(A comment on "Time For Less Gun Control")

Lee Botha: I don’t necessarily disagree with you, but certain artifacts as you call them sure make giving in to the temptations of the fleshly heart easier, guns being one of them. For instance, having a mobile phone with an Internet connection doesn’t compel a person to watch pornography, but it makes it a lot easier to give in to the temptation to do so. Making it harder to give in to temptation may not eradicate the temptation entirely, but it will severely restrict its means to do damage. Senseless violence is a fact of living in a fallen world, but to say that because of that trying to limit the damage one sinful human can do to others is pointless doesn’t make sense. Gun control won’t erase the whole problem, but it will limit the damage of that problem. It’s the same reason governments generally try to limit to availability of things that make bombs. People are always going to want to make bombs, but again, that’s not a good enough reason to not try to stop them. More than fifty folks lost their lives in Vegans because one man couldn’t control himself. Hoping for self-control just doesn’t cut it. Laws are needed. Assault rifles aren’t.

OldManMontgomery: Yes, you disagree with me. And you completely miss the point of the essay. Your second to last sentence reads “Law are needed”. The state of Nevada already has laws against murder. The city of Las Vegas, no doubt already has laws against discharging a firearm within the city limits. All the hotels in Las Vegas have policies forbidding firearms in residence rooms. So, the murdering of all those people was already taken care of by law. Passing another law will fix everything? Just like it’s done in Europe? Just like it’s done in Chicago? Just like Washington, D. C.?
Mr. Botha, you aren’t paying attention here.
Your last sentence reads “Assault rifles aren’t” [needed, I presume]. By what authority do you make such a statement? Are you assuming some total knowledge and wisdom superseding all others? Your statement is over-reaching to be polite.
Let me ask the question or state the matter differently. Who told you “assault rifles aren’t needed”? What all wise authority gave you such information? By the way, do you know the characteristics of an ‘assault rifle’? I doubt seriously if you do. Allow me to educate you: After all the talk about ‘machine guns’, ‘assault rifles’ and so forth, all the proposed laws concerning ‘gun control’ do not distinguish much. Typically, all firearms of any type, caliber, style or make are either totally banned or restricted past silliness. Washington, D. C. for instance will arrest and prosecute a person with an empty, fired case (from a single round of ammunition). Tell you what. Give up your automobile and demand all your faction demanding gun control give up theirs to cut down on traffic deaths and DUI violations. Then tell me about how ‘gun control’ works.