It’s gun season again on campus, and the concealed carry debate returns to our minds.Honestly, when I think about gun laws, I think about Family Guy when Stewie muses about the arguments the founders of America had when writing the Constitution. It cuts back to Philadelphia, where Ben Franklin asks what’s so difficult about the Second Amendment — it guarantees everyone the right to have a pair of actual bear arms on their wall.But back to reality: the issue of gun ownership in America is important and  worthy of a reasonable debate and discussion. Yet the problem seems to be the “reasonable debate and discussion” part.I don’t see why people would want to carry guns around in the interests of protecting themselves, but I don’t begrudge people of their right to own such means of protection. Some people take martial arts lessons. Others aren’t exactly cut out for martial arts — it does require a little bit of grace and body control — and look for other means to defend themselves, like guns.Given that all persons are supposed to have access to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” (per the Declaration of Independence) and being killed by an attacker is a quick way of ending one’s access to all of those rights, guns are an option for defending oneself. And firearms are here to stay, whether we like it or not.What underlies the problem surrounding the debate over gun laws is each side is stubbornly sticking to its solutions regarding the issue.On one hand, the people at the NRA have a legitimate point: people should be able to own firearms, whether it be for recreational or protective purposes. And taking away access to such rights goes against the ideals of this nation.On the other hand, gun control advocates have some good points as well. Guns make it easier to kill people, which most of us agree is a bad thing. This can result in anything ranging from child tragically shooting a friend while playing cops and robbers to a criminal slaying a witness in cold blood to cover his or her tracks. Remove the easy means of killing — the gun — and you can prevent those untimely deaths.Humans are pretty good at compromising, particularly in America — hell, the ultimate law of the land, the Constitution, is filled with compromises. So why aren’t we compromising on gun legislation?Empirically, the debate is very fuzzy. There are some studies that find initiatives like concealed carry laws reduce crime, while others show no such effect — one review, Firearms and violence : a critical review, devoted an entire chapter to concealed carry laws and found out quite a bit.To put the study’s findings simply, it’s just very difficult to determine if gun laws have a definite effect on crime, as the data are particularly sensitive to certain models — adding one extra variable can change the results completely.So we do not know what gun laws will work in reducing crime or have an idea of how to reconcile the gap between the pro-gun and gun control advocates.My suggestion is to have a calm, considered discussion on the issue built on empirical arguments. I don’t expect everyone to be holding hands and singing Kumbaya when doing so, but please, quit throwing the same old emotional arguments around. You aren’t helping.