Guns 3 - The Good, The Bad and the Progressives

Jim Wallis presented the progressive view of the NRA's Dangerous Theology over at "God's Politics".  He tries to respond to Wayne LaPierre's cute little formula "“the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.” by suggesting LaPierre has a simplistic view of human nature where people are either good or bad.  I'm quite sure LaPierre understands that human beings are a bit more complex than white hats and black hats, but that is hardly the point.  At a given moment, if a guy who is very bad at that moment has a weapon, it is a good thing for a cop, a security guard, a soldier or a conscientious citizen to be able to stop him - if necessary with a weapon.

But the real howler of an argument Wallis proposes goes like this:

When we are good, we want to protect our children — not by having more guns than the bad people, but by making sure guns aren’t the first available thing to people when they’re being bad.

The utter absurdity of that argument is very simple.  Gun laws do not accomplish that goal.  Gun laws do not prevent mass murderers from having guns.   (More)

Guns 2

 The New York Times, hardly a right-wing handmaiden of the NRA lobby, published a surprisingly honest story on Obama's plans for gun control, plans that go "beyond mass shootings".  Ah.  So the plan is not limited to ending mass murder, but control of firearms that goes somewhere "beyond"...

Key quotes: 

"The semiautomatic rifle that Adam Lanza used to shoot 20 schoolchildren and 6 adults complied with Connecticut’s assault weapons ban, the police said, and he did not buy the gun himself." 

and "In 2011, 6,220 people were killed by handguns, and 323 by rifles"

and "Better background checks would have had little effect on several recent mass shootings"  (more)

Guns

The tragic shooting of schoolchildren in Connecticut has led to a significant call for more gun laws, including the absurd trial balloon floated by Joe Biden that president Obama can take some sort of action by Executive order.  Such a call shows contempt for the constitution these men are sworn to defend.

Once again, as has happened so often in the past, emotions are set forth as arguments while reason and principle are smothered.  (More)