I pride myself on trying VERY hard to be fair to all parties involved, and taking everyone's point of view into account when I formulate my thoughts. The above linked article by Alex Pareene, on the other hand, has my jimmies righteously in a twist. "Time to ban guns" he says. The problem is, I think he missed a couple of intellectual stops along the route he travelled to arrive at his conclusion.
Firstly, gun violence is hardly an epidemic. FBI statistics have firmly pounded home the point that when one separates gun deaths which occur concurrent with the illegal drug trade and suicides from the bulk statistic, you have a better chance of dying from being obese than you do from a gunshot. Rifles, in particular so called "assault weapons" account for an even SMALLER number of these deaths, the majority are attributed to handguns. NRA members and bearers of concealed carry permits are virtually NEVER found to be the subject of mass shootings, despite how much time the media and anti gunners spend gnashing their teeth at that group of people.
So then, Alex, WHY is it time to disarm? Because someone committed a mass shooting? Did we demand everyone park their cars or submit to more stringent background checks or restricted capacity fuel tanks when a madman ran people over on a New York street with a Uhaul truck? Did we ban pressure cookers after the Boston Marathon bombing? I hate to keep using the same analogies over and over again, but you and your kind really should exercise some intellectual honesty when you make broad, sweeping statements that impact the lives of MILLIONS of gun owners nationwide. Your stated reason is insufficient to curtail a constitutionally protected right. Pound sand or come up with a better argument.
Now, on the other hand, let me take a stab at your real motivation. I have always held that the majority IF NOT ALL anti gunners really don't have an issue with guns. You fundamentally can't, because you aren't screaming for the government to be disarmed. You don't seem to have the numbers to call for the police to be disarmed. If you have your way and a nationwide gun ban were to be passed, who is going to implement it? You? No, you'll expect the state and the police to enforce that on your behalf. No, you aren't anti gun, you just don't like ME having guns.
And that's where you and I will never see eye to eye, and where my civility and my calm fades dramatically. I have no intention of being disarmed: not by the state, not by police, not by the UN, and certainly not by you. What you are purporting would cause an immediate unravelling of this country, because for every one of you there is one of me. For every one person throwing a tantrum about how we have to melt our guns down the for good of everyone, there is a person like me yelling "Hold on a damned second, I didn't shoot anyone, why do I have to be punished." There is a person like me that respects the ideals of our Constitution, that would defend your right to speak your piece EVEN as you call for my rights to be taken from me.
At the end of the day, I'm at least thankful the toddlers' tantrum is finally being revealed for what it is. You have no interest in reasonable restrictions, or safety, or the general welfare of the public. You'd happily plunge this country into civil war if that was the end result of a gun ban, and probably sit back quietly while millions of people lost their lives. That is why I will continue to speak out against your proposed gun ban, because the lives saved by my firearms grossly outweigh the lives lost, because my firearms have never harmed a person, and two people in this house depend on me and those firearms for their protection. I, as an advocate of the 2nd Amendment, am perfectly happy to allow you NOT to own guns and to live in peace because I am a reasonable person that believes in your rights. All I ask is that you respect mine in kind. - Phil Rabalais