The idea of punishing people who act out of ignorance isn't the way to do that. It's harder, but more rewarding in the long run, to take the time to convince the skeptics.
I hear you Tom but I just cannot do that any longer.
It's been too long and too irrational a fight waged by the anti-gunners for me to placate them any longer. I just don't have the patience to argue with them or try and convince them their beliefs are incorrect.
The younger guys and gals will have to pick up the torch in this regard. I just can't do it any longer.
That said, as I and Maestro have been saying, when McDonald is decided, and hopefully goes our way, people who could not own firearms will now be able to. This will, perhaps, be the final "nail in the coffin" for the serious anti-gun movement?
Once a right is acknowledged and "practiced", it is very hard for people to give that right up IMHO.
I believe they are motivated by an intense desire to win at all costs - to control "how things shall be", and are genuinely convinced that a magical absence of legal firearms ownership would lead to an drastic reduction of crime - despite brutal evidence to the contrary in both cases. "Guns" per se have taken a back seat to this desperate need to control their environment, to enforce their personal utopian dreams on the rest of society.
I wonder to what extent it may be true that "anti-gunners" are simply individuals who have not yet been victims of violent crimes? I doubt that their skepticism will be overcome by any less compelling argument...
I think to many of us, you have hit the nail on the head Doc (and Mack).
And this is why I just don't have the patience to argue with their irrational position any longer. I'm just plain getting too old and worn out to do so.