control to solve the problem of violence means. Maybe she would. It certainly wouldn’t surprise me. But to borrow some of their lingo in a different context, as a cancer victim and survivor myself, having lost my mother to it, I would never advocate mandating such things. Freedom is more important than saving the lives which would be saved by mandatory screening with stiff penalties for non-compliance. I think most other folks would agree.
But there’s one difference here. There’s reliable scientific evidence that early screening greatly increases cancer survival rates. There’s absolutely no evidence at all that gun control reduces violence crime or murder.