David Codrea gives a thorough fisking to the folks at Politifact.  Sorry, but I almost can’t type or say the word “Politifact” without belly laughing.  I put them in the same category as Snopes.  Ignore all of it.

Alabama Senate on guns in cars.  Well, it’s a start.  Let’s see what the governor does with this.

Nice review of the Springfield Armory Range Officer.  It’s affinity for light ammunition and occasional FTF/FTE is troubling, but then again, the notion of a 9mm 1911 is troubling too.  If I ever got one, it would certainly be .45 ACP like God and John Moses Browning intended them to be.  I’ve been thinking about getting a RO compact for IWB carry.  Then again, Sig makes a nice desert tan Cerakote small/medium 1911 that’s on display at Gander Mountain right down the road.  Oh, life is filled with such hard choices.  What to do, what to do?

Why the U.S. Navy didn’t shoot down that Russian fighter that buzzed our ship.  I rather think it has to do with being pussies.

Only a bigot would be offended by the sight of another woman’s penis.

Beaten for being white.  This is partially why public schooling sucks.  Home school.  Your children will be better off, and so will you.

Remember just eight short months ago Senator John Cornyn tried to get his bipartisan guns and mental health bill passed?  Well, the worm is at it again.

The Hill:

The fight over gun control is threatening to scuttle a bipartisan mental health reform effort in the Senate as lawmakers rush to get the issue to the floor.

Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) is in talks with leaders of the Senate health committee to combine his mental health bill with one that passed the committee last month.

But Democrats object to certain sections of Cornyn’s bill that they say would make it easier for mentally ill people to acquire guns, and the controversial provisions could shatter Democratic support for the bill.

Provisions in Cornyn’s bill would require a full judicial hearing to ban someone from buying guns due to mental illness and would allow people previously committed for mental illness to purchase a gun as soon as a judge’s commitment order expires.

Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), one of the sponsors of the health committee’s bill, said such provisions would prevent him from supporting the bill.

“We’re still talking to [Cornyn] about whether we can move forward without those provisions,” Murphy said. “Obviously I can’t support a bill on the floor that has those provisions in it.”

Cornyn disagrees with Democrats’ argument, calling the position “unrealistic.” But he said he is open to discussing changes.

“I’m certainly open to discussing it, but I mean this whole idea that we’re not going to have a fulsome discussion about mental health and [the] problems it creates with the criminal justice system, housing and the healthcare field seems kind of unrealistic to me,” Cornyn said.

Still, he added: “I’m more interested in getting a solution and advancing the ball than I am trying to make a point.”

Murphy is one of the Senate’s strongest proponents of gun control, representing the state where the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting took place in 2012.

Asked if Cornyn has been open to dropping the problematic provisions, Murphy indicated the talks are still in an early stage.

“We haven’t gotten there yet,” he said.

Also involved in the talks are Sens. Bill Cassidy (R-La.) and health committee leaders Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) and Patty Murray (D-Wash.).

Both sides are still hopeful that some agreement can be reached. Mental health reform is seen as one of the few issues on which a meaningful bipartisan bill could pass this year.

About one in five adults, or 44 million people, experience a mental illness per year, but the number of available psychiatric beds has declined 14 percent in recent years, and families are often prevented by privacy laws from accessing crucial information to help care for family members with mental illness.

But gun politics has long been an obstacle for mental health reform.

Republicans argue for mental health reform as a response to mass shootings, while Democrats contend that mental health reform, while important in its own right, is no substitute for new gun control laws.

“The two work in tandem, not one as a substitute for the other,” Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said at a hearing in February in which he denounced the gun-related sections of Cornyn’s bill. “If we did gun legislation, we’d need mental health legislation with real dollars. If we did mental health legislation with real dollars, we’d need gun legislation.”

One fear is that if Cornyn’s gun-related provisions made it into the final bill, it could spark a back and forth with Democrats putting forward their own gun-control amendments, disintegrating the bipartisan calm that would be crucial to passing the bill in an election year.

Murphy is trying to convince other Democrats not to introduce gun-related amendments of their own.

Even so, a Senate Democratic aide said that moving forward with a clean mental health bill is more likely now than it seemed a few weeks ago.

Murray said in a statement she is proud of the bipartisan bill that passed committee last month.

“I’m hopeful that we’ll be able to move our bill to the floor and continue building on that bipartisan foundation as soon as possible,” she said.

Will the GOP ever learn?  We don’t want any of this.  I don’t care what kind of protections Cornyn has in the bill, or what he claims are protections.  The court system is corrupt, and appeal to mental health professionals is the twenty first century equivalent of appeal to the village witch doctor.  I don’t want bipartisan cooperation.  I don’t want kindness and collegiality.  I don’t want both sides to come to agreement.  And I really, really don’t care if the NRA supports this bill or not.  I want war.  Not one more gun law, not a single one, not even a hint of one.  The only gun legislation that should be passed should be to undo the past obscenities such as the Hughes amendment.

And remember what reader Menckenlite said about psychiatry?

Control freaks love psychiatry, a means of social control with no Due Process protections. It is a system of personal opinion masquerading as science. See, e.g., Boston University Psychology Professor Margaret Hagan’s book, Whores of the Court, to see how arbitrary psychiatric illnesses are. Peter Breggin, Fred Baughman and Thomas Szasz wrote extensively about abuses of psychiatry. Liberals blame guns for violence. Conservatives blame mental illness. Neither have any causal connection to violence. The issue is criminal conduct, crime. Suggesting that persons with legal disabilities are criminals shows the nonsensical argument of this politician and his fellow control freaks. Shame on them.

Mental health, if it can be consistently defined by the village witchdoctor, has no causal bearing on or connection to the perpetration of evil.  The perpetration of evil is done by those with mental maladies and those without alike.  It has to do with federal headship in Adam, the first man, and whether that fallen nature has been redeemed.  Leave the issues of morality and the soul to the doctors of the church, Johnny boy.  Your doctors aren’t good enough and don’t really understand.

NYT:

In a matter of months, the offices, libraries and classrooms where I work, study and teach at the University of Texas at Austin will become “concealed carry zones” — areas in which people with concealed handgun licenses may carry their weapons. The “campus carry” bill that brought about this situation represents a 50th anniversary gift of sorts from Texas state legislators. For when the law comes into effect on August 1, it will be 50 years to the day since a heavily armed young man ascended the clock tower on campus and shot 45 people, killing 14 of them, in the first mass shooting at an American college.

Following the signing of the bill into law last June, university administrators began to carve my daily environment into armed and unarmed zones: Guns in classrooms? Yes. Guns at sporting events? No. Appalled by this spectacle, I proceeded to do the two things that I have been trained to do as a philosopher: I debated with my colleagues and I wrote a critical essay. Then, having had my little scream into the abyss, I experienced a period of peace.

But now, as August 1 approaches, I find myself drawn back to the problems, both practical and philosophical, that are posed by campus carry. It seems to me that if we care about the future of American education, we must inquire after those things of value that stand at risk on armed campuses. The campus carry bill is, after all, not a peculiarly Texan piece of legislation. It has precedent in other states and, given the political climate, may be emulated elsewhere.

Much of the debate around campus carry has focused on physical risk — on the enhanced likelihood of suicide, domestic violence, assault or accidental discharge. Indeed, it was advice concerning the risk of accidental discharge that persuaded university administrators that it would be better to have students wear their guns into classrooms than to have them deposit them in lockers outside. The working group assigned by the president of our university with the task of providing recommendations about the implementation of campus carry determined that: “A policy that increases the number of instances in which a handgun must be stored multiplies the danger of an accidental discharge.” So now, people who cannot be trusted to safely transfer their weapons to lockers will instead carry them into spaces of learning.

In order to assess the physical risks of campus carry, we must rely on quantitative studies. But as philosophers, my colleagues and I can speak to some of the less explicit threats that campus carry poses by turning to our own long tradition of the qualitative study of violence and its role in human affairs. Consider the classroom, for example. What happens to it when its occupants suspect that someone has brought a gun inside? Campus carry poses a threat to the classroom as a space of discourse and learning even if no concealed carrier ever discharges their gun.

In general, we do not feel apprehension about the presence of strong people in spaces reserved for intellectual debate (although we might in other contexts — a boxing ring, say, or a darkened alley), but we do feel apprehension about the presence of a gun. This is because the gun is not there to contribute to the debate. It exists primarily as a tool for killing and maiming. Its presence tacitly relates the threat of physical harm.

But the gun in the classroom also communicates the dehumanizing attitude to other human beings that belongs to the use of violence …

[ … ]

In addition to these relatively abstract considerations, there remains a need for more concrete philosophical work concerning campus carry — situated work that draws on gender, race and labor theory. We need to ask: What bodies are at greatest risk? What disproportionate harms might the law visit on people of color? What sorts of psychological and physical threats can employees be subjected to in the workplace? And what is the significance of this law for academic freedom?

Finally, those of us who teach on armed campuses will need to confront pedagogical problems. As a philosopher, I work with questions that are challenging, controversial and even upsetting. As a teacher of philosophy, I try to animate these questions for students, and to provide them with the critical tools to pursue independent inquiry.

And see, based on my own philosophy and apologetics course work, I thought philosophizing was supposed to be about epistemology, cosmology, logic and questions of world view.  When I think of philosophy, I think of men like Alvin Plantinga, Nicholas Wolterstorff and Gordon Clark, and before them Frederick Copleston (you know, people who actually think and write about philosophy).

I see that the author’s criticism eventually devolves into issues of race and gender.  How sad.  The most helpless among her colleagues are women who are under threat of assault and rape.  Yet according to Ms. Gubler the mere policy against guns in the classroom (and by extension, a woman cannot carry from her class to her car because she cannot have one in the classroom) will prevent guns from being in the classroom.  Criminals will read and follow the policy – or perhaps she really does think about things, and knows that she cannot effect behavior with policies, and doesn’t care about her female colleagues after all.  Perhaps her tribute to issues of feminism are merely for academic credibility.  Same with race.

Well, we’ve dealt with the notion of man being made in God’s image, and that itself being not just justification for self defense but connoting duty to self preservation.  I seriously doubt that the author’s appeal to the dehumanizing attitude towards other humans will be an impressive argument for would-be criminals.  I recall a conversation I had one time with Dr. Richard Pratt on the issue of cognitive rest.  I doubt the author’s lectures will wake a criminal from his cognitive rest in the necessity of doing what he intends to do.  On the other hand, if you follow my advice, the criminal will be much more impressed.

As for Ms. Gubler, who is currently writing a dissertation on the role of forgiveness in secular ethics and public life, good luck with that.  Better philosophers (e.g., Bertrand Russell) were unsuccessful at developing ethics without God.  Russell is in hell now so he can’t tell her to adjust her thinking, and I don’t really believe in luck since I’m a Calvinist.  But readers already knew that.

USA Today:

Donald Trump is taking on CIA Director John Brennan on torture, saying Brennan’s pledge not to allow waterboarding is “ridiculous.”

Brennan said on NBC News Sunday that he would not allow enhanced interrogation tactics, including waterboarding, even if a future president ordered it.

“I think his comments are ridiculous,” Trump said on Fox News Monday. “I mean, they chop off heads and they drown people in cages with 50 in a cage, in big, steel heavy cages, drop them right into the water drown people, and we can’t water-board and we can’t do anything,” Trump said.

“And you know we’re playing on different fields,’ he continued. “And we have a huge problem with ISIS, which we can’t beat, and the reason we can’t beat them is we won’t use strong tactics, whether it’s this or other things.”

So let me tell you how this really works, and this little note is to you, Trump, and any other presidential candidate who thinks he or she is going to bring back waterboarding.

It will never get to the level of having to have the director of the CIA tell anyone anything.  The president will give the order, and no one will carry it out.  It’s not that they won’t carry it out for reasons of morality, although some refusals will fall into that category.  It has to do with other, more pragmatic issues.

The things I am going to say to you can be found with research, so I’m not going to waste my time linking to things you should already know.  The original guys who did this for the CIA, working directly under the employ of the CIA or as contractors, are now retired, and some of them live in the Northern Virginia area.  Others live elsewhere, but the CIA knows where all of them are.  They want to be left alone, and some of them fear a knock at the door, with federal marshals waiting at the door to take them off to federal prison, never to be seen again.  I know these things because of my war and counterinsurgency coverage and commentary for so many years.  Again, go research it yourself if you want proof – I’m not going to waste my time proving this for you and your advisers should already know all of these things anyway.  For you to bring this up causes me to wonder about your advisers.

You see, even when a president tells them to do things, when another president comes into office and appoints his own attorney general, and the mood goes sour on what those men did, things change, and they can be held accountable not for what they did, but for what the people who came after them thought they should or shouldn’t have done.

This isn’t a commentary on waterboarding, per se.  I have no opinion since I’ve never been waterboarded.  The only man I know who has, a former Navy pilot who was waterboarded as part of his SERE training, says to me that it’s not torture.  I don’t know.  I don’t care.  That’s not the point.  The point is that in order for it to happen, you have to find people to make it happen.  And outsourcing this to other countries isn’t an option, because they can still retroactively charge you with war crimes for enabling it to happen.  So Mr. Trump, it isn’t ridiculous, and it isn’t going to happen, ever again.  Ever.  The only people Americans will ever waterboard from now on will be SERE training participants.

WWLTV.com:

“If this opinion in Louisiana is super unpopular,” Payton told USA TODAY Sports in a 33-minute phone conversation on Monday, his first interview since Will Smith’s death, “so be it.”

In the aftermath of the senseless shooting on Saturday night that left former defensive end Smith dead – and Smith’s wife Racquel wounded — amid a beef linked to a traffic accident, the New Orleans Saints coach is pleading for more gun control.

He isn’t merely talking about tighter laws. If Payton had his druthers we’d live in a country without guns.

“Two hundred years from now, they’re going to look back and say, ‘What was that madness about?’ “ Payton said. “The idea that we need them to fend off intruders … people are more apt to draw them (in other situations). That’s some silly stuff we’re hanging onto.”

Payton is still processing the death of a former team captain — who was weeks away from joining the Saints coach staff as an intern — and no one in their right mind can blame him for expressing his raw, human emotion. He wants to get this off his chest, and it hardly matters if Payton is bucking conventional NFL coach speak by coming out strong on a hot-button political issue.

“I’m not an extreme liberal,” Payton said. “I find myself leaning to the right on some issues. But on this issue, I can’t wrap my brain around it.”

Payton, who grew up in suburban Chicago, said that his philosophy was influenced by his father, an insurance claims adjuster whose line of work was filled with tragedies. He also spent six months playing in a British football league during the late 1980s, before launching his coaching career.

“I hate guns,” he said.

Payton said he is trying to remove his anti-gun bias in considering the matter, but even with that he reaches the same conclusion.

“I’ve heard people argue that everybody needs a gun,” he said. “That’s madness. I know there are many kids who grow up in a hunting environment. I get that. But there are places, like England, where even the cops don’t have guns.”

[ … ]

“It was a large caliber gun. A .45,” Payton said. “It was designed back during World War I. And this thing just stops people. It will kill someone within four or five seconds after they are struck. You bleed out. After the first shot (that struck Smith’s torso), he took three more in his back.”

Payton paused, then continued with his theme.

“We could go online and get 10 of them, and have them shipped to our house tomorrow,” he said. “I don’t believe that was the intention when they allowed for the right for citizens to bear arms.”

Hey Sean, I noticed that you went on to talk about the danger in New Orleans and your fears there.  You mentioned that you could go online and have ten pistols shipped to your home tomorrow.  You know that’s a lie, or maybe you don’t.  You have to go through an FFL when you cross state lines, and you certainly do when you buy from a dealer even in your own state.

And perhaps that wasn’t really the intent of the founders after all.  I agree with you.  It should be easier than that to get something to protect your very life.  And getting back to the issue of the danger in New Orleans, I noticed that you talked about cops in England not even carrying guns.  Well, that’s being revisited now in light of the threats posed by Islamists, and some of them do carry guns, but in any case, I also noticed that while you observed that cops in England don’t carry, you didn’t call for the disarming of cops in America.

That’s because this isn’t really about guns to you.  It’s about a monopoly of force.  Only the state should have the power to defend themselves and others.  You said so when you talked about waiting for cops if you get into a fender bender with a hot headed dude.

So you want people to have guns, just your kind of people.  That makes you a hypocrite.  Why don’t you just do your job and coach football and leave the public policy to men who aren’t hypocrites?

Stamford Advocate:

A city man cleaning his revolver Thursday night was charged with reckless endangerment after the gun accidentally went off and blew a hole through his apartment wall, police said.

Capt. Richard Conklin said Hadrian Gardner, 24, was in his Tresser Boulevard apartment cleaning the revolver when he pulled the trigger, thinking there were no bullets in the chamber, about 8 p.m. Thursday

The bullet went through the wall and entered the adjacent apartment where his neighbor dove to the floor for cover, Conklin said.

Gardner checked on his neighbor and found him unharmed and then reported the shot to police.

Gardner was charged with illegal discharge of a weapon within city limits and two counts of reckless endangerment.

Conklin said Gardner’s pistol permit was seized and will be sent to state police, who will hold a hearing to consider revoking his license to carry the gun. Two other handguns were also seized from Gardner.

It “went off.”  Because he pulled the trigger.  Good grief.  Listen man, this isn’t even a semiautomatic where you have to cycle and lock the slide to observe the chamber.  This is a revolver, smart guy.  Open the cylinder, look for empty spaces in each of the chambers.  It’s that simple.

There is no excuse.

Wired: The Senate’s Draft Encryption Bill Is Ludicrous, Dangerous And Technically Illiterate.

As Apple battled the FBI for the last two months over the agency’s demands that Apple help crack its own encryption, both the tech community and law enforcement hoped that Congress would weigh in with some sort of compromise solution. Now Congress has spoken on crypto, and privacy advocates say its “solution” is the most extreme stance on encryption yet.

On Thursday evening, the draft text of a bill called the “Compliance with Court Orders Act of 2016,” authored by offices of Senators Diane Feinstein and Richard Burr,  was published online by the Hill.¹ It’s a nine-page piece of legislation that would require people to comply with any authorized court order for data—and if that data is “unintelligible,” the legislation would demand that it be rendered “intelligible.” In other words, the bill would make illegal the sort of user-controlled encryption that’s in every modern iPhone, in all billion devices that run Whatsapp’s messaging service, and in dozens of other tech products. “This basically outlaws end-to-end encryption,” says Joseph Lorenzo Hall, chief technologist at the Center for Democracy and Technology. “It’s effectively the most anti-crypto bill of all anti-crypto bills.”

I just have a few comments.  First of all, it should be telling to you that a republican U.S. senator, Richard Burr, is aligned with a totalitarian like Feinstein.  That’s how desperate he is for a signature piece of legislation to go with his name.  He would sooner pick an awful piece of shit like this than simply turn government control on its head and give control back to the people in every way, something that would win him immediate loyalty by the voters.  Instead, he listens to his colleagues, that collection of gargoyles, demons, pit vipers and carnival barkers in Washington.

Second, remember what I said about the government’s desire for all of your information?

Soccer moms will do anything, give over any amount of privacy, give up virtually anything, in order to maintain a level of safety and security.  ISIS and nuclear power plants is the latest incarnation of the whole ISIS thing generically.  The government gets a chance to say, “Hey, listen to us, we’ll protect you if you’ll only give us access to your iPhone, all of your records, bank accounts, medical data, tell us whether you have any guns in the home, let us listen to and record your phone calls and all of your text messages, and in short be your protector.  We’ll take care of you, we promise!  We won’t let the mean bad men make the big bad thingy go BOOM and hurt your precious little babies!  Let me have the keys to your life, sweetie!”

Burr is taking advantage of ignorant soccer moms who believe that American national security will be better off if they give over their lives to the federal government and give up their constitutionally protected right to privacy.  Because Burr is just that kind of man.  Remember that he is the worm who said he would vote for Bernie Sanders before he would vote for Ted Cruz.  He is a terrible, horrible, no good, very bad U.S. senator.

I think he’s saying don’t try to be cool.  Try to improve.  Yea, that’s a good idea, and he does a lot of things I would like to do, but I don’t know about you, I don’t have access to a range like the one he’s using and where he’s the only shooter.  The range Jerry Miculek shoots at is similar.  Where do these guys come up with resources like that?

Miami Herald:

Morris Copeland runs the Miami-Dade agency in charge of juvenile offenders, and he mostly listened during a Thursday panel discussion about youth and violence and what may be causing so many children to end up either firing fatal shots or dying from them.

After about 40 minutes, Copeland leaned into his microphone and delivered the bluntest theory of the day.

“They have unimpeded access to firearms,” said Copeland, director of the the county Juvenile Services Department, which processes most children arrested in the county. “We have 11-, 12-, 13-year-olds packing heat. I’ve been in this business for 28 years. I’ve never seen anything like it.”

“Kids are going to fight. Kids are going to disagree,” he continued during the Youth: Next Generation panel at the State of Black Miami Forum at Florida Memorial University. “A child with firearms is a recipe for disaster.”

Uh huh.  “The bluntest assessment of the day.”  Kids have unimpeded access to firearms.  That’s the problem, is it, Mr. Copeland?  Form 4473 doesn’t stop your kids from getting guns?  The gun store salesman at the counter doesn’t mind selling to a 12 year old?  I’ve seen them refuse people much older.

Oh, you mean those kids break the law to obtain those firearms?  I’ve got it now.  So what you’re really discussing is a moral and cultural problem within the black community, right?  I looked at the picture in Miami Herald.  I saw a lot of black folk, blacks who care deeply about their community.  Don’t get me wrong, I think you’re made in God’s image just like me.  But that’s exactly what makes you accountable before God for fathering families that have fathers, for churching your children, for teaching them about life and the difference between right and wrong, for forcing them to deal with failure by working harder rather than demanding a handout or a promotion up to the next grade level even though they can’t read.

So here’s what we really need from you.  I don’t think your statement was blunt or honest at all.  I think you need to look your own community squarely in the face and do some truth-telling.  Then I would stand up and take notice.  In the mean time, don’t even think of curtailing my rights because of a moral and cultural problem within the black community.  Handle the log in your own eye before you look for the speck of dust in mine.

College students are supposed to be getting world class educations on everything from the STEM courses to liberal arts and rhetoric and logic.  No, I’m just kidding, they really don’t study any of that today, except STEM in some of the more technical universities (thank God for that), but the fees they charge would hint that they must learn something.  Right?

Well, let’s put that to the test.

Imagine yourself sitting in class. It’s been a long day, and you’re not paying attention to your professor. Instead, you’re planning your evening. Maybe you have an exam the next day and you want to go study in the library. Maybe you have to go down to the KAC at 4 for practice. Maybe all you want to do is sit with your friends and eat.

Then you hear gun shots. Not from the shooting range nearby, but on campus. The school goes on lockdown. Your professors instruct you to stay in the classroom, turn off the lights, cover the windows on the doors, lock the doors from the inside and hide. The room is absolutely silent. Eventually, Campus Safety comes to tell you you may all go back to your dorms.

“Were there any casualties?” you ask. “We are not at liberty to discuss that information right now,” the officer replies. You call your parents to tell them you’re OK and then you call all your friends to make sure they are as well. One of them doesn’t pick up. You try again. Still no answer. The next day the president’s office sends out an email explaining the incident and those affected. Your friend is in critical condition.

This hypothetical situtation is similar to what the families and friends of the first graders at Newtown, the high schoolers at Columbine and the college students at Virginia Tech have experienced. I am not willing to allow my school to be added to that list. House Bill 48, Concealed Carry-Affirmative Defenses-Carrying Firearm in Certain Vulnerable Areas, or the “Guns Everywhere Bill,” which is currently in committee in the Ohio State Senate, would allow people to carry weapons on college campuses across the state.

This is a recipe for a disaster. College students are under a tremendous amount of stress, are often impulsive and inevitably have access to alcohol. The combination of these factors would produce a dangerous and potentially disastrous situation if guns were added to the mix. But it is more likely that impulsive students will hurt themselves, rather than their peers.

So her thesis is this.  Students will “inevitably” get access to alcohol.  Inevitably, says she.  And perhaps she’s right.  Prohibition never works.  But she advocates gun control that looks just like prohibition, thinking that rules against them will keep them off of campus if someone really intends to bring one on anyway.  Moreover, she advocates control over peaceable, law abiding students rather than the criminals she purports to control (by the way, more rapes, burglaries and assaults occur on our local campus – UNCC – than anywhere else in the metro area of my home city, that campus being a “gun free zone”).

But she switches midstream in order to move the target.  By the end she advocates all of this under the rubric of safety for students should they get access to guns in a panicked, diminutive or pathological state.  And yet getting access to alcohol and getting behind the wheel of a car doesn’t so much as grab her attention, even though others besides the student stand to be injured or lose their lives in an accident cause by inebriated driving.

She moved the goalposts in order to redirect your demurral, and when she did, she left unaddressed the perfect analogy to guns (in terms of laws of prohibition), simply assuming that such laws won’t and can’t work.  So there you have it.  The current state of scholarship in American universities.