“In order to achieve national standards for gun control our leaders cannot continue to frame the issue in terms of political expediency,” Marda Dunsky writes at aljazeera.com. “As a people, Americans cannot continue to frame the issue in terms of narrowly defined freedoms. We have to think the unthinkable and recast the gun-control debate in personal terms: As things stand now, almost any of us can find ourselves in a nightmare scenario in almost any public place at almost any time. The statistical probability of that happening is not what matters. What matters is that it can and does routinely happen in the kind of ordinary places that most of us frequent.” Did you catch all that? Let’s back up a bit and review . . .
In her article – Will we come to our senses on gun control in 2014? – Professor Dunsky assumes we must achieve national standards for gun control. Why?
Recent headlines and morning news shows tout decreasing numbers of homicides in cities including New York, Chicago, Philadelphia and Detroit, and so we bolster our sense of safety with these sound bites – even as Baltimore and Newark, among others, continue to struggle with rising rates of gun-related violence and death.
Strange that Dunsky didn’t spend thirty seconds Googling for facts before making her case. Here’s the dope on Baltimore’s firearms-related homicide stats from baltimoresun.com, January 2013:
As the Police Department’s leadership changed, the city recorded 217 killings, about 10 percent more than the 197 in 2011, but still the second-lowest homicide rate since the late 1980s. Police statistics released Tuesday show that total crime and most categories of gun violence continued to decline.
How about that? A little deeper delving (still on the first results page when searching “baltimore gun related homicides”) pulls up this interesting tidbit from baltimorecity.gov: “Forty percent of Baltimore’s homicide suspects and defendants charged with felony gun crimes – shootings, attempted murders, armed robberies – have prior gun arrests.”
Sounds like Baltimore need some tougher sentencing standards, rather than increased gun control for gun owners who’ve committed no crime. Swap out “newark” for “baltimore” in the above search and the very first link (city-data.com) provides a handy chart of murders per 100k Newark residents between 1999 and 2011. It’s been holding steady at around 90 for about a decade.
I could dig deeper, but why bother? Dunksy makes no secret of her disdain for the facts relating to the topic of gun control. Which brings us back to the non-sensical salvo opening this post: “Americans cannot continue to frame the issue in terms of narrowly defined freedoms.” In other words, screw the Second Amendment.
Yes, we have constitutional rights that allow us to bear arms and to produce and consume violent entertainment. Yet these freedoms have proven to have dangerous, if not fatal, impacts on public safety. Moreover, these freedoms are derived from a document written by human beings – and what people have created, people can change, for their own good.
Dunksy believes Americans must sacrifice their natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms on the altar of public safety. It’s the same argument Chief U.S. District Judge William M. Skretny recently used to uphold New York’s risible SAFE Act. It’s wrong on so many levels it’s hard to know where to begin. Let’s go with this . . .
The fact that a woman who relies on First Amendment protections to publish an anti-gun dietribe [sic] calls for the curtailment of violent entertainment and gun rights indicates her contempt for anything remotely resembling freedom. The article’s subhead tells you all you need to know about that: Americans cannot continue framing gun control laws in terms of infringement on their freedom. Never mind why the hell not, says who?
Says an adjunct lecturer at the prestigious Medill School of Journalism, Media, Integrated Marketing Communications at Northwestern University in Evanston, Illinois (just outside of Chicago). Click here to see the list of the school’s notable alumni, a veritable who’s who of the liberal mainstream media (e.g., Joshua Green at The Atlantic and David Weigl of Slate and msnbc.com). Click here for an inside look at the school’s liberal bias.
It’s not clear if Dunsky caters to the students’ pre-existing anti-gun bias, reinforces it or instills it in impressionable minds. I’m thinking all three (when she’s not holding forth on the Palestinian question). What’s more clear: The People of the Gun are fighting an uphill battle. While we’re converting fence-straddlers to the pro-gun position, J-schools are cranking out hundreds of graduates who hold our gun rights in contempt. When it comes to influencing low-information voters, one of them is worth several thousand of us.
We can’t silence the misguided media elitists spreading anti-gun agitprop. Nor should we. As Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis wrote in Whitney v. California “If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence.”
Let Dunsky speak. But Tweet, Facebook and email pro-gun links within your social and professional circle. Don’t expect everyone to accept your 2A comms. The truth hurts, but it can also set you free. At the same time, encourage young guns to go to J-school. The sooner we change the culture in the Ivory Tower, the better.
Al Jazeera. That is all I shall say.
1
Blah, blah holster…
Where did you get those awesome grip panels? Are they Sig exclusive or available for other makes?
I was going to comment on the grips separately, but since you brought it up…
I am very surprised (even though I kind of like the grips) that at no point in these comments has anyone brought up the problems you will face from the Prosecutor following a DGU when you have SKULLS! on the grips of your pistols. OMG! Couple that with an article describing how much research you have done to find a holster for that ominous firearm that will allow you to draw and fire it in the most efficient manner possible. You are obviously someone who is just LOOKING for someone to shoot.
(/sarc off)
I apologize to America for this ugly wench.
I assure you, not all of Illinois residents are as al-jazeera like as this woman.
“The pen is mightier than the sword”…right up to the point that the sword is swung and the hand holding the pen is severed from the body…
I’ve spent the greater part of five years as a journalist, primarily working in radio, but to a lesser extent publishing in newspapers. I started out with opinions not all that different from Prof. Dunsky’s. I grew up shooting fairly traditional rifles and shotguns, and never considered the gun control legislation going after AR-15s and “high capacity magazines” to be an infringement of my rights — since I didn’t think it affected me. Over time, however, I learned that even by owning a shotgun I was considered a “gun nut” by most of my left-leaning co-workers. Times changed. I found a place where I liked to work with people who were likeminded or indifferent. I’ve graduated to owning a few “scary” black rifles and know all of the local owners of gun shops on a first name basis. I still encounter ignorance in local media, but nothing remotely on par to what Prof. Dunsky is advocating.
Some people just can’t wait to have a boot placed over their necks. They welcome tyranny with open arms, for the children of course.
I think it’s funny that the first paragraph there talking about how it could happen anywhere, regardless of statistics, reads like an argument for carrying a firearm to me.
Where did you get the idea that she is a Professor? She is listed as adjunct lecturer on the Northwestern adjunct faculty page. http://www.medill.northwestern.edu/experience/people/faculty/journalism-adjunct/
Her credentials don’t make her opinion any more valid than any other person’s. She just has a vehicle for expressing them to a relatively large audience.
I stopped reading at alljizzero, er, Aljazeera……
Glock could sue for defamation or at least ask why they put their logo so prominently on the poster.
They may be able to sue for trademark and/or copyright infringement.
They only did this because the Glock is black.
WHY? SANTA? WHY DID YOU TOUCH ME?!!!! BAHAHAHAH!
How would they know the serial # and not have it in their possession, or have had it at some point? Seems to me if they never had it, they are going on inferences based off some sales records and/or the word of a confessed killer.
If I had it I probably would not turn it in, not even for $5,000. Sure, the current owner is not suspected of a crime now. But, wait until you turn it in and they confiscate and investigate. Then you will be suspected of all sorts of crimes.
“The statistical probability of that happening is not what matters.” A supposed academic immediately conceding the need for a rational argument. She should stop taking walks in the great outdoors, as there is a statistical chance of being struck by lightening, even when it’s not raining. Too bad they can’t ban lightening so she needn’t live in fear. Moreover, if there were ways for others to prevent being struck by a random bolt, she would likely advocate that this power should be taken from them. Again, how is this person professionally qualified to comment on the subject of 2A rights?
I was thinking aliens myself.
Even though I understand the purpose in this situation, seeing a gun on a wanted poster (instead of the perpetrator) is really sort of creepy.
Glock — for the perfect murder.
GOOD – Bye states rights Hello Nazi party
http://teapartyorg.ning.com/forum/topic/show?id=4301673%3ATopic%3A2385257&xgs=1&xg_source=msg_share_topic
“Yes, we have constitutional rights that allow us to freedom of speech and to produce and consume violent entertainment. Yet these freedoms have proven to have dangerous, if not fatal, impacts on public safety. Moreover, these freedoms are derived from a document written by human beings – and what people have created, people can change, for their own good.”
There can be no more right more dangerous to “society” and to government in particular than freedom of speech.
HEY tdiinva! THIS SUPERBOWL WAS SO BAD I TURNED IT OFF AT HALF ANYWAY… WENT AND WATCHED SOME PORN!! ‘STILL’ DIDNT SEE ANYONE GET SCREWED WORSE THAN DENVER!!! hahahaha… WHAT A BORING GAME!! MANNNN….
WANT A FRONTAL LOBOTOMY JUST SO I CAN FORGET THIS SUPERBOWL!! (or a bottle in front of me — always forget which it is??)
Ever notice how these anti-American pukes all look like they came from the Ork and Troll casting call for LOTRs?
Obama’s Cabinet is full of em
DVRd it just to see if there’d be any gun talk. Dana didn’t say anything actually. She might as well not have been on.
now we know what number to prank call!!!
Oh and speaking of appendix carry, in my ‘pinion this where a hammer fired gun and the ability to put thumb over the hammer while holstering/reholstering shines.
Yeah I know. Keep your finger out of the trigger guard. Shit happens, even to the most tier 1 (lol) of us. We even have an expression for it, Glock Leg.
Dirk needs to do a better job of controlling his women.
Wait, aren’t firearms (unless, being mailed) illegal anyway on post office grounds?
I don’t want to call them cowards, because that label is too conveniently dismissive. It excuses us from any kind of understanding and grants us license to assert the superiority of our position because we are not cowards. It’s a sidestep, and it’s not really any more accurate or productive than them calling us “bullies.”
Most people I know who believe in gun control consider themselves pacifists. They place great value on the ideals that all people are equal and that most people are generally good. They’re educated, and they avoid stupid people, places and things. They live relatively risk-averse lifestyles, and generally feel pretty safe. A lot of people here might call their reality a “false sense of security,” though they would likely disagree based on their own assessment that their risk of suffering a violent attack is vanishingly remote. They’re content to relinquish their personal safety to “professionals” and tend to give little to no thought about what might happen if something really happened.
Calling that cowardice might fit better if these people actually recognized a need for armed defense of self and others, then dismissed that need out of a desire to avoid placing themselves in harm’s way. The truth, however, is that most of them do not even recognize that such a need exists; it’s a job for police that is fairly adequately handled by police, and that’s as much thought as they give it. The idea of an armed citizenry is alarming because they do not understand it. They’re grossly ignorant of firearms and even basic gun safety, and will naturally fill in the blanks with general notion that even good people sometimes do dumb things and if everyone around them has a gun that’s a lot of chances for accidents to happen. It’s FUD.
I see the solution as a matter of education and normalization of firearms. The POTG would be wise to realize how powerfully helpful it is to demystify guns and gun owners in the least threatening ways possible. I work with some kinda rabidly anti-gun people, and my approach has been to invite them to a gun show, invite them shooting, teach them the rules of gun safety, inform them about gun laws, educate them on different types of firearms and how they work, etc. A little at a time. And with respect for their opinions and no expectation that they change their minds. Because, I’m confident that pulling back the curtains and using facts to erode their fears will at least help them see through the BS in the news and from politicians who attempt to exploit low information voters.
I don’t know if these incidents are getting more common or just getting more publicity, but under any circumstance, a cop’s first response to any dog should not be to shoot it until dead.
Simply desire to say your article is as surprising. The clearness for your put up is just cool and that i
could assume you’re knowledgeable on this subject.
Well along with your permission allow me to clutch
your RSS feed to stay up to date with impending post. Thank you one million and please continue the enjoyable work.
Schatzman is an antigun hypocrite who will not sign off on NFA items for his subjects.
The home owner should have ran in the house like his ass was on fire, got his weapon, hid in the closet, and called 911 claiming the a LEO has gone on a rampage and has just shot his dog and that he is now in fear for his life. “I’ve got my gun and I’m hiding in my closet. You need to come save me. I’ll only come out if I hear the safe word “Monkey Slut”.”
Ah yes, more good news out of my old county. I knew a few good cops on the AAC force, but I was also shaken down by one overly zealous officer assigned to the Annapolis Mall once. Good apples, bad apples.
I hope this one feels great about putting down such a vicious creature.
He’s right. Since carrying I avoid confrontation like the plague. Walk away from arguments. Stay out of bad neighborhoods and away from stupid people who do stupid things. Drive the speed limit, use my blinker and always come to a full stop to avoid interactions with the police. Since carrying I’ve become the model peacnik citizen.
You say that black powder is one shot, but you clearly forgot about the colt navy assault pistol, capable of spraying six bullets in rapid succession.
the 500 is getting so much flak.. I bought the rem 870 instead
Maybe people should start wearing uniforms. No one freaks out when police carry weapons openly, people don’t even freak out when security guards carry openly. Just because they have a uniform and a little bit of training means that they are infallible? I’m pretty sure a lot of so-called regular citizens actually shoot more often than the “trained” people who carry.