Others thing gun control is the only possible and sane response. What’s more, they often claim that it’s an issue of “guts” as alleged in this piece’s headline.

There is no question the terrible disaster was caused by firing of an assault weapon. Both Collins and King have been longtime supporters of them. Collins continues to oppose a ban because its “too broad.” But she withholds specifics. King is equally puzzling, re: his refusal to sign a bill pending in the Senate, banning 200 specific assault-style weapons. Reason? His new bill addressing weapon “technologies” that make such weapons deadly. Apparently, he is not interested in the “machine-gun” result at the end of the barrel that spewed death and injury, as here.

The shooting caused Rep. Jared Golden to change his political stance, from an admitted “failed support,” of such weapons, to a call, “on the U.S. Congress to ban assault rifles.” Congress has already authored a ban on 200 of them, pending passage in the Senate. He did not express support; assuming he was aware of it.

Fixing the political mistakes that resulted in the horrific mass-shooting, will, unfortunately, take political guts we lack. Call a spade a spade; an assault-weapon  has the makings of a machine gun. Yellow and red flag laws are powerless.

First, just looking like a machine gun isn’t “the makings” of such a weapon. There’s more involved than superficial similarities.

But does it take guts to support gun control?

Well, if we listen to anti-gunners, such a claim makes absolutely no sense.

After all, don’t they routinely tell us that gun control is supported by the public at large? They typically cite polls that might be years out of date so long as they show public support for whatever anti-gun initiative that’s currently being discussed.

That poll isn’t discarded until another poll happens to come out that provides that same support. All polls with pro-gun results are, of course, discarded as irrelevant.

Then we have the studies.

Gun control advocates routinely reference all the studies that supposedly support their claims. They don’t acknowledge the problematic methodology or any other problems that we know exist with these studies.

But, as I’ve noted, there are issues with all of this. The problem is that the media amplifies the anti-gun arguments, so most people don’t know anything but that.

So, if the public and science support gun control, how do they figure it’ll take “guts” to pass gun control?

What’s that? The NRA’s deep pockets?

I hate to break it to you, but gun control groups spend about as much as the NRA does, often more, which started in 2018. In other words, if a lawmaker wanted to start supporting gun control, groups like Everytown and Giffords could easily pick up the difference and support that candidate, right?

“But their constituents wouldn’t support them no matter what,” some might say, and they’re probably right.

Yet the question is, why is that? If the public supports gun control and the money can be there for a politician supporting gun control, then just why would the constituents oppose gun control?

Maybe the issue here isn’t one of guts but principle.

A lot of people don’t believe gun control works. We’ve seen mass shootings in states with extensive gun control and in states with little gun control. We’ve seen it happen in other countries, even, including those with draconian gun control laws. So we’re not convinced that gun control is the answer.

What’s more, we’re not going to vote for politicians that do.

And contrary to what some might tell you, there are a lot more of us than anti-gunners want to believe. Then again, considering how extreme they’re getting lately, that’s a good thing. Trying to shame people who disagree, though, isn’t going to change anyone’s opinion.