The Gun Thing

Posted on 06/27/2008 at 4:55 pm by Bob Cesca

I agree with Eugene.

The practical benefits of effective gun control are obvious: If there are fewer guns, there are fewer shootings and fewer funerals. As everyone knows, in the District of Columbia — and in just about every city in the nation, big or small — there are far too many funerals. The handgun is the weapon of choice in keeping the U.S. homicide rate at a level that the rest of the civilized world finds incomprehensible and appalling.

I realize that the now-defunct D.C. law was unusually comprehensive and restrictive and thus, in the legal sense, offered a bull’s-eye for the pro-gun lobby. I also know that the law was easy to attack on grounds of efficacy: Given all the handgun killings in the city, was the ban really having any beneficial impact?

I’ve always found that gun control is more constitutional and more effective than gun bans. I also believe that it’s impossible to end or even curb gun violence when our elected leaders — our so-called role models — are too itchy for war, torture and the installation of lazers in space.

This entry was posted in Civil liberties and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.
  • ConstanceRifle

    Thom Hartmann was in Denmark the other day and was asking them if they have gun violence. The man couldn’t think of a single case in the 20 or so years he’d been alive.I can think of 12 in my City in the last month, and those are just the ones I know about.

  • jmrunning3

    I agree with you, Bob. I think the NRA purposely conflates “gun control” with “gun ban” for obvious reasons. I’ve never had a problem with guns for hunting or sporting. Even hobbyists that have a limited interest in the military stuff, I can live with. But did you see that piece on Countdown the other night about Oklahoma and their annual shoot-em-up? That’s near me, and I can assure most Okies love thie guns as much as that clip shows.I liked Cenk’s Huffpost piece on the 2nd Amendment. I find it frightening that conservatives will fight for the broadest interpretation on that amendment, yet others (the 1st, 4th, and 14th come quickly to mind) are inconveniences to be gutted or even ignored.

  • jmrunning3

    Sorry. Bad grammar: That’s near me, and I can assure ‘you’ most Okies love ‘their’ guns as much as that clip shows.

  • El Mystico

    But if everyone has a gun, there would be less muggings because when someone came up to you with their gun drawn, you could reach for yours, and then walk away feeling all badass.I mean, the muggers really were the ones pushing for the gun ban so they didn’t have any competition from normal God-fearing citizens.I know all this because I saw it in Mallard Fillmore…man, that Mallard sure knows how to stick it to those llllllousy democrats! He’s right of course. They couldn’t just mug you if you also had a gun. They’d probably have to shoot you and then take your things

  • bajasteve

    When I was living in Maryland, in the late 90′s, there was an article in the Washington Post that just broke my heart. It was the story of a young girl in the district (can’t remember her exact age – early teens, though). She had been killed as “collateral damage” in a drive-by. When her family went through her things, they found instructions she had written for her funeral; she even told them which dress she wanted to be buried in. She had written these instructions when she was 10 or 11 years old.It’s obscene that someone that age is even thinking these thoughts.