Well researched and written article

[WBspectrum]

Worth a look

http://www.thefogofpolicy.com/specialfeature/special-feature-the-truth-and-doubts-about-gun-control/

 

[Enzo]

Thanks for posting!

 

[hillman]

I enjoyed reading that. Sometimes we get so caught up in our point of view versus the oposite, it's worth while to read something that seems to make an honest effort at being balanced.

 

[vickers]

That was a really good piece. A bit long but well thought out and presented. Well worth the read and gives me a glimmer of hope for the future if we can get enough people to think about it this way.

I just sent an email including the link to this article to the Tolman campaign. I plan on doing the same to other candidates for MA offices throughout the day.

 

[dcmdon]

Wow. I'm only about a third of the way through it. I haven't even gotten to his conclusions, but its clear he made a very concerted and sincere effort to understand things.

As it is, its evident to me that he knows more about Federal and MA gun laws than most MA police officers, firearms instructors, and dealers.

Don

 

[Medic-554]

Great read.


Ma LTC-A
GOAL Member

 

[shapiroeric]

Excellent journalism

 

[jefftk]

Pretty good read, it was definitely missing any discussion on defensive gun uses - i.e. how often does it occur, are justifiable homicides lumped in with "gun deaths" etc...

 

[Come and take]

I enjoyed reading that. Sometimes we get so caught up in our point of view versus the oposite, it's worth while to read something that seems to make an honest effort at being balanced.

I agree. Good read.

 

[Shovelheddrew]

I am disturbed at the balance this guy used. Amazing.

 

[spooler41]

This is one of the very best responses to gun law reform I've ever read, clearly this guy has laid out a path to
sensible gun law. My only wish is that those against reform would read this ,and learn .

................................. Jack

 

[rutilate]

Agreed on all counts.

 

[WBspectrum]

I'm happy to see the article was as well received by others as it was by me. There are a number of sites I lurk on often this one happened to be posted on metafilter.
For those unfamiliar with metafilter, it is decidedly left leaning, but still a wealth of information and often very interesting posts are made and debated. Here is the discussion that post generated, yes some moonbats decrying guns in general, but other responses are more reasonable

http://www.metafilter.com/138955/You-mean-they-might-have-a-point

 

[strangenh]

Very solid piece. And he really comes to understand the basic driver behind the increasingly heels-dug-in attitude of the more "moderate" gun owners:

Having to comply with regulations when you can’t count on the good faith of law enforcement has the tendency to breed a certain amount of paranoia and discourage political horse trading.

The moderate gun owner (some formerly "fudds") and the pro-2A gun owners are brought together by that governmental bad faith. There is little that turns "don't really care" gun owners into 2A advocates like finding that their state or city has decided they are potential-felons for the 2nd or 3rd time in a handful of years, even though they've honestly tried to comply with an unchanged law.

 

[Chris]

Sorry, but given the sheer number of errors he made regarding actual legal statutes, I wonder just how "well researched" this was. There were also significant errors of omission where certain topics could have been provided more information which clarified certain points, but were not done. For example, the whole issue of suicide was pretty well put to rest when England and Australia outright banned firearms and while there was a slight drop in overall suicides, the number of bridge jumpers and overdose cases skyrocketed. For the amount of column inches spent on the issue I find that omission telling. In fact, his only reason to dwell on the issue at all was to justify his use of the FS/S proxy (another health statistic please note) in an attempt to justify the more guns, more death position. It should be interesting to note that the More Guns, Less Crime argument was given ZERO treatment. (balance?)

By the time I finished reading the piece, I felt he was pandering to the less informed 2A supporter in an attempt to push his own agenda and opinions. Notice that no effort was ever made to list the myriad of anti-propaganda that has been proven false. Notice that no effort was ever made to quantify the impact the current policies have as both financial hurdles on the average citizen OR the cost to the taxpayer to administer the policies. And finally, there is NO MENTION at all just how many of the Massachusetts licensed gun owners have been convicted of a violent crime vs. how many have been convicted of violating some process or possession issue that in truth had no impact on any other person.

For all the spew in this article, it is NOT balanced or representative of facts.

As for his opinions in the conclusion, they truly state his position and truth be told, any article will be designed to support the conclusion.

So, unless you believe that every single transfer of a gun must include a government approved background check, that every state should be forced to issue a license and every citizen be forced to obtain a license, that background checks are common sense, but locking up dangerous criminals isn't, that the loss of a gun should be a criminal offense, that the people in health care somehow are experts on crime, that suicide is somehow linked to gun ownership, and that the well documented political passage of most of this state's gun laws and regulations can be concluded as "the result of incompetence, willful obstructionism, or special-interest lobbying is hard to say" - then, there is no reasonable way anyone can believe this as balanced.

This is an ANTI who is trying to justify his own emotional beliefs by attempting to look objective, but in reality cherry picking arguments to assist in supporting his beliefs rather than reality.

 

[WBspectrum]

 

[soloman02]

Sorry, but given the sheer number of errors he made regarding actual legal statutes, I wonder just how "well researched" this was. There were also significant errors of omission where certain topics could have been provided more information which clarified certain points, but were not done. For example, the whole issue of suicide was pretty well put to rest when England and Australia outright banned firearms and while there was a slight drop in overall suicides, the number of bridge jumpers and overdose cases skyrocketed. For the amount of column inches spent on the issue I find that omission telling. In fact, his only reason to dwell on the issue at all was to justify his use of the FS/S proxy (another health statistic please note) in an attempt to justify the more guns, more death position. It should be interesting to note that the More Guns, Less Crime argument was given ZERO treatment. (balance?)

By the time I finished reading the piece, I felt he was pandering to the less informed 2A supporter in an attempt to push his own agenda and opinions. Notice that no effort was ever made to list the myriad of anti-propaganda that has been proven false. Notice that no effort was ever made to quantify the impact the current policies have as both financial hurdles on the average citizen OR the cost to the taxpayer to administer the policies. And finally, there is NO MENTION at all just how many of the Massachusetts licensed gun owners have been convicted of a violent crime vs. how many have been convicted of violating some process or possession issue that in truth had no impact on any other person.

For all the spew in this article, it is NOT balanced or representative of facts.

As for his opinions in the conclusion, they truly state his position and truth be told, any article will be designed to support the conclusion.

So, unless you believe that every single transfer of a gun must include a government approved background check, that every state should be forced to issue a license and every citizen be forced to obtain a license, that background checks are common sense, but locking up dangerous criminals isn't, that the loss of a gun should be a criminal offense, that the people in health care somehow are experts on crime, that suicide is somehow linked to gun ownership, and that the well documented political passage of most of this state's gun laws and regulations can be concluded as "the result of incompetence, willful obstructionism, or special-interest lobbying is hard to say" - then, there is no reasonable way anyone can believe this as balanced.

This is an ANTI who is trying to justify his own emotional beliefs by attempting to look objective, but in reality cherry picking arguments to assist in supporting his beliefs rather than reality.

So what "sheer number of errors he made regarding actual legal statutes" did he make?

Please, be specific, I've got time.

 

[PaulD]

So what "sheer number of errors he made regarding actual legal statutes" did he make?

Please, be specific, I've got time.

Yeah. I see some omissions and things that should be expanded on, but I'm not finding any blatant errors.

 

[Chris]

So what "sheer number of errors he made regarding actual legal statutes" did he make?

Not going to scan the entire thing again, but here are the ones I remember off hand and could search for specifically:

"Essentially, a Class B license allows you to have and keep a handgun at home, and a Class A license allows you to carry that gun on your person"

WRONG - Also prohibits what you can buy and own based on some ever changing 'list'. List changes, BANG - Instant Felon. Strange how that little tidbit is conveniently forgotten. Also, it should be noted that the author as a Boston resident seems to think that restrictions are common. In fact, of the 231 cities and towns, most issue ONLY Class A unrestricted. Lack of research or bias?

"A 1986 law – the Firearms Owners Protection Act (FOPA) – requires states to allow legally-licensed gun owners to travel through their jurisdictions."

Licensed? BZZZT - wrong, thanks for playing. A citizen does not need any license to "travel through", they simply must be legal where they start and end their trip, in most cases no license is needed at all.

"the right of the government to do something for you"

Basic civics should have taught him that Governments have powers, citizens have rights. To quote from the Declaration of Independence: "Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers...". Of course, the interpretation of exactly what is 'just' by this author leaves a lot to be desired. Still it is sad to see such a basic fundamental of law so poorly understood.

There were other such issues.

Please, be specific, I've got time.

 

[Mike-Mike]

Yeah. I see some omissions and things that should be expanded on, but I'm not finding any blatant errors.

Huge errors in the licensing scheme and I didn't really read it all.

 

[wahsben]

Well said.
The writer supports gun control. He talks about compromise yet the only people who have done any are the gun owners so in reality it is not compromise because to compromise all parties involved give up something.
Gun owners rights have been compromised under the guise of public safety.The founders put shall not be infringed for a reason and that is because they realized that infringements would only disarm the innocent and give more power to the criminals and tyrants.

Sorry, but given the sheer number of errors he made regarding actual legal statutes, I wonder just how "well researched" this was. There were also significant errors of omission where certain topics could have been provided more information which clarified certain points, but were not done. For example, the whole issue of suicide was pretty well put to rest when England and Australia outright banned firearms and while there was a slight drop in overall suicides, the number of bridge jumpers and overdose cases skyrocketed. For the amount of column inches spent on the issue I find that omission telling. In fact, his only reason to dwell on the issue at all was to justify his use of the FS/S proxy (another health statistic please note) in an attempt to justify the more guns, more death position. It should be interesting to note that the More Guns, Less Crime argument was given ZERO treatment. (balance?)

By the time I finished reading the piece, I felt he was pandering to the less informed 2A supporter in an attempt to push his own agenda and opinions. Notice that no effort was ever made to list the myriad of anti-propaganda that has been proven false. Notice that no effort was ever made to quantify the impact the current policies have as both financial hurdles on the average citizen OR the cost to the taxpayer to administer the policies. And finally, there is NO MENTION at all just how many of the Massachusetts licensed gun owners have been convicted of a violent crime vs. how many have been convicted of violating some process or possession issue that in truth had no impact on any other person.

For all the spew in this article, it is NOT balanced or representative of facts.

As for his opinions in the conclusion, they truly state his position and truth be told, any article will be designed to support the conclusion.

So, unless you believe that every single transfer of a gun must include a government approved background check, that every state should be forced to issue a license and every citizen be forced to obtain a license, that background checks are common sense, but locking up dangerous criminals isn't, that the loss of a gun should be a criminal offense, that the people in health care somehow are experts on crime, that suicide is somehow linked to gun ownership, and that the well documented political passage of most of this state's gun laws and regulations can be concluded as "the result of incompetence, willful obstructionism, or special-interest lobbying is hard to say" - then, there is no reasonable way anyone can believe this as balanced.

This is an ANTI who is trying to justify his own emotional beliefs by attempting to look objective, but in reality cherry picking arguments to assist in supporting his beliefs rather than reality.

 

[WatchCityCPA]

Huge errors in the licensing scheme and I didn't really read it all.

FTA:

In Massachusetts, it is illegal to purchase or posses a firearm of any kind without a proper license. In order to obtain a license, you first have to take a state-mandated basic firearm safety course. Then you have to file an application at your town’s police headquarters, which involves a criminal background check, a set of fingerprints, and possibly an interview.

There are three basic firearm permits. The most basic is called a Firearm Identification Card (FID), which basically allows you to own a shotgun or a rifle. (It also, incidentally, entitles you to purchase pepper spray, which is otherwise illegal in Massachusetts.) By statute, the licensing authority must issue you an FID if you are not disqualified from owning a gun because you are a felon or have an order of protection against you, or meet any other of a set list of criteria.


Then there is the “License to Carry” (LTC) – which comes both as a Class A or a Class B. Essentially, a Class B license allows you to have and keep a handgun at home, and a Class A license allows you to carry that gun on your person. According to Massachusetts state law, the licensing authority ‘may issue’ an LTC to ‘appropriate persons’; of course, they also may not. It’s up to the discretion of the local chief of police. And there’s another wrinkle: LTCs are often issued with specified restrictions. As a result, few police departments issue Class B licenses, they just issue Class A licenses that are effectively restricted to target shooting – in effect turning a Class A license into a Class B.

The bold parts are the ones that jumped at me.

But wait, there's more:

First, we know that greater access to guns leads to more suicides, but that this is an unevenly distributed effect. Second, we know that greater access to guns leads to more fatal accidents, but that these are thankfully few. Third, we know that greater and easier access to guns likely lead to more fatal crimes of passion.

Do you notice any data showing the benefits of gun ownership? Me neither.

Take a look at his "solution":

The basic principle should be that no one should be able to legally purchase a gun without first proving that they are statutorily qualified to do so, and that the government should make every effort to assure that the cost of complying with the law is as low as possible. Critics might argue that criminals would simply fail to comply with this law as well, but it would be an important arrow in the quiver of law enforcement and would make it harder for people to legally facilitate the purchase of firearms by criminals.

Similarly, if states are going to be required to grant reciprocity to licenses issued elsewhere, then there need to be minimal nationwide qualifications for receiving a permit. That could happen in one of two ways. First, states could be required to accept out-of-state licenses and they could also be required to adopt minimal standards. Alternatively, states could be required to accept licenses from other states that have requirements in place that mirror their own. They should not, however, be empowered to categorically deny out-of-state residents the right to exercise a Constitutional right within their borders.


Lastly, it should be a crime for a gun owner who has knowingly had his gun stolen to not report it.

And one more pearl:

Pro-gun advocates, for example, often cleave to an interpretation of the Second Amendment that is unreasonable. The argument that no gun regulation should be allowed is both ahistorical and irresponsible.

My personal conclusion is that the author believes they did a great job in being analytical, fair, balanced, neutral, etc... but can not and will not admit that his biases and preconceived ideas drive his conclusions and recommendations.

But overall, it is a piece of writing by an author that tried hard to do a good job, and should be commended for their effort and willingness to admit that the emperor has no clothes.

 

[WBspectrum]

I'm going to be a bit more forgiving in regards to the laws he mentions for one simple reason. How many different opinions do we see right here among gun guys/LEO/ lawyers right here on NES in regards to the interpretation of these silly laws? There never seems to be an ultimate consensus here, that fact that he messed some aspects up I can understand

The discussion on gun control is so multi-faceted and even in all the verbiage he used he still couldn't fit it all in. At least he tried . Of course you're opinions are as valid as mine and I'm happy for the polite discussion this started