Today, Mr. Reasoned Discourse talks to us about reasonable gun laws.
First off, it’s interesting to note that while there are no comments on this particular entry, the comments limit has already been exceeded?
Ah. They’ve turned off the comments.
I wonder why?
But let’s get back to the post.
After quoting Sarah Brady on the “real story” behind the gun debate, Paul tells us:
Laws can help keep guns from falling into hands of dangerous people, and can punish those who use guns illegally.
Interestingly, at the Why We’ll Win site, Sarah notes the following:
Laws don’t force anybody to behave in a moral or responsible way; we have to trust human nature to do that for us. Laws don’t frighten hardened criminals any more than an armed victim does. In short, laws are for the exception, not the rule.
But laws can have one effect that will always reduce gun violence. When gun control laws are allowed to do their work, they focus on the buying and selling of guns, not merely on the guns themselves.
Wait a minute.
If laws don’t force a specific type of behavior, how would gun control laws work? In order for them to work, they (the gun control laws) would have to force someone to behave in a moral or responsible way, i.e., lead to the prevention of gun violence.
Or am I missing something here?
The Brady Bunch wants the public to believe, for some reason, that their approach to gun control will actually work:
Instead of locking people away after they shoot our neighbors, we should be trying to keep that shooting from happening in the first place.
That’s like saying “Herding cats is easy to do.”
And let’s not forget that part of their approach involves misdirection and PSH.