Shooting Galleria

"(CNN) -- Colorado police were searching Sunday for a gunman who opened fire at a live-in training center for Christian missionaries, wounding four youths, a police spokeswoman said."

Here we go: Another crazed gunman in the news this morning. I guess if someone needs to go out and shoot someone, religious extremists in training would get my vote as the most logical targets. Ok. that was a joke. Please don't get me fired.

I was just thinking: With all of the recent public shooting incidents, even the most rabid Gun-rights-advocates must feel a smidgen of doubt as to whether it is a good thing to allow any crazoid with the price of a Saturday night special to exercise his unfettered "right to carry".

The lamest of arguments by pro-gunners in the most recent Midwest mall shooting was "If more people were armed, someone might have stopped the killer." This is a fictitious absurdity that defies every test of logic and human understanding. Name me one pistol-carrying citizen - other than Bruce Willis - who would engage in a gun battle with a lunatic wielding an AK-47 ?


Don't get me wrong; I am not anti-gun. On the contrary, I believe that sane adult citizens who are not convicted criminals ought to be able to have defensive weapons sufficient to protect their life and property. I do not think AK-47's and Bazooka's fit the definition of defensive weapons.

The chief problem for me is: how do you keep a defensive weapon accessible to the adult in charge in the event of a home invasion, but not in a place/condition where a young inquisitive kid or grand kid might be able to pull the trigger? Weapons are perfectly safe especially when unloaded and stored in a locked cabinet.

There are many areas of the US where hunting for wild game is part of the local culture. I do not see why this needs to change. But, does any thoughtful person think that the second amendment was worded the way it was because the Founding Fathers wanted to ensure that every citizen would always have the right to keep and bear weapons of mass destruction?

When asked about his weapon ownership at the last debate, Fred Thompson refused to disclose the types or locations of weapons he owned this got a cheer from the NRA die-hards. This was a manifestation of another pretzel-logic interpretation of the intent of the founding fathers -- that they wanted citizens to be privately armed (i.e., as a militia) a safeguard against totalitarian government.

The idea of armed revolt borders on silly when you think of trying to mount a take-over in a modern country like the USA. The government already violates every one of your god-given rights every day. They would come and crush your little revolt before coffee break time. I dare you to do something about it!

Meanwhile, I am staying on the couch watching football all day today. It is not safe to go outside.