Wait, so everyone that wants to own a gun is a terrorist? Please, if you want to live in a nanny state I don't mind but don't act like it's any better.
Maybe that is partly the case. For the sake of argument lets say for a moment that it is at it's root a sociological problem. If you know you have this sociological problem where thousands of people are killed using guns on almost a monthly basis, why are you so insistent that these guns must be available to allow that to happen?
Why insist that this 'sociological problem' of mass killing be allowed to express itself using as powerful and efficient a means as possible? Are you really suggesting that if the guns went away, that all these thousands of people would all still be killed by machettes or axes or something instead? If other means of killing are just as efficient, why protect your home with a gun? Why not use a machette or an axe?
And while we're on this subject, what's with the ban on federally funded research into a problem that's leading to so many deaths? How is that anything other than red handed evidence of the gun lobby making it perfectly clear they're not interested in evidence, or rational debate, or honest discourse, or how many people die on a daily basis so that they can hold on to their favourite toys. Why not just say that the death toll in blood is to an acceptable price they are willing in full conscience to pay so that they can keep hold of their guns?
All I see is a pretence at debate. A paper thin fig leaf of argument. Hungerford in 1987, therefore British gun laws have no effect on rates of gun violence. No gun shops in Chicago, therefore banning gun sales nationally can have no effect rates of gun ownership or violence. Maybe it's a sociological problem - oh, well that's all right then. Lets just wash our hands of the whole problem and think about something else. Until the next horrific mass shooting. Meanwhile the body count nationally is quietly rising day, by day, by day.
