Last night I read this article in the LA Times (h/t The Gun Wire) regarding Virginia working to repeal their “1 gun a month” restriction.

Some statements in it just rubbed me the wrong way.

Supporters of the bill, who included most of the Legislature’s Republicans as well as some Democrats from rural areas,

Some implied stereotyping?

“Virginia has had more than its share of horrific tragedies perpetrated by criminals with easy access to firearms,” said Lori Haas, whose daughter Emily was one of 25 people injured in the 2007 Virginia Tech shootings, which killed 35. “It’s a sad day when our legislators purposely make it easier for gun traffickers to do their dirty business.”

They aren’t making it easier for criminals to be criminals. They’re making it easier for law-abiding citizens. For you see, criminals, by definition, don’t obey the law. They’re already trafficking high numbers of guns and the change of this law doesn’t affect them. It does change things for the law-abiding, and allows them to buy more freely.

We don’t restrict people to buying one car a month, one knife a month, one bottle of alcohol a month. Heck, we have giant warehouse stores dedicated to people who wish to buy in huge quantities. What with drunk driving, what with obesity, why don’t we start limiting what else people can buy? Because these things can kill people too. The logic doesn’t stand.

I am convinced that this law had a significant impact in reducing gunrunning,” [Richard Cullen, a Republican and a former U.S. attorney in Virginia] said

Data please.

But the choice quote was the last one… and of course, positioning it as the last one was intentional on the part of the LA Times writer, so it’s the tone and impression the reader leaves the article with:

Sen. Richard L. Saslaw, a Democrat who opposes the bill, said allowing people to buy more than one handgun a month wouldn’t make Virginia any safer. Anyone who had bought a handgun a month under the current law would have amassed 240 guns during the law’s 20-year span.

If you need more than 240 handguns, then I would submit something’s wrong with you,” he said. “Something’s gone wrong in your life.”

It may not make Virginia any safer, but where will it make Virginia any more dangerous?

Just because someone CAN buy more than 1 a month doesn’t mean someone HAS to or will buy more than one a month, every month. Perhaps I win an elk hunting trip in Colorado but I don’t have a rifle suitable. I might want to buy 2 at one time so I can have a rifle and a backup. I’ve had a rifle fail on me in the field (well, the scope did) and I was happy to have a backup rifle. Why should it take me 2 months to make these purchases?

And if I want more than 240 handguns, why does that equate to a problem in my life? People have hobbies and collect large amounts of things all the time. Someone with less than 240 stamps or baseball cards or comic books doesn’t have much of a collection. But hey, thank you for your assumptions… I guess we can’t all be like you. Even if something has gone wrong in your life, is that any reason to deny a person?