HuffPo’s anti-gun “gun guy” speculated Wednesday that confiscating guns would have little effect on the rates of suicide, accidents and crime … but blamed guns anyway.
In summation, Mike Weisser wrote, “More than 30,000 people die and another 70,000-plus are injured each year because Americans have free access to something they really don’t need … It comes down to a moral imperative which says that we should not sanction the use of violence in the ordinary course of human affairs—neither violence towards ourselves or towards anyone else.”
This is strange reasoning from a self-described “gun nut” who professes to own more firearms than he can count. If banning guns wouldn’t make a difference, how can he blame them? Does he equate lawful self-defense with suicide and murder? Just who does he think is “sanctioning” violence? If banning guns is a good idea, why does he own so many?
Isn’t it more likely that this is the kind of thinking that separates those who truly seek answers from those who merely seek attention?
Most Popular
