Two paragraphs in and this typical nonsense…”problems posed by the prevalence of guns”. You just said crime is caused by the density of a particular tool. It is a fool who blames his tools. You’ll note the story doesn’t say the Pizza deliverer stuck his pistol in the face of the pizza orderer. Why didn’t the particular firearms density cause this? You are presuming a causality where none exists. How convenient. And then there’s this bilge: “My point is that despite whatever an individual’s depth of experience and proficiency with firearms, there comes a point at which countering guns with guns becomes little more than Russian Roulette. I’ve got to think there are better public safety options than that.” I’d be willing to bet a hundred bucks and a vintage M-1 Garand that you do not own a firearm. But by God, you’re agin’ ‘em, and know that there are better “public safety options” which you do not, and cannot name. Better safety options for whom? I’ll keep my safety option on my hip, thank you very much, and you can keep your disarming the law abiding notions off my body.
