An unlikely pro-carry story from The Atlantic

Mr H · Nov 29, 2012

Found this linked from National Review.

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine...se-for-more-guns-and-more-gun-control/309161/

From the NRO article (LINK)...

... they are a sign that the Left is coming to grips with two important facts: (1) The Second Amendment takes gun bans off the table and (2) concealed-carry laws at the very least do not increase crime

MDFF2008 · Nov 29, 2012

That is an incredible article.

Seagrave1963 · Nov 29, 2012

great article that seemed to be very objective.

Mooseman · Nov 29, 2012

Spectacular article. We need more press like this.

Bohlieve410 · Nov 29, 2012

I liked how he pointed to the fact that Mayor Gray gets his own armed detail, and of course he tries to weasel out of it/ "I've never seen their gun!"...and you wouldn't on a law abiding person until they needed it either.

madchestermonkey · Nov 29, 2012

What a really well written piece. Thanks for posting

GNLaFrance · Nov 29, 2012

Surprisingly balanced. I'll study this and try to keep the salient points in mind for my next debate.

teratos · Nov 29, 2012

Great article. Thanks for posting!!

Boondock Saint · Nov 29, 2012

Perhaps nitpicking in an otherwise solid article, but...

Other measures could be taken as well. Drum-style magazines like the kind James Holmes had that night in Aurora, which can hold up to 100 rounds of ammunition and which make continuous firing easy, have no reasonable civilian purpose, and their sale could be restricted without violating the Second Amendment rights of individual gun owners.

Ironic since the elcheapo "high capacity" mag that the Aurora shooter used ended up causing the jam in his AR. Had he been using a "standard" mag, he could have reloaded and fired more rounds. Either way, the "no civilian use" argument is ********. At least they immediately thereafter acknowledge that any impact from such a law would be modest.

MDFF2008 · Nov 29, 2012

Well it does say "and more gun control"

There are a lot of points to this article. I'd rather work on convincing someone like this that high cap mags aren't evil than working with foaming at the mouth anti.

He seems willing to consider other ideas.

teratos · Nov 29, 2012

gprimr1 said:
Well it does say "and more gun control"

There are a lot of points to this article. I'd rather work on convincing someone like this that high cap mags aren't evil than working with foaming at the mouth anti.

He seems willing to consider other ideas.

You know what a lot of pro-gun people say about gun control, it is hitting your target. It doesn't HAVE to be a bad thing. Before I get impaled, think about it. We want law-abiding citizens to have unfettered access to firearms. We want criminals and people with significant mental illness to be restricted from possessing firearms. (I know a few people will argue that felons have paid their debt to society, I don't see it that way for all of them). There needs to be a better system. I think all of the RESTRICTED people can easily be put into a nationwide database. If you aren't in it, here is your gun, have a nice day.

Mr H · Nov 29, 2012

gprimr1 said:
Well it does say "and more gun control"

There are a lot of points to this article. I'd rather work on convincing someone like this that high cap mags aren't evil than working with foaming at the mouth anti.

He seems willing to consider other ideas.

I found it balanced and honest, and included a lot of viewpoints (some made me wonder a bit, though).

As for the "and more gun control", I read that as being much like what we're up against here... finding that magic balance between full liberty and the public perception of security.

We here know the reality of it, FTMP (and he seems to agree at the end of the piece), where the legally-possessed concealed firearm (and its owner) are not the problem.

Winterborn · Nov 29, 2012

The words "gun show loophole" still makes my teeth itch.

Otherwise good stuff, very thoughtful and well researched.

Sent from my EVO using Tapatalk 2

sdOne · Nov 29, 2012

++

teratos said:
I think all of the RESTRICTED people can easily be put into a nationwide database. If you aren't in it, here is your gun, have a nice day.

hdatontodo · Nov 29, 2012

Thanks. Liked it.

Tyeraxus · Nov 29, 2012

Good article, and I think the author hit it on the head. Guns aren't going away, and an armed, mature citizenry will by its very nature deter crime to an extent. However, he does have a point that the pro-carry side will have to give some, too. For example, I do think that training (such as safety and the acceptable use of force) is a very good idea, and agreeing to make at least the safety portion mandatory for carry permits (as long as said training is free/negligible cost and abundantly available, such as classes every Saturday at the local range for $5 to provide for the ammo used and instructor's time for example) would go a long way in a state- or national-level debate.

Shoot, mandatory training fits in with the 2A as well, as I've read that Virginia mandated militia drills weekly (after church services) as early as the 1650s. Wouldn't a one-time safety class (or even a yearly re-up) fit well into the idea of "constitutional carry" given that lens?

Kanly · Nov 29, 2012

Thanks for posting that article.

Hoping for a win in Palmer v. DC sometime this decade.

gmhowell · Nov 29, 2012

Interesting. It's in some ways what "Bowling for Columbine" could have been if Michael Moore weren't one of the greatest trolls of a generation.

Bob A · Nov 29, 2012

Not bad, but still fails to make a strong point of the lack of bloodshed caused by legal CCW; nor does the author point out that CCW is not something required, but an option execrised by a small percentage of the population.

He mentions the number of accidental firearms deaths, but does not place it in perspective of all accidental deaths, which is IMO a serious omission. After all, accidents happen, in a surprising number of contexts. Context is important.

Still, better than a sharp stick in the eye.

He did bring out the fact that most of the anti-gun rationale is emotional rather than based on reason or fact. Many of those opposed to CCW make the assumption that the very fact of carrying a weapon will lead to deadly confrontation, which is seldom the case. The idea that a university seminar would end in gunfire is patently absurd.

Well, we move slowly forward, I suppose.

Haides · Nov 29, 2012

Tyeraxus said:
Good article, and I think the author hit it on the head. Guns aren't going away, and an armed, mature citizenry will by its very nature deter crime to an extent. However, he does have a point that the pro-carry side will have to give some, too. For example, I do think that training (such as safety and the acceptable use of force) is a very good idea, and agreeing to make at least the safety portion mandatory for carry permits (as long as said training is free/negligible cost and abundantly available, such as classes every Saturday at the local range for $5 to provide for the ammo used and instructor's time for example) would go a long way in a state- or national-level debate.

Shoot, mandatory training fits in with the 2A as well, as I've read that Virginia mandated militia drills weekly (after church services) as early as the 1650s. Wouldn't a one-time safety class (or even a yearly re-up) fit well into the idea of "constitutional carry" given that lens?

I think this would be a better step, culturally, if this was mandatory for ALL citizens, not just for CCW permits.

An unlikely pro-carry story from The Atlantic

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

Banana'd

Ultimate Member

Still learnin'

R.I.P.- Hooligan #4

Ultimate Member

Pond straddler

RIP

My hair is amazing

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

My hair is amazing

Banana'd

Moved to Texas

hkJunkie

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Active Member

Not Banned Yet

όυ φροντισ

Ultimate Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics