Not ANOTHER Gun Article!

Yes - but no...

Over the years, I’ve cranked out a boatload of articles, countless talk shows, and speeches about guns, “assault weapons”, the 2nd Amendment, self-defense, ownership, and similar stuff - some here on Substack - mostly refuting the brain-dead asininity of limp-wristed liberals and pearl-clutching snowflakes. So have many others. Since there is still lots of work to do in this area of Freedom, there’s fortunately someone coming up with a different take that may - MAY - light a candle in the intellectual-emotional darkness of those mentioned above.

Here’s one of them from Guest Scribbler Brad Smith…

BW

I see that once again the Democrats will blame the gun, as if this school shooter's choice of guns would have resulted in less loss of life. In this case, as in all of these cases, the actual limiting factor is how quickly another armed person takes action.

In this case the school cops confronted him, while in other cases cops have waited to go in because they feel outgunned by an AR. This is nonsense, as this shooting proves. In close quarters, a pistol, in the hands of a well trained individual, is going to work just as well, if not better, than an AR.

He could have killed just as many students and teachers if he had a shotgun, pistol or hunting rifle, which are not exactly hard to come by, even if you are not of legal age. They can be stolen or bought on the black market by anyone who's truly determined to go on a rampage.

Of course he could have stolen a car and driven it into a crowd of kids or made a bomb or poisoned the food, etc., guns are not exactly the only tool ever used to kill a number of people at once.

I'd also like to mention that parents are often the last to know. I believe that it's unreasonable to expect a parent to see what outsiders can't see. Furthermore, if the kid was determined to kill other kids, he could have done so without the rifle.

I don't know the case well enough to know whether or not the father is a terrible guy or not, I just know that it bothers me that giving the kid a rifle and taking him hunting, automatically makes the father guilty in the eyes of so many lefties. How do they know that the Dad didn't believe that giving the kid something to do would make him less likely to act out?

I'd bet money that kids who grow up hunting with their fathers are less likely, on average, to end up in prison than kids who have no father in their life. I'd use that as a defense and I'd bring up the FACT that you don't need guns to kill people, then I'd get a shrink to testify about how many times they have seen parents totally miss dangerous behavior in their children.

One last thing, there always is.

Imagine if they applied this same case law to parents who let their kids drive, who also know their kids use intoxicating substances? If their kids kills someone, in the car they were handed by parents who know their kid used drugs of any kind, how are they not as guilty as this father? Heck, I'd argue that they are more guilty because it's so incredibly rare that a kid shoots up a school that it's hard to think your kid would be that one in a million, but lots of kids end up dead due to drunk driving, we all know some that have lost their lives that way.

How many celebrities or politicians have kids who have killed someone or nearly killed someone while drinking and driving who also think this father should be locked up?

And NO, I'm not calling for increased penalties for yet more parents. I'm pointing out how going after the parents could be a very slippery slope.

Brad Smith