We are a nation awash in gun-related violence, whether it be domestic or internationally inspired mayhem. Is there a simple solution to remove such a scourge? Probably not. At least it has not been found.

Since the Orlando massacre a few days ago, talk about the Second Amendment and individuals’ rights have been fever pitched. Many of us here in the South grew up with guns, either hunting or target shooting. Probably few of us own assault-type weapons with high-capacity magazines. We own shotguns, conventional rifles and pistols of various descriptions. And likely, most of us are satisfied with that level of armament. But if we are, we don’t speak very loudly in that regard. 

We hear all sorts of gun arguments and perhaps there is some truth in all of them, such as a terrorist can find a way to kill you with or without gun regulations. But then someone else may point out that by limiting ammunition capacity, perhaps the carnage could be less. A lesser of evil, we might suppose?

There were five incidents in the past years in which the gunmen used high-capacity weapons: Orlando, 49 dead; Kalamazoo, Mich. (six dead); San Bernardino, Calif. (14 dead); Chattanooga, Tenn. (six dead including the shooter); and Charleston, S.C. (nine dead). Go back further: Newtown, Conn. (28 dead, including the shooter); Fort Hood, Texas (13 dead).

Some will argue that all guns are assault-style weapons. And yes they can qualify in that venue to some degree. One could argue the semantics. And technically speaking, all legal guns are semi-automatic, meaning that they will shoot as fast as you can bend the index finger. 

Also, there are those who will pose that a civilian carrying a legal weapon may be able to stop a madman rapid-firing into a crowd. Yet that never happens. Go figure.

It seems clear that in the sticky wicket of “gun controls” we may have more questions than answers. We also may have more emotions than facts. And certainly we have a nation that romances firepower to a large degree.

We certainly want to maintain the right to protect ourselves, to hunt and to target practice if that’s our recreational bent. But shouldn’t we be giving more thought to magazine capacity? How many law abiding citizens have ever had the need to fire off 30 rounds or more? It would seem that limiting that capacity might stand a chance of reducing the volume of carnage inflicted by madmen. Just a mathematical assumption, of course.

It is often said that “guns don’t kill, people do.” Logic might also pose that “guns don’t die, people do.”

 Somewhere among those trains of thought, perhaps there is a middle ground that will allow our species to survive this madness. God help us to find it!