22 December 2012


I've read a couple of times since Glitterface Twinkleshine shot up Sandyhook people asking if our gun freedoms are worth the death of x number of children.

Yes.  Yes it is.  It's the cost of the freedom in our nearly broken society.

And we have the capacity to bear such costs because we already are bearing those costs without comment.

We are free to own and operate motor vehicles.  Yet when an accident kills a child, or several, we do not hear months of hue and cry to ban assault cars that can transport more than two children.

We are free to own swimming pools and hot tubs.  Drowning kills more children than guns (if we're honest about the term "child").  Shall we ban water?

We bear the price in blood for cars and large containers of water.

Why not guns?

What's different about guns?

The "paranoid conspiracy" version is that banning pools and cars has no increased level of control over the citizens attached to it.  Ban guns and you may rule as you will without fear the citizens will murder you in your palace.

"Give redress to our grievances, Tyrant, or you shall die!  We have a portable spa!" just doesn't have the same, uh, edge.

Guns are weapons.  Pools and cars aren't.  I guess that makes them scarier, but they are actually less deadly than water and vehicles.


You are a guest here when you comment. Be polite. Inappropriate comments will be deleted without mention. Amnesty period is expired.

Do not go off on a tangent, stay with the topic of the post.

If you're trying to comment anonymously: Sign your work.

Anonymous comments must pass a higher bar than others.

If you can't comprehend this, don't comment; because I'm going to moderate and mock you for wasting your time.