In the past several months we've been subjected to gun fantasists expounding several reasons that no additional gun control legislation or regulation is necessary. From the argument that they need military-grade weapons in order to engage the government storm troopers to protect "freedom" (meaning in plain language the same kind of treason as firing on Fort Sumter) to asserting that the right and proper way to protect their home from intruders is to be able to fire a hundred rounds without reloading that same military-grade infantry piece.
One of the more common arguments posited is the statement that regulations will impede or infringe on the rights of the "responsible gun owner." When one points out one of the recent tragedies the response is that "yeah, but they were not 'responsible' gun owners."
The fact that in each of these tragedies the owner was "responsible" right up to the moment the bullet left the barrel to kill is glossed over by the NRA and their ilk. They fall into the No True Scotsman fallacy.
No True Scotsman is a logical fallacy by which an individual attempts to avoid being associated with an unpleasant act by asserting that no true member of the group they belong to would do such a thing, the fallacy tries to redefine the group to exclude them.
The NRA is dead set against anyone being required to demonstrate that they are or would be a "responsible" gun owner, that only after the tragedy occurs should any control be exerted.
If the NRA would work to ensure only "responsible" gun owners had access to firearms instead of erecting roadblocks to reasonable control perhaps we wouldn't be holding 30,000 funerals every year for the victims of formerly "responsible" gun owners.
Glenn Hendricks, Silverthorne