Kevin Hoover: The Folly And Fallacy Of The Freedom To Mass Murder

Tuesday, March 12, 2013

I’ve spent some enjoyable time trolling Ted Nugent’s Facebook page over the last few weeks. The great patriots there have very little sense of humor, and tend to react to whimsy-tinged argumentation with short words rich in consonants. One of them did figure out a vacuum cleaner joke to go with my name, but he would be among their intellectual elite. Anyway, Uncle Ted’s minions eventually shut off my ability to comment there. It was fun while it lasted.

I was surprised to see the same Nugent-level pro-weapons of mass murder talking points at hand in the piece above. They’re just about all misleading and desultory.

I do agree with Sid about the local Democratic Party, though. It, like the local GOP and Greens, is a sick, sorry organism rife with personal rivalries, dunderheaded doctrine and anti-democratic practices. That’s the nature of parties.

But beyond that, the piece is an exercise in hand-waving and misdirection.

First, arguing statistics after Sandy Hook and Aurora is a great way to advertise that you haven’t got a compelling moral argument. The recitation of numbers might be better summarized by the statement, “the  dozens killed and injured by military-grade weapons are statistically insignificant.”

But to any of the victims’ parents, whose lives will never be whole again, one assault-weapon murder is all the wonderful numerical data they need.

Imagine going to Newtown and making the statistics case. “Sorry, but your dead children aren’t even a rounding error.” You wouldn’t do that there; what makes it any more acceptable here?

“Criminals ignore the laws.” That’s a great argument for having no laws, isn’t it? People are running stop signs and speeding right now in Arcata, so by that logic, we may as well rescind all the traffic laws.

“How about disarming felons instead of going after law abiding citizens?” Where this argument fails is, if the law is changed and these citizens have 100-round ammo magazines like the one used in Aurora, they won’t be law-abiding citizens.

Particularly disppointing was the invocation of the failed Fast and Furious operation is straight-up FoxNews talking point fashion. That was a well-intentioned effort with a worthy goal – to track firearm infiltration to drug cartels. Police sell drugs and stolen merch to bad guys all the time, with productive results.

Unfortunately, this op went awry, allowing right-wing extremists to demagogue it and waste all kinds of time on more of the chest-thumping nothingness they so expertly traffic in.

Anyway, what is the essential argument here? A high-risk law enforcement operation failed – therefore don’t regulate high-capacity ammunition magazines? We even get the Muslim Brotherhood in on the situation. That’s relevant, because, you know… Muslims!

Whatever your opinion may be of the U.S. continuing to provide military assistance to Egypt’s democratically elected government, how is it again that flooding American streets with battlefield-ready weaponry addresses that issue?

Apparently regular firearms don’t work any more, making mass murder weapons necessary for self-defense by rural residents. If statistics are so definitive, let’s see some stats on how many folks in remote cabins have fended off intruders with Smith & Wesson M&P15s and 100-round clips (as opposed to say, shotguns). I’m guessing it is even fewer in number than those 20 statistically meaningless little kids at Sandy Hook Elementary School.

It’s odd that to protect “freedom,” opponents of military weapon control would rather meddle with free expression in movies. Violence has been part of popular fiction since the form was invented – just look at a Road Runner cartoon, or the Bible.

If you think that our choice is between regulating weapons designed for military combat and “rebuilding our aging infrastructure,” one or the other, you’ve been ensnared in a classic “false dilemma” logical fallacy.

One of the things I’ve noticed about the Nugent fans and gun zealots in general is that for all their high-and-mighty, red, white and blue All-Americanism, they have very little comprehension of, or faith in, American institutions. To them, mere bullets are all that keeps ’Merca intact. What a sad, shriveled conceptualization of our country.

Sure enough, the above piece buys into this limited vision, suggesting that regulating high-capacity ammo magazines is “destroying our freedoms.” The fact is, the only people empowered by mass-slaughter weapons are the angry, armed psychogoobers.

We were free long before those heinous devices were ever invented and will remain so after they are outlawed. Why doesn’t the freedom to live beyond age five count for anything?

What I’d like to know is, if these combat rifles are so grand, why don’t we allow people to own bazookas? And RPGs? How about hand grenades, napalm and nerve gas?  Surely it is destroying our freedoms to limit use of these weapons of mass death.

Seriously, all those things – unlike handguns and shotguns – are very well designed to take out whole neighborhoods worth of people in one efficient stike. And that is just what assault rifles and hi-cap magazines are being used for – in schools and movie theatres.

The extremist hyperbole has run its course. The majority of Americans are ready to enact sensible reforms that give law enforcement the tools to take away mass murder weapons.

Reasonable gun restrictions are finally going to happen, and the single freedom that will be destroyed is the freedom for lunatics to wipe out crowds of innocent people before someone can stop them.

76 Responses to “Kevin Hoover: The Folly And Fallacy Of The Freedom To Mass Murder”

  1. The point is people who lobby for gun control is in the minority, majority rule people !! Its that simple and that complex. Stop trying to impose minority will via unreasonable legislation

    #65145
  2. The point is people who lobby for gun control is in the minority, majority rule people !! Its that simple and that complex. Stop trying to impose minority will via unreasonable legislation

    #67288
  3. Lawrence Labranche

    blah blah blah. If gun control works why do so many places that have restrictions have higher crime rates? Why is it then the city in the US that mandated gun ownership, crime went down? What is the name of your fantasy world where the cowards/looneys and criminals obey the gun laws? Why have one of these guns? Simply because the criminals do have them. Simply because if you haven't noticed it takes a long time to get help in the outer areas of rural places like Humboldt. or is your thought process when a gang breaks down your door to use a musket? A gun is a gun right? Who needs to fire multiple rounds right? Yes some people have thought we should be restricted to muskets in this day in age. You are aware our founding fathers did mandate "military style" guns?

    #65147
  4. Lawrence Labranche

    blah blah blah. If gun control works why do so many places that have restrictions have higher crime rates? Why is it then the city in the US that mandated gun ownership, crime went down? What is the name of your fantasy world where the cowards/looneys and criminals obey the gun laws? Why have one of these guns? Simply because the criminals do have them. Simply because if you haven't noticed it takes a long time to get help in the outer areas of rural places like Humboldt. or is your thought process when a gang breaks down your door to use a musket? A gun is a gun right? Who needs to fire multiple rounds right? Yes some people have thought we should be restricted to muskets in this day in age. You are aware our founding fathers did mandate "military style" guns?

    #65148
  5. Lawrence Labranche

    blah blah blah. If gun control works why do so many places that have restrictions have higher crime rates? Why is it then the city in the US that mandated gun ownership, crime went down? What is the name of your fantasy world where the cowards/looneys and criminals obey the gun laws? Why have one of these guns? Simply because the criminals do have them. Simply because if you haven't noticed it takes a long time to get help in the outer areas of rural places like Humboldt. or is your thought process when a gang breaks down your door to use a musket? A gun is a gun right? Who needs to fire multiple rounds right? Yes some people have thought we should be restricted to muskets in this day in age. You are aware our founding fathers did mandate "military style" guns?

    #67289
  6. Imho if it works or not is moot !!
    MAJORITY RULE should prevent it from being a discussion period

    #65151
  7. Imho if it works or not is moot !!
    MAJORITY RULE should prevent it from being a discussion period

    #67290
  8. "The Second Amendment and the Bill of Rights provides that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed," Cruz started out — and then asked whether the First Amendment should "only apply" to certain books or the Fourth Amendment should only protect certain people from unreasonable searches.

    Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/03/14/sen-cruz-feinstein-tangle-over-2nd-amendment-as-panel-approves-assault-weapons/#ixzz2NYGS75Iy.

    #65152
  9. "The Second Amendment and the Bill of Rights provides that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed," Cruz started out — and then asked whether the First Amendment should "only apply" to certain books or the Fourth Amendment should only protect certain people from unreasonable searches.

    Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/03/14/sen-cruz-feinstein-tangle-over-2nd-amendment-as-panel-approves-assault-weapons/#ixzz2NYGS75Iy.

    #67291
  10. Ever notice how a minority agenda is almost always introduced as silent referendum or introduced as legislature and enforced immediately but popular will advocates are forced into a lengthy diatribe of uneccesary due process just to have a vote that is somehow augmented or nullified by either marginal electronic voting or introduced referendum which is expidiited and enforced immediately??? Ever wonder why that is?? Keep asking why!! Wondering is not enough anylonger!!

    #65154
  11. Ever notice how a minority agenda is almost always introduced as silent referendum or introduced as legislature and enforced immediately but popular will advocates are forced into a lengthy diatribe of uneccesary due process just to have a vote that is somehow augmented or nullified by either marginal electronic voting or introduced referendum which is expidiited and enforced immediately??? Ever wonder why that is?? Keep asking why!! Wondering is not enough anylonger!!

    #67293
  12. We are a republic not a democracy. Majority has never ruled here and never will until we change our system of government. With that said, I think it is 91 percent that favor background checks for people buying firearms. Not that the majority matters a fuck in our country though.

    #65155
  13. We are a republic not a democracy. Majority has never ruled here and never will until we change our system of government. With that said, I think it is 91 percent that favor background checks for people buying firearms. Not that the majority matters a fuck in our country though.

    #67303
  14. The majority of US voters voted democratic in the last congressional races. So why are there more republican congress critters? Because we are not a democracy. Get over it, democrats, have had to get over it for a long time now.

    #65156
  15. The majority of US voters voted democratic in the last congressional races. So why are there more republican congress critters? Because we are not a democracy. Get over it, democrats, have had to get over it for a long time now.

    #67304
  16. Lawrence Labranche

    F&F didn't just fail, it helped to kill our own citizens. They failed to keep track of them. I guess that is just an rounding error to you but it means something to me. Government should be held to a higher standard. You did study the Sandy Hook shooting right? You do understand the shooter committed many illegal acts right? Murdering his his own flesh and blood, the one who brought him in to this world is repulsive and illegal. The state itself had strict control measures which the Brady group likes. Part of that is that the shooter was too young to carry a gun. Yet he did that and went on a rampage, killing many others. You say not to blame the movies etc yet companies pay millions to buy advertising. So yes there is an effect that video games, and movies have on people. The funny thing is if you really believed they had no effect you would not be an editor trying to effect what people think.

    #65157
  17. Lawrence Labranche

    F&F didn't just fail, it helped to kill our own citizens. They failed to keep track of them. I guess that is just an rounding error to you but it means something to me. Government should be held to a higher standard. You did study the Sandy Hook shooting right? You do understand the shooter committed many illegal acts right? Murdering his his own flesh and blood, the one who brought him in to this world is repulsive and illegal. The state itself had strict control measures which the Brady group likes. Part of that is that the shooter was too young to carry a gun. Yet he did that and went on a rampage, killing many others. You say not to blame the movies etc yet companies pay millions to buy advertising. So yes there is an effect that video games, and movies have on people. The funny thing is if you really believed they had no effect you would not be an editor trying to effect what people think.

    #67294
  18. Kevin Hoover

    I don't see why editors should be any less free to express their opinions than the people whose views we publish. Editors have been writing columns and editorials since newspapers began.

    Regarding the SH killer. He used mom's ridiculously lethal weaponry, which she bought legally. Had these slaughter machines been illegal, she wouldn't have been able to buy them legally, would she? Maybe a whole lot of little children would still be alive, wouldn't they?

    #65158
  19. Kevin Hoover

    I don't see why editors should be any less free to express their opinions than the people whose views we publish. Editors have been writing columns and editorials since newspapers began.

    Regarding the SH killer. He used mom's ridiculously lethal weaponry, which she bought legally. Had these slaughter machines been illegal, she wouldn't have been able to buy them legally, would she? Maybe a whole lot of little children would still be alive, wouldn't they?

    #67310
  20. Lawrence Labranche

    I am not suggesting a restriction on editorials. At what point do you recognize people are influenced by editorials and other media? At what point you recognize there is an effect of violent media and games on the populace? An editorial is more to influence than inform the people. Yet you seem to gloss over the power of the pen and other media to affect people.

    #65159
  21. Lawrence Labranche

    I am not suggesting a restriction on editorials. At what point do you recognize people are influenced by editorials and other media? At what point you recognize there is an effect of violent media and games on the populace? An editorial is more to influence than inform the people. Yet you seem to gloss over the power of the pen and other media to affect people.

    #67295
  22. I say if we can restrict the Second amendment right to bear arms then we can in fact restrict the protections of the First amendment.
    I say if we institute an "assault" weapons ban, we should then pass a ban on certain newspapers, magazines,video games, tv shows and movies.
    We should also limit the Fourth amendment right to security from unwanted search and seizure to the police, and politicians…civilians shouldn't have the right to privacy, they may be printing illegal newspapers, or own a gun…

    There is no constitutional right to feel safe, only a Constitutional right to defend yourself.

    #65160
  23. I say if we can restrict the Second amendment right to bear arms then we can in fact restrict the protections of the First amendment.
    I say if we institute an "assault" weapons ban, we should then pass a ban on certain newspapers, magazines,video games, tv shows and movies.
    We should also limit the Fourth amendment right to security from unwanted search and seizure to the police, and politicians…civilians shouldn't have the right to privacy, they may be printing illegal newspapers, or own a gun…

    There is no constitutional right to feel safe, only a Constitutional right to defend yourself.

    #67311
  24. The constitution protects my rights ( like the secondamendment right to KEEP and BEAR arms) from the "tyranny of the majority", and is one of the main reasons for the Bill of Rights.
    A majority can not take away my rights. Think prop 8 and same gender marriage.

    #65162
  25. The constitution protects my rights ( like the secondamendment right to KEEP and BEAR arms) from the "tyranny of the majority", and is one of the main reasons for the Bill of Rights.
    A majority can not take away my rights. Think prop 8 and same gender marriage.

    #67305
  26. Kevin Hoover

    There are already sensible limitations on the First Amendment. Libel, slander, fire/crowded theatre etc.

    There are also limitations on armaments. You can't legally own the other mass-death weaponry I listed in my column. Nor should hyper-lethal military weapons be legal. You can keep your rifles and handguns. 100-round magazines and the other slaughter machines – no.

    #65164
  27. Kevin Hoover

    There are already sensible limitations on the First Amendment. Libel, slander, fire/crowded theatre etc.

    There are also limitations on armaments. You can't legally own the other mass-death weaponry I listed in my column. Nor should hyper-lethal military weapons be legal. You can keep your rifles and handguns. 100-round magazines and the other slaughter machines – no.

    #67312
  28. Regarding Sid's opinion piece, I don't remember Sid advocating 100-round magazines and RPGs. He stated his concern with.22 caliber rifles being classed as "assault weapons" and all the "cosmetic feature" issues, of which there are a ton in CA. Restricting.22 caliber rifles is not a reasonable gun restriction. A lot of the potential legislation floating around focuses plenty of attention on weapons that are definitely not "designed for military combat".

    To me, reasonable means restricting truly large capacity magazines and universal background checks. Reasonable restrictions and legislation also means focusing more on the much more common gun violence in this country, the nearly 100% of gun deaths caused by hand guns. There is a compelling moral argument to focus on this kind of gun violence because STATISTICALLY it kills MORE people, not to say that we can't also make sensible reforms (like I just did above) to prevent the rare mass murder events (Aurora).

    To further defend Sid, just because a country has a democratically-elected government doesn't mean we should support it. That clearly hasn't affected our country's decisions much in the past either way. There is also a difference between Muslims and Islamists.

    #65165
  29. Regarding Sid's opinion piece, I don't remember Sid advocating 100-round magazines and RPGs. He stated his concern with.22 caliber rifles being classed as "assault weapons" and all the "cosmetic feature" issues, of which there are a ton in CA. Restricting.22 caliber rifles is not a reasonable gun restriction. A lot of the potential legislation floating around focuses plenty of attention on weapons that are definitely not "designed for military combat".

    To me, reasonable means restricting truly large capacity magazines and universal background checks. Reasonable restrictions and legislation also means focusing more on the much more common gun violence in this country, the nearly 100% of gun deaths caused by hand guns. There is a compelling moral argument to focus on this kind of gun violence because STATISTICALLY it kills MORE people, not to say that we can't also make sensible reforms (like I just did above) to prevent the rare mass murder events (Aurora).

    To further defend Sid, just because a country has a democratically-elected government doesn't mean we should support it. That clearly hasn't affected our country's decisions much in the past either way. There is also a difference between Muslims and Islamists.

    #67296
  30. Lawrence Labranche

    Those are not sensible restrictions. They are made by people who have no idea what they are doing. Who determines the limits? The shooter was smart enough to know how to bypass your restrictions. A magazine is just a box that pushes rounds in to the weapon. Any semi-automatic weapon can fire rapidly.

    #65167
  31. Lawrence Labranche

    Those are not sensible restrictions. They are made by people who have no idea what they are doing. Who determines the limits? The shooter was smart enough to know how to bypass your restrictions. A magazine is just a box that pushes rounds in to the weapon. Any semi-automatic weapon can fire rapidly.

    #67297
  32. Jeff Cross

    How, Mr. Hoover, is this gun control law restricting "mass-death weapons" going to solve a damn thing except to ensure that the bad-guys will now, without worry, out gun their victims? You claim that you believe ALL murder victims count (which they do), but the fact of the matter is that far more people per year are murdered by offenders wielding knives, or small caliber handguns, or with their bare hands, than assault weapons. Why is it that murder victims only matter to you when a small number (comparatively speaking) of them are killed at one time? Meanwhile, the THOUSANDS of murders per year that are spread out over the course of that year, get no flag waving, legislation reform rhetoric from you, or any of our Washingtonian leaders at all. Why aren't you on the bandwagon to Washington for steak-knife reform? To me, this gun control crap is a moot point, as is your opinion of it.

    #65168
  33. Jeff Cross

    How, Mr. Hoover, is this gun control law restricting "mass-death weapons" going to solve a damn thing except to ensure that the bad-guys will now, without worry, out gun their victims? You claim that you believe ALL murder victims count (which they do), but the fact of the matter is that far more people per year are murdered by offenders wielding knives, or small caliber handguns, or with their bare hands, than assault weapons. Why is it that murder victims only matter to you when a small number (comparatively speaking) of them are killed at one time? Meanwhile, the THOUSANDS of murders per year that are spread out over the course of that year, get no flag waving, legislation reform rhetoric from you, or any of our Washingtonian leaders at all. Why aren't you on the bandwagon to Washington for steak-knife reform? To me, this gun control crap is a moot point, as is your opinion of it.

    #67298
  34. Kevin Hoover

    I think it would be extremely extremist to advocate confiscation of steak knives and regular old guns and rifles, don't you? The latter are protected by the Second Amendment, and personally, I don't see any reason to meddle with those protections.

    Speaking of extremism, the 100-round magazines and so forth are military grade weapons, most of which are already illegal. There's no legitimate reason for owning such things or any practical use for them. They need to be out of circulation, and will be when reason prevails. Fortunately, that's where things are heading.

    #65169
  35. Kevin Hoover

    I think it would be extremely extremist to advocate confiscation of steak knives and regular old guns and rifles, don't you? The latter are protected by the Second Amendment, and personally, I don't see any reason to meddle with those protections.

    Speaking of extremism, the 100-round magazines and so forth are military grade weapons, most of which are already illegal. There's no legitimate reason for owning such things or any practical use for them. They need to be out of circulation, and will be when reason prevails. Fortunately, that's where things are heading.

    #67317
  36. Jeff Cross

    Yes, I do think it's ridiculous, to answer your question. Theoretically, I see your point. However, we are dealing with reality here. These military grade weapons, no matter the argument for or against them, are already out there in peoples hands. No amount of band-aid placement, after the fact legislation is going to make those weapons disappear, except out of the hands of those that would use them in defense of themselves and their loved ones. Gun control puts the regular guy at a disadvantage, not the killers. Since the government chose for its citizens the right to bear arms, and then released or allowed the manufacture of these weapons for the general public to own, why is the fix for the backlash of their own actions and decisions, to one-eighty on those who own their guns legally, use them legally? Why is the fix to tell law abiding citizens that their (once) legal ownership now makes them criminal, or take away their only viable protection against those who would use the same type of weapon against them? It seems that the lack of government forethought is to blame here. Even if you could get every single military grade weapon off the street, the unfortunate fact is that mass killings will go on, as seen in the Oklahoma bombing and 9-11. Legislation won't work to do anything but piss off those it one-eightied on, law-abiding citizens. It won't work because you can't legislate the minds of crazy people with the hell-bent determination to kill.

    #65171
  37. Jeff Cross

    Yes, I do think it's ridiculous, to answer your question. Theoretically, I see your point. However, we are dealing with reality here. These military grade weapons, no matter the argument for or against them, are already out there in peoples hands. No amount of band-aid placement, after the fact legislation is going to make those weapons disappear, except out of the hands of those that would use them in defense of themselves and their loved ones. Gun control puts the regular guy at a disadvantage, not the killers. Since the government chose for its citizens the right to bear arms, and then released or allowed the manufacture of these weapons for the general public to own, why is the fix for the backlash of their own actions and decisions, to one-eighty on those who own their guns legally, use them legally? Why is the fix to tell law abiding citizens that their (once) legal ownership now makes them criminal, or take away their only viable protection against those who would use the same type of weapon against them? It seems that the lack of government forethought is to blame here. Even if you could get every single military grade weapon off the street, the unfortunate fact is that mass killings will go on, as seen in the Oklahoma bombing and 9-11. Legislation won't work to do anything but piss off those it one-eightied on, law-abiding citizens. It won't work because you can't legislate the minds of crazy people with the hell-bent determination to kill.

    #67318
  38. Kevin Hoover

    Well said. But I don't see how making military weapons illegal puts ordinary people at any disadvantage. As I asked in the column, how often do people really defend themselves with these things vs. good old shotguns? I just go back to the simple and well established principle that things that are extraordinarily destructive are and should be illegal. I'm not a gun fancier, so these devices hold no particular allure or romance for me.

    #65173
  39. Kevin Hoover

    Well said. But I don't see how making military weapons illegal puts ordinary people at any disadvantage. As I asked in the column, how often do people really defend themselves with these things vs. good old shotguns? I just go back to the simple and well established principle that things that are extraordinarily destructive are and should be illegal. I'm not a gun fancier, so these devices hold no particular allure or romance for me.

    #67319
  40. Lawrence Labranche

    Kevin, you must understand in this rush to ban things, infringement is happening. CA has a bill requiring background checks to buy ammo. http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2013/02/foghorn/list-of-proposed-california-gun-control-measures-500-round-max-no-grandfathering-no-detachable-mags-mandatory-license/

    #65174
  41. Lawrence Labranche

    Kevin, you must understand in this rush to ban things, infringement is happening. CA has a bill requiring background checks to buy ammo. http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2013/02/foghorn/list-of-proposed-california-gun-control-measures-500-round-max-no-grandfathering-no-detachable-mags-mandatory-license/

    #67299
  42. Lawrence Labranche

    CO gun control bill will ban a favorite shotgun of hunters. Some of these laws do not allow grandfathering. Instead they make it a felony to posses them.

    #65175
  43. Lawrence Labranche

    CO gun control bill will ban a favorite shotgun of hunters. Some of these laws do not allow grandfathering. Instead they make it a felony to posses them.

    #67300
  44. Jeff Cross

    Thank you. As I'm sure you don't have time for all this back and forth, I'll make this my last comment. I would just like to point out that not all the folks against this gun control legislation are the stereo typical extremist-minded militia dude, hunkered down in their spider hole, waiting for the proverbial s#*t to hit the fan. Like you, I am not a gun fancier. The only gun I own is a shotgun, and I hope to the powers that be, that I never have to use it against another human. That being said, it's not so much that I value the assault rifle itself for its intrinsic allure to many gun lovers, but I greatly value that I have the CHOICE to own one if I deem it necessary. It's true that it is rare that most people would need to defend themselves with one…but, it isn't unheard of by any means. I have no doubts that, were a couple of home invaders armed with, say, a 14 round automatic 9mm pistol and a semi-auto AK47, my shotgun would not stand up for long. Maybe not even enough for escape. Rare though it may be, I do not relish the thought that I didn't have the CHOICE to own an assault rifle, while nothing stops the home invaders from having one. For me, it's all about having that choice. I appreciate your viewpoint, and thanks for your time.

    #65176
  45. Jeff Cross

    Thank you. As I'm sure you don't have time for all this back and forth, I'll make this my last comment. I would just like to point out that not all the folks against this gun control legislation are the stereo typical extremist-minded militia dude, hunkered down in their spider hole, waiting for the proverbial s#*t to hit the fan. Like you, I am not a gun fancier. The only gun I own is a shotgun, and I hope to the powers that be, that I never have to use it against another human. That being said, it's not so much that I value the assault rifle itself for its intrinsic allure to many gun lovers, but I greatly value that I have the CHOICE to own one if I deem it necessary. It's true that it is rare that most people would need to defend themselves with one…but, it isn't unheard of by any means. I have no doubts that, were a couple of home invaders armed with, say, a 14 round automatic 9mm pistol and a semi-auto AK47, my shotgun would not stand up for long. Maybe not even enough for escape. Rare though it may be, I do not relish the thought that I didn't have the CHOICE to own an assault rifle, while nothing stops the home invaders from having one. For me, it's all about having that choice. I appreciate your viewpoint, and thanks for your time.

    #67320
  46. Kevin Hoover

    Those are great points, and there is some overlap there with what Sid says in his reply to my reply, to which I don't plan to reply, which will be in next week's paper.

    #65177

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.