Article in the Atlantic

[PDM 91]

While I am sure that many or most on this forum will find much inthis article objectionable, I think it is one of the best pieces I've seen in the mainstream media on the topic of guns and gun control:

 

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/12/the-case-for-more-guns-and-more-gun-control/309161/

 

It is long. Goldberg's thesis is that banning guns is basically an impossibility, so we should focus on measures that might work to improve public safety, including improving background checks AND, shockingly, expanding concealed carry rights. He clearly isn't a "gun person" but at least writes with logic and without hysteria. This is the kind of approach that would sway many people who don't own guns or necessarily care about gun ownership but who might be open to fixing some of our broken gun laws. I'm curious what others think.

[Pizza Bob 1,488]

I thought it an extremely well reasoned and well written article. One that examines the issue logically and not with hyperbole and emotion. The author's admitted lack of knowledge leads him down some wrong paths, but on the whole he did a fine job.

 

JMHO

 

Adios,

 

Pizza Bob

[SgtToadette 59]

Really good article! Thanks for sharing!

[JustJoe 0]

Good article to a point, maybe, sort of. The author mentions several times that he favors widespread CCW combined with other forms of stringent gun control.

 

What does he mean by that? Does he want to have NJ style gun laws all over the US in exchange to widespread CCW? How would the citizens of "shall states" react to that? Does he understand the concept of Federalism?

 

Close, but he needs to try again.

[woodentoe 14]

He makes a point of bringing up the Aurora shooting quite a bit. Piers Morgan also used this occurrence with Romney (who I think was right in his responses at the time).

 

The point is not made, however, that if the 1994 AWB had been in effect in 2012, the Aurora shooter would have been able to obtain functionally identical firearms with which to carry out this crime. The only caveat being his 100 round drum. This "evil" drum mag jammed on him and he switched to an 870 pump shotgun....which is the weapon that most of the victims were wounded or killed with (at least, my understanding of it)

 

He used the most popular sporting rifle, the most popular pump shotgun, and one of the most popular handguns available to the civilian market. And no law, past or present restricting gun purchase would have prevented this nut from doing what he did.

 

He also uses the Zimmerman/Martin case as an indictment of CCW and defines the incident as "apparent vigilantism". I think this is irresponsible to say the least. There WAS a physical altercation in addition to the shooting. Zimmerman has plead not guilty and is entitled to the assumption of innocence under the law. He didn't just walk up and shoot a presumed criminal as some would like to suggest. The witnesses don't bear that out. Recently, a guy was arrested in Florida after shooting into a car full of young black men. He claimed self-defense, but since their altercation was verbal and no violence or reasonable threat of violence occurred...he was arrested.

 

Two very different cases.

 

There is an interesting compromise here, though. What do you think of setting up a mechanism for all face to face transactions (at gun shows or otherwise) to be accompanied by a NICS check? In exchange for this concession to the hoplophobe, full CCW reciprocity and a removal of "justifiable need" requirements for CCW?

[PDM 91]

I personally would have no problems with NICS checks for private transactions (with an exception for firearms passed by inheritance) IF the law were drafted properly to give private parties equal, guaranteed access to the system so that private sales are no more or less onerous than sales through an FFL. If it were possible to "trade" this for nationwide CCW reciprocity and removal of justifiable need (either through reciprocity or a federal law that pre-empts states that have may issue) I would say it would be a no-brainer.

[woodentoe 14]

Just curious...why the exception for inheritance?

[mcbethr 42]

I personally would have no problems with NICS checks for private transactions (with an exception for firearms passed by inheritance) IF the law were drafted properly to give private parties equal, guaranteed access to the system so that private sales are no more or less onerous than sales through an FFL. If it were possible to "trade" this for nationwide CCW reciprocity and removal of justifiable need (either through reciprocity or a federal law that pre-empts states that have may issue) I would say it would be a no-brainer.

 

The only problem with this would be guns used in cases of employment. You may not think of it here, but out west, guns are also farm tools. I would still want a rancher to be able to give a ranch hand a rifle to protect his livestock. I see nothing wrong with a farmhand using an employer's shotgun to keep a fox away from chickens. Our system as it is now helps prevent the stupidity of the employer having to do a NICS check every time he hands his farmhand a shotgun.

[bulpup 98]

Well I may be late to the party on this one but I just want to point out again that The Atlantic is about as liberal a magazine as you can find.

 

For all the holes we might see in the article, their subscriber's have likely never read anything quite like it.