Boy, do I hate this.

I won't go into all the ways I hate it because I don't think the issue in its presented format even merits that much serious discussion, but I will raise what I consider the most salient response: the author assumes, or else expects us to assume, that force and reason always go hand-in-hand. That if you have a gun and I have a gun, we'll resort to reasonable exchange of ideas because there's no other choice.

Problem: reason and sound judgment are not prerequisites to gun ownership. And if two gun-carrying parties come to disagreement, the balance of power shifts from the physically stronger party (the greater evil in the author's argument) to the party with less self control, be they big or small, young or old, sane or otherwise. That doesn't really scream "great equalizer" to me.

Last time somebody posted this blog in another venue, it was coincidentally in the wake of this episode. I linked it then and I'll link it now because it remains a perfect if not unfortunate rebuttal to "The Best Pro Gun Argument I Have Ever Read." Six men, all armed, started with a disagreement and ended with a bloodbath in the middle of a well-populated residential setting. Hardly an appeal to reason.

Okay, that's all I care to say about it.