“Investigative reporter”- and I use that term lightly – Chris Vanderveen of KUSA in Denver, Colorado decided to “start a new conversation on guns” by penning an OpEd on the NBC affiliate’s website.

If this day turns out to be a typical one, 30 people will die because someone decided to point a gun in their direction.  Another 60 will kill themselves with a gun.

You might be ok with that.

I’m not.

If you’re an “investigative reporter,” why are you taking stances on political issues? What happened to unbiased journalism, where you report the facts and let people interpret those facts however they choose?

“There are too many people who die because of a gun everyday in this country,” Vanderveen says in his video address.

And this “journalist” talks about putting emotion aside? How can we put emotion aside when you’re using emotional appeals to attempt to sway your audience in favor of gun control? At least if you want to have an “emotionless” discussion, you, yourself, need to remove that same emotion.

Yes, the Second Amendment is the law of the land. It’s a protected human right granted to us by God and reflected in the Constitution by our Founding Fathers. At least you understand that point, Vanderveen. Gotta give you credit there.

Then I ask you this: why are you attempting to limit the use of firearms in this nation? If you look at the FBI’s recent statistics, you’ll see that violent crime rose in 2015 because of the spike in metropolitan areas, like Baltimore and Chicago, that have extreme gun control legislation.

Doesn’t that prove that these laws are having the opposite problem?

Think about it here, Chris.

You take away guns from law-abiding citizens. All that does is disarm them. Criminals don’t suddenly decide to follow the law because guess what? THEY ARE CRIMINALS. The freaking definition of a criminal is someone who breaks the law!

You can’t legislate your way into creating a law-abiding society. There are some bad apples. Instead of punishing them individually, you’re going to try and punish the group as a whole? Because that makes absolute sense.

Here’s the video KUSA put together, illustrating their point:

The notion that there are too many guns in American is idiotic. What’s wrong with each person having multiple firearms. Do you wear the same pair of shoes to a wedding as do to go hiking? What about when it’s hot out? I don’t know about you but I have numerous shoes. Flip flops. Sandals. Tennis shoes. Slippers. Snow boots. Flats. Wedges. Stilettos.

The same premise applies here, Chris. People have different guns for different reasons. Every gun has a different function. But then again, in the mind of anti-gunners like you, guns all have one function and one function only: killing someone.

Like you said. This discussion should be approached with facts, facts that you, yourself, need to come to grips with.

If you decide to learn more about the different types of guns and their functionalities, let me know. Those of us at Bearing Arms would be more than happy to help. I’m sure our friends at the NRA could shed some light too.