Gun Control: My Twin’s View

shooterI’ve written often of my twin-like similarity to the current President of the United States.  Well, this “Twinship” has come in quite handy because I can easily figure what the president did in response to the most recent mass shooting. Since we’re twins, he and I did the same thing.

First, we both blamed Barack Obama.

Second, we got distracted by our Twitter accounts. We use Twitter for listening, rather than just bombastically making idiotic claims. We’re alike in that way.

Listening worked out very well. A friend of mine posted a link to just the kind of data I would need in order to conduct an unbiased search. From there I went somewhere and from there I went somewhere, eventually finishing with the Harvard Center for Public Health, who I decided to trust.

There is a faction who believe that the number of mass shootings would be reduced if we limited the number of guns we distributed to the public. They are the “gun control” people. Conversely, there is a faction that believe that gun-related deaths have nothing to do with the number of guns we have. They are the, “Guns don’t kill people, people kill people” people.

President Trump and I are not beholden to the NRA or any other group that funds our political party. As a couple of earnest, open-minded men, we listened carefully to both sides.  The last thing we wanted was to be one of those guys who just sits around tweeting blame of others. So, we read up.

Would fewer guns actually result in fewer mass shootings?

Yes. Fewer guns would result in fewer mass shootings. It is that simple. Controlling the number of guns in circulation would reduce gun-related homicides, mass shootings, and suicides. The data is so conclusive, in fact, I would suggest to the “guns don’t kill people” people that they shouldn’t even argue the point. It diminishes their credibility.

On its face, the “guns don’t kill people” argument sounds logical. However, it is not a claim that stands up to evidence and analysis. The opposite argument is actually more logical: having more guns increases the number of people who get killed by them. In addition to the obvious logical argument (in neighborhoods with swimming pools, for example, there is more swimming), there is a direct correlation among advanced countries: those with more guns have more gun-related homicide. It’s true for the states within the U.S. as well. More police die in locations with more guns as well. It is simple fact, and insulting to deny it.

Is that the end of the argument?

No. Getting rid of existing guns and reducing those that are newly manufactured would result in less death, but it would be expensive, in more ways than one. Let’s say that the United States gets serious about gun control and over a ten-year period reduces the number of guns made by half and scoops up all the extra guns lying around—perhaps 10% of them. The gun industry is valued at $43 billion per year. Let’s say that in my scenario the gun industry dips by 25%. That’s a lot of jobs and a lot of cash.

There would be social cost as well. While the elimination of guns would make life safer in the aggregate, there will be specific situations in which the “good guy” didn’t have a gun and the “bad guy” did. Additionally, there will be a governmental social cost. Laws will have to be made, and that always comes with a downside. No congress ever made a perfect law.

So What’s Next?

Well, if I was the president, the next thing would be to begin the process of limiting the number of guns floating around and getting those that are in the hands of the appropriate people. From there, we have to balance the emotional, financial, and social needs of people who have a relationship with guns. It’s complicated.

The president and I know this. We’re going to be careful. We’re going to go slow.

And then we’re going to try and bully some high school girls if they protest.

Ryil Adamson is the author of “The Best-Looking One Always Wins.” He recently discovered his Twinship with the President of the United States. They are alike in every way. Except if you heard anything about Ryil and Stormy Daniels, it’s just rumor.



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s