5 thoughts on “Seen on the Internets …”

  1. “We have to pass more gun control, like they have in California, to prevent the kind of tragedy that happened in California.”

    Be cautious making that argument, and check each situation individually. Because, the next argument from the antis will be “all state borders are porous, and this shows why we need federal gun control.”

    Anecdotally: Someone I knew well lived in California for years. As young guys, he and his buddies would go out shooting in the mountains and deserts frequently. But not being exactly gun aficionados, they had no knowledge or concern at all about the legalities of what they were doing. They probably “got away with” a lot. But the point that makes is, there are a lot of guns floating around everywhere, including California, and it would take a long time for “control” to control much of anything.

    1. It will be hard to make any argument that there are already too many guns around to be able to control them, without in effect arguing for confiscation. Looking at the big picture, it is probably better to concentrate on that mass shootings are an insignificant fraction of total crime, and argue that overall crime has been going down thanks to the proliferation of guns. Doing that will be at odds with our friends who want to claim crime is up due to immigration, but we have to look out for our own interests.

    2. I can’t help but observe, however, how it’s kindof funny that it’s places like California and Chicago that have all the gun crime, but not the places where the criminals allegedly get their guns. If it’s merely a problem of porous borders, why do guns always stream from the low-crime (and easy-to-get-gun) places to the high-crime (and hard-to-get-gun) places?

      Indeed, if we succeeded in getting federal gun control, I can’t help but wonder: would that make the entire *nation* high-crime?

  2. Do it again, only HARDER to steal the phrase from Kevin of Smallest Minority.

Comments are closed.