Interesting Op-Ed in Sunday's Philadelphia Inquirer

[W2MC 1,699]

I was just reading yesterday's (Sunday, 12 January) Philadelphia Inquirer, when I saw a VERY interesting and well-written op-ed by John R. Lott Jr, the president of the "Crime Prevention Research Center" and author of "More Guns, Less Crime". Very surprising, coming from the Philly Inquirer, and I suggest reading it.

 

http://www.philly.com/philly/opinion/inquirer/20140112_Some_realities_to_consider_before_passing_more_gun-control_bills.html

[voyager9 3,434]

Its interesting that it was published in the Inquirer.. I wasn't impressed with the article itself.  It seemed to go off on a 3d Printer tangent.  And the comments, OMG, they hurt the brain.

[mipafox 438]

Its interesting that it was published in the Inquirer.. I wasn't impressed with the article itself.  It seemed to go off on a 3d Printer tangent.  And the comments, OMG, they hurt the brain.

Pretty much. I know who the guy is, and I'm familiar with his work, but the article didn't seem to have much of a point.

[gleninjersey 2,139]

Pretty much. I know who the guy is, and I'm familiar with his work, but the article didn't seem to have much of a point.

The point is the last sentence....the rest of the article backs it up. The point being gun free zones do nothing except leave law abiding citizens defensless.

[mipafox 438]

The point is the last sentence....the rest of the article backs it up. The point being gun free zones do nothing except leave law abiding citizens defensless.

I'm not dumb, this just isn't his best work. Or anybody's. It's sort of thrown together.

[voyager9 3,434]

I'm not dumb, this just isn't his best work. Or anybody's. It's sort of thrown together.

The problem is that his point isn't stated until the last sentence. Many may not make it that far in because the rest of the article is a bit of a jumble.

[gleninjersey 2,139]

I don't think your dumb mipafox, sorry if it came off that way.  The article was a little jumbled and seemed to be looking for some direction.  Perhaps that's exactly why the author had to sum up the point of his writings in the last sentence.  Maybe they wanted the reader (who most likely could be a current anti or on the fence person) to read the main idea last so they would remember it more clearly.

 

While not a great article by any stretch of the imagination, I hope it gets at least a few people thinking for themselves and questioning why they are being regulated into defenselessness.