Gun debate begins with reason.

The week and  half since the shooting in Newtown has been a hazy fog of half baked arguments regarding gun control and prevention.  The conversation (if you can call it that) has been cacophonous, with every side of the debate speaking to his or her own concerns without addressing the concerns of the other participants.  Some are afraid that their guns will be taken away--as if there is a real risk that the Second Amendment will be repealed (and as if anyone is actually calling for such a repeal).  Others are suggesting that teachers be armed.  The NRA is calling for armed guards in our schools, claiming that new gun regulations won't make any difference--after all, there are so many other weapons Lanza could have used to commit his crime (maybe a crossbow?).  Still others are pointing out that there were armed guards at Columbine, and that that did not prevent the Colorado massacre.  Finally, Lindsey Graham doesn't think there is anything he or his fellow lawmakers can do to prevent a massacre.

The problem is that no one has set out the ground rules of the debate.  That is to say, when one claims that gun-control won't work, they are obliged to first indicate what working means.  To argue that it won't have prevented Newtown is nonsense since Newtown has already occurred.  To argue that armed guards didn't prevent Columbine is likewise facile to the point of being meaningless--Columbine did occur.  The question must be set out clearly, and it must be agreed to, before a fruitful conversation can take place--and that question can only be: will new gun-control laws reduce the number of these sorts of shootings (an perhaps reduce gun-violence altogether)*.  Anyone who argues that gun-control laws would not have prevented Newtown is being disingenuous and should be dismissed outright.

*To be sure, the question has address, eventually, whether or not such restrictions violate the Second Amendment.