The Discerning Texan

All that is necessary for evil to triumph, is for good men to do nothing.
-- Edmund Burke

Wednesday, April 18, 2007

The Futility of Anti-Gun Laws

Eugene Volokh--no stranger to the law--has a brief but brilliant rebuttal today to the arguments of a great many on the suddenly-hysterical-about-guns Left:

Exactly What "Stronger Controls" Would Those Be?
A New York Times editorial about the Virginia Tech mass murder states, "What is needed, urgently, is stronger controls over the lethal weapons that cause such wasteful carnage and such unbearable loss." My question, now that we have a little more information about the criminal (though I stress far from complete information): What stronger controls over weapons would likely have stopped him from committing the murders, or even led him to kill fewer people?

Note that I'm not asking what controls would have prohibited him from doing something. Murder law, and for that matter the gun control law that banned firearms from campus, already prohibited him from committing mass murder. That didn't seem to help. I'm curious what "stronger controls" would likely have stopped a would-be mass murderer from killing, or at least killing as many.

Anyone?

Let's face it, though: isn't the left always hysterical about something? The only question that need be asked of any Democrat on a daily basis is: which soap-opera is playing today?

Don't believe me? Try clicking here any day of the week. And prepare to be stunned as you read in amazement at what some of your fellow "citizens" (a term used only in the strictest legal sense) actually believe.

UPDATE: Bill O'Reilly scores a "bulls eye" on the opportunistic gun control hypocrites.

Labels: Democrat Sabotage, Nutroots, Right to Bear Arms, Virginia Tech Rampage