A little common sense and gun control?

[cartman]

Originally Posted by molson

The title of the thread calls for "a little common sense" in the gun control debate, that never seems to actually happen when the debate starts. It's just "look, a shooting, let's repeal rights."

How about the case of the editor for Guns and Ammo, who was fired for trying to start a common sense debate? If someone who hosted numerous hunting and shooting TV shows, and had been an editor of a gun magazine for over 20 years can't start a common sense debate, who can?

[molson]

Originally Posted by Kodos

What I dislike is seeing kids in schools get shot up. Or in theaters. Or innocent people you never read about. I could give a crap about hunters. I understand that they actually provide a useful service in some scenarios. I have no fight with them.

And those are sincere and real concerns. It just doesn't seem to me like they're shared by enough people in power on this side of things. The Dems were trying to pass a massive gun and ammo tax hike earlier this year. What does that accomplish other than expressing spite towards gun owners? Is there anyone who ever committed a gun crime that would have been stopped because of a tax increase on the gun (assuming they bought it legally?)

[molson]

Originally Posted by cartman

How about the case of the editor for Guns and Ammo, who was fired for trying to start a common sense debate? If someone who hosted numerous hunting and shooting TV shows, and had been an editor of a gun magazine for over 20 years can't start a common sense debate, who can?

I'm not going to disagree with the fact that "the other side does it too." That's kind of my point. The whole debate here is really about groups disliking each other. When you have that kind of stalemate, the the side that wants to change things loses. It is in the gun proponents' interest to have a stalemate and an us v. them culture war, because that keeps the status quo. It is NOT in the gun control advocates' interest to do the same thing. To make progress, the gun control advocates have to somehow convince some number of people on the other side to be willing to compromise. But it seems like there's zero interest in doing that.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by molson

I'm not going to disagree with the fact that "the other side does it too." That's kind of my point. The whole debate here is really about groups disliking each other. When you have that kind of stalemate, the the side that wants to change things loses. It is in the gun proponents' interest to have a stalemate and an us v. them culture war, because that keeps the status quo. It is NOT in the control advocates' interest to do the same thing.

But how to break the stalemate? If someone with bona fides like Dick Metcalf can't start the discussion without getting shouted down, who can?

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by molson

And those are sincere and real concerns. It just doesn't seem to me like they're shared by enough people in power on this side of things. The Dems were trying to pass a massive gun and ammo tax hike earlier this year. What does that accomplish other than expressing spite towards gun owners? Is there anyone who ever committed a gun crime that would have been stopped because of a tax increase on the gun (assuming they bought it legally?)

It wasn't "the Dems." It was two representatives writing a bill that never had any chance of passing. I remember a time when you used to get upset at painting a whole group by the actions of its most extreme members.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by Kodos

I hate those too. But when is the last time someone killed a bunch of kids with a knife?

An interesting comparison for me would be:

- Number of incidents where, say, 5+ people were killed in one incident
- Number of serial killers

The only difference is the time factor. I'd bet we'd find similar numbers.

In fact:

List of serial killers in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Twelve facts about guns and mass shootings in the United States

Yup, similar lists, although some of the serial killers seem to be iffy (killed only 3 in one example, not sure that compares to a mass shooting as opposed to something like this particular movie theater shooting with only 1 or 2 victims).

Some interesting facts in that Washington Post article on both sides - pointing out things like states with harsher gun control laws do have less gun violence, while also pointing out that violent crime and gun ownership are both declining.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by cartman

But how to break the stalemate? If someone with bona fides like Dick Metcalf can't start the discussion without getting shouted down, who can?

In this day and age, good luck on anything. The media is too in love with the extremists on both sides of every issue for any moderate voice to get heard...

[molson]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

It wasn't "the Dems." It was two representatives writing a bill that never had any chance of passing. I remember a time when you used to get upset at painting a whole group by the actions of its most extreme members.

OK, well then would you (or other gun control advocates posting here) support a tax increase on guns and ammo?

Edit: I was wrong about that that bill having legislative support. But I'd love to know the % of Democrats, and % of those who identify themselves as gun control advocates that support higher taxes on guns and ammo. I suspect the numbers would be pretty high, but I haven't found a survey yet.

[Kodos]

Originally Posted by cartman

But how to break the stalemate? If someone with bona fides like Dick Metcalf can't start the discussion without getting shouted down, who can?

Charlton Heston?

[Butter]

Originally Posted by Kodos

I don't think being practical is being disingenuous. Most gun control advocates realize that getting rid of guns entirely is not an actual option. Saying "we don't want to take your guns" = letting gun rights advocates know that we realize that guns aren't going away and we aren't going to seize what you already have. Instead, we are trying to focus on goals that can be achieved in the real world.

This. Just because some pay more attention to the crazies that are good at yelling doesn't mean there aren't people who want honest solutions that involve some amount of compromise.

[cartman]

For those interested, here is the editorial that got Metcalf fired.

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/wp-...ember-2013.pdf

[molson]

Originally Posted by Butter_of_69

This. Just because some pay more attention to the crazies that are good at yelling doesn't mean there aren't people who want honest solutions that involve some amount of compromise.

But this came up here again today because a 71-year old shot somebody. That incident was used to support the pro-gun control position. But how is that incident relevant to meaningful gun control debate? What "honest solution that would involve some amount of compromise" would have prevented that? I know you weren't the one that tried to make the connection between that incident and gun control, but that's the thing I was responding to, I don't have a problem with your or anyone's actual sincere opinions about the issue.

Edit: And like I said, I wasn't a fan of the logic employed - this guy abused a right so we should take it away from everybody. In any other context of law enforcement or national security the same logic is skewered. When it comes to guns, ya, more people on board, just because they don't like guns and the people that own them.

[Kodos]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

An interesting comparison for me would be:

- Number of incidents where, say, 5+ people were killed in one incident
- Number of serial killers

The only difference is the time factor. I'd bet we'd find similar numbers.

In fact:

List of serial killers in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Twelve facts about guns and mass shootings in the United States

Yup, similar lists, although some of the serial killers seem to be iffy (killed only 3 in one example, not sure that compares to a mass shooting as opposed to something like this particular movie theater shooting with only 1 or 2 victims).

Some interesting facts in that Washington Post article on both sides - pointing out things like states with harsher gun control laws do have less gun violence, while also pointing out that violent crime and gun ownership are both declining.

Interesting. But I don't think it works with regard to people who decide to go on a killing rampage. A guy with a knife probably gets a lot fewer kills before law enforcement takes him down. Guns amplify the body count when crazy people snap. Lower availability of guns would lower the body count in many instances.

[CU Tiger]

I guess I am just lost on this one. I am sure it is largely cultural, as I have been around firearms my entire life and consider them no different than any other possession.

Lots of people die every year in car accidents, and occasionally someone murders someone with a car. Occasionally (albeit much less frequently) someone kills multiple people with their car. Yet we have no debate about whether all cars should be banned...or maybe only big heavy trucks should be banned and small priuses (prii?) should be ok? I mean we havent even started the debate about emissions and smog and air quality...

Why is taking guns away the answer?

Why not stop the criminals? Why not punish the actions?

Again, I dont want to be obtuse on this and would like to have a substantive and productive discussion. I just dont see where banning guns is even an option.

Frankly given the choice Id rather ban cars than guns, though to be fair I probably spend more time with guns than with a car.

[Kodos]

Originally Posted by molson

But this came up here again today because a 71-year old shot somebody. That incident was used to support the pro-gun control position. But how is that incident relevant to meaningful gun control debate? What "honest solution that would involve some amount of compromise" would have prevented that? I know you weren't the one that tried to make the connection between that incident and gun control, but that's the thing I was responding to, I don't have a problem with your or anyone's actual sincere opinions about the issue.

If he only had a knife, there is a good chance the guy would still be alive.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Kodos

If he only had a knife, there is a good chance the guy would still be alive.

Definitely. But what legislation could we pass that would have created a scenario where the 71-year old didn't have a gun, but only a knife? The only thing I could think of is a total gun ban, applied retroactively to existing guns (assuming this guy didn't buy his first gun recently). That's why I find the whole point disingenuous. And it's a kind of thinking that I suspect you really don't like if we apply it to any other context except guns. If there was a federal law that required anyone to go through a TSA scanner before entering any private building, there is a good chance that guy would still be alive. So why not do it? Because we value a right to privacy, even when it makes us less safe. The gun control advocates have to understand that many, many Americans also value a right to gun ownership. And that is a validly held value, because it's an actual recognized constitutional right.

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by Kodos

If he only had a knife, there is a good chance the guy would still be alive.

But how many others might be dead if they didnt have a gun at a certain time?

[Kodos]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

Lots of people die every year in car accidents, and occasionally someone murders someone with a car. Occasionally (albeit much less frequently) someone kills multiple people with their car. Yet we have no debate about whether all cars should be banned...or maybe only big heavy trucks should be banned and small priuses (prii?) should be ok? I mean we havent even started the debate about emissions and smog and air quality...

FWIW, I did advocate for mandatory driving tests for older drivers, although I probably picked too young an age to start (65).

http://www.operationsports.com/fofc/...light=sailfest

[cartman]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

But how many others might be dead if they didnt have a gun at a certain time?

It is extremely rare that a CHL holder has prevented a mass shooting. The vast majority of cases where a shooter was taken down were LEO, either on or off duty.

[Kodos]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

But how many others might be dead if they didnt have a gun at a certain time?

So you're comparing a real person who is now really dead with a hypothetical person who may have been saved by this same gun at some earlier point in time?

[Kodos]

Originally Posted by molson

Definitely. But what legislation could we pass that would have created a scenario where the 71-year old didn't have a gun, but only a knife? The only thing I could think of is a total gun ban, applied retroactively to existing guns (assuming this guy didn't buy his first gun recently). That's why I find the whole point disingenuous. And it's a kind of thinking that I suspect you really don't like if we apply it to any other context except guns. If there was a federal law that required anyone to go through a TSA scanner before entering any private building, there is a good chance that guy would still be alive. So why not do it? Because we value a right to privacy, even when it makes us less safe. The gun control advocates have to understand that many, many Americans also value a right to gun ownership. And that is a validly held value, because it's an actual recognized constitutional right.

I'm just pointing out the obvious thing that having fewer instantly lethal weapons available would lead to fewer innocent deaths. And that is why I support as much gun control as we can get passed.

The fact that everyone and their mother has guns leads directly to more innocent people dying. In a fight with someone wielding a knife, you stand a good chance of surviving. In a fight with someone wielding a gun, you stand a good chance of being mortally wounded before you even realize the fight has escalated. Therefore I advocate fewer people having guns.

[molson]

Originally Posted by cartman

It is extremely rare that a CHL holder has prevented a mass shooting. The vast majority of cases where a shooter was taken down were LEO, either on or off duty.

Mass shootings are extremely rare themselves. But if they're still frequent enough to take away a specific and recognized constitutional right from everyone in the entire country, then why shouldn't other constitutional rights, like the 4th amendment, be similarly limited to prevent broader classes of crimes that occur far more frequently than mass murder?

[Kodos]

Passing a new amendment that bans private gun ownership would be a start.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Kodos

I'm just pointing out the obvious thing that having fewer instantly lethal weapons available would lead to fewer innocent deaths. And that is why I support as much gun control as we can get passed.

The fact that everyone and their mother has guns leads directly to more innocent people dying. In a fight with someone wielding a knife, you stand a good chance of surviving. In a fight with someone wielding a gun, you stand a good chance of being mortally wounded before you even realize the fight has escalated. Therefore I advocate fewer people having guns.

I think that correlation is overrated. I don't think any legislation short of a total retroactive ban will make guns so scare that people who want them just can't find them. America has a TON of guns obviously, but the number is kind of skewed - we have a shitload of guns in this country because we have a ton of people in rural parts of the country that have a ton of guns. But those people really aren't the problem. Those people aren't generally committing crimes. I think the gun control efforts need to be smarter and more targeted.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Kodos

Passing a new amendment that bans private gun ownership would be a start.

Yes, I completely agree that would be the correct avenue for repealing a right. As opposed to a government taking advantage of hysteria caused by events. Which you know, they do sometimes.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by molson

Mass shootings are extremely rare themselves. But if they're still frequent enough to take away a specific and recognized constitutional right from everyone in the entire country, then why shouldn't other constitutional rights, like the 4th amendment, be similarly limited to prevent broader classes of crimes that occur far more frequently than mass murder?

I think the big sticking point is that there seems to be ZERO push to have any kind of advancement of responsible gun ownership. That somehow is being equated with banning and taking away guns. The NRA used to be all about pushing for firearms training and education, but now seem to be partnering more with the manufacturers to simply sell firearms. Used to be the fundraiser mailings were talking about training and certification classes. Now they are mainly asking for funds to lobby Congress. That's one of the big reasons I dropped my membership.

[molson]

Originally Posted by cartman

. That somehow is being equated with banning and taking away guns.

I think we have about 3 posters in here on record today as wanting to ban all guns. I don't know how representative that is of the general population, but it seems like there's at least some significant support for it.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by molson

I think we have about 3 posters in here on record today as wanting to ban all guns. I don't know how representative that is of the general population, but it seems like there's at least some significant support for it.

I said that promoting responsible gun ownership was being equated with taking away guns.

[molson]

Originally Posted by cartman

I said that promoting responsible gun ownership was being equated with taking away guns.

I don't think the NRA, and certainly gun owners generally, are against the concept of responsible gun ownership. They just don't believe that that's the true and final goal of gun control advocates.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by molson

I don't think the NRA, and certainly gun owners generally, are against the concept of responsible gun ownership. They just don't believe that that's the true and final goal of gun control advocates.

Then explain the backlash against Dick Metcalf's editorial.

[Kodos]

Originally Posted by molson

I think we have about 3 posters in here on record today as wanting to ban all guns. I don't know how representative that is of the general population, but it seems like there's at least some significant support for it.

I also stated that I know that would never happen, and that we can't get rid of what's out there.

[molson]

Originally Posted by cartman

Then explain the backlash against Dick Metcalf's editorial.

I don't know who Dick Metcalf is, but I already explained the backlash generally. Because of the culture war on this, much of the gun lobby will perceive any push-back on their positions as first steps towards more expansive gun control, and ultimately a ban. They're in the business of selling guns. And people have a legit constitutional right to own guns.

And let's back up. All you want is more "responsible gun ownership." What does that entail? More required classes, safety training? None of those things will negatively impact gun sales, so there's no real logical reason for anyone to oppose them so fiercely - unless they're concerned that it will lead to other, stricter regulation and bans.

[panerd]

So let's assume that at midnight the Congress passes a law that all guns are illegal and all guns need to be turned over and melted.

What is the result of this hypothetical situation that is being proposed by some members of this board?

Most rational, law abiding citizens will probably comply.

How about movie theater 71 year old? He shot a man over text messenging and throwing popcorn at him. Is he turning over his gun under the new law?

Is Mrs. Lanza? Are the street thugs who already have illegal ones?

It may sound like I am being dismissive but I really want to know how this ban will happen in reality.

(Like Molson has stated not everyone in this thread wants the ban so this is directed at those who do want the ban. Please explain how this ban will work in reality. This isn't Japan and it isn't Europe. What would happen in the United States on January 15, 2014?)

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by Kodos

I'm just pointing out the obvious thing that having fewer instantly lethal weapons available

I think you need to do more research on gun wounds before calling them "instantly lethal weapons". For example, in the theater incident, the wife was not killed, and in the New Mexico shooting yesterday, neither kid was killed (I know one was in critical condition, I don't want to make an assumption that this won't end up with a death, but you also said "instantly lethal"). That's just quick, you can dig up a ton more data on gunshot wounds vs deaths to see how wrong this statement is.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by molson

I don't know who Dick Metcalf is, but I already explained the backlash generally. Because of the culture war on this, much of the gun lobby will perceive any push-back on their positions as first steps towards more expansive gun control, and ultimately a ban. They're in the business of selling guns. And people have a legit constitutional right to own guns.

And let's back up. All you want is more "responsible gun ownership." What does that entail? More required classes, safety training? None of those things will negatively impact gun sales, so there's no real logical reason for anyone to oppose them so fiercely - unless they're concerned that it will lead to other, stricter regulation and bans.

People also have a legit constitutional right to a well regulated militia.

Dick Metcalf, until recently, was an editor for Guns and Ammo. So he's on the side of the gun lobby.

[gstelmack]

And at some point do I get to bring up the Boston Marathon bombings?

[molson]

Originally Posted by cartman

People also have a legit constitutional right to a well regulated militia.

AND private gun ownership. I know it doesn't specifically say that in the constitution, but it's been recognized through the courts for many years. Just like the right to privacy. That isn't specifically in the constitution either. But it's now a legit right, in many contexts, as recognized by the Supreme Court.

What I can't get past is, what makes one legit constitutional right more valid than another? I try to look at it neutrally. If it's a right, it's a right. It doesn't matter whether it's one I value or not. Until the constitution is amended, or there's a drastic shift in how the rights are interpreted, the government doesn't get to ignore those rights.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by molson

AND private gun ownership. I know it doesn't specifically say that in the constitution, but it's been recognized through the courts for many years. Just like the right to privacy. That isn't specifically in the constitution either. But it's now a legit right, in many contexts, as recognized by the Supreme Court.

What I can't get past is, what makes one legit constitutional right more valid than another? I try to look at it neutrally. If it's a right, it's a right. It doesn't matter whether it's one I value or not. Until the constitution is amended, or there's a drastic shift in how the rights are interpreted, the government doesn't get to ignore those rights.

So, correct me if I am wrong, but your position is there is absolutely nothing that can or should be done in regards to gun violence, because of the Constitution.

[AENeuman]

"It happened so fast! I did not have time to identify the buttery, salty, corn like object coming at me in the movie theater.... So I shot the guy."

[molson]

Originally Posted by cartman

So, correct me if I am wrong, but your position is there is absolutely nothing that can or should be done in regards to gun violence, because of the Constitution.

I just made a long post on the last page about the types of approaches gun control advocates have used in the past to successfully bring about gun control legislation. And I've criticized their current approach as being far less successful.

The constitution obviously doesn't prohibit all gun control regulations. That's well established. But the right to own guns is very real, and established, and even though you don't question that, I believe many others, including several posters in this thread, do. So there's different sentiments being responded to, it can get a little muddled. And tying in with your other point, when a gun proponent is talking to someone, or responding to someone, they haven't necessarily clearly identified that they're talking to a cartman, or the posters here who want to ban all guns. Another layer of confusion. (I mean, how many times on this board have people argued that the 2nd amendment protects militias and not individuals? That is a thing. That's what I was responding to. I know it's not your position, but it is a commonly-held one).

[Kodos]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

I think you need to do more research on gun wounds before calling them "instantly lethal weapons". For example, in the theater incident, the wife was not killed, and in the New Mexico shooting yesterday, neither kid was killed (I know one was in critical condition, I don't want to make an assumption that this won't end up with a death, but you also said "instantly lethal"). That's just quick, you can dig up a ton more data on gunshot wounds vs deaths to see how wrong this statement is.

So you don't agree that guns are more effective killing tools than knives, especially when applied to mass killings?

In your example, the man didn't intend to shoot the wife. Her hand got in the way. The person he intended to kill died.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by molson

I just made a long post on the last page about the types of approaches gun control advocates have used in the past to successfully bring about gun control legislation. And I've criticized their current approach as being far less successful.

The constitution obviously doesn't prohibit all gun control regulations. That's well established. But the right to own guns is very real, and established, and even though you don't question that, I believe many others, including several posters in this thread, do. So there's different sentiments being responded to, it can get a little muddled. And when a gun proponent is talking to someone, or responding to someone, they haven't necessarily clearly identified that they're talking to a cartman, or the posters here who want to ban all guns. Another layer of confusion.

And that is EXACTLY why I brought up the case of the Guns & Ammo editor. Like I said, if he can't start a common sense discussion, with a long history of being a strong guns rights supporter, there isn't much hope at all of anything gaining traction no matter where the idea originates.

[molson]

Originally Posted by cartman

And that is EXACTLY why I brought up the case of the Guns & Ammo editor. Like I said, if he can't start a common sense discussion, with a long history of being a strong guns rights supporter, there isn't much hope at all of anything gaining traction no matter where the idea originates.

And I think that's at least in part due to the culture war that too many gun control advocates have chosen to wage. They've helped create that paranoia. The NRA and crazy Republicans existed in the 90s too. And they exist in states where gun control measures are passed more recently. Obviously federal congress is a mess now on this and every other issue. But per that long post I made, I believe there is common ground, but the gun control advocates have to make real sacrifices. You have to give up something to move a stalemate. Something you really don't want to give up, like agreeing to new prisons, tax cuts, more police officers, more harsh penalties for criminals, more police power, more access to wacky high-caliber weapons which are potentially scary but REALLY aren't used to commit that many crimes. They have to think outside the box like they did in the 90s, not just try to charge ahead with no plan. I think too many are more wrapped up with just being right and looking down on people than they are effectuating change. A hostile response to one editorial doesn't mean that no agreements with broader entities beyond that one response is ever possible. And even if that was the case, how does the current approach aim to solve that?

[Kodos]

Originally Posted by molson

You have to give up something to move a stalemate. Something you really don't want to give up, like agreeing to new prisons, tax cuts, more police officers, more harsh penalties for criminals, more police power, more access to wacky high-caliber weapons which are potentially scary but REALLY aren't used to commit that many crimes.

I'm all for new prisons, more police officers, harsher penalties, and more police power. Heck, I would make any murder a capital offense.

[molson]

Originally Posted by cartman

So, correct me if I am wrong, but your position is there is absolutely nothing that can or should be done in regards to gun violence, because of the Constitution.

And get back to this, correct me if I'm wrong, but your position there is absolutely nothing that can be done in regard to gun violence, because of the NRA, and the gun lobby as a whole? Have you just given up then? Or what would your plan be to defeat that resistance, if you were in a position to be calling those kinds of shots?

[molson]

Originally Posted by Kodos

I'm all for new prisons, more police officers, harsher penalties, and more police power. Heck, I would make any murder a capital offense.

There was also AEDPA in the 90s, which made it just about impossible for a convicted defendant to get federal review of his state criminal conviction. That wasn't officially tied to the assault weapon ban, but I think that ban was only possible in an environment where a Democratic president was willing to support and sign something like AEDPA. If guns are truly the most important issue when it comes to crime, then you have to be willing to give on this other stuff in the criminal realm.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by molson

And get back to this, correct me if I'm wrong, but your position there is absolutely nothing that can be done in regard to gun violence, because of the NRA, and the gun lobby as a whole? Have you just given up then? Or what would your plan be to defeat that resistance, if you were in a position to be calling those kinds of shots?

I'd say that it is damn near impossible to have any kind of discussion, because as I mentioned, the line of thinking that any kind of movement from the status quo == taking away guns. Until that can be dealt with, I don't see a way forward.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

I guess I am just lost on this one. I am sure it is largely cultural, as I have been around firearms my entire life and consider them no different than any other possession.

Lots of people die every year in car accidents, and occasionally someone murders someone with a car. Occasionally (albeit much less frequently) someone kills multiple people with their car. Yet we have no debate about whether all cars should be banned...or maybe only big heavy trucks should be banned and small priuses (prii?) should be ok? I mean we havent even started the debate about emissions and smog and air quality...

Why is taking guns away the answer?

Why not stop the criminals? Why not punish the actions?

Again, I dont want to be obtuse on this and would like to have a substantive and productive discussion. I just dont see where banning guns is even an option.

Frankly given the choice Id rather ban cars than guns, though to be fair I probably spend more time with guns than with a car.

Swamped at work but I wanted to address this real quick.

Your argument IMO is very flawed. Cars serve the purpose of getting us from point A to point B, accidents happen.

The purpose of a gun is to kill people, it is what its designed to do. To often, IMO, it does its job when it shouldn't and I don't see why the average Joe needs one.

[molson]

Originally Posted by cartman

I'd say that it is damn near impossible to have any kind of discussion, because as I mentioned, the line of thinking that any kind of movement from the status quo == taking away guns. Until that can be dealt with, I don't see a way forward.

I think you may be giving to much credence to what may have just been an editorial decision. Gun nuts don't want to read about that kind of stuff in their gun magazines, and they responded accordingly. I'm not denying the sentiment exists, but I don't see why it makes any contrary view just impossible to pursue. Seems a little defeatist. You don't need to win them all over, you just need to come up with enough common ground with some of them.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by molson

I think you may be giving to much credence to what may have just been an editorial decision. Gun nuts don't want to read about that kind of stuff in their gun magazines, and they responded accordingly. I'm not denying the sentiment exists, but I don't see why it makes any contrary view just impossible to pursue. Seems a little defeatist. You don't need to win them all over, you just need to come up with enough common ground with some of them.

He was also booted from his TV shows and several upcoming NRA appearances. So it was more than just some angry magazine subscribers.

Log In - The New York Times