Nobody consider the otherside.

The recent shooting in Wisconsin reveals the essential paradox of the gun control debate.

Namely, it is the implicit allegation of all pro-control arguments that anyone who possesses a gun is potentially going to climb the clock tower and open fire. Therefore the use of firearms should be limited to the government, which already possess a near monopoly on force. This essentially sets forth the police as free the violent tendencies of the average person. Trust the police.

But, this ignores the fact that the people that make up the government should have the exact same implicit predeliction for flying off the handle. Police officers can snap, do snap. And they do it while holding a gun.

Which is patently false.

On the other hand, gun ownership advocates tend to try to argue that adequate training automatically makes a gun owner, any gun owner, civilian or otherwise, safe. People can be trusted with guns, it is only the bad apples that go on shooting sprees.

But here, the individual with the most training, who should have been most safe, lost it. Clearly, it is possible for anyone, regardless of training, to go postal.

And the logical conclusion?  Drum roll please . . . .

Both sides are wrong.