Denver Post Editorial Shows Beginning of Common Sense

[Rucker61]

http://www.denverpost.com/carroll/ci...ng-gun-control

[sneakerd]

Carroll is the only right-leaning voice of reason at the Denver Post (other than guest editorialist Rosen), so you expect this sort of diatribe from him. The rest of the rag will not reflect nor accept his version of reality.

[buckshotbarlow]

I always tell the guys in the stores trying to sell this crap that they can keep their liberal garbage, i'll keep my conservative source of information...9 times out of 10 i get a deer in the headlights stare...

[roberth]

I always tell the guys in the stores trying to sell this crap that they can keep their liberal garbage, i'll keep my conservative source of information...9 times out of 10 i get a deer in the headlights stare...

They are probably just astounded that someone would speak out against Denver's "Paper of Record".

[whitbaby]

Denver Post still sux and biased as hell. The Carroll piece is encouraging and Mike Rosen is always dependable but...

If the TX stabbing rage of the 14 victims had been shootings instead of knifings it would have been all over the front page...BUT it was a non-firearm event so they buried the story back on page 16!

[Bailey Guns]

And I say that as someone who supports background checks, wobbles back and forth on magazine size, opposes the weapons ban, and has never accepted the argument that such restrictions amount to assaults on the Second Amendment.

<snip>

The 10-year federal ban on certain assault-style weapons that ended in 2004 may have reduced crimes using those guns, according to FactCheck.org.

Common sense? Really? Sounds to me like he's just slightly less rabid regarding gun control than the liberals he's complaining about.

[sneakerd]

He has a right to his views, whatever they are, and if you read his editorials regularly you will see volumes of real common sense compared to most of the others written by lock-step jack-boot liberals.

[Bailey Guns]

My disagreement wasn't about whether or not he has a right to his views, or even to share them in print within the DP. My disagreement was with the content of the article being described by the OP as a "common sense" editorial.

In my opinion, someone who writes, "And I say that as someone who supports background checks, wobbles back and forth on magazine size, opposes the weapons ban, and has never accepted the argument that such restrictions amount to assaults on the Second Amendment" doesn't really understand the Second Amendment and the uselessness of various gun-control arguments.

I don't see that as common sense at all.

[Rucker61]

My disagreement wasn't about whether or not he has a right to his views, or even to share them in print within the DP. My disagreement was with the content of the article being described by the OP as a "common sense" editorial.

In my opinion, someone who writes, "And I say that as someone who supports background checks, wobbles back and forth on magazine size, opposes the weapons ban, and has never accepted the argument that such restrictions amount to assaults on the Second Amendment" doesn't really understand the Second Amendment and the uselessness of various gun-control arguments.

I don't see that as common sense at all.

Which is why the post is entitled "shows beginning of common sense". "Less rabid" works as well.


This seems reasonable enough:

"Still, supporters of the measures are vastly overselling their significance and thus stoking suspicion that future mass shootings would only trigger another round of restrictions.

First of all, rifles — let alone assault-style rifles — are not exactly the weapon of choice for murderers. As gun advocates have noted, the FBI identifies more homicides in 2011 by blunt objects such as hammers and clubs than rifles (although the rifle figure is understated to an unknown degree because the firearm type in some murders wasn't identified). When killers use guns, they mostly prefer handguns.

Meanwhile, the number of handgun homicides that necessitate more than 10 rounds is relatively trivial.

And of course assault-style weapons and large magazines are irrelevant to the toll of firearm suicides, which equalled 19,000 in 2011, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.


On the other hand, consider the 2007 massacre of 32 at Virginia Tech. As the Citizens Crime Commission of New York City (a big supporter of magazine limits) notes, "Investigators found a total of 17 empty magazines at the scene of the shooting, a mix of several 15-round and 10-round magazines loaded with hollow-point rounds."

Seventeen empty magazines! Clearly tackling a maniac during the few moments it takes to reload is easier said than done".

[sneakerd]

Fair enough and I generally agree with your points. I look at him as a common-sense editorialist over-all within the scope of all of the editorials I have read that were written by him.