The Truth About Guns highlighted the essay of a Massachusetts high school student entitled Problem with the 2nd Amendment. Robert said he wouldn't tear the kid apart, which he kindly refrained from doing, but it got me to thinking. What would he have taken issue with had he decided to critique the young man's writing instead of use it as a call to arms, if you will, for the gun community to win over misled and confused anti-gun folks?
For one thing, the young gun control aspirant, Adomas Grigonis, said, "all of the guns used in the Virginia Tech massacre were purchased legally." There's nothing wrong with that, surely. In fact he should get some points for not saying or implying that the gun show loophole allowed Cho to arm up.
He said, "According to firearms regulation in Canada the gun death rate per 100,000 people in America (13.47), is much higher than England (0.4) and hundreds of times higher than that of Japan (0.07)." Now, I'm sure no one would bother to challenge him on "According to firearms regulation in Canada." That ambiguous phrase introduces a few stats which, even taken with a grain of salt, are quite devastating. Does anyone really think the stabbings in Great Britain make up for that disparity?
Of course, even Robert couldn't resist throwing a little Heller/McDonald mojo at the boy. "[his position] completely ignores the Supreme Court’s recent ruling affirming Americans’ constitutional right to armed self-defense." That made me wonder what would have been said two years ago, or less. Is the idea that before the landmark Supreme Court rulings, gun control folks had a point about the 2nd amendment and now they don't?
There's more, but I have to say the parts Mr. Grigonis gets wrong are not that important. The part he gets right is.
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.