The argument for gun control is simple enough. Guns are dangerous. Less guns = less danger. Gun rights advocates agree with that sentiment—up to a point. They start getting hinky when proponent of the “less guns, less killing” philosophy begin applying their anti-firearms reasoning to law-abiding citizens (rather than criminals). The moment gun control folk even head feint a move from “guns hurt” to “no guns for you bubbala,” Second Amendmentistas get their proverbial knickers in a twist. In this sense, the gun control crowd does itself no favors by failing to make a distinction between legal and illegal firearms (even though every politician in the United States walks that line). The Milwaukee Wisconsin Journal Sentinel‘s Kristin Hansen [not shown] falls into that very trap . . .
She backs up her pro-gun control stance with the usual emotion-laden stories about “normal” gun owners gone postal, complete with anti-anecdotal-evidence-is-unreliable rhetorical jujitsu. (“One could say that these are “isolated incidents,” but when something happens every day, many times a day, is it isolated?”) But here’s the money shot: “The more comfortable you are with your weapon as a daily companion, the less you are conscious of its power.” This is what rankles so many gun rights advocates: their opponents condescending, often ignorant assumption that the average American is incapable of handling firearms responsibly. Not true. And yet, again, there is common ground. “Anger is not a reason to use a gun,” Hansen opines. Truer words have never been spoken.
