Following the mass murder in Tuscon, each side on the debate about gun control saw the event as proving its point, just like the response to previous shooting sprees. Second Amendment zealots say that the more people have guns, the better, since crazies and terrorists can be subdued more quickly by armed law-abiding citizens. Proponents of gun control, on the other hand, say that less guns are the answer - or more precisely, making it harder to obtain them.
I side with the second group, the gun control advocates. However, in places where gun laws are not restrictive enough, it would be better for more law-abiding citizens to have guns. I mean that in places like Arizona, where every crazy son of a bitch can get assault weapons, more normal people should have guns for self-defense. On the other hand, where it is difficult for the wrong people to get guns, the "right" people don't need them as much, anyway, because there are many less armed and dangerous people to worry about.
The Obama Doctrine, R.I.P.
2 weeks ago