The logic of “gun control” is not difficult to follow.
Reviewing the details of school shootings, the other day for an online conversation, I was struck by how clearly banning a particular style of gun or access-related regulations will not solve the problem. They may or may not be justified on their merits, but to treat such policies as if they are obvious fixes is simply a mania. All sorts of weapons have been used. Some were taken from parents. One was taken from a former cop. Sometimes the shooter murders the person before taking the guns.
That being the case — particularly in context of the many references to how this is largely an American phenomenon — makes clear where this is going. First, the gun controllers push national policy banning particular weapons and ancillaries, while adding restrictions for accessing other guns. When shootings continue, they move to ban all weapons. When that proves impossible, they’ll go for other freedoms.
The reality is that the United States is not like those other countries. We’ve always put more emphasis on individual freedom and the right to be different. A society like that will always be more dangerous. The important part (increasingly missing) is the moral foundation to encourage self-control and mutual care.
We can have a conversation about reasonable gun restrictions, but the problem is that the rhetoric of the advocates does not inspire trust that they’ll stop there.