Tragically, we speak not a pop band but another senseless massacre by gun and, as nearly always, in the USA, this time in Texas.
Disingenuously, gun lobbyists declare it has nothing to do with guns. Gun control advocates; that it has everything to do with it.
The latter position might seem to be the most obvious and logical (see responses to bad faith arguments below). Yet gun supporters are unrepentant in their continued refusal to accept that guns, though they may not cause massacres or gun violence and killing in general, nonetheless facilitate these atrocities, as well as scale them up many more times than would be the case should other weapons be implicated.
Apparently there is no clear data on the matter either way, if that is to be believed. And we are left to argue for or against gun control depending on how we view the matter personally.
There is no need for this fruitless subjective wrangling, however. There is a simple way to find out once and for all which position is correct and beneficial to society and the individual. Guns have been widely and easily available for decades and in fact centuries in the USA. Therefore, it makes sense that a period without guns, or at least with severe gun control prohibiting use away from licensed shooting ranges, would almost certainly uncover the reality.
If gun advocates cannot produce scientific data that refutes without a shadow of a doubt the intuitive link between guns and the frequency and severity of mass killings then they are obliged to agree to the experiment of living without guns for a period of time, say 2 decades. That should be enough to show whether there are fewer events and/or fewer causalities and deaths.
It is a reasonable proposal, and rejecting it would reveal an unwillingness to address the problem in every way possible. If there is doubt as to whether or not guns engender more frequent and/or exacerbate gun violence and killing, this doubt is enough to justify living without them for a while to see if those doubts are born out.
Everything should be tried, and questions should be asked of those unwilling to do so.
Some bad faith arguments offered by gun lobbyists in defence of lax gun control:
It’s not guns but people who are the problem.
Response: Sure, but guns add to it hugely.
Anyone with a knife can wreak havoc and kill many people.
Response: It can happen if the conditions are right, but rarely, in comparison to gun massacres. Usually knife attacks are limited in casualties and deaths, for obvious reasons. Such as: you can’t stab someone across a room; or way down a corridor as they run away. It is a physical fact that it is far, far easier to kill many people with a gun than with a knife or axe.
Owning guns allows people to intervene when someone runs amok.
Response: You wouldn’t need to intervene if guns were removed from general circulation and confined to ranges and resorts. Or at least tightly controlled. And besides, it is difficult to recall when an altruistic gun owner intervened and saved the day.