There was a shooting today at Lone Star College in Texas, which injured three (one gunman, two bystanders). The shooting was an extension of a fight between two people, one of them a student, though it is not clear from reports what started the fight. This one isn’t as bad as the shootings we’ve heard about almost daily since Newtown (it’s worth reiterating: over 1,100 people in the U.S. have died due to gun violence since Newtown, which was five weeks ago, and that's about average for America). No one died in this one. The point I want to make is that this was a shooting because the people involved had guns.
The counterargument we hear to gun regulation over and over is that if you take away guns, only the bad guys will have guns. Guns allow law-abiding citizens to protect each other. Well, what about these two, who didn’t seem to be planning on any sort of massacre, they were just going after each other with whatever weapons they had available, and the best weapon that both of them had was a gun. They narrowly missed killing themselves and two random people who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.
In fact, I’m sure that both will argue that they were defending themselves, that the other guy having a gun necessitated their owning and using a gun.
We ought to ask ourselves, what if neither of them had a gun.