The Atlantic -- The Case for more guns (and more gun control)
Mediocre article, but about as good as it gets in the mainstream media these days.
O2
The Atlantic -- The Case for more guns (and more gun control)
Mediocre article, but about as good as it gets in the mainstream media these days.
O2
This would be a victory if I really believed that he believed that but I think they're just going underground with their counterfactual arguments.Quote:
“I’m happy to consider the debate on the Second Amendment closed,” Dan Gross, the Brady Campaign’s president, told me recently. “Reopening that debate is not what we should be doing. We have to respect the fact that a lot of decent, law-abiding people believe in gun ownership.”
Well yeah, aside from the misleading garbage in the middle, that's the point we've been trying to get across. It's what John Lott showed with his studies, it's what the FBI's crime statistics show quite clearly.Quote:
Mightn’t allowing more law-abiding private citizens to carry concealed weapons—when combined with other forms of stringent gun regulation—actually reduce gun violence?
Good statistic to keep handy when talking to libtards. He further points out,Quote:
Today, the number of concealed-carry permits is the highest it’s ever been, at 8 million, and the homicide rate is the lowest it’s been in four decades—less than half what it was 20 years ago.
Unfortunately, as you say, as good as it gets in the mainstream media these days -- especially with the morons who read or write for "journals" like The Atlantic or New Yorker.Quote:
(The number of people allowed to carry concealed weapons is actually considerably higher than 8 million, because residents of Vermont, Wyoming, Arizona, Alaska, and parts of Montana do not need government permission to carry their personal firearms. These states have what Second Amendment absolutists refer to as “constitutional carry,” meaning, in essence, that the Second Amendment is their permit.
I called this first http://www.ar-15.co/threads/73489-A-...l-Case-for-CCW
It really isn't for people here and is factually challenged in a few important places. OTOH, it is useful to pass along to anti-gun types since it advances pro-CCW points using language they can handle and in a polite manner. It does show that the core of the anti-gun movement is an appeal to emotion, not reason.
I find takedowns of causes and spokesmen by the opposing side tend to descend too quickly into ad hominem 'tard' calling. If you want to see decent criticisms of conservatives, libertarian sites and places like The American Conservative are helpful.
It's certainly better than Manichean peckerhead-ness that rules this board.
In before the lock!Quote:
Originally Posted by CrufflerSteve
no joke...not sure why anyone would say that about the people that own the board and allow us to hang out for freeQuote:
Originally Posted by kidicarus13
Just to clarify. I have no issues with the mods. They have regular breakfast meetings with Jesus.
I was referring to what passes for political discourse here.
I don't beleive he was referring to the owners of the board.
Regular breakfast meetings with Jesus? What does this mean? Serious question. I test and regularly do read at an advanced college level, but I have no idea what this is supposed to mean. Just an FYI, I'm agnostic and have been so openly on this site for quite a while.Quote:
Originally Posted by CrufflerSteve
I found the article to have considerably more research and interviews in it than the standard hack journalism seen today.