In response to this New Yorker piece....
So a staff scribbler with the dependably predictable anti-gun prejudice tosses off an opinion piece chock full of the same nutty emotive code words and factually incorrect statements, all the while ignoring significantly inconvenient elements of the story that mess with his conclusions.
Paraphrasing Dean Wormer ("Animal House" for the youngsters): Myopic, uninformed and proud of it is no way to go through life, son.
Owning a gun - or 5 dozen guns -
is irrelevant and immaterial inasmuch as gun ownership is not predictive of violent action involving same. Jay Leno owns upwards of 130 cars. When might we expect a hit piece on Jay for contributing to all forms of Vehicular Homicide? Drunk Driving? Or inspiration for the young-brains-to-violent-cream-cheese video game "Grand Theft Auto, I thru V"?
"In a different country, a winning argument could be made that the threat of homegrown terrorism is another powerful reason for restricting the sale and circulation of deadly firearms." Seriously? What country could that be? Grand Fenwick? Try peddling that hypothesis today in Paris where precisely such prohibitions worked so well a few weeks ago. The entire city is a gun-free zone - except for terrorists and other socially objectionable types. Capturing/killing the Bad Guys may serve Lady Justice (who at least has a sword) but for surviving relatives, the dead remain dead thanks to the government's self-serving fear of individual freedom.
"Far from regarding strict regulation as a potential solution to a serious problem, many gun owners regard it as a potential threat to their own liberty and safety." Yes, how utterly moronic of them! If they just possessed the sophisticated urbanite wisdom of New Yorker staff writers! Actually, the wisdom of those "many gun owners" loiters in the factual and statistical reality that 92% of the "mass killings" in America have taken place where gun bans exist: gun free zones (CPRC). The dead and wounded victims at the schools, theaters and Christm...- oops! - "holiday parties" on "gun free" premises complied with the law (willingly or not) and disarmed themselves into a target-rich environment for loons and radicals to harvest them. Even off-duty police are required to disarm themselves in such venues. It would appear the natural right of self-defense is both foreign and objectionable to the author.
Trotting out the old and legally inoperative "expanded background checks" and the worthless "assault weapons ban" (which failed to reduce any measure of "gun crime" during its existence) merely wins the author the scurrilous Brady Anti-Gun Bunch merit badge for resurrecting two feckless recommendations.