NY Mag article on guns

There's a lot to like about this article. It's genuinely well-written, in that it uses specific examples to show why guns matter to so many people, and it avoids all the usual boiler-plate rhetoric. One can quibble with some of the author's statements (I don't think most .22 rifles are single-shot these days), but overall, it's a pretty fair overview of why people want guns.

It's a pity that the conclusion is so wishy-washy... but perhaps his editor made him do it. :cool:
 
Thanks for posting that, Glenn, I actually found it enjoyable and thought provoking.

I especially like the concept that what were formerly geographically-founded reasons for self defense with firearms are today more often mental constructs.
 
Yes -- I was pleased to see that. And it did seem odd, given the bent of the editorial board.

But I suppose the NYT isn't so different from the WSJ when it comes to that -- decent news coverage, whacko editorial board -- albeit in rather different directions.

I especially liked that the writer got that women may want guns for different reasons than men... and that the article, and the people quoted, were pretty scornful of the whole "pink guns" thing, which is infantilizing, right along with those g.d. pink ribbons that the Komen Foundation foisted on us. (Although I admit that I sort of like it when all the NFL players turn up in pink shoes in October... :o)
 
The author did play up the fear thing a bit much - a recurring theme throughout the article - but for a decidedly left-leaning magazine, this was a very neutral article.

Just on a personal note, I bought my first AR not out of fear but because I thought it was a neat gun. If you like guns and have a mechanical bent, they are fascinating. You can field strip one with no tools at all, and if you have to, keep it running for over a thousand rounds with just a rag and some oil. Every part is well thought out and carefully designed, every control falls to hand. It's a remarkable piece of machinery. And a heckuva lot of fun to shoot.

The only firearm related purchase that I've made out of "fear" was a few magazines that I though might be hard to find later. Now I'm thinking they'll be easy enough to get in a year or so. Never can tell though, anything could happen. Some rouge ex LAPD officer could go on a rampage and shut down a whole city for all I know.
 
Whenever the NY Times and gun control are mentioned I chuckle. During the American Civil War the NY Times obtained and mounted Gattling guns on the building to protect themselves from the draft rioters.

It's been mentioned on this board more than once with links to the references that verify the story.
 
Got the new issue today (spring fashion - :rolleyes:) - but in the comment column there was one saying it was a balanced article. One said - GUNS BAD!
However, the last comment was from a black man (he made that point), that the police are not enthusiastic about crime prevention in his neck of the woods and he is not given up his 40 cal Glock.

Interesting that the self-defense message is penetrating into strong holds of all guns bad, bad, bad.

That wasn't the case in past gun ban debates as much as it is today. Has the SD argument been generally accepted except for the most extreme antigun zealots. Even Hairplug Joe seems to buy into that.
 
Hmmm...maybe (even before Sandy Hook) more people were going shooting and buying guns. Hopefully we've got more shooters now than before and IMhO anybody that's gone shooting a few times is more likely to be reasonable* about gun control.

Gives me hope.

*reasonable=real reasonable, not gun-grabber reasonable. (How come gun-grabbers get to define 'reasonable', 'sensible' and 'common sense'?)
 
Read 1984 sometime, you'll find great examples of the concept, illustrated by Orwell.

Words such as "bad" are removed from the language. Dissidents might refer to the policies of Big Brother as "ungood;" if really unhappy, and really brave, they might refer to them as "double-plus ungood."

Good thing we have some other pesky Amendments, to go along with the Second...
 
Good thing we have some other pesky Amendments, to go along with the Second...
Click to expand...

And defending virtually any of them you can be portrayed as extreme and marginal with the same language and phot ops as currently used against the second amendment.

If we didn't have the fourth, fifth, sixth or eighth amendments almost all the felons who get off would be convicted and would spend more time in jail. Instant end to most violent crime.

After all how can anyone defend all this arcane junk about trial by jury, right to defense lawyers and Miranda, protection against self incrimination and "due process" nuttiness written by long dead guys, given the number of dead children and crime victims?

I am going to have my eight year old write a letter to the president asking him to start attacking the first amendment because it kills more Americans than assault rifles. Maybe she will be lucky and be picked to sit on his lap when he announces his new controls limiting the first amendment. Perhaps Bloomberg will pick her to star in an advert?
 
TDL, even when following the fourth, fifth, sixth and eighth amendments, the courts should be able to more effectively incarcerate violent recidivists.

I think that particular problem comes not from any Constitutional issue, but instead from a Bermuda Triangle of 1) the war on drugs filling jails and prisons with non-violent offenders; 2) limited funds for prisons, jails, police, and prosecutors; and 3) judges with personal agendas.

I think we could solve problems 1 and 2 by decriminalizing marijuana and possibly some other recreational drugs (which would also allow for increased government revenue from taxation and regulation). (EDIT) I think we could mitigate, if not solve, problem 3 by making very pointed, public records of those judges who routinely hand out short sentences to violent offenders.

Finally, while I am often offended by supporters of the 1st Amendment who routinely undercut the 2nd, I am equally offended by supporters of the 2nd Amendment who routinely undercut the 1st.

I like the Bill of Rights, and don't wish to weaken any of those Amendments.
 
Last edited:
I like the Bill of Rights, and don't wish to weaken any of those Amendments.[/QUOTE]

So many people don't it seems. Mostly because so few were taught anything about it in school.
 
mayosligo, I enjoyed the benefit of growing up with pretty good public schools.

This was not coincidence, as I enjoyed the far greater benefit of growing up with very involved parents.

Not only did they choose their houses based on school districts (which they did); not only did they participate heavily in local PTA and school boards (which they did - my father served for a brief spell on the district board, and my mother was a teacher); not only did they engage us in serious discussions - but they read to us when we were little, and had taught my sister and me to read by the time we were each 3 years old.

In my opinion, crappy schools are indicators of less than stellar parents, as much as anything else.
 
I am not giving the parents a pass, but I can't find too many junior high or high school students who are learning the constitution or the BOR. my daughters school still says the pledge of allegiance, as I did in Catholic School growing up, but I know of public schools in my current state that do not do the pledge.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top