Op Ed in the New York Times


PDA






BENBRU
March 10, 2011, 06:16 PM
Op-Ed from the ol' New York Times. Entitled "School of Glock"

Warning: it's written with a very arrogant tone... how dare we want to protect ourselves... Oh well... more nonsense from the Antis

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/10/opinion/10collins.html?hp

If you enjoyed reading about "Op Ed in the New York Times" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Larry E
March 10, 2011, 06:23 PM
I'm not really sure where people like the writer of this tripe comes up with things like the security of the public goes up as gun ownership goes down. She and her equally dimwitted friends likely feel that way, but the majority of the public who keeps buying more and more guns, and wanting less and less gun control legislation apparently disagree with her and her friends. But hey those hicks and hayseeds live in flyover country and are too stupid to even be considered.

These people all talk about how they believe in "democracy", and they might as long as everyone agrees with them. However, when the rest of us disagree with them it doesn't mean we're correct or that they're wrong. It's just that we ain't bright enough. HA!!!

Zoogster
March 10, 2011, 06:28 PM
It is New York, where guns and especially handgun ownership, never mind carrying are extremely restricted and have been longer than anywhere else in the nation.



She is open about her position, less guns make her feel safer.
The fact that almost any healthy male could certainly overpower her or beat her to death with the nearest object, and that a gun actually makes her lethally equal to such people, makes little difference.
She admits to her perception: guns are weapons and weapons are for doing harm, so fewer weapons makes her feel safer because less of those dangerous weapons are around.


Then she tries to tie it to some political spectrum to appeal to her intended audience.

john81276
March 10, 2011, 06:42 PM
"What you just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things i have ever heard. At no point, in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul."

Bad when she deserves a rebuke that was meant for Billy Madison!

:neener:

ATBackPackin
March 10, 2011, 07:27 PM
Wake up everyone! There are no knights in shining armor and it is almost never the case that an armed civilian saves the day against a madman with a gun. Real life is not a fairy tale or Hollywood movie and we would all be a lot safer with fewer guns in the world.

Many doctors have a legitimate reason to ask if a patient has access to a gun - particularly neurologists and psychiatrists who are liable for assessing whether a patient is a risk to him/herself or others.

I have to agree with the wisdom of my children (ages 9 and 11) who on listening to this column and select comments said that the NRA sounds like a group of terrorists.
Thanks Gail for continuing to expose this worsening threat to our safety and sanity.



This is so frustrating. I don't blame the people like the one who left this comment. I blame the media who has ingrained this idea into their head over and over and over. They are basing their arguments on fallacies and emotion.

We as a community have to try to educate these people without belittling them or coming off as elitist ourselves. I honestly believe that a lot ( not all ) of these people feel this way only because that is what they were taught to believe. I dunno..........it's just frustrating. End of rambling.

Shawn

Whiskey11
March 10, 2011, 10:20 PM
I think the irony of this article is that she states the quote from Bill Clinton about Police shots fired/hit percentage being so low, somehow equating Police to the end all be all of shooters. No offense to our boys in blue (I'll be joining you some day hopefully soon!) but I've seen some pretty piss poor shots amongst them, and the annual, or even bi-annual qualifications DON'T HELP. The assumption that all Police are "Professionally trained shooters" is about as legit as saying the converse, that is, that the average, armed citizen is a poorly trained shooter.

Ole Coot
March 10, 2011, 10:46 PM
Typical ignorance of people who need something or someone to bash. She doesn't know a clip from a magazine and took details from the police report. Utopia must be nice and ignorance is bliss so she is very happy and will remain so until something enters her life that could have been prevented with a firearm. I either read, skip or consider the source on any anti gun source. You just can't fix stupid is really true.

Hurricane
March 11, 2011, 12:58 AM
Actually what I find most interesting is that these highly vocal "anti's" are slowly realizing that they are not the majority opinion.

People have had enough. Mess with a dog long enough and it will bite.

Edit: BTW I like how it is acceptable in their eyes for the trained policeman to have 10% accuracy, but someone fending off a rapist is damn near guaranteed to hit the victim and not the assailant.

Sometimes they don't realize that just being willing can be enough to stop a situation. Like when a kid stands up to a bully.

Leanwolf
March 11, 2011, 01:21 AM
It's the New York Times, better known as Pravda East.

Another typical left wing bliss ninny with a typical left wing nonsensical bias.

L.W.

.338-06
March 11, 2011, 02:56 AM
I read the comments, or rather I tried to read the comments. Many of the comments are missing, look at the comment number at the upper right of the comment box. At one point it jumps from 244 to 291.

ATBackPackin's post contained a quote from a guy in Switzerland! Aren't the Swiss armed by their government? Guess he wasn't a Swiss citizen.

And as to those college professors, they're not already afraid after the Virginia Tech shooting?

Virginia Tech, where the great safety plan in the event of a shooting was to stay in your classroom and hide under your desk.

These people have been told all their lives that the world is a safe place and the police will protect them from the bad people. I really feel sorry for them.

Shadow 7D
March 11, 2011, 03:48 AM
Poor online hack,
they must be really busy whacking those pro rights posts
I didn't see a single comment that disagreed with the author, Got to love how then fail to practice the first (or protect our right to disagree) as they attack the second...

Yeah makes your really happy,
I'm sure if you pointed it out they would just scream profanities in your face.

ZCORR Jay
March 11, 2011, 08:00 AM
The comments were worse than the article. It completely baffles me that thinking that a simple law banning things like large cap. magazines will really stop this sort of nightmare from happening. Last I checked killing people was illegal yet it still happens every day so why would a new law suddenly stop all the violence? If bad people want to do bad things they are going to do it despite what ever laws there are.

I love the comment one father posted about his daughter looking at colleges and if they allowed CCW he wouldn't let her go there. If only this guy realized it's not the law abiding carriers you have to worry about. :barf:

ATBackPackin
March 11, 2011, 08:49 AM
I love the comment one father posted about his daughter looking at colleges and if they allowed CCW he wouldn't let her go there. If only this guy realized it's not the law abiding carriers you have to worry about.

I thought the comment about the professor worried about getting shot for handing out a bad grade takes the cake, the icing, and the candles on top. People will say anything to try to win an argument.

Shawn

rocinante
March 11, 2011, 09:07 AM
almost never the case that an armed civilian saves the day against a madman with a gun.

How many people know that in the last Arizona shooting that a armed civilian was on the spot while the shooter was being wrestled to the ground? Given our media NOBODY DOES. Just some guy that came out of the drugstore not related to the rally at all. If they hadn't subdued the shooter the shooter would of been dead two seconds later.

The guy did a great interview with your typical MSM ninny who expressed dismay he would defend himself and the people there and cut his interview short when he started defending his second amendment rights with zero apology.

LouCap
March 11, 2011, 09:29 AM
Last time I qualified, hitting only 10% would've gotten you laughed off the range, not to mention losing your credentials if you failed twice.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy Tablet using Tapatalk Pro.

EVIL
March 11, 2011, 11:30 AM
...I'm sure Gail Collins went to Harvard or Yale or some other ivy league schools so she feels it is her duty to tell the unwashed masses what ignorant, gun-toting, barbarians we are. ... and that 'enlightened' liberals like her should be able to control every aspect of our lives in the guise of 'public safety'

oh wait, this the United States of America ... Not Soviet Russia.... Good thing we have a Constitution.

What gets me about these supposedly 'educated' liberal elites is that they seem to have no sense of history. Haven't they heard about Nazi Germany, Stalinist Russia or the Fench Reign of Terror where extreme statism by elites caused massmurder commited by governments on thier own citizens on ascale that only governments could execute?...whats to prevent that except an armed citizenry?

Our founders knew this intuitively having just waged a war against a tyrant ... they knew that the greatest danger to our republic was from such well-intentioned "do-gooders" like Gail Collins who would flush our liberty in the interest of "public safety." Fear is not a plan for liberty.

RimfireChris
March 11, 2011, 12:35 PM
<rant on>
I really appreciate how these people are perfectly free to paint all gun owners with a broad brush, ie "they're all a bunch of angry people and I'm scared of them." even our local paper had a letter to the editor, and the writer, talking about his fears of the right wing followers-his words- and how "We wouldn't want another Tuscon incident would we?" :barf: These people can say whatever they want, and it's ok, because they're so brave for standing up to all those mean gun owners. They can label all of us as uber-macho, hormone driven engines of destruction who just can't WAIT to clear leather, and everything's hunky-dory.

Meanwhile, If I were to say something along the lines of "All antis are a bunch of communists who want to trade away my freedoms so that they can feel "safer", whatever the heck that is." I'd get called on the carpet, and rightly so. Forget about their position, how come nobody calls these people on their double standard? :cuss: :banghead:
<rant off>

Giterboosted
March 11, 2011, 01:14 PM
Police well trained shots lol, with the exception of the ones that actually are interested in our hobbies of the like, (speaking from knowledge of locals, ymmv) the only time a Leo's weapon is discharged is when they're qualifying for the year, an the standards are relatively low to pass, I'm pretty sure it's agreed by all on here that she's very uneducated on how often the responsible citizen actually practices and takes pride in his accuracy, simply for the fact of known he MAY hafta be that accurate one day

Prince Yamato
March 11, 2011, 01:23 PM
I didn't really get the point of her article. I thought it was about guns, then it complained about health-care and Republicans.

Vern Humphrey
March 11, 2011, 02:31 PM
Ya gotta remember, this is the newspaper whose editor said keeping this newspaper afloat with our tax dollars was morally equivallent to feeding starving people in Africa.

GEM
March 11, 2011, 04:14 PM
Well, the so-called conservative state legislature in TX is taking their own sweet time with our campus carry and parking lot bills. Some suspicion that they are going for a stalling kill like last time to appease business interests. The TSRA made it clear that they asked Coyote Man Perry to put the bills on the emergency docket to force quick action but somehow that pretty boy didn't. Hmmm!

Hope they pass. Coyote Man did make it a point to get other stuff on the docket (that didn't affect business liability shysters) that would make conservatives happy.

Balancing the bucks vs. the ideological purity. Cynical me.

As far as the Times - what do you expect? They are incapable of conceiving a need for self-defense. They don't have it in them. Blah.

Shadow 7D
March 11, 2011, 04:52 PM
Forget about their position, how come nobody calls these people on their double standard? :cussing: :banghead:

You can tell the tail they deleted, of those who called them on their article

Like someone wrote earlier, you can't see the post, but you can see the holes left in the post counts (1,2,3, 45,46, 57 etc.)

Zoogster
March 12, 2011, 04:08 PM
Which of course if they are made aware of they will just fix so that it numbers the posts that are left in order instead of making it obvious they deleted a large number.

HorseSoldier
March 12, 2011, 04:31 PM
It is New York, where guns and especially handgun ownership, never mind carrying are extremely restricted and have been longer than anywhere else in the nation.

I took a Vickers class with a guy from New York who stated that he was in a situation once where he was carrying (without permit) and was mugged at gun point. He said he was reasonably sure the mugger was tweaky or high enough that he could have gotten his pistol out and into the fight before the guy could have gotten a shot off. What stopped him wasn't fear of getting shot by the bad guy, it was fear of the legal abyss he'd have been jumping into if he'd drawn his gun and defended himself and his property. In the second or two he had to make a decision, it was ultimately preferable to get robbed at gun point than to face gun charges in NYC in his mind (and, I suspect, reality -- getting mugged cost him his wallet and briefcase, getting indicted for whatever charges would have been forthcoming had he shot would have probably cost him his home, job and who knows what else by the time the legal fees had settled, even if acquitted).

HorseSoldier
March 12, 2011, 04:33 PM
I didn't really get the point of her article. I thought it was about guns, then it complained about health-care and Republicans.

I thought it was funny that she suggested (trying for hyperbole) that it's only a matter of time before someone figures out Obama-care is a threat to the US military -- since when they start figuring out what that mess is going to really cost it likely well end up meaning the .mil budget gets cut (or they'll just print more money . . .).

The Lone Haranguer
March 12, 2011, 05:07 PM
Well, we all know what opinions are like. :rolleyes:

Well, in Florida, a state representative has introduced a bill that would impose fines of up to $5 million on any doctor who asks a patient whether he or she owns a gun.
On the surface, that sounds almost equally stupid, but verification and context are needed.

danprkr
March 12, 2011, 05:25 PM
Life is to short to waste time on that type of idiot.

cyclopsshooter
March 12, 2011, 06:00 PM
youre all nutz, im calling obama on you

M&PVolk
March 12, 2011, 07:19 PM
I understand the liberal elitist perspective of the writer, it is the comments that are so disappointing. Convenient that the writer never has to defend her position with facts. Aside from the proposed legislative action examples, she is on a pure anti-gun hysteria rant without the necessity of facts. College freshman carrying? Are most freshmen 21? How about a support for the removal of guns reducing crime? Not even a Brady mention! Pure anti rhetoric at its best. The only thing I can say for her is that at least she is consistent...she doesn't even believe police should have guns, as she clarified with her "in a time of crisis, there is no such thing as a good shot" comment.

The comments, however, are worse. I find the Utah professor's comments particularly dismaying. I wonder, how many cases of menacing with a gun by someone legally carrying on his campus have taken place? Any actual threats? Shootings? Didn't think so. Also, the man who said his daughter will be going to a school specifically denying the right to carry. I guess he would much rather her be a compliant victim and sort out the shambles of her physical and emotional damage than have her actually be able to stop such an attack at the onset. That's just responsible parenting right there....

rfwobbly
March 12, 2011, 09:20 PM
The question I really want answered is this: Would Rep Giffords be recovered and improving to such a degree that she can now talk and attend her husband's shuttle launch if ObamaCare had been fully in place? OR would would some government bureaucrat thousands of miles away see her paperwork and think, "Hmm, gunshot to the head. She won't live. No use spending any health care money on that one."

Hmmm.

timebandit
March 12, 2011, 09:49 PM
Damn I'm sick of all this sissy Utopian ideology and blatant disregard of our liberties. Our founding fathers aren't just rolling over in their graves, they're clawing their way out of them.

BENBRU
March 13, 2011, 12:16 AM
Love this place...

Especially this one would would some government bureaucrat thousands of miles away see her paperwork and think, "Hmm, gunshot to the head. She won't live. No use spending any health care money on that one."

Hahaha... that's exactly what would happen except that she's a Rep and means that she would have one of those fancy waivers.

So yeah, my question is: Where do I get to write a blatantly PRO gun editorial and not have to defend it and have you all comment with support? besides here... and at a place that is distributed in colleges around the country.

Carl N. Brown
March 15, 2011, 07:37 AM
Gail Collins, "School of Glock", New York Times Opinion Page, 9 Mar 2011.

Where's an editorial supporting the XVIIIth Amendment for balance (you know, prohibiting "intoxicating liquor" as a blow against "DemonRun" and all that)?

On one side, people’s sense of public safety goes up as the number of guns goes down;

For example, New York City allows 23,000 legal pistol permits in a population of 8 million. Never mind that NYPD and ATF estimate 2 million illegal handguns in NYC (1 to 4 is a higher ratio of handguns to population than in most jurisdictions with few regulations). "On one side, people’s sense of public safety goes up as the number of (legal) guns goes down" because they don't realize that (a) the problem is the illegal guns and (b) less legal restriction would undercut tacit support of the black market.

I see a well-intentioned kid with a pistol trying to intervene in a scary situation and accidentally shooting the victim.

College students who intervened at Appalachian State were adults with LE backgrounds. A lot of college students are not kids and deserve to be treated as the adults they are. A lot of 18 to 21 year olds are not "kids" either but young adults. If the stat used by Gary Kleck and John Lott is correct, a cop intervening is ten times more likely to shoot the wrong person than a self-defender (300 per year versus 30). Using the op-ed's logic, maybe we sould disband the police and go back to "hue-and-cry": after all, a cop intervening in a scary stuation is more likely to make a mistaken identity shooting than a person reacting in self-defense as a witness.

On the "325 Readers' Comments" clicking "All Comments" versus "Highlights" will give you some idea of what the NYT editors consider highlights. :rolleyes:

22-rimfire
March 15, 2011, 08:24 AM
From the NYT article linked above. I am on the first side simply because I believe that in a time of crisis, there is no such thing as a good shot.

She doesn't believe she needs to protect herself or is unable to protect herself.

The article has a very liberal tone which reflects the writer. It is an opinion piece, she is free to express her opinion. But she has access to the NYT; most of us don't. The world is full of all kinds of people with a mixed bag of beliefs and ideas. She clearly believes that less guns make her feel safer. But it only takes ONE gun to ruin her day.

Vern Humphrey
March 15, 2011, 09:59 AM
The question I really want answered is this: Would Rep Giffords be recovered and improving to such a degree that she can now talk and attend her husband's shuttle launch if ObamaCare had been fully in place? OR would would some government bureaucrat thousands of miles away see her paperwork and think, "Hmm, gunshot to the head. She won't live. No use spending any health care money on that one."
The answer is that Representative Giffords, being a member of Congress, is exempt from obamacare.

ZeSpectre
March 15, 2011, 10:25 AM
"School of Glock"
c'mon folks, we know that the gratuitous use of the word "Glock" to represent all firearms (and by fiat all firearms owners) is an immediate tip-off that the person doing the writing is ignorant on the topic about to be presented and simply took the easy cliche route.

rajb123
March 15, 2011, 11:23 AM
The NYTs is full of communists and this is just another sad example.

Johnonthebass
March 15, 2011, 12:14 PM
The issue seems to be that all antis think that we are all uneducated red necks who can't wait for a chance to shoot some zombies, or we are all Rambo just waiting to snap. I've never met a gun owner who wasn't overlly (sp?) cautious with their guns, and I've only ever heard "I hope to God I never have to use this for self defense".

On a side note, my eye twitched every time she typed 'clip'.

eye5600
March 15, 2011, 12:49 PM
The NYTs is full of communists and this is just another sad example.

Sorry, calling the NYT staff communist is like calling a magazine a clip. It falls in the category of "we know what you're getting at, but it's just not accurate."

Gail Collins is a great writer and my favorite columnist, but in this column, she's talking about stuff she doesn't know anything about.

eye5600
March 15, 2011, 12:56 PM
Last time I qualified, hitting only 10% would've gotten you laughed off the range, not to mention losing your credentials if you failed twice.

I'm pretty sure the 10% is from incidents in the field, not practice on the range. It's amazing how many shots miss at close range when the bullets are flying both ways.

Still, use of the statistic is based on some false notions, especially that police are accurate shooters. I would guess that the percent of police who shoot between required qualifications is pretty low, say 10% or less. People don't become cops because they like guns, and I bet most departments wouldn't take a candidate if they thought his reason for applying was to get to wear a gun around town all day.

GambJoe
March 15, 2011, 08:15 PM
She brought up two valid points the political one won't be mentioned here but the tactical one is valid. Cops and soldiers do go thru quit a few rounds in a fight few reach where they were intended resulting in civilian casualties.

After 911in NYC, I began seeing MP-5's, M-16's and M-14's being carried by the police. I didn't feel exactly safe. Most of those guys aren't trigger happy morons but if anything did happen it could have been pretty bad.

M&PVolk
March 15, 2011, 08:41 PM
eye5699: Sorry, calling the NYT staff communist is like calling a magazine a clip. It falls in the category of "we know what you're getting at, but it's just not accurate."

Gail Collins is a great writer and my favorite columnist, but in this column, she's talking about stuff she doesn't know anything about.

I believe the use of the term "communist" was a bit of sarcasm...flaming liberal would have been more accurate :p

Cosmoline
March 15, 2011, 09:04 PM
carrying are extremely restricted

Except, of course, for the owners and publishers of the NYT.

Bula
March 15, 2011, 09:24 PM
Some things will never change. These types of articles used to get under my skin, but now, I chuckle and move on. You will never change the minds of people who, almost biologically, hate gun ownership. They will never listen to reason or fact.

22-rimfire
March 15, 2011, 10:27 PM
They will never listen to reason or fact.

That's because they believe they already have fact and reason on their side. :)

Intrepid Dad
March 15, 2011, 11:35 PM
I am on the first side simply because I believe that in a time of crisis, there is no such thing as a good shot.

Gail Collins, meet Jeanne Assam.

TexasBill
March 16, 2011, 06:25 AM
Y'know, we post this type of stuff and take potshots at it. It's a harmless exercise, but it's pretty well useless because it never extends beyond our forum.

Ms. Collins expresses her opinion in 822 words. What if the Times called up and offered you a similar space for an opposing view?

If I were to write such a piece, I wouldn't start with the Second Amendment; the anti-gun crowd already has their "it refers only to a militia" response (doesn't matter whether they are correct or not, it's their story and they're sticking to it). And I wouldn't bring up Heller or McDonald. I would open with Castle Rock v. Gonzales, the case in which the U.S. Supreme Court ruled police do not have a duty to protect an individual. That might get some attention as it pretty much cripples the antis' reliance on the police to be a deterrent or savior.

I would follow up with some factual statistics about collateral injuries from individuals using firearms in self-defense compared to police shootings.

Close by saying the decision to go armed is not one to be made lightly: one isn't playing cowboy or cops and robbers. You are taking the responsibility for your own defense and the defense of those nearest and dearest to you. You are carrying a weapon capable of causing serious injury or death and taking the responsibility for its retention, deployment and use. You are also taking responsibility for your own emotions, i.e., avoiding confrontations, letting minor slights go without retaliation, holding your temper, etc. In fact, you are agreeing to be held to a higher standard of conduct than the typical person on the street.

ZeSpectre
March 16, 2011, 07:27 AM
Y'know, we post this type of stuff and take potshots at it. It's a harmless exercise, but it's pretty well useless because it never extends beyond our forum.

That's simply not true. I've long ago lost count of the number of articles/rebuttals/or op-ed pieces I've written.

I've also lost count of the number of them that the managed media has "declined" to publish.

TexasBill
March 17, 2011, 01:48 AM
That's simply not true. I've long ago lost count of the number of articles/rebuttals/or op-ed pieces I've written.

I've also lost count of the number of them that the managed media has "declined" to publish.

Well, unless the number of pieces referenced in your second paragraph equals the number of pieces in your first paragraph, it would seem some of them were published. If so, good job and thanks. Even if none made it into print, thank you.

But before we blame all the rejections on the "managed media" we need to make sure what we are submitting meets the requirements. Just about every significant publication has guidelines for submissions and it's up to the writer to make sure submitted material measures up.

Well-written, well-organized material is always attractive due to the amount of garbage that constantly flows in. Good editors don't shy away from controversy; it often builds audience interest - even if everyone hates it, at least they've read it. Perhaps they even bought the publication in order to read it. The editor isn't going out on a limb: it's not like he hired you to be a staff columnist. Chances are that accounting will love you; they got more circulation without paying a dime for content. They might have even saved money by printing your freebie instead of some syndicated space-filler they would have had to pay for.

If an editor blows you off because of content, send your submission to their main rival(s).

The mainstream media myth is largely based on a misunderstanding: most media owners don't really care what their reporters believe (from my experience, most of the talking heads on TV don't believe much of anything). Editors are part of management and management is interested in what sells which means what gets the most attention. Newspapers and some magazines have the luxury of not being limited to sound bites and instant reaction, that's why you have a better chance with them.

I wonder what would happen if Massad Ayoob submitted an op-ed piece for the Times? How about a cop from somewhere besides New York City who would challenge the status quo?

ZeSpectre
March 17, 2011, 07:43 AM
But before we blame all the rejections on the "managed media" we need to make sure what we are submitting meets the requirements. Just about every significant publication has guidelines for submissions and it's up to the writer to make sure submitted material measures up.

Though it does get a little frustrating when the "requirements" are such things as "exclusive" print such as this nice little policy from the times...
We ask that all submissions be sent exclusively to The Times. We will not consider articles that have already been published in print or online.

eye5600
March 25, 2011, 12:27 PM
Though it does get a little frustrating when the "requirements" are such things as "exclusive" print such as this nice little policy from the times...

If exclusivity is a problem for you, try the Huffington Post.

kayak-man
March 25, 2011, 03:40 PM
Haven't they heard about Nazi Germany?

Thats the problem. I think that bringing up what happened in Germany is a valid point. If you try to argue it, they bring up Goodwins Law - The theory that the first person in an argument to bring up Hitler automatically loses. They fail to recognize that that Mr. Goodwin intended to prevent analogies like "Hitler used sugar, you use sugar, so you must be evil." and not to prevent a valid comparison.

What I found most disturbing was her comment that under stress, no one is a good shot. So I suppose that she doesn't consider a marine rifleman over in Iraq to be a good shot...

Vern Humphrey
March 25, 2011, 04:04 PM
What I found most disturbing was her comment that under stress, no one is a good shot. So I suppose that she doesn't consider a marine rifleman over in Iraq to be a good shot...
Her argument reductio ad absurdum would be that since police officers are under stress when they use firearms in the line of duty, they aren't good shots, either -- and hence should not carry firearms.

Shadow 7D
March 25, 2011, 04:12 PM
Then does goodwins law cover stalin and Mao???
seem they did much the same

Vern Humphrey
March 25, 2011, 04:55 PM
Then does goodwins law cover stalin and Mao???
seem they did much the same
Worse, actually -- but Movietone News never got inside their killing factories.

merlinfire
March 25, 2011, 05:04 PM
Read the article. I'm a pretty center of the road guy, and get a lot of my news from CNN and NPR, as well as various internet sources. I vote both republican and democrat depending on the issues.

But this article is garbage. Not even the slightest attempt to be fair in its rapid attempts to create and subsequently "shoot down" various strawmen from beginning to end. It pretty much just reads "bla bla bla guns bad bla bla bla healthcare bla bla guns". What, you mean guns can be used to kill people? We had NO IDEA!

cougfan
March 25, 2011, 07:14 PM
So by her logic shouldn't the police be the first to be disarmed? Innocent bystanders are shot and killed, often by police. But guns also save the lives of cops and normal citizens who are being threatened and robbed. Ambulances save lives, but sometimes they run into a pedestrian or another car.

Shadow 7D
March 25, 2011, 08:04 PM
SHHH
you used logic
and this article in the same sentence
a logical evaluation (such as is happening here)
is the BANE of articles like this....

pharmer
March 25, 2011, 09:17 PM
I am glad to remove the NYT from my favorites menu on Monday. Didn't like it for free and I sure won't pay for it. I would never imagine that anyone on a "gun enthusiast" website could actually consider Gail Collins a journalist. Bashing guns every chance she gets certainly suggests a "slant." Joe

TexasBill
March 26, 2011, 10:02 AM
Though it does get a little frustrating when the "requirements" are such things as "exclusive" print such as this nice little policy from the times...

We ask that all submissions be sent exclusively to The Times. We will not consider articles that have already been published in print or online.


That's not the Times being snooty: it's just boilerplate to avoid conflicting copyright issues.

Neverwinter
March 26, 2011, 01:07 PM
Thats the problem. I think that bringing up what happened in Germany is a valid point. If you try to argue it, they bring up Goodwins Law - The theory that the first person in an argument to bring up Hitler automatically loses. They fail to recognize that that Mr. Goodwin intended to prevent analogies like "Hitler used sugar, you use sugar, so you must be evil." and not to prevent a valid comparison.
The most highly ranked comment made an irrelevant appeal to emotion using Somalia. The poster claims to be a professor who has managed to get by with a poor grasp of punctuation and grammar.

P.S. It's Godwin's Law, not Goodwin's Law.

If you enjoyed reading about "Op Ed in the New York Times" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!