Less Guns? Nah, More Guns!

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/19/commentary.nugent/index.html?eref=rss_topstories

So i read this piece by gun-activist and general lunatic Ted "Chicken Mc" Nuggent where he kinda, sorta misses the whole point about rethinking gun control issues in America and instead provides some anecdotal evidence about a few incidents where someone with a gun (a hero) stopped  someone with a gun (a villan) from killing innocent people. And by stopped -I mean that they shot them. He then spews some misguided hyperbole about how gun-free zones are actually crippling our society -but fails to point out that this is only because people who don't really need guns have them in the first place.

While your average Repbulican would see no problem with this argument (guns save lives!) the inherent logic behind it seems a little flawed to me. My understanding is that if we limit the sale of guns to people who really NEED them -there would be less incidents where the INITIAL shooting occurs. For example if the Virgina Tech shooter was instead the Virginia Tech stabber -the amount of damage he could have done would be severly limited. Because he couldn't just walk into a gun store (or Wal-Mart) show his drivers liscence and walk out with a pistol.

Personally I think if the police have guns, citizens should be able to have guns. I find it ridiculous that in Virginia a "permenant resident" can legally obtain a pistol -whereas in NYC I have a snowballs chance in hell at purchasing one (note -permenant residents can also possess guns legally in NYC-our gun policy is just learning diabled). I know all these thoughts are convoluted and not well thought out (im at work, dammit!). But consider them if/when you happen to discuss this issue in the aftermath of the VTech shooting.

I for one don't see this story going away any time soon.