When Common Sense Isn’t

I’ve never understood why anti-gun folks always refer to their proposals as “common sense gun laws”.
When I think of “common sense” things[1], I think of liberty, fair and impartial justice, and personal responsibility.
I don’t think that taking inanimate objects away from tens of millions of law-abiding citizens will have any effect on the tiny fraction of people who commit crimes. I don’t think that restricting guns (again from the law-abiding) with certain cosmetic features will have any more effect on crime than restricting ordinary cars that look fast will have any effect on street racing.
I certainly don’t think that making it illegal for one citizen to sell a gun to another will make life even the least bit more difficult for criminals.
I don’t think that limiting magazine capacities to an arbitrary number of cartridges will do anything except inconvenience ordinary, non-criminal people.
Indeed, I’ve asked several non-shooters and anti-gun friends of mine what they’d consider “common sense” solutions to violent crime would be, and none of them suggested any of the above. One did suggest banning handguns, but changed her mind when (a) she went to the range and had fun, (b) discovered that police and private citizens use their guns to stop criminals more often than criminals use guns in crime.
Who actually believes that the anti-gun beliefs in “common-sense gun laws” are actually sensible or commonly held? Certainly not me or anyone I know.
[1] Other than things like “water is wet”, “fire is hot”, “objects fall towards the earth”, etc.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *