Common sense gun control

With all the rhetoric about gun control, deaths, and violence, I have yet to see a simple, logical, question about what any further tightening of gun control will do.

While all the numbers I have seen indicate less gun control laws actually make people safer, there are those who choose to see it differently.

So, for the sake of argument, lets say that the actual statistics can be used by either 'side' in this argument, and used to either side's advantage, or proof of a point. Let's take the numbers out of the equation and simply concentrate on logical, real-world scenarios, which is where all of this plays out anyway.

Let's say there are three people in a room: one who believes in concealed carry and has a gun, another who exercises the right to not carry, and a criminal with a gun.

If the person with no gun is in danger due to the criminal being present and having a gun, is that person in any more in danger because there is another person, a law-abiding citizen, who also has a gun.

If the person with no gun is being attacked by the criminal, is that same person with no gun in more danger with the concealed carry holder there to protect them? Most would argue that there is no more danger to unarmed person, and perhaps even less danger, since there is a chance someone can now defend the unarmed person.

Let's take it a step further and assume for a minute the world looks as it would with laws prohibiting the carrying of firearms by law-abiding citizens. We could take it even further, such as the way things were in Chicago not long ago with the gun ban, where no one is allowed to have a gun.

This way, in a world banning guns, and in the previous scenario of the three people, the card-carrying permit holder now does not have a gun. The person exercising the right not to carry does not have a gun. And the criminal who previously had a gun now - has a gun. Yes, still has a gun.

Remember, gun laws, like other laws, only pertain to law-abiding citizens. Laws don't affect criminals.

So now, are we any safer in this hypothetical situation, in a world as it would look with strict gun control. Only the criminals have guns, and there is no one to defend anyone else, nor themselves, in any meaningfully comparable way.

All statistics and rhetoric aside, it's hard to argue with the common sense that will tell us that strict gun control can only make us worse off, by allowing only criminals to have guns. The allowance of guns in the hands of law abiding citizens can not make us worse off, might be completely neutral, but may have the benefit of making us much safer in a situation calling for such.

Think about it.