Crossways

So it struck me again this morning what a hard time the Second Amendment folks have keeping their story straight when it comes to their articles of faith. Elsewhere I've written about the fact that "Banning guns won't stop gun crime, but will just drive gun sales underground" applies with equal force to outlawing abortion, but there's no shortage of politicians and private citizens who think a gun ban would be an absurd failure while clinging just as desperately to the dream that criminalizing abortion would stop the procedure like flipping off a light switch.

Here's another: gun advocates say it's not the guns that kill people, but the choices made by the owners of the guns. Okay, stipulated. But then, the same people are often the quickest to bray for "tort reform," which would effectively cripple the ability of any private citizen to file a lawsuit, and the only support they offer for their position is a string of decontextualized anecdotes about "frivolous" suits. Do they not get the disconnect? Is it really that hard to see that even if a handful of people pursue absurd litigation, that says absolutely nothing at all about the importance of access to the courts as a leveling tool between the wealthy and the powerless? Are they equally in favor of tearing down fire stations because from time to time someone calls in a false alarm?

It's bad enough that their argument is dumb; it's maddening that they recognize how dumb an argument it is in another context, then double down on that dumb argument when it apparently fits a different issue.

People aggravate me.