05-14-2019 01:57:15 PM -0400
05-09-2019 05:01:30 PM -0400
05-09-2019 01:41:48 PM -0400
04-18-2019 10:46:35 AM -0400
04-18-2019 10:18:40 AM -0400
It looks like you've previously blocked notifications. If you'd like to receive them, please update your browser permissions.
Desktop Notifications are  | 
Get instant alerts on your desktop.
Turn on desktop notifications?
Remind me later.


'Rolling Stone' and the Second Amendment 'Suicide Pact'

Rolling Stone—the aging rock publication whose struggle to stay relevant misfired badly with a salacious story about a campus rape that, it turned out, never happened—has now taken on gun control in an article ("Why It's Time to Repeal the Second Amendment") by Drexel University law professor David S. Cohen. After Orlando, the topic is so current that it made Drudge.

The most obvious intention of this sudden welter of gun control articles and speeches by Obama, Clinton and others is to distract from discussion of the real problem—radical Islam—or, in the words of Rahm Emanuel, to "never let a serious crisis go to waste."  (Irony in quoting the mayor of Chicago, where gun control is stringent but murders proliferate is deliberate.)

Cohen begins his article by reminding his historically ignorant RS audience—he's probably right there—of the "astonishing" fact that the Founders weren't perfect and even countenanced slavery.  Thus it would follow as the night the day that they were wrong about the Second Amendment as well.  He writes, "The Second Amendment needs to be repealed because it is outdated, a threat to liberty and a suicide pact."

A suicide pact?  Them's fightin' words.  But how so?

Finally, if we take the gun-rights lobby at their word, the Second Amendment is a suicide pact. As they say over and over, the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. In other words, please the gun manufacturers by arming even the vast majority of Americans who do not own a gun.

Just think of what would have happened in the Orlando night-club Saturday night if there had been many others armed. In a crowded, dark, loud dance club, after the shooter began firing, imagine if others took out their guns and started firing back. Yes, maybe they would have killed the shooter, but how would anyone else have known what exactly was going on? How would it not have devolved into mass confusion and fear followed by a large-scale shootout without anyone knowing who was the good guy with a gun, who was the bad guy with a gun, and who was just caught in the middle? The death toll could have been much higher if more people were armed.

Well, does the professor have a point?  Let's study the reality for a moment.  Most—though not all—people who carry guns are trained in their use and we would assume they would know not to fire wildly, but would they? Errors will occur, but the question is, on balance, will lives be saved?