The Gun Argument Again.

Here we go again. Something scary happens, people get worried about their security and safety, and everyone rushes out to buy a gun.

And the moment gun sales go up, both sides in the gun debate begin telling all their followers either that this proves how much Americans rely on guns or self-defense (the Gun-nut Nation line) or how much guns contribute to violence and crime (the Gun-control Nation line.)

Both arguments may be effective when it comes to raising money for advocacy, political campaigns, and every other messaging campaign which both sides promote all the time, except there’s one, little problem: neither argument really addresses the only issue which really needs to be addressed.

And the issue is that the United States experiences an annual toll of fatal injuries caused by guns which is 7 to 20 times higher than what occurs in any other advanced (OECD) nation-state.

What can we do to stem the tide? Gun-control Nation says we need stricter gun laws, Gun-nut Nation says we need more guns.

The argument that gun violence can be reduced by stricter licensing requirements for gun ownership (stricter licensing was just invalidated in Maryland and Oregon) rests on the assumption that there’s some connection between people who use guns to shoot other people and people who will obey laws.