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.

Global warming or a new ice age? Anyone who claims to know is lying
Life is full of choices, but some require us to ‘come before winter’
Against all rational choice of will, an old hunger in my heart returns
Shock merger: Democrats, GOP to join in creating new ‘super party’
Didn’t we already try secession? Politicians don’t like losing control
Why do people who say they love each other cause mutual harm?
Meet Charlotte, one of the important women in my life
Predictions of doom keep failing, so isn’t it rational to doubt them?
Why is it ‘isolationism’ to oppose killing those who didn’t attack us?