NY Times op-ed on background checks 2/12/18

[tagonagy 17]

Kind of surprised that the Times ran an op-ed that was pro-gun.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/12/opinion/politics/background-checks-gun-violence.html

[NJGF 375]

As usual a good article by Lott. I often wonder what the readers of the Times think of these types of logical articles.

[Mrs. Peel 7,157]

8 minutes ago, NJGF said:

As usual a good article by Lott. I often wonder what the readers of the Times think of these types of logical articles.

Well, take a scan of the comments and you'll see. They're "outraged" - as usual.

[NJGF 375]

2 minutes ago, Mrs. Peel said:

Well, take a scan of the comments and you'll see. They're "outraged" - as usual.

Interesting and I guess not surprising. I guess these people will be again shocked and in tears in 2020 

[Zeke 5,504]

1 hour ago, tagonagy said:

Kind of surprised that the Times ran an op-ed that was pro-gun.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/12/opinion/politics/background-checks-gun-violence.html

Good read

[Old Glock guy 1,127]

Good article.  Thanks for posting it.  I must have missed it when I read my (failing) NY Times yesterday morning.  

[1LtCAP 4,262]

good article. some of the comments are stunningly frightening.

[Mrs. Peel 7,157]

2 hours ago, NJGF said:

Interesting and I guess not surprising. I guess these people will be again shocked and in tears in 2020 

I don't share your boundless optimism about 2020. Unless our POTUS learns to calm the hell down, stay off his Twitter account, and focus on "managing" his staff (and reducing chaos and turnover), I think the Dems would have to really screw up "big time" to not win in 2020!  (I'm projecting that, not wishing it).

I don't think the administration's current level of chaos will play well with all but his most loyal fans if it's sustained for 3 more years. It's simply too discordant, distracting and unappealing for most voters.But, that's why I pray for more game-changing SCOTUS app'ts in the next 3 years (even better if it's before mid-terms). Presidents come and go every 4-8 years - but damn, those Supremes stay for a LONG time! In some ways, the Supremes have more impact on Americans' daily lives than POTUS. So, I hope he's able to appoint a few more this term, just in case he's not around for the second... and get some gun business done as well. 

[W2MC 1,699]

18 minutes ago, Mrs. Peel said:

I don't share your boundless optimism about 2020. Unless our POTUS learns to calm the hell down, stay off his Twitter account, and focus on "managing" his staff (and reducing chaos and turnover), I think the Dems would have to really screw up "big time" to not win in 2020!  (I'm projecting that, not wishing it).

I don't think the administration's current level of chaos will play well with all but his most loyal fans if it's sustained for 3 more years. It's simply too discordant, distracting and unappealing for most voters.But, that's why I pray for more game-changing SCOTUS app'ts in the next 3 years (even better if it's before mid-terms). Presidents come and go every 4-8 years - but damn, those Supremes stay for a LONG time! In some ways, the Supremes have more impact on Americans' daily lives than POTUS. So, I hope he's able to appoint a few more this term, just in case he's not around for the second... and get some gun business done as well. 

While I agree on the Twitter nonsense (tho I really think Trump uses it to kite ideas directly out to the masses).....the turnover is nothing new.  Its just been 8 years (9, now: actually) since we got to watch a new administration at work.  There is always a lot of jostling at the top; as the people who worked well for a presidential campaign do not necessarily have the same skill sets that are needed once the election is run and the new administration commences their efforts. 

[Old Glock guy 1,127]

Holy crap, those comments are painful to read!  Those people are all living in their NYC/NYT bubble.  They're still trying to figure out how Hillary could have lost. 

To them, the term "law-abiding gun owner" is an oxymoron.  

[Mrs. Peel 7,157]

11 minutes ago, W2MC said:

While I agree on the Twitter nonsense (tho I really think Trump uses it to kite ideas directly out to the masses).....the turnover is nothing new.  Its just been 8 years (9, now: actually) since we got to watch a new administration at work.  There is always a lot of jostling at the top; as the people who worked well for a presidential campaign do not necessarily have the same skill sets that are needed once the election is run and the new administration commences their efforts. 

I disagree! The turnover is unusually high. https://www.usnews.com/news/national-news/articles/2017-12-28/trumps-white-house-has-highest-turnover-rate-in-40-years

And that data came out of the Brookings Institution - a fairly well-respected think tank in DC that's quoted as much by Conservatives as Liberals. Does the media harp on all of this more than they should? Yes, of course it does. That doesn't erase the fact that it was a VERY bumpy ride for this administration. They really need to smooth that out... if for no other reason than perception is reality (at the polls anyway).

[W2MC 1,699]

Interesting....wonder how much of this is the 'new administration' turnover, and how much can be called lack of experience, or a lack of Republican Party support? 

[jackandjill 683]

Why ? Simple, to "look" fair and balanced. Second reason is to tout the "As everyone knows, large percentage of US Population support universal background checks", with fine print pointing to comments from this type of articles. 

 

------------------------

John R. Lott Jr. is the president of the Crime Prevention Research Center and the author, most recently, of “The War on Guns.”