Another guy off his meds massacred 5 people at college. A bunch of others were wounded.
The people concerned about gun violence claim the problem is guns. But I'm not so sure.
He didn't try to shoot up a police station.
He didn't try to shoot up a military base.
He didn't try to shoot up a gun store.
He didn't try to shoot up a gun show.
He didn't try to shoot up a shooting range.
He didn't even try to shoot up a donut shop.
So, what is it that makes gun-free zones so attractive?
That's a real stumper.
Friday, February 15, 2008
Why Gun-Free Zones?
3 comments:
We reserve the right to delete comments, but the failure to delete any particular comment should not be interpreted as an endorsement thereof.
In general, we expect comments to be relevant to the story, or to a prior comment that is relevant; and we expect some minimal level of civility. Defining that line is inherently subjective, so try to stay clear of insulting remarks. If you respond to a comment that is later deleted, we may take your response with it. Deleting your comment isn't a personal knock on you, so don't take it as such.
We allow a variety of ways for commenters to identify themselves; those who choose not to do so should take extra care. Absent any prior context in which they may be understood, ironic comments may be misinterpreted. Once you've earned a reputation for contributing to a conversation, we are likely to be more tolerant in those gray areas, as we'll understand where you're coming from.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Actually, it's easy to see what makes gun-free zones so attractive. They hit all a liberal's hot buttons: they're easy to do, they make the liberals feel like they're doing something, and they give a sense of moral superiority. The fact that they are not only useless but seem to actually make it more likely that someone will be shot there doesn't enter into any calculations because to hold liberals responsible for the results of their actions would be "intolerant."
ReplyDeleteThe Truth of the matter is only secondarily important to 2nd amend. fearmongers. The mechanism for gun removal is to be judged only be its implementation, not its effect. As in, the Amendment refers to a "well-regulated Militia", which Doug explained perfectly in another post.There were no "National Guard" units when the Bill of Rights was passed,
ReplyDeleteso the argument to separate citizens from their weapons because they "weren't military" is bogus on its face. When it isn't enough to own the truth of the matter, it is annoying to have to fight people over their own, and invalid, arguments. People who own guns are Citizens; those who don't are Subjects.
So, what is it that makes gun-free zones so attractive? That's a real stumper.
ReplyDeleteYou mean attractive to the shooters, or to the people who create them? If it's the shooters, it's simple. They're afraid of donuts. There are many current, former, and future policemen in those places, and the likelihood of running into someone carrying donuts is high. Since gun-free zones have a lower likelihood of attracting the type of people who carry and eat donuts, they naturally go there.