Why not instead focus on the source of the problem: the very small minority of mentally ill people who pose a danger to themselves and others? And, yes, guns need to be part of that equation. But blanket efforts to ban guns seem like an analogous effort to ban dangerous speech or art. About a third of U.S. households own a gun, according to surveys, but the number may be higher than that. Getting rid of guns will infringe on the rights of tens of millions of sane, law-abiding citizens in order to tackle a problem posed by dozens of people. And, like it or not, the Supreme Court has reaffirmed that we have a constitutional right to own a firearm, subject to reasonable regulation.
Nice try. He's part way there. But he still doesn't grok the implications of "yes, guns need to be part of that equation." The march the gun-banners will steal on that concession alone. Guns were part of the equation. Over and over and over and over again. Let's do some formula adjustment on the other side of it for a few, shall we?
I bet he's been shooting visiting the in-laws in Alaska. But it looks like he may need to go on a few more range trips. Get out there, and talk to gunnies. I'd proffer him a bottle of Bulleit Bourbon and a nicer brand of cigar if he'd come out some weekend. Prolly should do the hosting at MBtGE's. Better guest rooms. Better clear it with him and his Missus first before I make TOO many more promises.
"yes, guns need to be part of that equation."
ReplyDeleteThe weasel word in that sentence is "part" Plaintiff's lawyers love to sue the deep pockets, even though Mr. Deep Pockets has a small percentage of fault for the bad outcome. The way around that is to argue an absolutely immense damage, so the share for Mr. Deep Pockets is still gargantuan. The mere existence of guns in the hands of the law abiding is .00000001 of the problem, but the problem is defined up to $1,000,0000,000,0000,0000,000,000, so a manufacturer who never even sold a gun to the actual perpetrator as a legal transaction is on the hook for a business killing amount. I wait for this principle to be applied to drunk driving and all those flaming leftists out there who keep alcoholic beverages in their home, and who benefited from the lower prices volume of business allows, because that allowed the perpetrator to easily and cheaply get drunk and kill.
Once you divert guilt from the guilty there is no end to what innocents can be made to pay.