You can not discern between deliberate killing and maiming and an industrial accident? You lost right there.
What troubles the anti-gun people more than anything, is that if a gun of any kind were in their personal possession, they themselves would run amok and shoot up their neighbors and acquaintances, because the fascination of the flying bullets is so great. Therefore, if they cannot be trusted with guns, nobody can.
Of course, they would have the same fascination with a hammer and nail, because the victim could be held down on the floor, and a nail hammered through his forehead.
So fixated with the potential to do harm, it matters not at all what the means would be. That latent violence within some minds is the real problem to be confronted.
I liked the article, especially all of the citations.
Ask a homosexual if he would support the formation of a national registry of all homosexuals, to be used to implement all of the new laws like gay marriage and employment protections. He would object and insist on his privacy.
Ask a Occupy Wall Street protester if he would support the formation of a national database of all anarchists, to help the government could decide which violent thugs were harmless and which ones must be punished. He would object and insist on his privacy.
As a journalist if he would support creating a national database of all journalists, so the government could determine who had shield law protections and protections from libel laws. He would insist on his privacy.
But ask any of them if they would support creating a national registry of all guns, and they will sing a different tune.
Every one of these gun-grabbing twerps covets the power to order others about but fears the retribution of one who would resist. The live for the day they can call in the goons and kill upon a whim, polishing their nails for their having righted some imaginary wrong.
The author treats these people as if they are well-meaning, probably out of a misplaced desire to "live and let live," but that just is not possible until liberals confront the consequences of their ideology. Unfortunately, it's either forcing that upon them or armed conflict. I'd rather the former. It might just get them to sit down and shut up on a host of other issues they so richly deserve to own.
Long but one of the most comprehensive and lucid arguments for the 2nd Amendment I’ve read.
Unfortunately, the anti=gun people won’t read it to learn why there is a gulf between us.
Gun control bump
Bump, and tell your friends. This is a little long, but is a great, well-documented essay that enumerates many reasons why gun people don’t trust anti-gunners. This might be the best article on the gun debate I’ve seen in the last year or so.