Not the kid-sniffing.

He also does not mean harshly dealing with those who harm other people. He means harming millions of people who've never harmed anyone – with guns or otherwise. Per the writer William Burroughs, who said: "After a shooting spree, they always want to take the guns away from the people who didn't do it."

Except, of course, when it is government shooters who did do it.

It is interesting to note that after government shooters shot (and burned to death) a whole building full of mostly women and kids at Waco, Texas there were no calls to "deal" with it – by taking away the government's guns.

Nor after every tiresomely repetitive unjustified shooting of harmless people by armed government workers; i.e., the "police." Egregious examples include the 2016 murder – honest English – of unarmed and crawling on the floor Daniel Shaver by an AGW named Philip Brailsford at a La Quinta inn in Mesa, AZ. Brailsford was punished with lifetime disability payments for the "PTSD" he claimed he suffered as a result of shooting Shaver as he begged not to be.

It is not an "isolated case."

Such cases occur with more regularity than those performed by the non-badged. More than 1,000 of them, every year to date. Even if "only" a fourth of those were "unjustified," it is still a lot of them.

The Black Lives Matter people – who caused a great deal of harm – urged "defunding" of the police. No one urged they be disarmed – notwithstanding the harms they've caused. Indeed, armed government workers enjoy privileges the rest of us don't – such as being able to carry their gun into a school or bar, for instance – which is an offense when we do it (even if we have a government permission slip to carry a gun otherwise).