I don’t really like guns. I’ve fired a gun a few times, but I’d prefer not to be around them. I find them dangerous and unnecessary for my purposes in life today. If I see a gun on someone, I’m wary. Whether it’s a cop, a hunter or a thug, I see a gun as a danger.
But as much as I dislike guns, I’m absolutely opposed to efforts that would ban them or limit access to them. Why?
The murders of two Virginia journalists this week on live television has once again stoked the fires of those who want to ban guns or place strong restrictions on who can have them. Those people say we have a gun problem, but I strongly disagree. We have a “human problem.” We have a problem with human beings who have evil in their hearts and minds — and who are determined to hurt people they dislike.
Banning guns wouldn’t solve that problem — and banning guns would create a long-term problem far worse than the one it would allegedly solve.
Progressives who want to ban or limit guns are just as irrational and emotional as the many conservatives who want to ban or limit recreational drugs. In both cases, the position is taken for strongly emotional reasons and the person holding the belief has to ignore the evidence that his “solution” is worse than the problem it attempts to solve.

Ocasio-Cortez and Trump just like characters in ’75 satire ‘Network’
Sabans remind me that choice of partner can be a key to success
If you made an error yesterday, it’s ‘foolish consistency’ to stick with it
Race discrimination: Sometimes evil, but sometimes praiseworthy?
Angry reactions to others can make us wrong even when we’re right
Public discourse is distorted by constant outrage over anecdotes
Want to feel happier, healthier? Try cutting back on your deceit
Lack of ability to think plays a role in public acceptance of higher taxes