Today's JPFO Alert looks at some truly bizarre logic behind the justifications for banning so-called "assault weapons."
Unfortunately, she seems to have avoided one logical inconsistency, only to blunder into another, arguablymore troubling one. She is arguing that accuracy, and control, are dangers that must be regulated out of firearms.
If that's the case, why not outlaw gunsights, or at least modern, highly visible ones? Maybe rifling should be outlawed. "Gun safety" advocates complain about what they argue are inadequate training standards for concealed carry permits (and some even want mandatory training for mere gun ownership)--but since a more highly trained shooter tends to be a more accurate shooter, isn't training a danger? They also rail against guns in bars (even when the armed patron is not permitted to drink), but since a sober shooter is likely to be a more accurate shooter, might "gun safety" not be better served by requiring that armed citizens be drunk?
And as always, if you haven't seen all the great JPFO Alerts written by David, Nicki, and Claire, you owe it to yourself to fix that.