Gun Safety Is Back!

Joe is right that it’s old news, but I hadn’t seen it in the media for a while.  Now it’s back just in time for the elections.

The families say they want to make sure guns are not allowed on college campuses. And they want lawmakers to require that everyone who purchases a gun in Virginia first go through the FBI’s instant background check system that blocks felons and the mentally disturbed. Although federal law requires background checks, it applies only to federally licensed firearms dealers. No checks are required when a private dealer sells weapons at a gun show. Fifteen states have closed what gun safety advocates call the “gun show loophole.”

Emphasis mine.  Can you get any more biased than that?  At least they were kind enough to call us gun-rights advocates rather than the “gun lobby”.

I don’t doubt that these folks are undergoing a serious grieving process over the loss of their loved ones, but none of the bills they are proposing would have stopped Cho from being a murderous asswipe.  We have already fixed that problem.  I feel for these people, but once they choose to enter a political scuffle, the laws they are advocating should not be beyond debate, nor should their position be given absolute moral authority.  We should not decide public policy based on grief and emotions.  The family members of Virginia Tech victims are advocating removing liberty from their fellow citizens, and that should create the utmost burden for them in terms of defending that position in the public sphere.  A pity the Washington Post doesn’t seem to feel that way.

5 Responses to “Gun Safety Is Back!”

  1. Hell, that’s nothing. If you want to see bias, check this out. The title itself (“Va. lawmakers may ignore gun control pleas”) gives a pretty good idea.

  2. Gun safety advocates?
    Hey I’m one of those!

  3. Jamfish says:

    Gun safety advocates? Hey I’m one of those!

    Exactly! Why do gun-control advos get to define gun safety?

  4. straightarrow says:

    Absolutely correct, Sebastian. These people should not be allowed to trade on their loss. Especially since it was the practices they advocate that contributed to it mightily. I posted the below at WoG, the appeal to emotions does not elicit any sympathy from me for these survivors of their deadly philosophy.

    I suspect that those expressing sympathy for the families of lost loved ones are doing so more to keep from appearing heartless and being ignored because of it than any real concern for these people.

    My suspicion could be the result of projection of my own feelings, but I doubt very much that others can be any more sympathetic than I. I have no sympathy for anyone, no matter how great their loss, when they demand that other families suffer the same loss due to the same inabilities of self defense for any future victims.

    All my sympathies lie with the dead, except for Cho. They were betrayed by their own families when they were not taught self reliance, they were betrayed by their school which prohibited their having any chance of survival, and they were betrayed by a police department that hid until it was all over, and lastly they were betrayed by a fellow student.

    However, it must be noted, that without all the prepratory betrayal and the concurrent betrayal it is likely that most of the victims would have survived.

    So not only NO, but HELL NO!, I have no sympathy for the families that would force this betrayal of our children onto other families.

    My sympathy lies with the dead in their death and more sadly for their lives which were so betrayed.

  5. I was searching for “gun safety blogs” and saw your site. Were you aware that yet another “study” has coming out that proves that the safest gun is no gun at all?

    I wrote a short piece on it that you guys might like. I think you can get it by clicking my name in this comment posting.

    Just for fun.