If I could snap my finger and get rid of all firearms in the U.S., would I snap?
It’s a bit of a silly question, since it isn’t feasible. But the “snap” does pose an interesting thought problem.
People hurt others with guns. People save others with guns. Guns help gain freedom. Guns help take it away.
I suppose the answer depends on what you value. I value, very heavily, political freedom, economic freedom, and self-reliance.
I don’t like, nor trust, the idea of relying on police to protect me, largely because they can’t, and also because they are very likely, in time, to oppress me rather than protect. We see early trends of this now, as a result of “over protection” from drug wars, terrorism, and the inability of politicians to resist force based “solutions” to whatever bugs them.
We have too many police now, enforcing too many laws. I’d prefer less of them, focusing on far less laws that are of critical importance.
As horrible as recent events have been, I believe, firmly, that many many millions of people benefit from firearms ownership acting as a backstop for freedom and security. In fact, I’d rather see MORE people own, train, and use them, than less.
When I lived in D.C., I was forced to live without firearms. I sat helpless as rioters over turning buses, police cars, and burning buildings approached my home. I watched helpless as thugs shot at a man beside me on the sidewalk. And I watched, helpless, as a one criminal shot another my home’s window in a “great NW DC neighborhood”.
So, no I wouldn’t “snap”. The calculus comes out wrong in my book.
I’d rather focus, instead, on proper prioritization of enforcement resources so that instead of arresting people for doing something millions do (drugs for example), they would instead have time, interest and inclination to check out reports of a psycho scaring students and faculty at a junior college.