Eeek, these are pro-gun arguments?

Now let me start this off by saying that I’m OK with allowing US Citizens to own guns. I’m not sure I can defend that viewpoint, because I think it’s incredibly difficult to rationalize the opinion “sure it can kill people, but it’s also fun to kill animals.”

It’s one of those things that you just have to admit is a little bit indefensible.

However, the LA Times thinks differently. While I agree with his eventual closing (“we need to work harder to identify and cope with dangerously unstable personalities”), I’m a little worried about his arguments against expanding gun control.

As I see it, they boil down to these:

• It’s politically impossible (or at least hopelessly improbable) to eliminate legal gun sales, and therefore people will always be able to get hold of guns.

Okay, but that’s not really an argument for anything. That’s just saying “there’s guns around, so get used to people dying.”

and two,

• People need guns for self-defense

Which is a great argument until he lists several examples, all along the lines of “this guy who had a gun stopped some one else from shooting him.” Well…guess what? If neither of you has a gun, nobody’s getting shot in that situation either.

Now sure, it works OK as an argument if you take point one as a premise, but I think gun control laws are specifically designed to affect (hopefully downward) the number of people who have guns.