The Not So Hidden Flaw in Anti-gun Reasoning

Logic flees from the minds of anti-gun people. How is it “logical” to deny everyone the right to keep and bear arms? In every single example of mass shootings, the shooter was enabled by restrictions placed on that supposedly inalienable right. The anti-gunners go right on ignoring the definition of “inalienable.”

It’s not a matter of intelligence: there are highly intelligent people supporting universal disarmament. When I asked some of these people how they could support outlawing gun ownership, their minds laser focus on the myth that says, “If everyone is denied access to guns, no one could use a gun to kill innocent people.” Yet access to guns remains universal even in countries where gun ownership is severely restricted.

In addition and obviously, such measures are useless because anyone who wants to kill innocent people but cannot obtain a firearm simply switches to other lethal modalities like knives — which are actually more dangerous because they produce no loud report. These anti-gun people actually believe that putting silencer on a gun (the term “silencer” is a misnomer) should be made illegal. (Another law universally ignored).

Does silencing a rattlesnake’s rattle make is less dangerous? (Reportedly, rattlesnakes in some areas are now being found without rattles. They are arguably more deadly now.)