Gun issues have gotten a lot of press since the mass shootings this past weekend. Some say the answer is more guns; some say the answer is fewer guns. Think about this:

If NOBODY in the US - not the public, the police, or the military - NOBODY had a gun, how many shooting deaths and injuries would there be?

If EVERYONE in the US had a gun, how many shooting deaths and injuries would there be?

Firearm violence isn't a bell curve, where each end falls off to (nearly) zero and there's a center where most of the activity occurs. More guns = more gun-related violence.

Granted, guns won't all go away. Some are necessary (military; law enforcement), some are historic (such as muskets), and some have other legitimate purposes (hunting). But doesn't it make sense to have fewer guns available so there are fewer opportunities for accidental or suicidal shootings, and so that other violence doesn't turn (as) deadly (as) quickly as it too often does when guns are involved?

Dave Peterson

Midtown

Disclaimer: As submitted to the Arizona Daily Star.

Comments may be used in print.

Load comments