Why not ask what gun regulation can do?


A recent poll suggests that the latest massacre in Las Vegas hasn’t changed opinions on gun violence prevention. Part of that resistance centers around a question, "What if gun regulation doesn't reduce mass shootings?"

To which I say: So what?

What if we implement gun violence prevention legislation that the majority of Americans agree with: universal background checks; banning assault-style weapons; limiting magazine capacity; requiring insurance; public health campaigns for safe storage.

If mass shootings don't decline after implementation of these regulations, then.... what? The assumption seems to be that we have gained nothing. And lost....what? Folks that are responsible and own firearms for self-defense, sport or hunting are not going to lose their rights. The well-regulated militia is not going to be prevented from upholding the security of the free state.

I bet we gain a few things. Fewer accidental deaths. Fewer suicides. People who own firearms being legally and fiscally responsible for the harm their guns do when used unsafely, exactly like your car insurance. Fewer assault-style weapons so easy to obtain that a nutcase can stockpile them with impunity. There is actually a good chance we could reduce the number of mass shootings.

But even if we don't, there are many lives we could still save and a lot of economic and social costs we could reduce with these regulations.

So can we please start asking, What if these regulations save lives without infringing on responsible gun ownership? Because the only sensible follow-up to that is: Why wouldn't we?

Deborah Rudnick, Bainbridge Island