Raves Don’t Kill People, People Do

I don’t know much about the mayor in question, but he showed a lot of common sense with his statement about raves in Seattle:

Despite seven violent deaths last weekend, the mayor and other city leaders have a reassuring message for the youths who love the all-night music and dancing of the “rave” party scene: Rave on.

Kyle Huff, 28, fatally shot six people and himself Saturday at an early-morning house party after a zombie-themed rave at a performing arts center. It was Seattle’s worst crime since 1983, when 13 people were killed at a Chinatown gambling club. And it was the first such incident to mar the Pacific Northwest’s rave culture, where partygoers and police have had an accord that some other U.S. localities haven’t matched.

As a police task force continues searching for a motive for Huff’s rampage, Mayor Greg Nickels told a community meeting Tuesday that the loud, pulsating electronic music featured at rave dances is “not a threat to us.”

He started off really well, but blew it a bit on this line:

“We don’t know why he picked these particular victims,” Nickels told the group. “We do know that this incident was not caused by music – a particular kind of music. It was caused by a disturbed individual who chose to take out his anger or rage on other human beings. As a society, we have got to come to grips with this infatuation that we have with guns.”

Perhaps Mayor Nickels could apply the same logic to guns that he did to raves and music.

52 Comments
  1. What do Columbine and almost every other mass homicide in the United States in the past 20 years have in common with the Capitol Hill Massacre in Seattle? Not the rave scene, not the music the killers or victims were listening to beforehand, not the location, not the age, race, or any other characteristic of the victims or killers… I’ll tell you what they have in common: the killers had guns. And much of the time, they were guns that have nothing to do with hunting or any other legitimate purpose. As Seattle police chief Gil Kerlikowske said, Kyle Huff’s pistol-grip shotgun is not a weapon for hunting, it is a weapon for hunting people. Same for the AR-15 he had in the trunk.

    For the record, I believe in the right to keep and bear arms. I think you should be able to own a shotgun or a pistol to defend your house and home, but not a riot gun or an assault rifle, of any kind — they serve no purpose for the common citizen.

  2. i dunno stephen. i don’t think, with that particular statement, he is saying that folks shouldn’t have the right to guns. he seems to be saying, and i’d agree, that americans DO have an obsession with guns and violence. it seems to be a disctinctly american thing. ‘bowling for columbine’, which is not an anti-gun movie, made the same point by showing the difference in per-capita gun homicides between canada and the US. despite the fact that canadians, on average, own more guns.

    americans love violence.

    being against gun violence does not mean you are against guns.

    the commenter, MC, above brings up an interesting point as well. what good to society are guns that were devised specifically to kill humans? (ducks and prepares for onslaught from gun-lovers)

  3. MC; they can indeed serve a purpose for the common citizen. In a certain small, remarkably neutral (to be unnamed) European country, every single citizen of adult age is *REQUIRED* to own and maintain a fully automatic assault rifle. It is a crime in this country to NOT own said weapon. This country has no standing army; its citizenry IS its army.

    When the police and the military fail to protect us from fully/well-armed criminals — sometimes because those criminals wear badges (falsely or otherwise) — then it becomes NECESSARY for the common citizenry to arm itself.

    It has been said, and it is true; a disarmed populace is a disenfranchised populace.

    For the record, said country has, proportionately speaking, 1/4-1/3 (depending on the numbers you use) the rate of violent crime (of all forms INCLUDING firearms) as the US.

    No other country in the world matches our rate. And many are far more heavily armed. The fault is not in the weapons. It is in the people.

  4. Moreover, Kyle Huff’s right to keep and bear arms should have been revoked, and his weapons destroyed, after he used them for an illegal and destructive purpose (for which he had a prior conviction). Instead, the weapons were eventually returned to him, and he used these same weapons in the Capitol Hill Massacre.

    Let’s take a look at the Second Amendment:
    “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

    Kyle Huff was not part of the Washington State Militia, and I do not believe a coward like Kyle Huff would have stood up to defend the state, had it been under attack. There is really no constitutional protection for owning these sort of weapons, especially in a modern-day context. They should certainly be made illegal to buy and own for citizens who have prior criminal records involving firearm use.

    -MC in Seattle (2 blocks from the scene).

  5. Ian, I agree that there is a fault in the people, and a problem in our society that leads to violence. But that violence is enabled by and committed with these weapons. If the weapons are harder to get, the violence is harder to commit. Maybe other countries can own more of these weapons, and wwe have to hafve more restrictions because we have more propensity to violence, more mass-homocidal lunatics, or whatever.

    Regarding the citizenry being the army — well, we do have a standing army. One of the largest, and certainly the most powerful and well-equipped, in the world. We also have a standing national guard. The europeans don’t have the money or desire to have either of these. In the event of an invasion by another country, I’d rather have the Marines fighting the battle with their training and weapons than you and me and Kyle Huff with our riot guns and assault rifles. I’m talking about reality.

  6. MC, please re-read your own statement. The amendment can also be be read “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

    The portion, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, […]” is an entirely separate statement from the preceeding. That is to say:

    The sentence states A) A well regulated Militia is necessary. Therefore B) The right of the people to have whatever firearms they see fit will in no way shape or form be restricted.

    This can be read — and usually is — to imply that the right to firearms is meant FOR the militia.

    But what if it was meant also to cover the reverse? That in order to further ensure the state remained free, that the populous at large had the ability to defend themselves FROM this well regulated Militia?

    “Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes”
    Who guards the guards themselves?

  7. I don’t know why you didn’t want to name the country, but it’s Switzerland. Being a tiny country in the middle of Europe that has been annexed by Germany at least a couple of times might make you more inclined to have every citizen a soldier. That doesn’t make sense for the U.S. Who is realistically going to occupy us? The militia argument is anachronistic.

  8. Moreover, I don’t know why you didn’t want to name the country, but it’s Switzerland. Being a tiny country in the middle of Europe that has been annexed by Germany at least a couple of times might make you more inclined to have every citizen a soldier. That doesn’t make sense for the U.S. Who is realistically going to occupy us? The militia argument is anachronistic.

  9. MC: In reference to the restriction of access to weaponry.

    In Los Angeles, for quite a while (and quite possibly remaining so) it is fully possible to purchase a fully functional AK-47. Russian military “surplus.” There were two years ago thousands of them on the market.

    It was easier for a criminal to purchase an assault rifle than for a law-abiding citizen to purchase a pistol.

    Gun-restriction laws do not disarm the criminal element. They disarm only those who abide by the law. Those who intend to kill will disregard any other law. Keep in mind that the shortened-barrel shotgun as described is itself illegal in most of the states in the country.

    And quite frankly, given that you can make explosives out of materials found in every major-chain grocery store in the united states, your argument that guns enable these things is, well, erronneous at best. (“strawman-ism”).

    For the record, I do not now and never intend to own/carry a firearm.

  10. Lemme go all 1776 on the people who want to interpret the word “regulated.” Ya see, there wasn’t this concept of regulations and restrictions in the same sense we have today, in fact “regulated” meant “in working order” which meant their goddamn guns WORKED.

    From Dictionary.com:

    1. To control or direct according to rule, principle, or law.
    2. To adjust to a particular specification or requirement: regulate temperature.
    3. To adjust (a mechanism) for accurate and proper functioning.
    4. To put or maintain in order: regulate one’s eating habits.

    BADA BING!

  11. MC: Everyone knows it is Switzerland. That was part of the point.

    As to U.S. occupation… I refer you to the prior: “Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes”

    What happened at that after-rave was a tragedy. But be realistic about its solution, please. If just *one* of those rave-heads had themselves had a firearm, far fewer people would likely have died.

    I shudder to think what the results could have been had this happened in, say, San Francisco — especially should the regulation forbidding the common citizen to even so much as possess — or have in one’s home — a pistol, itself pass.

    At that note, at some point today I should like to eat… so I’m outta this conversation.

  12. While we’re at it… the proper definition of the word militia. From Dictionary.com:

    1. An army composed of ordinary citizens rather than professional soldiers.
    2. A military force that is not part of a regular army and is subject to call for service in an emergency.
    3. The whole body of physically fit civilians eligible by law for military service.

    I hate how anti-gun people try to interpret EVERY OTHER RIGHT AS AN INDIVIDUAL RIGHT EXCEPT THIS ONE!

  13. I’m sorry this turned into a tirade about gun rights. What’s important is that we’ve got a mayor making a sensible statement raves and dance music. Instead of bringing up the age old gun debate, why not shoot off the mayor’s office an e-mail of support or post this on your own blogs.

  14. Re: Post 10 — I left out a *very* important word.

    “[..] on the *BLACK* market.”

  15. Not part of the same statement? My god, it’s part of the same SENTENCE. A one-sentence amendment. Your backwards reading is completely bogus, show me one constitutional scholar who would support that.

    As I said, I think you should be able to own a gun to defend house and home. You don’t need an AR-15 to fight off criminals. Yes, there will still be an illegal black market in restricted weapons, but that’s better than Kyle Huff getting them handed back to him by the police, or being able to buy them with little or no waiting period from the local gun shop. Enforcement is never 100% effective, but with stiff enough penalties, can be a major deterrent.

  16. MC,

    How come people like you routinely ignore the fact that EVERY other reference to “The People” found in both the Constitution and the Bill of Rights refers to the general citizenry and not an organization of the State?

    It’s amazing to me that, when it comes to the Second Amendment, suddenly “The People” suddenly refers to the National Guard, an organization that didn’t exist until over a century after those documents were written.

  17. Ian said: “What happened at that after-rave was a tragedy. But be realistic about its solution, please. If just *one* of those rave-heads had themselves had a firearm, far fewer people would likely have died.”

    That sounds dangerously like blaming the victims. Kyle Huff walked up and shot people out of nowhere, at 7 a.m. They were hangin out on the porch; others were sleeping. The whole event probably took less than a minute or two. Even if one of them owned a gun, which hopefully would have been properly locked, they likely would not have had time to retrieve it in the midst of the ambush. That’s just ridiculous, and you should apologize to the victims and their families.

  18. The fact that the killer had such a weapon negates your infantile claim

    I think you should be able to own a shotgun or a pistol to defend your house and home, but not a riot gun or an assault rifle, of any kind — they serve no purpose for the common citizen.

    Shooting back at such a person who does have that type of weapon isn’t a legitimate purpose? Ridiculous.

    Beyond this simplicity “the common citizen” has every right to own the same type of firearms that the police and military may use against him.

    As there was no standing militia at the time the 2nd Amendment was written, and every other Amendment in the Bill or Rights clearly protects the rights of the people, discussing the foolish concept that government would insert a single sentence to protect its own right to use arms isn’t worth discussing.

    CONTRA NEGANTEM PRINCIPIA NON EST DISPUTANDUM

    It is useless to dispute with one who denies principles.

  19. Mark Johnson has this correctly.

    Steve — any chance at getting contact info posted to this comment/list in order to send approbations in the way of the Mayor?

  20. Did some of the comments on this thread get erased? I’m having a hard time following it. #1 seems to be referring to a previous comment that is no longer there.

  21. No other country in the world matches our rate. And many are far more heavily armed. The fault is not in the weapons. It is in the people.

    Colombia, Brazil, South Africa and Russia are among the countries which have a lot more violent crime per capita than the US.

  22. the commenter, MC, above brings up an interesting point as well. what good to society are guns that were devised specifically to kill humans?

    They’re good for protecting yourself from “humans” who want to kill you, or threaten them, for their own fun and/or benefit. Especially if and when they have the weight of the regime backing them up.

  23. MC — Re: “Blaming the victims”

    Don’t put words in my mouth, please. And twisting arguments won’t help your case. I was quite clearly indicating — throughout the entirety of my statement — that the comment was towards freeing up gun controls towards the end of self-defense of “the common citizen”. “And hopefully it would have been locked up properly” — that there is utter bullshit. (I apologize for language.) In that statement you display that you merely have a disliking of guns, period. The only place a proper self-defense weapon belongs is in direct and immediate access to its owner. (CCP & the like.) The law in Oregon makes that *damned* hard. In most states, it’s even illegal.

    Hence: “I shudder to think what would happen in San Francisco…”

    “PC” — there are indeed a number of posts missing. All from “MC”.

  24. PC: I had to rescue some comments by MC from the spam filter. Hopefully nothing got lost but any new person with lots of comments in a short time span seems to trigger things.

    Sorry about that, hope I rescued everything. Eventually we’ll be a forced registration system to kill off 100% of the spam, but for now this is the best that’s available.

  25. Ah, that’s better.

    In the event of an invasion by another country, I’d rather have the Marines fighting the battle with their training and weapons than you and me and Kyle Huff with our riot guns and assault rifles. I’m talking about reality.

    What about when your own Marines are used against you?
    Do you really believe that could never happen?

    Being a tiny country in the middle of Europe that has been annexed by Germany at least a couple of times might make you more inclined to have every citizen a soldier.

    When was it annexed by Germany? Do you mean 1,000 years ago?

    That doesn’t make sense for the U.S. Who is realistically going to occupy us? The militia argument is anachronistic.

    The Japanese contemplated invading America during WW2 – the pacific NW, in fact. They decided against it because too many Americans had guns.

  26. Regarding the citizenry being the army — well, we do have a standing army. One of the largest, and certainly the most powerful and well-equipped, in the world. We also have a standing national guard. The europeans don’t have the money or desire to have either of these.

    They certainly have the money. As for desire – why bother? The Americans are paying the tab and supplying the soldiers for them. To guard against a Soviet invasion. 15 years after the USSR collapsed.

  27. The statement made by the mayor of Seattle makes me proud to live in this great city. Seattle is definately far removed from the US political mainstream. This is the same city that decided to make marijuana possession the lowest law enforcement priority, and because of that you can walk down the street smoking a joint, and the police will most likely do nothing about it. At hempfest, there were many, many people smoking ganga in public and the police were there having a good time as well, probably getting high off the second hand smoke. :)

  28. They should certainly be made illegal to buy and own for citizens who have prior criminal records

    MC and Julian agree!

  29. there were many, many people smoking ganga in public and the police were there having a good time as well, probably getting high off the second hand smoke. :)

    Officer: Your eyes look red. Have you been smoking pot?

    Joey Bagadonitz: Your eyes look glazed. Have you been eating donuts?

  30. They should certainly be made illegal to buy and own for citizens who have prior criminal records

    Would this criminal record be for smoking medical marijuana just to stay alive or for having two beers while watching the ball game at one’s favorite sports bar in Texas?

    Just like to know who shouldn’t be allowed to protect themselves…

  31. Stephen G — don’t you know any better? The drunks won’t be let out of jail long enough to own guns, and the potheads will all be executed!

    Herr Gordon, I think perhaps you misread your own previous posts! >:)

    God Bless America!

  32. I’ll say it again, since some people here like to chop off the beginning or ends of sentences (be it my previous comments, or the second amendment). I did NOT say what paulie or Stephen are mis-quoting me as saying:

    “They should certainly be made illegal to buy and own for citizens who have prior criminal records”

    Note that there is no period there. That should tell you something. What I did say was:

    “They should certainly be made illegal to buy and own for citizens who have prior criminal records involving firearm use.”

    Meaning, if you don’t use your rights responsibly, they can be taken away. If you abuse your freedoms, your freedom can be taken away and you can be put in jail. If you abuse the right to own guns by misusing them, they should be taken away, as well as your right to own them. Kyle Huff had previously misused guns in a manner that led to a criminal conviction. He got to keep those guns, to later massacre people with the very same weapons.

  33. Meaning, if you don’t use your rights responsibly, they can be taken away. If you abuse your freedoms, your freedom can be taken away and you can be put in jail. If you abuse the right to own guns by misusing them, they should be taken away, as well as your right to own them.

    Yes, your freedom can be taken away and you can be put in jail. Once you are deemed safe enough to society to be out of jail, you must have your right to protect yourself. If you are too dangerous to have that right, you are too dangerous to be on the streets.

    A truly dangerous criminal will get guns whether it’s legal or not. Only someone concerned with what the law is would be prevented from getting a gun by such insane rules. And it is cruel and unusual punishment to deprive people of the right to protect themselves, especially since they are likely to be living in dangerous neighborhoods with former gang enemies who don’t care they are out and former victims.

  34. Wow. Not even an acknowledgement that you and Stephen Gordon blatantly misquoted me.

    “A truly dangerous criminal will get guns whether it’s legal or not. Only someone concerned with what the law is would be prevented from getting a gun by such insane rules. And it is cruel and unusual punishment to deprive people of the right to protect themselves, especially since they are likely to be living in dangerous neighborhoods with former gang enemies who don’t care they are out and former victims.”

    As I said earlier, no enforcement is 100%, but having the law there allows these people to be arrested for mere possession, and acts as a deterrent to them buying guns illegally. To say that a criminal is going to do whatever he wants anyway, because a criminal by definition is someone who doesn’t respect the law, is just not true. Laws and stiffer penalties for violating the law DOES act as a deterrent.

  35. Regarding people “protecting themselves”: Kyle Huff, and most of these other mass murders, were not involved in gangs nor did they have any particular need to protect themselves. Kyle ostensibly owned his guns for “hunting” purposes. If someone is under a threat like that after losing their rights to own guns, they could apply for a special permit in the same way you have to in most or all states in order to carry a concealed weapon (since they would probably have to apply for that one anyway).

    Back to some of the older statements:
    “Beyond this simplicity “the common citizen” has every right to own the same type of firearms that the police and military may use against him.”

    So my next door neighbor should be able to own a tank with depleted-uranium ammunition? Or a tactical nuke? The military has a lot of weapons that I hope to god never become legal for civilians.

  36. Erin said:

    “It’s amazing to me that, when it comes to the Second Amendment, suddenly “The People” suddenly refers to the National Guard, an organization that didn’t exist until over a century after those documents were written.””

    The National Guard is the closest thing we have to a modern-day militia, that’s why….. The right to keep and bear arms does not say “to keep and bear any kind of weapon in existence, now and in the future.” I fully support the right to own a weapon, just not pistol-grip shotguns and assault rifles.

    If you want to refuse to bring the second amendment into a modern-day context, then I’ll say yes, people should have the right to own muskets and gunpowder, or any other weapon commonly available in 1776. AR-15’s didn’t exist until almost 2 centuries after those documents were written, so clearly the second amendment wasn’t including those when it used the word “arms,” now did it? That’s how you’re interpreting the constitution.

  37. “What about when your own Marines are used against you?
    Do you really believe that could never happen?”

    Not completely impossible at some distant time, but way too remote at this point to start arming ourselves; and I believe we are screwed if it does — the Marines will kick your ass and mine… I would spend the time on citizen involvement and government oversight, rather than preparing for a 2nd revolutionary war or insurgency.

    “The Japanese contemplated invading America during WW2 – the pacific NW, in fact. They decided against it because too many Americans had guns.”

    Like I said, this is anachronistic. Remember what ended Japanese aggression once and for all? That’s right, the bomb. If the U.S. is deterred from conventional military action vs. nuclear states like North Korea, what do you think is the possibility that the U.S., with the most powerful conventional AND nuclear arsenal in the world, will be occupied by a foreign power?

  38. Finally, for all the people who are also misquoting me — I never said that the second amendment was referring to the National Guard in the first place. I brought up the national guard in response to the argument about switzerland’s citizen army — Switzerland doesn’t have a standing army or national guard, we do. We also have nukes. Protecting from foreign invasion is not a rational reason for the common citizen to own weapons. Protecting your home from criminals I believe is a rational reason, although this part is not protected by the second amendment.

    Secondly, I do think that “the people” in the second amendment refers to the individual, and not the state or its armed forces. But the current version of “arms,” and of “militia”, has changed completely since this was written, and there is just no sense in having regular citizens able to own any kind of weapon imaginable. The right to keep and bear arms need to be brought into a modern context, and rational justification.

  39. Wow. Not even an acknowledgement that you and Stephen Gordon blatantly misquoted me.

    “A truly dangerous criminal will get guns whether it’s legal or not. Only someone concerned with what the law is would be prevented from getting a gun by such insane rules. And it is cruel and unusual punishment to deprive people of the right to protect themselves, especially since they are likely to be living in dangerous neighborhoods with former gang enemies who don’t care they are out and former victims.”

    As I said earlier, no enforcement is 100%, but having the law there allows these people to be arrested for mere possession, and acts as a deterrent to them buying guns illegally. To say that a criminal is going to do whatever he wants anyway, because a criminal by definition is someone who doesn’t respect the law, is just not true. Laws and stiffer penalties for violating the law DOES act as a deterrent…

  40. You’re right. In the MODERN context, the PEOPLE need to be able to own anything that might be required to repel a military threat, foreign or domestic. That means everything up to and including nuclear weapons.

  41. You DO realize that the second amendment wasn’t written so that U.S. citizens could defend their country against foreign invasion, right?

    First, defense against foreign invasion is a power enumerated to the federal government. Second, when that amendment was written, it was during a time when its authors were defending themselves against their OWN government, not a foreign one.

    That amendment was written so that citizens (the people) can defend themselves against tyranny from their own government.

  42. “Regarding people “protecting themselves”: Kyle Huff, and most of these other mass murders, were not involved in gangs nor did they have any particular need to protect themselves. Kyle ostensibly owned his guns for “hunting” purposes. If someone is under a threat like that after losing their rights to own guns, they could apply for a special permit in the same way you have to in most or all states in order to carry a concealed weapon (since they would probably have to apply for that one anyway). ”

    No one should have to apply for any permit. The cops are not in a position to judge who is under a threat and who isn’t. Everyone who is out of jail has a right to protect themselves. Will you only deny them guns, or all means of self-defense? If they are martial arts experts, do you plan to keep them in jail forever? Or perhaps cripple them?

  43. “So my next door neighbor should be able to own a tank with depleted-uranium ammunition? Or a tactical nuke? The military has a lot of weapons that I hope to god never become legal for civilians. ”

    I don’t see civilians as a greater threat than the military. Quite the opposite.

  44. “The National Guard is the closest thing we have to a modern-day militia, that’s why….. ”

    The National Guard today is nothing like a militia. It is an agency of the state and part of the standing army that the militia is supposed to protect against. Standing armies have the tendency to turn despotic.

    “The right to keep and bear arms does not say “to keep and bear any kind of weapon in existence, now and in the future.”

    Yes, it does. That’s what the words “shall not be infringed” mean. A well-armed militia means that the citizens are as well armed as the state, otherwise the state ceases to be free. Read the comments about what it meant from the time it was written.

  45. “If you want to refuse to bring the second amendment into a modern-day context,”

    What are you talking about? We’re the ones who say it applies today, and obviously the National Guard does not qualify as the militia.

    “then I’ll say yes, people should have the right to own muskets and gunpowder, or any other weapon commonly available in 1776. AR-15’s didn’t exist until almost 2 centuries after those documents were written, so clearly the second amendment wasn’t including those when it used the word “arms,” now did it? ”

    Arms means whatever weapons the state possesses. The technology changes, the principle doesn’t. The purpose of this right is to protect against the state becoming tyrannical by not allowing it to be better armed than the citizens.

  46. “Not completely impossible at some distant time, but way too remote at this point to start arming ourselves;”

    If you believe that, I’m afraid you haven’t been paying attention lately. And the time to start arming ourselves is always, because the tyrannical state is a constant threat.

    ” and I believe we are screwed if it does — the Marines will kick your ass and mine…”

    They have lost a guerilla war in Vietnam and can’t hold Iraq, either.

    “I would spend the time on citizen involvement and government oversight, rather than preparing for a 2nd revolutionary war or insurgency.”

    Why not hedge your bets?

  47. “Like I said, this is anachronistic. Remember what ended Japanese aggression once and for all? That’s right, the bomb.”

    Wrong again. Japan was ready to surrender months earlier on the one condition that they be allowed to keep the Emperor, which they were eventually allowed to do anyway. It was only the US insistence that it would not allow that condition which kept the Japanese fighting. The use of the bomb was American regime aggression.

    “If the U.S. is deterred from conventional military action vs. nuclear states like North Korea, what do you think is the possibility that the U.S., with the most powerful conventional AND nuclear arsenal in the world, will be occupied by a foreign power?”

    I’m not a tarot reader. Besides, what makes you think it would be a regime of a country? If there’s no physical headquarters there’s nothing for you to bomb, and your nukes won’t help you too much.

  48. “Arms means whatever weapons the state possesses. The technology changes, the principle doesn’t. The purpose of this right is to protect against the state becoming tyrannical by not allowing it to be better armed than the citizens.”

    “No one should have to apply for any permit. . . Will you only deny them guns, or all means of self-defense? If they are martial arts experts, do you plan to keep them in jail forever? Or perhaps cripple them?”

    Thank you, PC (and friends), for showing me the way. I was actually looking for a rational counterargument, but instead I got a view of just how extreme and irrational some of the anti-gun control world is. Citizens owning anything up to and including nuclear warheads, without so much as registration or permits. Wow. Profound thoughts like that either get left at the side of the road by human evolution, or drag humanity into extinction. You’ve helped me decide to work to make sure it’s the former by joining a gun control lobby. Bye, and thanks…

  49. I look forward to your group’s arms control efforts regarding martial artists. Legs control, too.

%d bloggers like this: