Econ101 DogRunner It was more than that, y'all. Whittle has actually talked about taking this to the next level, if he starts to get traction. I am not saying he is going to run or that he could win if he does. But he has discussed the possibility of trying to get into the race with the rest of them, to raise the quality of the debate. I am not sure that that is an impossible to goal. And why not—aren't we supposed to have citizen presidents? Does it always have to be a senator, governor, or general? An insurgent candidacy by someone who is none of those might just remind Americans that a gentleman farmer or private citizen is every bit as important as an elected official. And Whittle is more articulate than anyone we have on our bench. Perhaps even more so than Marco Rubio, and Rubio is brilliant! This might not be just pie in the sky. It could turn out to be more.

 This is the dumbest argument on gun control.  There will always be violence, insanity in this world, but take away the guns, there will be less or no casualty.  Put an insane guy in school, or in the mall, or in a movie theater,  without a gun he can only cause injury but not lives.

 BayaniAng Drugs have been illegal for many, many decades. There is even a "War on Drugs." We have the military abroad and several branches of law enforcement at home devoted to interdicting drugs and punishing users, distributors, and producers. And yet there are still drugs everywhere. What makes you think that laws to remove guns will actually do so? Yes, it will cause the people who don't want to break the law to give up gun ownership, just as some people don't do drugs because they're illegal. But criminals will still get guns, just as they are able to get drugs, no matter how many laws are passed. The insane guy in the movie theater is not going to shrink at a few silly little laws. He'll still get the gun. The laws will not have saved any lives; they will simply have forced law-abiding people to give up their right to own weapons for home/personal defense, sport, etc.

@BayaniAng So, taking away guns will help reduce crime? This will make sure criminals are not going to purchase guns illegally and won't continue to commit crimes? Is this kind of what's happened with the war on drugs? Drugs are illegal so criminals don't have access to them anymore? No.  Gun control will only negatively affect good citizens who will abide by the laws and so not have guns to protect themselves, while criminals take full advantage, like they are currently doing in Chicago. You need to read up on world history as well as current events to see how much devastation is caused by disarming good people.  

@WesternFreePress @BayaniAng I should have read your reply before responding, as mine is nearly verbatim. I continue to be stunned by the insane pro-gun arguments. What's happened to the scientific discipline that investigates principles governing reliable inference, in other words, good old-fashioned logic? Fewer and fewer seem to know the history of our country, even basics such as why our forefathers left England and how much emphasis was placed on the right/need for citizens to be able to protect themselves from a tyrannical government. I am also amazed at the naïveté among so many who express their sincere, however grossly askew belief, that a government takeover is impossible or would never occur in the United States. 

 plazaliz1  WesternFreePress  BayaniAng We've all written before reading---no worries :-)

The reasons that emotion tends to trump logic for some people are many, but one salient one is this, IMO: Utopian yearning.

People want things to be better. They want to make them better. This is a normal human desire. Unfortunately, a lot of people put this desire ahead of their own ability to use reason.

Others put this desire so far into the forefront that they are willing to create an all-powerful state to enforce their desire to build utopia.