Wednesday, December 19, 2012

The Answer is Not More Guns

Alex Seitz-Wald writing for Salon refutes the idea that more guns equals less crimeWe discussed the Atlantic article here.
In this month’s Atlantic, correspondent Jeffrey Goldberg set out to make the case in a smart and reasonable way that would be amenable to the kind of people who read the Atlantic. It’s a fluke of timing that it hit newsstands just as Newtown reignited the gun debate. His massive 7,000-word feature, titled “The Case for More Guns (And More Gun Control),” makes a compelling argument in what could be called the “Slate pitch” genre of contrarian counternarratives that seek to provoke by challenging widely held, though rarely debated, assumptions. In this case, he questions whether more guns invariably lead to more gun violence.

He advocates stricter gun restrictions like closing the gun show loophole and better training for people with concealed carry permits. But he concludes that with so many guns already in the hands of Americans (over 300 million, or about one per person) and the police incapable of protecting us, the situation is pretty much hopeless — so we’re probably better off arming ourselves and other law-abiding citizens so we can defend ourselves.
He goes on to explain in a most eloquent and convincing way what many of us have been saying for a long time.

What's your opinion?  Please leave a comment.


  1. What Goldberg does, something that you, Mikeb, have never done, is acknowledge all the facts. He also shows that he understands our side.

    If both sides would agree that owning and carrying firearms is a fundamental right, we could come to more agreement. But the gun control side won't give even that.

    1. Margret from WisconsinDecember 20, 2012 at 1:41 AM

      The problem is that the pro-gun side is almost always unwilling to compromise to the slightest of solutions to the daily carnage which takes place in our streets.

      Most Americans won't be fooled by your mealy-mouthed fast talking lawyers. You can try to justify yourselves with biased interpretations of the constitution, but we are not stupid. Americans who see children killed in the streets of cities, in movie theaters, and now elementary schools, will look for solutions. If your side refuses to come up with regulations that are reasonable (as the Supreme Court calls it) then the truly anti-gun side will succeed in getting their proposals passed when sane and intelligent Americans look for answers.

    2. Margaret, thanks for your comment. Good luck trying to get through to the likes of Greg Camp, though.

    3. As I said, gun control freaks can't even bring themselves to offering compromise. They want everything. That's as it should be on a moral issue, and this is total war.

  2. Just like any biased report (from either side) critical elements are removed.

    "On the other hand, in the confusion after the shooting of former Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, an armed citizen nearly shot the unarmed hero who had tackled alleged shooter Jared Loughner."

    So what ... he didn't. That is the point. He attempted began to engage and took in the situation and didn't. This flies in the face of the 'it will be a big gun battle and confusing mess' argument.

    He critics the Appalachian case with justifiable reasons - but that was only one of the cases presented.

    Then, he leaves out the most important piece of the CHL holder confronting the Clackamas mall shooter. The shooter killed himself immediately after that confrontation. This confirms what we have said all along - that these spree killers do not want to, and will not, engage in a firefight. They don't want to lose control of their own destiny. As soon as they meet any resistance - they take their own life.

    1. FL, you don't really believe that nonsense about the Clackamas shooting, do you? His story is as bogus as most of the telephone interviews that Kleck did.

    2. I honestly, did (and still do - a little) have a bit of skepticism - especially at first. I was hoping for some independent verification. But, of course, the media isn't rushing to investigate as it counters their perfect narrative.

      But two things have me convinced enough to be willing to share it.

      One is that I read a version of the story that involved him calling the police and reporting himself as armed and what he was wearing. That would mean there is an official record of it. I doubt he would put himself up to that kind of scrutiny if it was concocted.

      Two, I can think of no other reason that only two were killed. The cops had not arrived yet and everything we know about these idiots is that they don't stop until they meet some resistance.

    3. You can think of no other reason why only two were killed? You don't have a very good imagination when you want to conveniently believe a crazy story which supports your side.

      How about the thousands of incidents each year in which the shooter kills only one or two. What stopped them? Or are you saying that a kook who dresses up and goes to the mall is obliged for some reason the kill more than two unless some hero pops up with a gun?

      You usually make better sense than this.

    4. Mike, your 'thousands of incidents' are essentially targeted personal murders - not would be mass shootings.

      Please, please find me one remotely similar to this one where he dressed up with a hockey mask and ran through a crowded area yelling "I am the shooter!"

      You have GOT to be kidding me. Just when I start to believe you may have some intellectual honesty - you try to pull an obvious scam such as this.

    5. You would do better to leave out the personal insults. The point I'm making is you have no idea what's in the mind of any of these maniacs. It's not like his only killing two is a shocker. There's no telling what these guys will do. His low body count is certainly not evidence that the supposed hero was telling the truth. That was your original point.

    6. "You would do better to leave out the personal insults."
      You right - I am sorry. But you really do surprise me sometimes. And that was just such a whopping comparison it was beyond silly.

      "It's not like his only killing two is a shocker."
      Really? I want you to think back to when you first saw the story break. Armed gunman in Clackamas with and 'assault weapon'. You were not expecting more dead bodies? You are really trying to tell me you were not surprised when you found out only two were killed?

    7. Yes, I was pleasantly surprised only two died, but for you to use that as evidence lending credibility to the supposed concealed carry guy who took credit for stopping it, is bizarre. You even said you couldn't think of anything else to account for it.

    8. "It's not like his only killing two is a shocker."
      "Yes, I was pleasantly surprised only two died"

      Which one is it Mike?

      And please, use your imagination and give me one other viable reason for it.

      I can promise one thing. If it turns out he is lying, we WILL hear about it via major media outlets. If it is proven that he is not - we will hear crickets.

    9. I shouldn't have said "I was pleasantly surprised." I should have said "I was pleased," then you wouldn't have been able to nit pick a semantic contradiction in what I said. You're being petty in this discussion, which is not your usual approacn. Maybe Greg is rubbing off on you.

      One viable explanation: the kook was prepared to kill dozens but his crap gun jammed very quickly into the spree, he panicked and when he couldn't quickly fix the weapon decided to blow his own brains out which he was planning on doing anyway.

      I say that's a more likely explanation than that he saw a guy drawing down on him and decided to kill himself. Or, if not more likely, equally viable.

    10. I wan't trying to be petty. I was trying to highlight that you are doing anything to avoid having to admit one of the most obvious reason as a possibility.