I recent read on a few other websites that a number of states have bills pending to limit gun ownership further, in one form or another.
To me, this is absurd. The number of people killed or injured by guns in the U.S., either purposefully or accidentally, is small compared to the number of people killed or injured by cars. Guns do not shoot by themselves, just like cars do not sudden start and plow into a bus stop full of people by themselves. One would think, from listening to the media that guns load themselves, come out of their safes/holsters/drawers all by themselves and go on their own rampages. Of course this silly. It was supposed to be. Someone explain why the Brady Bunch is so willing to ban guns and not cars.
Ok, how about this? More people in the U.S. are killed or injured by drunk drivers then by guns, yet no one sues Seagrams or Anheuser-Busch for a drunk driving accident. If we used the same logic for gun issues that we use for drunk driving issues, people injured by drunk drivers would sue Ford or Chevy. Boggles the mind, huh? Instead of going after the problem, the injured are going after the money. Guns are not the problem, people are. Cars are not the problem, people are. Alcohol isn't the problem, people are.
Should there be laws restricting some people from having guns? Yes, just like some people are restricted from driving. However, driving is not Constitutionally protected. Owning a gun is.
