> I'm genuinely curious as to why you are so seized by this
> issue, which by your own admission is a relatively lesser
> one, affecting far fewer individuals than the wider jobs,
> income, and housing crises and threatened attack on social
> programs. I can't recall such a steady stream of posts from
> you on any other subject.
One issue is that I'm lazy: it's easier to pick off blatantly false statements than it is to posit My Solution to all social problems. But I think you'll find that I've written extensively on-list about other subjects, including but not limited to: health insurance, interest rates, the housing bubble, the deficit, the death penalty, public transportation, AIG, "higher" education, unemployment ... ok, that's just since July.
Oh, and cursive writing.
Another reason is that when there are these events, The Chatter can be counted upon to create a, ahem, target rich environment for such criticism.
In a sense, it's your fault that I've had to tell you that you're wrong so many times.
> What possible harm can result from renewed efforts to restrict
> the supply of high-powered assault weapons - the course and
> outcome of which, as in all attempts at reform, cannot, to
> repeat, be predicted in advance?
Yes, it all sounds so ... reasonable.
It's a simple summary: you've invented a problem that's not a problem, and a solution that doesn't even fix the problem you've invented. We're not really sure (yet) what The Problem was with Adam Lanza, but if you think there's a "gun problem" then I say "we have a violent crime problem" instead, and you haven't once responded to that. It's really that simple.
/jordan