This friend of mine works at a local manufacturer and there’s a loony leftie mechanical engineer there who commented, after hearing of a workplace shooting somewhere, that “that could never happen here, because we have a rule against bringing guns to work”.

I mean, really. They live in an alternate universe.

(Who dredged up this blog post, anyway? It’s older than God, and now somebody’s handing it around? Maybe there’s hope for MY ravings, yet!)

As an aside, there is some merit to the claim that outlawing gun possession *reduces* (not eliminates) gun-related crime; reducing the amount of guns available to be stolen as a matter of economics makes it more difficult and more expensive for criminals to obtain guns. It’s an incremental thing, and frankly I don’t think it’s an especially good argument either for outlawing guns or legally protecting gun ownership. Especially since noticeably reducing gun numbers in North America would require effective coordinated action throughout the mainland United States, Canada, and Mexico.

Back to my main point: it’s not the weapon that makes the person dangerous, it’s the person. Right? Guns don’t, blah blah. In the case of the late Pat Regan, had she been willing to use violence to defend herself, with or without a firearm, she might have driven off, escaped from, or disabled her killer. She might have failed, too, but I’d rather die fighting than docile.

I don’t care about losing the money, I care about losing all the stuuuff!

Hey! It’s a way of life.
In this case, sadly, not so much.