Robyn Blummer, liberal columnist and long time anti-gun zealot recently wrote an article about video games and the 1st amendment. It applies to guns and the second amendment. If you use the same logic she uses concerning video games to firearms you can clearly see she isn't a logical thinker.
Here is how her article would read if it were applied to firearms.
Firearms are not what kill people
By Tom Rhodes (paraphrased from Robyn Blumner's article)
'As long as the firearms industry exists in its present forms there are no secure homes."
This overheated warning of the insidiousness of the firearms threat came from newsmen Piers Morgan, and Ed Schultz. Both thought firearmswere "should be confiscated."
As foolish as he sounds now, their crusade was a hit with lawmakers. Washington DC succeeded in getting the legislature to pass a ban on firearms. The bill was overturned by the SCOTUS on second amendment grounds.
The Second Amendment has stayed the hand of many a would-be gun grabber. When this liberty isn't strongly enforced, however, terrible misjudgment reigns. Remember Diane Feinstein and the Assault Weapons Ban of 1994? She used her power to prevent the sale of scary looking guns.
We look upon these moral dictators now as naive and quaint. But their kind still exists. Sarah Brady launched her crusade targeting handguns only 28 years ago. Her ilk then turned to assault weapons, high capacity magazines, and restrictions on inner city gun ownership, as if firearms caused rather than reflected the violence and misogyny in urban homes and neighborhoods.
Today that same impulse has its attention focused on firearms, particularly after news reports that the Newtown, Conn., shooter, Adam Lanza, obsessively practiced with firearms before killing 20 children and six educators. Almost immediately after the attacks a measure was introduced by Sen. Diane Feinstein, to outlaw certain firearms.
Think the California Democrat had that one in her back pocket?
I can save the congress a lot of time. Lanza is a tragic case, but he's an outlier. There is no body of social scientific evidence demonstrating that firearms are the cause of violent acts or turn a peaceful person into an aggressor in real life.
Just as shooting at sporting clays, plinking at tincans, listening to Ted Nubent, or reading American Rifleman, doesn't cause harm or provoke violence, neither does using a high capacity magazine. It may not be the most productive use of time, but children at a very young age know the difference between real and pretend. As the National 4-H clubs endorse, shooting sports actually have some positive effects on developing children, noting that shooting sports are one of the few sports you can take up at age 7 and still participate in at age 77.
The research on the topic was well considered just two years ago by the U.S. Supreme Court when the majority struck down a Washington DC law criminalizing sales and possession of firearms as unconstitutional. The court looked at the competing studies, including the work of Dr. Lott. Lott claims to have found that more people owning firearms resulted in less not more violent crime.
In the real world, as firearm ownership has increased, rates of violence by young men have gone down, not up. Arrests for violent crime for males between 10 and 24 years of age have plummeted from 850 arrests per 100,000 in 1995 to 516 per 100,000 in 2009, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
There have always been people in power who blamed firearms and crime on exposure to firearms. They have always been both wrong and dangerous to our freedoms.