Sorry for an additional thread on this, but I think this specific instance may deserve a separate thread.
Here is an essay that, rather eloquently, sets out the "best" arguments that we'll be seeing in the coming months.
Consider reading this a bit of opposition research, or intel gathering, depending on your perspective.
The Freedom of an Armed Society - NYTimes.com
Some excerpts:
Ironically, he goes on to reveal "fallacies" while engaging in many of his own.
The definition of "problem" will be critical. The problem is not private gun ownership. The problem is society's ability to provide immediate and decisive protection against those that use guns to harm innocent people.
IMHO
Here is an essay that, rather eloquently, sets out the "best" arguments that we'll be seeing in the coming months.
Consider reading this a bit of opposition research, or intel gathering, depending on your perspective.
The Freedom of an Armed Society - NYTimes.com
Some excerpts:
That incident brought home to me what I have always suspected, but found difficult to articulate: an armed society — especially as we prosecute it at the moment in this country — is the opposite of a civil society.
...
Or if more citizens were armed — like principals and teachers in the classroom, for example — they could halt senseless shootings ahead of time, or at least early on, and save society a lot of heartache and bloodshed.
As ever more people are armed in public, however — even brandishing weapons on the street — this is no longer recognizable as a civil society. Freedom is vanished at that point.
Ironically, he goes on to reveal "fallacies" while engaging in many of his own.
The definition of "problem" will be critical. The problem is not private gun ownership. The problem is society's ability to provide immediate and decisive protection against those that use guns to harm innocent people.
IMHO