Congress has also failed to protect us from people who say, do, and believe things with which we disagree.
There is a very good reason for this, it's called natural rights that are recognized by the Bill of Rights.
He does have a point that if we carry a gun, it is because we are prepared to use it. However, he assumes that those who carry a gun are somehow under its influence and have no free will to use it for good.
Hartwell just has a long winded way of saying, "You can't make me change, so there!
"
He seems to believe that the magic power of a LEO's uniform is the only thing that counters the evil influence of a gun.
The magical thinking of those who are anti-gun (more like anti-gun for civilians), is striking. Most of them, in my experience, are the kind of "liberal" who claim to want evidence for everything, but this idea that a gun is inherently bad has a strong hold on them. How to convince them that guns don't have magical powers eludes me. Their minds are made up, don't confuse them with facts; especially facts that counter their point of view.
Since so many anti-gunners think that a gun makes people use them for evil, why aren't more of them being locked up for delusions? Obviously, if they get their hands on a gun, they will be a danger to themselves and others. Isn't that what they are saying?
Pro Gun: Follow the 4 safety rules. Anti Gun: Guns are bad/evil and make people do bad things.
How much of the anti-gun argument can be offset by the gun safety rules?
An emphasis on gun safety would go a long way for accidents and such. Why aren't their public service announcements for gun safety that employ the 4 rules?
