I’ve heard arguments for and against gun control, and I feel confused about which approach is best. The Constitution protects our right to defend ourselves, which implies that we have access to as much deadly force as anyone else. OTOH, easy access to military grade weapons seems to enable mass shootings.
I think there are two issues in these mass shootings that deserve more attention. One is the creation of crazy people. We should have a very long discussion about why an organically normal teenager would decide to rob his peers of life. What kind of process leads to that state of mind?
The other is the creation of soft targets. These are places where all or most of the people do not possess deadly force. It makes sense not to arm children, as they are not yet ready to control themselves. However, as long as the possibility of an armed attack exists, there should be enough force in someone’s hands to raise the price too high to consider.
One idea (gun control) is that we convert the entire country into a soft target, and have a professional military deal with defense. As long as everyone has equal right to participate in the military, that satisfies our right to self defense.
The other is that we have enough armed non-crazy people around that there are no soft targets.
I honestly don’t know how to answer this question. It may be unsolvable. However, as a cognitive scientist, I’m curious about what we could do to solve the crazy-people side of the equation.