One of my eight semi-regular readers, "Ploon", has posted a link to a rather nice little speech by economist John Lott , about the media's reflexive anti-gun bias. It's chock full of info, and well worth a read.

Many thanks, Ploon.

The article explores some of the statistics behind gun use, and exposes the gross disparity between reality and the picture painted in the media, and delves into specific examples of bias. It also posits a believable factor explaining the urban/rural disparity in gun positions, and takes on the argument about accidental deaths.

Just read it. Really.

Now I'd like to point out that unlike Steve, Kim Du Toit, Clayton Cramer, and a host of other conservative bloggers, I have no special fixation or fascination with firearms. I'm not a gun geek. (Heck, I'm not even much of a computer geek.) They don't really interest me and my knee-jerk emotional reactions on the topic are all decidedly liberal.

But we're not allowed a neutral position on firearms ownership. We either allow it or we seek to limit it. And each choice has profound social implications. This isn't stamp collecting. People live or die by which policy we support. Real people. With real husbands and wives, families and children.

So if you think the topic is important, whether you're for or against allowing people to own and carry guns, I urge you to take some time to look into your own beliefs. Do you really want to save people's lives, or are you just into forcing others to behave as you want to them to? If you want to save lives, are you sure your position is actually saving, and not costing people's lives?

Do the research on this question: Does gun control decrease or increase crime?