Maggie's Farm

What Tom said is right. The real problem is the assumed safety which they currently have is possible to have "made eternal". When disruption in their lives occur, they feel "something must be done", and often point fingers at the wrong things, things that are easy to point at.

My view, and one I haven't heard anywhere but probably should be said, is "if more guns mean more gun crime, then why are shooting ranges never the place where gun crime takes place?"

Seriously. My wife's response is "should we turn the world into a shooting range?"

Obviously, the answer is not as simple as that, nor is the real world.

But there are significant limitations on the impact of any kinds of restrictions to gun ownership - and people don't realize it. My wife feels that my argument on the dangers of the 'slippery slope' (take away assault weapons purchase, then when crime doesn't go down, take away more until crime is eliminated) is illogical, even though it is backed up with historical precedent.

Another person challenged me recently when I said I fear having my rights taken more than I fear the next massacre. She responded then would I be willing to keep my rights if it meant having someone in my family killed. I replied that is not the discussion, and any answer I gave to that would be specious.

However, I did say I accept the reasonably minimal risk of the next massacre in order to keep my rights, even if it means my family is in that massacre - simply because it is so unlikely. Similarly, I accept the right to cross streets in the city or drive a car even though there is a higher likelihood of being hit by another car. I accept the right to fly in a plane even though there is a risk of being in a major airline accident. I accept the risk of free speech and oppose banning books even though spreading dangerous ideas has helped kill more people than guns.

We fail, in the wake of a tragedy, to separate the tools used in the tragedy from the people who used those tools.

A carpenter who builds a house using nothing but a wrench - hammering in nails with this wrench - would be labeled a 'bad carpenter'. Clearly he isn't a good one. But would you say it was a bad wrench and make a law prohibiting construction with wrenches? It is easy to separate the tool from the person in a situation like this, and it's easy to separate the tool from the person in a car, or a plane. But with guns, the comfy-cozy people of the far left (and some on the right) fail to recognize there is a differentiation.

I'm reminded of the excellent movie "Witness", in which the Amish grandfather is explaining to his grandson what a handgun is - simply a tool for taking life. Well, it's not that easy or simple, but Hollywood sure thinks it is. What's really ironic is I'm willing to bet the writers of that movie all carry guns or had a bodyguard who did. I don't know this for sure, but I've spent enough time out there on business to know many all have their own weapons.