Wow.

That’s all Ed Board can think to say about Rick Perry’s latest bonehead move.

Last Tuesday, Perry signed the so-called Castle Doctrine into law. Never mind that the law is named for the macho notion that a man’s home is his castle. Who the hell thought it was a good idea to give your average Joe license to shoot first and think later?

Perry’s statement that you ought to be able to protect yourself is reasonable. His endorsement of the bill is not.

Texas law already provides for self-defense shootings. At best, a state law would lend uniformity to any discrepancies among local jurisdictions. At worst, the provision that frees “justified” shooters from paying any civil penalties for injuries to innocent bystanders is worrisome.

There’s no need to change something in an already functioning system. It’s not as if people are being convicted left and right of killing people in the name of self-defense.

We agree that people shouldn’t have to get worried about being sued when they’re trying to protect themselves. But the standards for a “perceived threat” are continuing to get lower.

Like it or not, we’re in a state that already has a concealed weapons law and a “more is more” attitude when it comes to guns.

Is it really a good idea to send the message, implicit or otherwise, that people should err on the side of using guns rather than not using them?

It’s time for an examination of conscience here. Why are we electing lawmakers who feel the need to pander to a gun-hungry public by passing useless laws? Do we really think – as the gun lobbyists would have us believe – that more guns lead to less crime?

There are no restrictions on the number of guns a person can buy in Texas. Nor are there background checks at gun shows. Limitations on assault weapons? Nope. Registration? No. A waiting period? Hardly. Hey, juveniles can legally own a rifle.

Kinda makes that whole self-defense thing seem quaint.

That might be why Dallas is the proud crime capital of the nation.

Instead of trying to clarify an already common-sense law, how about we pass some different ones. Ones that would do something to help curb the illegal gun trade. (Unless Aunt Nelly really needs an AK-47 to scare away burglars.)

This debate isn’t about curbing your (supposed) right to bear arms. It’s about interpreting that right reasonably.