Wednesday, January 25, 2006

Completely Predictable WaPo Editorial

Boy with a father who "is a convicted felon with a long rap sheet" apparently accidentally shoots girl in Maryland after "bragg[ing] that he had access to guns," in the latest of "years of similar incidents and anguish and debate."

So what does the Washington Post think the answer is?

Does the Post advocate allowing an investigation by school officials? Allowing reporting to police and investigation by them? A stern talking to by school officials to both child and his parents?

Nope. None of these. What does the Post advocate as the answer?

You guessed it! More gun control, in the form of more "gun safety laws" and "stricter federal laws on access to handguns."

Color me surprised.

12 comments:

James E. Martin said...

GOD FORBID, Trigger locks for guns accessible by children, i sense the apocalypse coming.

James Young said...

Responsible gun owners don't have their guns accessible to children. This is a typical feel-good lefty proposal which would accomplish nothing but government intrusion.

Virginia Centrist said...

To hell with gun control.

And as for trigger locks...there is no reason for them to be mandatory...if someone wants to buy a gun with a trigger lock, they can do so.

If someone wants to buy a gun without an ugly trigger lock, they're also free to do so. They're also free to buy a padlock to keep it away from their kids.

Should a person be dumb enough to leave a loaded gun lying around, then the world may find itself with one less child of a dumb person.

Incentives!

James Young said...

That's very touching, VC: dismiss rational arguments against "ugly" trigger locks with the suggestion that the only reason that opponents have to oppose them is aesthetic.

Sad, but true: those are sometimes the consequences, though one has to hope that, rather than an innocent, it's Darwin at work. But we don't administer intelligence tests before we allow people to exercise their constitutional rights, and you seem to forget that gun ownership IS a constitutional right.

Maybe we should. Then we could avoid willis' rants. 'Course, then we might do so with voting.... wait, that's a good idea, too. Let's purge all the sheeple.

'Course, maybe we should require locks for all manner of dangerous items. "Blade locks" for knives. "Blunt instrument" locks for ... well, blunt instruments. Mandatory child safety caps for all medicines and cleaning products.

James Young said...

Thanks a lot, willis. Just when I get a good shot in, you go and say something sane. Go figure!

Willis said...

I agree with fpm Young here.

Gilman Chatsworth said...

Tell me again what the purpose of guns is, vs. knives and hammers (covering blades and blunt objects.)

Oh yes... it's to kill and to injure. Shouldn't someone who wants to kill have to decide beforehand whether to pull the trigger?

As for, as you say, "blade locks", they're called sheaths. "Blunt instrument locks", as you put it, serve -0- purpose since they damage by force of contact, not by piercing. In both cases, the primary purpose of the household versions is not to injure or kill, as it is with a gun.

Anonymous said...

I agree completely that "responsible gunowers don't allow their guns to be accessible to children." The problem in these tragedies, however, is irresponsible gunowners.

James Young said...

Yes, Gilman, you're exactly right. And the primary purpose of the Second Amendment is to protect the people's right of revolution against oppressive government. Tell me again how goverment should be permitted to regulate the instruments by which it might be overthrown?

If the Second Amendment were given the same regard as the First, individuals could own machine guns, howitzers, nuclear weapons, and nuclear delivery systems.

James E. Martin said...

The 2nd amendment says "a well regulated militia" referring to state militias. Just like all of the other amendments in the Bill of Rights they are tied to historical events, in this case the British trying to seize the armories of the colonial militias. The amendment has nothing to do with an individual’s right to bear arms, so government can regulate personal arms to whatever extent they wish.

Virginia Centrist said...

Jim -

I wasn't being sarcastic. I was being serious. I don't like gun control.

James Young said...

NoVA Democrat, you're drinking too much Kool-Aid. By the same token, I suppose, you would limit the First Amendment's protection of "freedom of speech" to political speech, and the protection against an "establishment of religion" to state-sponsored churches ... but --- oops! --- Maryland had one when the Bill of Rights was passed, so you really can't get around it.

Gun-grabbers can't argue historical context, because the context was violent revolution. And is it a coincidence that gun-grabbers are also those who just LOVE bigger, more intrusive government?