Before beginning this post, it is important to note that 22 years ago, there was a school shooting at my junior high school, where two students and a teacher were killed, and another student critically wounded. I do not consider myself a survivor because I was not in the room - in fact, I was so far removed from the event in that moment that we only knew something was going on. Because there was no lockdown process and because of a severe lack of communication, students outside of that hallway, as I was, found out what happened by listening to the radio and watching the news. This has, unfortunately, not reduced my emotional responses to gun-type noises and I remain hyper-vigilant in new or crowded spaces. That, however, is simply an emotional response. The guns present that day were a hunting rifle and two hand guns. We could talk about the definition of an assault rifle, but it doesn't matter - what you are left with there is strictly an emotional response.

As we look at the possibility of stricter gun control laws, we must look to the logical side - the consequences, both intended and unintended, of these laws. The logic does not need to ignore the emotion, but rather it should embrace emotion as a means to strengthen understanding.

Let us begin with the emotional argument: the school shooting epidemic. If there were no guns, this would end school shootings. True? Not entirely, as we cannot eliminate all guns, regardless of how strict our laws become. We can begin the process of understanding this logically by noting that schools are already gun-free zones. Therefore, it is already illegal to bring weapons onto school campuses. And yet, we have shootings there. So we turn to gun ownership - if no one had a gun, no one could bring one to the campus. But again, we cannot eliminate all guns. Instead what we create by limiting legal gun ownership is a stronger black market for the weapons. Logically we understand that criminals do not follow laws. That in itself is a circular argument - if they followed laws, they wouldn't be criminals. But with this circular argument, we can build an understanding of our consequences for limiting legal gun ownership. When less, or no, law-abiding citizens own a weapon, we are left with criminals using whatever means necessary to get ahold of them. Whether black market or 3-D printers, the technology is out there for criminals to possess these weapons. In the end, only criminals (and law enforcement) are left with guns, and law enforcement cannot be everywhere there might be a shooting. To that end, you have criminals with a general knowledge that no one else in the room will be able to stop them, and a response time for law enforcement that the community must hope to survive.

Next emotional argument: mental illness. This is such a broad topic that it generally earns back an emotional response. But we cannot protect people from themselves. It's impossible. We can help them - offering to buy back weapons, counseling, etc. But taking guns away entirely? We see more and more suicidal people choosing the "suicide by cop" method, which not only has the same end result, but also puts others at risk. In addition to that, the definition of mental illness changes over time. It is not the patients with schizophrenia who struggle with this one, but rather people who are trying to live normal lives and understand how to do so. Only very recently has gender dysphoria (AKA transgenderism) been removed from the mental illness umbrella under US law. In many states, all patients who have been prescribed medical marijuana, regardless of the purpose, fall under this umbrella. In states where recreational marijuana is not yet legal, many people who legally possess the product are left attempting to defend themselves and their medicinal drug. Without a gun, many of these patients are left with few legal options to ensure that the product does not make its way to the criminal market. What, then, of the people with violent tendencies that accompany their mental illness? This falls under a different law - people with violent crimes on their record are already stripped of the right to own a gun. Creating a second category for them only harms innocent, law-abiding citizens.

Emotional argument, with some logical background: the second amendment guarantees us the right to gun ownership, but when it was written, the technology of guns was not nearly as advanced as it is today. The logic behind this is understandable, but misplaced. To fully comprehend the logic, we must look at the intent of the amendment. As the Founding Fathers fought a tyrannical government, they wanted to ensure that this could never happen again. They wanted to ensure that the citizens of our newly-founded country would always have the means to fight back against tyranny. Even with laws as they currently stand, we see that this intent has long-since been violated. For decades we have seen law enforcement becoming more and more militaristic against our own, often unarmed, people. We are seeing race- and class- wars as minor violators are killed on our streets. So, yes, the technology has advanced significantly, but the intent of the amendment is just as important today.

Have I left out your argument? Do you care to present a counter-argument? Comment for respectful discussion!