Back here in the U.S. of A., Second Amendment defenders like myself are increasing confronted with this question: “What if one of the high school kids killed by a miscreant had been your grandchild?” My answer, truthfully, is that I’d be devastated. However, that would still not change the grim arithmetic that repeatedly confirms that many more innocent civilians would lose their lives if guns were entirely banned.
For physicians, the history of medicine presents us with many grim tradeoffs. It wasn’t so long ago when removing a gangrenous limb was almost as dangerous as leaving it in place. With early immunotherapy, you could die from a toxin or take your chances with horse serum. Certain forms of cancer chemotherapy are almost as dangerous as the tumors themselves.
In all such cases, the profession has wisely chosen to go with the most favorable odds no matter narrowly they might be drawn. And that’s what we must do with respect to civilian gun ownership.
Why is this the right approach? Here, I’ll let Javier Venegas have the last word:
“Guns would have served as a vital pillar to remaining a free people, or at least [to be]able to put up a fight. The government security forces, at the beginning of this debacle, knew they had no real opposition to their force. Once things were this bad, it was a clear declaration of war against an unarmed population”.
Gun confiscators of America, what is it you don’t understand?
.
.
—Wallace Schwam, MD is a retired internist with interests in geriatrics and pharmacology who trained at Duke University. He rated expert in marksmanship in the Army and continues to enjoy hunting and tactical training with handgun, rifle and shotgun.
All DRGO articles by Wallace Schwam, MD.
