I've often stated that if a person can't be trusted to walk in public with a gun, that person probably shouldn't be out on the streets unsupervised. If someone fails a background check because they were deemed too dangerous to own a gun, why should we allow them to walk around free to find other ways to do harm?
Recently I saw an online comment posted in response to article touting the typical anti-gun screed which raised the same discussion. (I won't dignify that article with a link.) The commenter pontificated thusly:
But, all that said? I truly am on board with the rest of it. I recently decided against buying a handgun for one of her reasons. I drink fairly often. Should I have a gun on me, or even in the house, when I've had three beers? No. So I have finally decided that a gun is simply not for me.
That statement elicited a migraine salute from me. Sadly this is not uncommon "logic" as exhibited by people who have little experience with firearms. What I read in the statement is an admission, that after three beers, this person feels they may become a danger to himself or others. Seriously, if you can't be trusted to have a locked up gun in your house after three beers, perhaps you really ought to skip those three beers.
In other words, if you know that doing something could cause you to act irresponsibly, don't do that thing.
Post a Comment
Comments on posts over 21 days old are held for moderation.