Archive for September, 2007

Something to Make You Feel Better About Yourself

September 14, 2007

If ever your sense of self-esteem is deflated, if you’re feeling down on yourself, just think, it could be worse. Much worse. You could be this guy:

And leave it up to the coastal leftist asshats at MSNBC to give this guy an air of credibility by actually giving him an interview:

And while it’s easy to dismiss Chris’s videos as attention-seeking schtick, he’s more like a young Candy Darling, sensitive and dramatic, with the Internet as his Andy Warhol.

Uh, ok, folks, whatever. I don’t know if I’d dismiss it as attention-seeking schtick, so much as point and laugh and show all my friends and ask them, “can you believe this shit? How pathetic!” It’s really comforting to know while this Chris Crocker kid cries himself to sleep tomorrow night over someone he doesn’t even know, I’ll be rocking out with Cross Canadian Ragweed in Lake Charles.
As for Britney’s “person” status? Well, sure she’s a human; I don’t think anyone ever really denied that. But, well, mother or not, when you pull stunts like she has, topped off by her “performance” on the Video Music Awards, well, quite simply, you DESERVE to be pointed and laughed at. And, well, so does this guy, for the video and spouting such inanities as “Britney’s a national treasure.” (Yes, if you click the link, you’ll see it — and a drop-dead hilarious spoof!)
I don’t hate Chris Crocker, and neither do I care about his sexuality. But, once again, seeing things like this, all I can say is, to quote the great Bugs Bunny, “What a maroon…”
(h/t Ambulance Driver)

Still In One Piece…

September 13, 2007

…and as it is, the only casualty around here is the power. So I can’t stay long, but I am doing fine. With luck I’ll be back up and running by tonight or tomorrow….
UPDATE, 7:55 p.m.: Power’s back on, everything’s just as it was last night when I went to bed, and I am pretty sure the same can be said for many other Southeast Texas residents. Humberto was but a glancing blow compared to Rita, a mild inconvenience — I had to go to work with the five o’ clock shadow because I couldn’t run my electric razor — and for that I am thankful. I did wake up about 3:30 this morning by the sounds of howling winds and my surge protector beeping, indicating the power was out, and I jumped on the Web, where I found out Humberto was a Cat 1 hurricane. Scary stuff indeed, but I am sure it could have been worse. Let’s hope this is the worst we get this season, and for a while.

Respect mah authori-tah, ’cause I am an ONLY ONE!

September 12, 2007

“respect mah authori-tah, or I will SHOW you what a cop does!
And to think, some actually think cretins like that are the only people should carry guns. Call me crazy, but I think that’s a perfect recipe for societal breakdown.

What, Exactly, Are They Worried About?

September 10, 2007

I’m gonna try to be diplomatic here and say, I really expected better from Texas peace officers than this:

Sgt. Dean Shows oversees the Beaumont shooting range. He’s concerned about a new law that allows un-licensed citizens to carry concealed weapons inside their cars.
“Pistol out of his glove compartment one night on Eastex. He was going for his insurance. First thing he came out with was a pistol,” said Shows.
Shows remembers a traffic stop one night where he could have lost his life.
“My partner on the other side yelled gun. He didn’t have a shot. I just reached in. Got some hair. He dropped it,” he said.
The new law permits anyone who’s allowed to own a gun to carry it inside their car, and it has to be hidden from sight.
“I don’t like it for that reason. It’s going to be many guns in the wrong hands. Not saying the gun owner is the wrong person. The guy that steals it is the wrong person,” said Shows.
While some argue they have the right to protect themselves against bad guys, Sgt. Shows says you can’t protect people from themselves.
“Granted it might save your life. It might take your life if somebody else has got it when you come back to your car,” he said.
There are restrictions built into the law.
Convicted felons, gang members, those under court order or those with a history of family violence are not allowed to own firearms or carry them inside a vehicle.

I suppose he might have a point, but for the fact that most gun owners, I would wager, secure their weapons better than that. Somebody might break into the car, but I for one just don’t see that as a valid reason to say someone can’t carry a gun when they’re traveling. If we’re going to say a person can’t do something based on what someone else might do, we may as well ban gun ownership entirely because somebody might break into your house and steal all your guns. I understand the LEOs’ apprehension, but honestly they probably should have had their guard up before every traffic stop anyway because your gangbangers and such are going to be carrying their illegally obtained weapons anyway, no matter what the law says.
As for the sucker who had his pistol in the same general area as his insurance card, well, why should I or anyone else be prohibited from having weapons in our vehicles because of his stupidity? We’re not all so absent-minded; as a matter of fact I’d wager most of us are a fat lot more careful than that. I know I sure as hell would be. Gov. Perry, for all his flaws, made the right call here. I’d like to have seen some of the boys in blue actually back him up on it. I know they’re out there.
(h/t Fits)

Just for the Sake of Posterity

September 8, 2007

The Culturologist who loves his daughter — but apparently not enough to teach her that guns are things to be respected and enjoyed instead of hated and feared — had this to say regarding the fate of Jeffery Albrecht, who was shot and killed as he was breaking down the door of a Dallas home:

What the hell is wrong with Texans? And how do we make sure it doesn’t spread elsewhere in the country?

My comment:

For some strange reason, I was reminded of a classic exchange in the talk.politics.guns newsgroup that occurred some years ago, via Kevin Baker at The Smallest Minority.
“Why don’t all of you gun-nuts go off and start your own country?”
“We did. Who let you in?”

And then, I really couldn’t have said it better than Texas troubadour Brian Burns did some years ago:
We don’t need your politics, we don’t need your prayers,
and we don’t need your moral compass leadin’ us anywhere.
We don’t need your business, we don’t need your art,
And we don’t really give a damn how you did things up north.

So you can save your self-righteous indignation. Or keep on spewing it. As a proud gun-owning Texan I don’t give a damn either way.

I doubt it’ll show up. We’ll see. Should be quite fun to see how he responds.

A Small Measure of Justice?

September 8, 2007

It seems the two Oklahoma police officers who earlier this summer killed a 5-year-old boy fishing with his grandfather are going to face criminal charges for their criminal negligence…

Cleveland County’s top prosecutor has decided to prosecute two Noble officers involved in the shooting death of a 5-year-old boy.
A Noble officer fired his gun at a snake more than a month ago, and the bullet ricocheted and hit 5-year-old Austin Haley in the head.
Cleveland County District Attorney Greg Mashburn explained on Friday that he took no pleasure in filing a pair of second-degree manslaughter charges against the officers, identified as Brad Rogers and Shawn Richardson.They could face up to four years in prison if convicted of the felony charge.However, he said that the officers failed to take reasonable care by firing shots in an open area at a non-poisonous snake. According to police reports, the officers responded on Aug. 3 to a report of a snake in a birdhouse.Jack Tracy said he was fishing with Austin that night when he saw the first shot hit the water near where they were standing. As he pulled his grandson to his side, he said, a second shot hit the boy in the head.

It won’t bring little Austin back, and it won’t erase the horrendous memory of his death from his grandfather’s mind — but if the officers involved can be made an example of what not to do, if firearm safety ends up being better taught because of it, then perhaps some small good can come of it. It does lead one to think of several things, though…
There are those, of course, who think that guns are a disease on American culture and that they should be banned for the good of society — except, presumably, for the police and military. But when you (attempt to) take guns out of society, to a greater extent you’re going to have people who are unfamiliar with them and afraid of them. And that would make it that much more difficult to train people in the proper use of their weapons — which, in turn would lead to more situations like this. It makes me wonder how people like the Culturologist with the mail-order degree can say that only the police and the military should have guns. And then, of course, there’s Lee Paige, the Only One Professional Enough To Handle that Glock Fotay, and more recently James Gustafson Jr., the San Francisco cop who mainlined a bullet into his neck vein as he was showing off his gun to a girl at a party. It makes one wonder…what are those people thinking?

Friday Morning Political Musings

September 7, 2007

Once again, the inimitable Rachel Lucas nails it (emphasis mine — ed.):

Rudy Giuliani sure is proud of what he did in NYC, which is fine, but dude, NYC isn’t the USA. Plus, he made no sense. He “had” to welcome the illegals because it was the only way to prevent crime against the rest of us? Or something like that? I liked what he said about focusing on criminals instead of guns themselves to reduce shootings by 75%, but I don’t think he gets the fact that again, NYC is not the whole country, and most of us gun owners couldn’t give two shits that a gun ban in NYC might possibly have helped reduce crime there – first of all, I don’t believe in the correlation and second of all, most places where people have a lot of guns aren’t overrun by illegals and gang members. It always confounds me that these big city wankers on the coasts seem to have no clue about the entire middle part of the country.

Yeah, Rachel, me too, even while it does make perfect sense that the coastal leftists in both parties have no clue — after all, they don’t call it “flyover country” for nothing. What confounds me more, though, is that so many people seem to think that Giuliani is the great hope for the GOP in 2008. I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: if it were not for 9/11, everyone who’s trumpeting Giuliani as the savior of the Republican Party would see him as the authoritarian fascist he is. As for this supposed focus on criminals and not on guns…if that were really the case, then he wouldn’t have gotten in line with certain other mayors in the ’90s to file frivolous suits against various gun manufacturers. If that really were the case, he would not have supported the so-called Assault Weapons Ban, licensing and registration for gun owners, or any other infringements of the right of the people to keep and bear arms — including the odious Sullivan Laws in his own city. Giuliani talks a good game like any semi-decent politician — and I mean semi-decent at the game of politics — but his record utterly betrays him. We all would be wise to see through that.
In other news, of course, Fred Dalton Thompson has finally manned up and officially declared his run for president. Here’s his 15-minute video announcement.

Like I say, it’s 15 minutes long, but well worth your time. Thompson has his flaws, most notably his support of the McCain-Feingold “campaign finance reform” act, but overall I honestly believe he’s the best man for taking on whoever the Democrats end up nominating. And here’s something I think is pretty funny — if you go here, and scroll through the comments, you’ll see people questioning Fred’s conservative bona-fides by citing his support for McCain-Feingold, but little to no calling out Giuliani or Romney for their support of gun control or pandering to hunters a la John Kerry. Bit of a double standard there, don’t you think?
I wouldn’t mind at all seeing a Thompson/Hunter or Thompson/Tancredo ticket before it’s all said and done. Thompson/Giuliani or Thompson/Romney, not so much. Somehow I think Thompson and his people have a better reading on the conservative base than that, though. Go, Fred, go.

D.C. Mayor Defends The Indefensible…

September 6, 2007

…and uses some absolutely atrocious arguments, to boot…

The last time the Supreme Court directly addressed the provision — which reads, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed” — was in 1939, in a case called United States v. Miller. The court said that the Second Amendment’s “obvious purpose” is to ensure the effectiveness and continuation of state military forces (the militia mentioned in the amendment), not to provide a private right to own weapons for one’s own purposes.

Actually, as I recall it did no such thing; it merely said a sawed-off shotgun was not an appropriate weapon for the Founders’ well-regulated militia — and it further went back to the definition of the militia as “all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline” (more here), NOT the National Guard.

For decades, the lower courts followed that pronouncement. They repeatedly rejected claims that the Second Amendment provides a defense against laws regulating gun possession and use that have no connection with service in a state militia. Although gun proponents vigorously insisted that the Second Amendment protects their right to possess and use guns for private purposes, the courts recognized that their view lacks support in its language and history.

…except, of course, the Founders’ views as established repeatedly in their pre-Constitution writings…

…it makes perfect sense to ask that residents who want firearms at home choose something other than handguns.

Except, of course, the District doesn’t merely ask that, it mandates it by force of blatantly unconstitutional law…

The more handguns a jurisdiction has, the more people die in homicides.

…once again, as is the gun-banners’ wont, NO EVIDENCE to support this…

The handgun ban has saved countless lives

…once again, NO EVIDENCE (are you seeing a pattern here?!), in fact, there’s a truckload of evidence to the contrary, one piece of which is D.C.’s on-again-off-again title as Murder Capital of the United States…

It is plainly relevant that the District allows residents to possess other perfectly effective firearms, especially given how much more death and misery handguns have caused than those other firearms.

It’s also plainly relevant, Mr. Fenty, that the District requires the firearms you allow them to possess to be in such a state that they’re about as effective as a butter knife against the criminals breaking down your subjects’ doors. And the fact that you fail to mention this is but one thing that makes you painfully unfit for public office.
Lord, but I am glad I live in Texas. If that kind of talk was ever made by a public official here, they’d likely be ridden out of town on a rail, tarred and feathered, and maybe even hung by the neck until dead pour encourager les autres.
Well, maybe that’s a bit of an exaggeration, but I can guarantee you more than a few would be thinking it to be the perfect solution…

(via Nicki, Bitter makes a great point too…)

More Anti Media Mendacity

September 6, 2007

Welcome, visitors from A Keyboard And A .45 and SayUncle!

Via JR over at A Keyboard And A .45 comes yet more evidence that the folks in the mainstream media must think gun people are blithering idiots:

Two years ago, Florida enacted a law that allows anyone who feels threatened anywhere to use deadly force. Today the National Rifle Association (NRA) is shepherding similar laws through legislatures across the country.

Uh, no, Ms. Graves, that law did no such thing; it merely codified into the law that you don’t have to take the seldom-prudent option of running away before using such force. If you’re gonna tell people about the law, at least be accurate about it. I realize that’s a lot to ask for many mainstream journalists when it comes to any gun-related issue, but your credibility demands no less. I see you’re all too willing to flush that.

Paradoxically, the NRA’s Goliath status forces the group to work harder to make people believe that it has potent enemies – a challenge to which it has risen. The cover of one issue of America’s 1st Freedom, one of the NRA’s several magazines, threatened that the United Nations will seize Americans’ guns, an idea that is laughably implausible. The NRA also exaggerates the impact of other stock enemies, including the Brady Campaign itself, the French, and New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who is trying single-handedly to curb the flow of illegal guns into his city.

After hurricane Katrina, officials tried to ban guns from the streets of New Orleans and from temporary housing for refugees. The NRA halted the efforts in federal court. Wayne LaPierre, the NRA’s chief executive officer, painted the attempts to check violence as proof that the US government would take away its citizens’ guns.

Whoa…so much inaccuracy and misinformation packed into two paragraphs that, once again, I don’t know where to begin!
Gun owners don’t need any help whatsoever from the NRA to believe we have some very potent enemies, from these shores and others as well. From Joe Biden’s deriding AR-15 owners as mentally unstable morons to Rebecca Peters’ contention that we shouldn’t be able to own rifles that can hit anything more than 110 yards away, most of us gun owners — indeed, all but very few of us — know good and well that there are people out there who will stop at nothing to see us all disarmed (and once again, no evidence is offered of the “laughable implausibility” of UN disarmament of Americans), no matter what supposedly good intentions they try to wrap their proposals in.
As for the New Orleans situation — checking violence seems to be an incredibly thin reed to hang your argument on, considering people were being disarmed who were doing nothing but trying to protect their property from looters and such. And then there’s the fact that members of the police and the National Guard joined said lawlessness. I seem to recall New Orleans police being caught on tape looting one of the local Walmarts. It wasn’t an attempt to check violence; it was a brazen violation of the Second, Fourth and Fifth Amendments to the United States Constitution. And it’s a beyond-shameful commentary on the Christian Science Monitor that they would let one of their employees pass off such an outrageous untruth to their audience.

Certainly, most Americans would say that the shootings at Virginia Tech should never, ever be forgotten either. But somehow, though school shootings continue, though an average of 32 homicides are committed with guns in the United States each day, though dozens of suspected terrorists are known to have passed background checks to legally purchase guns, the gun-control side cannot gain traction.

And of course we all know it’s the guns’ fault, right (and, of course, that of the eeevil gun lobby)? Never mind the fact that the creature that shot those kids at Virginia Tech was a deranged lunatic who should have been locked up tighter than Dick’s hatband, never mind that none of his victims were able to shoot back, no, it’s all the gun lobby’s fault and those evil, evil hunks of metal and wood. I guess I should be trembling with fear right about now, as I glance back to where the Ruger .45 sits beside my bed…and I guess it’s just a good thing my Kimber 10mm is locked up, because the ammo I roll for it is pretty hot…there’s no telling what that thing would do if it weren’t locked up tight in that steel safe.
Once again, there are many factors behind the violence committed by thugs with or without guns, that go far beyond the supposed easy availability of weapons. (Which, by the way, is an anti argument I don’t quite understand. Have these morons ever tried to get a quality sidearm in a gun store? They’re not cheap, at least not if you want a quality weapon — even one of the Ruger P-Series pistols will run you at least $400 — and don’t even get me started on what I’ve paid for my 1911s…) Many factors are behind said violence, and until we get a handle on those, absolutely nothing is going to change. Why the media just focuses on the tool I will never understand. Granted, the tool is important to an extent — consider what Tim McVeigh did with a Ryder truck full of ammonium nitrate fertilizer and diesel fuel — but if that’s all we focus on, nothing is ever going to change. One would think someone supposedly so educated as a journalist would grasp that simple fact. But we’re not done with Ms. Graves yet:

What the two sides don’t acknowledge is that reasonable people can oppose civilian ownership of machine guns or .50-caliber rifles so powerful they must be shot using a tripod while still supporting hunting and owning guns for self-defense. Americans can support background checks on guns sold everywhere – not just by licensed dealers – without putting gun companies out of business. The United States can require registration of guns and proficiency tests for gun owners, just as we do with cars, without making it impossible, or even difficult, for law-abiding citizens to buy guns.

Ah, yes, the old “reasonable people/middle ground” canard. I’m sorry to disappoint you, Ms. Graves, but I don’t see the first thing wrong with .50-caliber rifles or fully automatic weapons, as it can and should be argued that both of those weapons are exactly what the Founding Founding Fathers intended the common citizen to have as a check on a tyrannical government. Once again, it’s not pretty or romantic, but it’s the truth — which is exactly what you should be trying to present instead of so much emotion-driven rhetorical bullshit. And I would argue that you absolutely cannot support registration of guns without supporting their ultimate confiscation, because what registration does is make it that much easier for those who would take our tools of liberty from us — without any sort of attendant crime prevention benefit. Not that said benefit would actually justify registration, as it would be another case of the cure being worse than the disease, I think — but of course we see all too many journalists think of guns as some sort of disease anyway. As for the other side supporting guns for self-defense — well, it should be obvious to anyone who’s actually been paying attention that the other side by and large doesn’t support the private citizen using guns even for self-defense. I recall very clearly in November 2005, after Arlington grandmother Susan Buxton made national headlines for being recorded on tape shooting an intruder in her home, Michael Beard of the Coalition To Stop Gun Violence went on Hannity and Colmes and said, “The privatization of public safety is a dangerous issue in our society. And I’ve always seen that as the beginning of the loss of liberty.” Which is really weird, because I always thought self-reliance was an integral part of liberty, as opposed to, well, depending on the police to pull your chestnuts out of the fire.
And, of course, there’s the concluding restatement of the previously dissected canard:

The name-calling and breath-holding have made us all forget that a middle ground is possible.

It’s not that all of us have forgotten it; it’s that some of us were keen enough from the start to realize that there is no middle ground. Mark my words — the antis won’t stop at registration, banning and confiscation of handguns, AR-15s or .50BMG rifles. Nothing, absolutely nothing they’ve gotten so far has been good enough to get them to leave us alone, from the outright ban of all guns in Washington, D.C. and Chicago, to the Scary-Looking Weapons Ban in New Jersey, to the .50BMG ban in California, to the background checks conducted nationwide as per the Brady Bill. Nothing has been good enough for them. They’re not going to stop. And as long as they don’t, neither will we. At least we certainly had better not, if we treasure our liberties.

Another Judgment Of Our Culture

September 4, 2007

…by a supposed “man of God,” no less! (Welcome, visitors from SayUncle! Main page is here, pull up a seat and stay a while!) On to the fiskage…

THERE is no other way to say it, our current gun culture is leading the country down a path to mayhem.

How odd. I’ve been immersed in this “gun culture” for a good while now and have had nothing but good experiences in my interaction with the members of said culture, all of whom are fine, upstanding citizens who make an honest living at whatever career they choose. I don’t understand how the simple ownership of a Glock 19 or AR-15 makes them part of a culture that’s “leading our country down a path to mayhem.” I mean, if you ran into them on the street they’d appear to be just like anyone else. Carrying a gun or owning one doesn’t make them any different from any other John or Jane Doe, other than the fact that they’ve made the choice to be able to protect themselves or their fellow man if evil came calling.

According to the Small Arms Survey 2007 by the Graduate Institute of International Studies, U.S. citizens own 270 million of the world’s 875 million known firearms — that translates to roughly 90 guns for every 100 Americans. Moreover, the survey estimates that 4.5 million of the 8 million new guns manufactured worldwide each year are purchased in the United States.
Does it make me a tree-hugging, overbearing, politically correct, socialist, anti-American liberal because I find these statistics problematic?

“Not necessarily, but the fact that you seem to make me and my fellow gun owners responsible for all the crime committed with guns in this country in the opening words of your screed makes you a judgmental asshole.”

Since our country no longer possesses a well-regulated militia, I am not certain of the right of the people to keep assault weapons. Why does suspended NFL defensive tackle Tank Johnson, who weighs more than 300 pounds, stock his home with AR-15 and .223 caliber assault rifles, .44 Magnum, .50 caliber, and .45 caliber handguns, and a .308 Winchester hunting rifle? Protection?

Well, first off, one would think this supposed “man of God” would be at least somewhat educated on the concept of God-given rights, foremost of which is the right to life and a natural extension of which is the right to defend said life by any means he can manage or afford, no matter how much he weighs. As for that well-regulated militia in the Second Amendment, stand by.

For all of the discussion about law-abiding citizens’ rights, should one surmise that nothing can be done to keep guns away from those who are committing crimes? Is this merely a flaw in our Constitution?

Lock them up and melt the key. It’s not a flaw in the Constitution, but a flaw in the American justice system and its priorities, i.e. the War On Some Drugs and its millions of casualties.

I would love to hear from an assault weapons owner. Explain why you need this weapon. What is the purpose? Short of preparing venison pate, why would a sportsman need such a gun?

I am not an “assault weapons owner,” but I’ll answer the question anyway, and leave the good pastor’s woeful ignorance of ballistics alone. Now, about the Second Amendment, which basically goes to why we need such a gun — I am reminded of a quote I saw on The High Road not long ago, that went something like, Shooting a deer is great fun and games. The Second Amendment is about protecting our grandchildren’s ability to shoot the next Hitler when he comes to take them to a death camp.” Once again, it’s not pretty, it’s not romantic, but it really is the cold hard truth. One would think a man of God would welcome the truth, or at least accept it, as opposed to talk out of his fourth point of contact about things he obviously has no knowledge of.
Speaking of talking out of the fourth point of contact, get a load of this:

The problem lies in our permissive gun culture that, in part through effective lobbying by the National Rifle Association, has not only repealed certain laws, but also extended others, such as carrying concealed weapons in certain states, making it easier for guns to fall into the wrong hands.

I don’t understand how making it easier for a law-abiding citizen carrying a gun makes it easier for a criminal to get his hands on one, unless of course we go back to the old long-discredited canard about the criminal taking the gun and using it against the defender in a defensive encounter. And then it would make sense that this character would say something like that, as he seems to have drunk the entire pitcher of HCI Kool-Aid.

Perhaps there are those who do indeed want to take away everyone’s guns, but I suspect they represent a small minority.

I don’t. I think most of them just don’t have the balls to come right out and say it. Maybe deep down they know what it would mean — an all-out shooting war that would make Iraq look like a day at the candy store — or maybe they’re just afraid of losing the shred of credibility they have left, but I for one don’t see any reason not to think that every last one of the anti-gunners has the same goal: the total abolition of all private firearms ownership in America.

It would be helpful if responsible gun owners led the charge so that the 90 guns for every 100 people were in the hands of law-abiding citizens. I know that’s somewhat utopian, but it is the least they could do if they are truly committed to the Second Amendment.

I loved what one of SayUncle’s readers said to that: “Well, we’re failing your desires then because we’re working on the 99.7 percent level – not your puny 90 percent level….We both know that 99.7 percent of the gun owners in America will never use their gun in a way to bring dishonor to either them, their family, or the gun. Instead of using the dishonorable one percent to guide your decisions and influence your ideas why not use the collective wisdom of the other 99%?”

And as I said on The High Road:
As for “permissive gun culture”…why not just “permissive culture,” period? There are myriad reasons for crime, not the least of which is kids being raised with no sense — or at best a rather distorted sense — of right and wrong, which leads to philosophies such as those best embodied by the “Stop Snitchin'” paraphernalia. And then, there’s another huge problem in the fact that our justice system is set up to let violent criminals walk free eventually in the first place — that somehow, if they can’t get their hands on a gun, they’ll be less dangerous to society. (And of course, we all know that keeping criminals from getting guns is more than a little bit of a fool’s errand.) But it seems to be so much easier to blame the guns. Which, coming from a supposed “man of God,” disappoints and greatly saddens me.