1. Just read that article. Nothing illogical there.
      He is knowledgeable and clear thinking.
      I suspect your ignorance about firearms is clouding your judgement.

      1. Thanks for the link niel.

        I was mostly put off by a few assumptions he made in the article. Namely he seemed to assume that “well-trained guard” means “accident-free” and “rational decision-maker,” which I think is where his argument falls apart. Trained and armed humans are still just humans and are thereby subject to lapses in judgment and emotional decision-making. A defense attorney / law professor of mine once pointed out that police officers, for example, come from the general population, so you can expect to find nearly identical percentages of drug users, child molesters, charity donators, homosexuals, musicians, etc. among them as just about any other profession. I mean, Nidal Hasan was quite well-trained, I assume, but he didn’t exactly help anybody. And just a quick note from personal experience, the police officer assigned to my high school after Columbine was fired a few years later for having sex with two of the underage students there. Largely nice and helpful people, of course, but not that much more nice or helpful than other people. They’re all human.

        That’s really the whole problem with the NRA’s position, I think. They paint the gun issue as good guys vs. bad guys when humans are tremendously more complicated than that. Good guys screw up or overreact and momentarily become the bad guys on a daily basis. Harris seems to fall in with that kind of absolute good/bad thinking when it serves his point, but then plays up the shades of gray to detract from the other side. He shoots down several possible measures to curb gun violence saying things like “… will do very little to make our society safer.” Personally though, I’d take the “very little” over the “nothing” every time when it comes to safety. Then, pass more legislation that gives me very little, and then more, until finally we’ve made a dent. I agree when he points out there is no quick fix, but if we’re left with slow fix vs. no fix, let’s get the ball rolling on slow fix.

        Harris does advocate closing the gun show loophole, and that’s excellent, but the way he dismisses other options out of hand and uses terms like “bad people” to oversimplify what makes a shooter a shooter puts me off his general argument.

        And then finally, he closes with the line “Rather than new laws, I believe we need a general shift in our attitude toward public violence—wherein everyone begins to assume some responsibility for containing it.” So, what’s the plan again? Just have the president say, “We’re all going to be more responsible from now on in 3, 2, 1, go!” By all means, advocate a shift in attitude, but don’t toss aside a stack of potential laws that could help along the way toward the shift.

  1. How many people have been killed by guns? What about how many have been killed by knives, bricks, gas, pillows, rope, animals, human body parts, poison, alcohol, falls, etc, etc, etc

  2. It appears that most people who are against gun ownership (The 2nd Amendment) feel perfectly safe relying on their local police to handle crimes against themselves and those they care about… they obviously don’t know that police are NOT REQUIRED to keep you safe. Don’t take my word for it… do the research.

Comments are closed.