Tuesday, July 26, 2005
Haha. Way to connect, chief.
Richard Hourula wants to take on Kansas. See, Kansas has a higher crime rate. Richard tries to connect that with looser gun-carrying laws. The thought apparently never occured to him that maybe they need looser gun-carrying laws because of the higher crime rate, rather than the other way around. Oh, but he does show causality with a reliable report from the impartial group... uh... "Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence," which amazingly says "guns bad!!!"
Nonetheless we hear from our gun loving brethren that it is not the gun that kills, but the person.
However, in the case that started this discussion, the shooter’s intended target was not the one struck down. Had he decided to employ a knife or blunt object it is a certainty that Meleia would have not died. Indeed one of the greatest tragedies communities suffer is when a stray bullet takes an innocent life. Collateral deaths tend only to result when assailants use guns.
Am I reading that right? Is he saying that it would've been better if a knife or blunt object had been used because Christopher Hollis would've murdered the right person? One may as well argue "it would've been better if it was a sniper rifle he was properly trained in the use of."
He concludes by suggesting that "if you want go after something, why not cars" as they are responsible for more deaths than guns. Excuse us if we wait until cars are aimed and fired at our citizenry.
It's been done. People do murder people with cars. Now, then, will you ban them? Oh, that's right, you actually use a car, so it's different. It's only important to ban such things when it doesn't hurt you.
. . .
|
. . .
|
