By Taya Kyle
Updated 1801 GMT (0201 HKT) January 8, 2016
No matter how thoroughly researched statistics are to argue both sides of the gun control issue, people
have an emotional reaction that almost always overrides the statistics presented, other than this one: The
violent crime rate in the United States has gone down substantially in the last 20 years. Our fears, though,
have gone up, because of the high-profile incidents of mass killings of people caught unaware.
Our vulnerability
These horrific mass killings were committed by a very small number of people who wish to harm and kill
others. Does it matter what weapon they used? The end result is the same. Yet millions of other people
have the freedom to have those very same things and will never use them to kill. Is our insatiable need to
know and find out how their lives might have gone wrong part of the result they are looking for? Ultimately,
in our horror, we give them a voice they would never have had otherwise. After all, murder is against the
law, and they are choosing to ignore the law from the moment they plan to harm people. Why don't we
deal with that instead of banning the tools very few use? Just having access to a deadly weapon doesn't
turn someone into a killer.
Killers will use any means
What makes gun control advocates think that someone who decides to kill will not use any means
necessary to do so? The person who killed my husband, Chris, worked in an armory with daily access to
every caliber of high powered weapon for years. He chose to kill when he got out of an environment of
accountability and drug testing. He repeatedly got out of trouble by claiming post-traumatic stress disorder
(PTSD). And yet, psychiatrists on both the prosecution and defense testified he did not have PTSD. He
was however a known drug user. Based on testimony at his trial, people around him not only tolerated but
sometimes participated in the drug use and enabled him by seeing him as the "victim."
Some advocates want to restrict certain kinds of guns -- perhaps allowing a pistol but not an assault rifle.
To those who don't know guns well, the term "assault rifle" brings to mind either a sniper's gun or a fully
automatic weapon we have seen in the movies, meant to mow down large numbers of people. In actuality,
fully automatic weapons are already highly restricted and require an additional license most gun owners
will never have. The lack of understanding makes it easy to develop rhetoric and legislation that will calm
the fears of people who don't understand a given subject, but that doesn't really change any end result
because we cannot legislate the evil side of humanity.
Freedom and responsibility
This is about freedom to do as you like until you prove incapable of showing good moral judgment. We
give freedom and take it away once an individual chooses to take something that others use for good and
use it to do harm to another.
Are our current laws being enforced? Police have more pressing issues than to incarcerate a felon for
having a gun that he or she hasn't used in a crime. We have plenty of laws on the books that we cannot or
do not enforce. Let's start enforcing what we have before creating new laws. Understandably, we want a
solution to ensure that we and our loved ones will never be in the situation of being caught unaware by
someone who chose to do evil. Mass killers could as easily take their violence to a place where people
are armed. Yet they do not. Evil targets those who are unprepared for the evil to strike. Presidents John F.
Kennedy and Ronald Reagan were arguably some of the best-protected men in our country. Did it stop
someone from shooting them? As Reagan once said, "You won't get gun control by disarming law-abiding
citizens. There is only one way to get real gun control: Disarm the thugs and criminals, lock them up and if
you don't actually throw away the key, lose it for a long time."