The gun debate has been plagued by gun opponents who insist the solution lies with more legislation. This is false, the problem lies in the execution of current legislation by all actors. Two specific areas of historically poor execution need to be addressed. First, state and federal agencies need to keep an accurate and accessible database of those lawfully barred from buying guns and ensure proper execution of currently mandated background checks. Second, citizens need to be vigilant in executing their ability to carry guns in public.

Many of the most horrific shootings in recent years could have been easily stifled by the correct application of laws currently on the books. The Sandy Hook shooter had mental issues, the Orlando nightclub shooter had been on the FBI’s terrorist watchlist, Dylann Roof had a drug charge against him, Devin Kelley was convicted of domestic violence, and all of these should have precluded these people from access to guns. There’s signed legislation out there that might have stopped these if it had been applied correctly. And these are just the sensationalized cases. Many of the other shootings that get less publicity, such as gang violence could also be stopped by better application of the laws meant to keep guns away from criminals. Both the left and the right should be able to agree on that front.

One argument the left makes to stir up their base and throw shade at the right is that gun proponents want to make it so that anybody can get ahold of a gun, thereby putting guns in the hands of criminals and citizens alike. This is a false argument. The right doesn’t want criminals to have guns either, but gun proponents realize that they will access them regardless, which brings me to my next point.

Background checks and competent application of current laws might have stopped some of the examples I mentioned earlier, but some of those individuals might have circumvented the law to unlawfully acquire guns anyways (You could say that the acquisition of a gun was already unlawful by some of those people, but that’s due to a fault in execution of the law by the state, I’m talking about intentionally circumventing a law in this case). Because it cannot be assumed that laws will always be followed or applied correctly, it can be assumed that criminals will sometimes have guns. In these scenarios, the best defense is a gun of your own.

The proliferation of guns in general would make society safer. By this, I don’t just mean the ownership of guns, but the lawful and prudent carrying throughout general life. Bring your gun to work day should be more common than take your daughter to work day; in fact, it should be every day. Carrying your gun is far more important than owning a gun. Owning a gun might make you safe inside your home (assuming you’ll have access to both the gun and ammunition in a crisis). Carrying a gun provides that same security out and about.

I’m not proposing that you must always carry a weapon or even that it would be prudent to do so. If you go to the bar, it’s probably not a great idea to bring a gun, no matter how responsible you are. But carrying should extend to events where you would never expect danger. Carrying at church, on campus, or to the store may be the smartest decision you can make. It’s precisely these places where you feel the safest that you are most vulnerable. You’re vulnerable because these places usually contain a large amount of people with limited exits who are usually unarmed. Mass shooters have taken note of this and so should you.

Because many of the places where you are most vulnerable lie on private property, you may not be allowed to carry. If a business decides it will not permit people to carry guns on their premises, that’s their decision as it should be, but if this is the case they should have a responsibility to provide adequate protection to their customers. For example, the movie theater in Aurora Colorado had a policy that it did not allow gun inside the theater. Law abiding citizens left their guns at home, but the theater failed to provide adequate protection of its customers. In my eyes, adequate protection means armed guards. That can be in the form of contracted security or even just pistol wielding ticket takers. Either is acceptable.

All I want is for the good guys to have a gun. If that means personally carrying my gun with me, I’ll take that responsibility. If it means businesses providing their own security, I’ll accept that too. When it come to the gun debate, it’s a struggle between good guys and bad. The side with more guns is going to win. The left believes we should take away guns from both sides, but more legislation will only take guns from those who ought to have them. I believe better execution by the state and citizens can both take guns from the bad guys and give guns to the good guys, tipping the scales well in our favor.