[fistful]

The latest issue of Reason Magazine features a series of columns on gun control. I thought Reason was a libertarian mag, yet the purpose of the piece appears to be that we gun-nuts should give in a little bit in order to have a "reasoned debate." The end result being yet more regulation in hopes of easing other restrictions.

Huh? Why is Reason promoting waiting periods?

Would someone please explain this to me?


fistful

[Justin]

Nothing on the website as of yet. Who wrote the articles?

[Parallax]

Got a link?

[Hawk]

I can’t find my copy but if memory serves, it was several viewpoints with opening and closing by Abigail Kohn (author: Shooters Their Aim is True).

Kohn reports on a successful program to reduce violence but I didn’t see much beyond enforcement of existing statutes as opposed to new laws. The point was made that pro-gun people are understandably reluctant to discuss crime control with groups that are actually interested in banning firearms rather than reducing crime.

One contributor noted the NRA, being abandoned by one party, adopted a good part of the ideology of the party that didn’t actively push gun bans – big surprise there. Not particularly inaccurate either. My creaky memory seems to recall a time when gun control advocates were a fringe minority of BOTH parties and the NRA couldn’t be readily identified with either party.

Anyhow, where else but Reason could you find a gun debate with three or four contributors, none of which could be considered really anti?


This is all I could find - kinda old:
Kohn-Reason (http://reason.com/0105/fe.ak.their.shtml)

[TallPine]

Here is MY compromise:

I'll stay out of your bedroom if you'll stay out of my gun cabinet.

:p

[dolanp]

A true Libertarian would not promote such a compromise. Must be one of those middle-of-the-road'ers wanting to please everyone.

[DigitalWarrior]

You know moderation may be the key to starting them on the slippery slope back to freedom. Come on go to a may issue... got to a shall issue... go to a permit if you want...

[Standing Wolf]

...pro-gun people are understandably reluctant to discuss crime control with groups that are actually interested in banning firearms rather than reducing crime.

Banning firearms makes every criminal's predations easier.

[spartacus2002]

Was Reason promoting a stance, or just having a roundtable of essays in order to get people to compare and contrast the different views of gun control?

[Hawk]

Roundtable.

But all varying shades of "pro". It was Reason, after all.

[Jay Kominek]

Reason might be one of the more libertarian magazines out there, but don't confuse them with hardliners. They're happy to discuss the pros and cons of particular policies, rather than just saying "policy $X is unlibertarian, and thus forbidden!"

As for the essays in question, I remember reading them, and even have the issue around here. It was definitely intended to be a round table discussion, and as I recall, even the least pro person was mostly saying "gee, it'd be great if the two sides of the debate could talk together. and it'd be a lot easier if the anti-gun people abandoned their goal of total disarmament, as it makes compromise sort of stupid."

I thought it wasn't bad, and the sort of thing you could hand to an anti to make them a bit less anti; but it wasn't the thing you hand to your shooting buddies to encourage them about the state of the political world.