To preempt the tide of angry comments and emails, let me clarify that, despite the ambiguity of the leading clause, I support Second Amendment rights. But one of the favorite arguments used by staunch advocates of the Second Amendment is some variant of the "we don't need more guns laws, we just need to enforce the current laws." Ya think? The recent undercover operation conducted by New York City blows a giant hole in the idea that we're enforcing the current laws.
Do you think his opinion is more valuable because he's not the typical gun control advocate? I do. But I couldn't help but notice, in our previous discussions not one of the pro-gun commenters took this position.
Mr. Schaller runs down the tactics utilized by Mayor Bloomberg's investigators, as well as the reaction by Tennessee, all of which we've read before. As a closing remark, though, he provides something interesting.
Of course, guns don't kill people, people kill people. Well, sure, but they're killing a lot more people in red states than blue states. Holding DC aside, the ten states with the lowest per-capital gun death rates all voted for Barack Obama, and seven of the ten high highest voted for John McCain.
I don't know if I've heard that way of looking at the stats before, by red states and blue states. It makes you think, doesn't it?
What's your opinion? Although we occasionally hear claims that all pro-gun folks are not Republican, it does seem that way. Why do you think that is? How rare are liberal gun owners? Do they perhaps make up a large segment of the gun-owning population, but are less vocal about it?
What do you think? Please leave a comment.