Pajama Pundits

There are a few single-issue concepts that will generate the sort of 'instant-on' emotion that accompanies the gun control debate... but only a few.

Both sides of the debate are well-populated with extremists; and, as ever, the extremists get most of the press. From my perspective, I can say that one can acknowledge that the more extreme elements among the rights supporters occasionally have a point, but that their method of forwarding it most often renders it moot. Then again, one person's radical extremist is another's stalwart defender. Sometimes it just depends on where you draw the line.

To that end, it might do to examine the endgame.

Consider: Australia. A case, or at least an argument, can be made that, in the wake of severe restrictions on legal possession of firearms Down Under, the number of homicides committed with firearms has been reduced. But... A) The homicide rate there had already been dropping for decades, albeit very slowly, and the rate has not changed significantly. B)The number of homicides committed with firearms may have dropped some, but arguably the total homicide rate has remained relatively static. (controlling for the very slight downward trend referenced previously)

Other nations' experiences with firearms restrictions/bans are even less supportive of 'gun control' as an answer to violent crime. (ohhhh yes,,, it's not supposed to be about crime, I keep forgetting)

This leads one to inquire.

At some point, one would think that someone, somewhere within the ban advocacy; and/or the various sycophantic cowards who forward ban advocacy rationale, while claiming, occasionally, that they don't really want to ban guns; would address the basic question:

What is your real goal?

If one accepts that the goal is solely to reduce the numbers of people killed with firearms, regardless the effect on any/all other forms of crime/criminal violence; and more importantly, regardless whether the total number of people killed stays static, or even rises; their methodology may perhaps be considered sound.

The question would then become: is that goal worthy of pursuit? (want to know my answer?)

Of course, if the claim is that such is not the goal, then the method is terribly ineffective at best, a counterproductive use of finite resources generally, and quite likely worse than useless in virtually any regard.