Gun Control At The Supreme Court

It never ceases to amaze me that there are so many naive people who actually believe that banning guns will somehow result in lowering the rate of violent crime.

A couple of things I would like to point out to those folks:

1) People kill people. They kill people with or without guns. They strangle, use knives, pipes, bombs, arrows, vehicles, poisons - you name it, it has been used to kill.

2) People have been killing people since we first dropped out of the trees. That's about 40,000 years before guns. Guns simply make killing more efficient.

But the most important point lies in simple common sense. Imagine you are a violent criminal. You plan to rob liquor stores for a living, so you can get your drug money. To the east is a town where the residents are encouraged to own - and learn how to use - guns. A lot of armed citizens in that town. To the west is another town, like Washington DC, where citizens are prohibited from owning guns. Unarmed citizens (otherwise known as "prey").

Now I ask you - which town are you most apt to head for?

My next question is also founded in common sense: if you are a violent criminal, the kind who has no compunction about killing, would you be afraid to break the law by owning a banned gun?

There is a lot of truth in the old saying, "If you ban guns, only the criminals will be armed". And that is a very dangerous scenario, indeed.

Our Supreme Court justices are often wrong, and in some cases downright ignorant. But I really do not believe they have so little intelligence that they would uphold the DC ban on guns.