Pro-gun column in the Washington Post

[AlexanderA]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local...for-handguns/2012/03/06/gIQAP0IZvR_story.html

Thought I'd never see the day when the Washington Post published pro-gun opinion. This seems to be for real. (Watch them pull it when the editors realize what happened.)

 

[Midwest]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local...for-handguns/2012/03/06/gIQAP0IZvR_story.html

Thought I'd never see the day when the Washington Post published pro-gun opinion. This seems to be for real. (Watch them pull it when the editors realize what happened.)

This is a local story, and likely will not appear in the National Edition. But I wonder if the columnist will be in trouble after the higher ups get wind of the story he reported on.
Yes, very surprised to see a story like that in the Washington Compost...maybe someone should take a screen shot of the story...maybe for addition to Ripley's Believe It or Not".

 

[MachIVshooter]

Say what you will about the perils of gun ownership, but nobody can doubt that Wright would be alive today if he’d had one.

The author is a bit diluded.

We don't know the whole story, but it is fairly obvious that the victim did not observe some basic common sense approaches to a conflict, namely the fact that he returned to the fight after being wounded. Not only was that foolish, but it turns the assault into mutual combat, and if he'd killed the other guy, whether with the shovel he did have or the gun the author suggests he should have had, he'd most likely have been charged with manslaughter.

Concealed carry won't mitigate stupidity.

 

[k-frame]

This is a local story, and likely will not appear in the National Edition.

Possibly, but if the story is on their web site then the story is available world-wide for any (non-censored) reader to see. And why would the editors pull the column? It's this fellow's opinion and contrary to what people would like to believe, most if not all newspapers do publish points of view that are in opposition to the policy of the paper's editorial board. It helps if the opposing point of view is well-written, factual, stays on topic and the writer leaves his or her tin foil hat at home.

 

[AlexanderA]

MachIVshooter: I agree with what you say, but the real point here is not what happened on the ground, but the idea that pro-gun sentiment is expressed in an anti-gun bastion like the Washington Post. This may be one indication, I think, that there's a change in the public atmosphere.

 

[MachIVshooter]

but the idea that pro-gun sentiment is expressed in an anti-gun bastion like the Washington Post.

I only wish it had been a better example, and a bit more articulate. Had the victim been armed and killed his assailant, it would not have been a clear cut case of self defense the likes of which we need to present for the sake of our point. This was a situation that began with a discourteous act by the victim and escalated to violence, and the victim brought about his own demise by propogating further violence when he was already clear of further danger.

 

[JustinJ]

If this is the best example of why concealed carry is a good idea we're in trouble. The "stabee" went home and grabbed a shovel and then returned to the "knifer" instead of going to the hospital or calling the police and the author is actually saying this is a poster boy for concealed carry? Wow. Drawing attention to the fact that mentally unstable or just plain stupid people could carry doesn't seem like a good way to help or cause.

 

[wojownik]

Courtland Milloy is (or tries to be) one of the Post's more provocative columnists. Rather than dissecting the article point-by-point, this is overall a rather surprising offering from a pretty left-leaning columnist.

Perhaps Courtland is mellowing (and coming back to center) with age.

Perhaps the constant drumbeat of violence in DC - and impotence of District PD - is forcing some reality into even an ideologue.

 

[Hypnogator]

If this is the best example of why concealed carry is a good idea we're in trouble. The "stabee" went home and grabbed a shovel and then returned to the "knifer" instead of going to the hospital or calling the police and the author is actually saying this is a poster boy for concealed carry?

You know, sometimes we're our own worst enemies! The crux of the article is, that had the victim been carrying a concealed weapon, he probably wouldn't have been stabbed or cut even the first time, whether by causing his attacker to stop, or by stopping his attacker with deadly force if he didn't stop on his own.

In thread after thread regarding self-defense shootings, I see members nit-picking and pontificating as to how they would not have gotten into that predicament in the first place! It's the same blame-the-victim mentality that I used to observe all the time in rape cases. Indeed, a savvy defense lawyer counter-intuitively loves to have women on the jury in a rape trial. Psychologically, the female jurors don't want to believe that any woman can be raped, because that is threatening to them. It's much easier for them to believe that the victim must have done something to encourage her attacker, so therefore if they don't do any such thing, they'll be safe from attack. :banghead::banghead::banghead:

I agree, that in this instance the victim's arming himself with a shovel and engaging in hand-to-hand combat with his attacker was foolish, but on the other hand, as was pointed out, the attacker followed him to his residence. How was he to know the attacker didn't intend to harm his family?

The bottom line is, I agree with the columnist: If the victim had been legally carrying a concealed handgun, the attack would probably have never taken place in the first place, or if it did, would have been quickly stopped at the expense of the attacker.

Stepping down off my soapbox.

 

[Old krow]

I agree with Hypnogator's post.

If this is the best example of why concealed carry is a good idea we're in trouble.

Not the best example, but it's a start. They didn't start off a gun-grabbing state and it'll take them a while to become normal like the rest of us.

 

[TurtlePhish]

sells assault knives for about $10.

Assault knives....

Please tell me I'm not the only one who noticed.

 

[JohnBT]

"This is a local story, and likely will not appear in the National Edition."

Fwiw, it was in the copy I bought at 7-11 at 6:45 a.m. today 100 miles to the south. And yes, it was interesting that they published it, even though he's a regular and is given some latitude with his columns.

JT

 

[JohnBT]

"Please tell me I'm not the only one who noticed."

The point of the thread is the fact that there was a column at all. It's sort of like the story about the talking dog; it wasn't what the dog said that was amazing, it was the fact that he said anything at all.

 

[jbrown50]

This was a very poor example to base a pro-ccw opinion on. This was a brawl between two neighbors who knew each other. Wright had been allowing his dog to relieve itself in front of and on other neighbor's yards. Colbert got fed up and let his anger get the best of him.

Knowing the anti-2A stance of the Washington Post and Courtland Milloy, I doubt that this was meant to be anything more than sarcasm directed towards 2A supporters.

 

[MachIVshooter]

I see members nit-picking and pontificating as to how they would not have gotten into that predicament in the first place! It's the same blame-the-victim mentality that I used to observe all the time in rape cases.

If the victim was at fault for the initial confrontation and did not de-escalate, then yes, they are at fault as well. The lesser evil, yes, but still not completely innocent like the guy who was minding his own business and attacked out of nowhere for no reason.

Similarly, if a female is behaving like a whore in a bar and staggers off with some guy to a hotel, then changes her mind when they're both already half naked, she is partly responsible for the situation that led to the sex assault.

It's not to say that the crime itself is their fault, but that there were definitely common sense things they could have done to avoid the situation in the first place.

 

[JohnBT]

www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/28/AR2007082801701.html

Courtland Milloy - 2007.

"The Violence Is Rooted in the Culture, Not the Gun Store"

"Not long ago, I brought my gun to Realco Guns in District Heights for cleaning. It is a vintage, J.C. Higgins .22-caliber rifle that my dad purchased from Sears around 1964. We belonged to a father-and-son club in my home town, Shreveport, La., and this was the gun we used whenever the group went out to shoot at tin cans.

In the middle of so much gun violence, it's not easy to cling to fond memories of those days."

 

[Sam1911]

It's not to say that the crime itself is their fault, but that there were definitely common sense things they could have done to avoid the situation in the first place.

Legal and illegal, and maybe even "right" and "wrong", in the end, become black-line distinctions. "My rights end at the tip of your nose" kind of thinking. However, reality is made up of fuzzier concepts like "consequences." You may be both RIGHT and DEAD -- at the same time. The blame for a rape (or a stabbing) may rest entirely on the shoulders of the convicted attacker, but the set of circumstances that allowed the attack to happen are rarely entirely in the attacker's control. To deny this would be to accept that there is no reason to train, no reason to plan, no reason for situational awareness as it's all out of your hands anyway.

Or, as Tom Givens tends to say, "Play stupid games, win stupid prizes."

Back to the OP's subject at hand...

The article is very interesting. There's a LOT wrong with it, and a lot of principles, laws, and what could be teachable moments that are glossed over, misinterpreted, and lost in Mr. Milloy's layman's superficial grasp of the situation. However, he manages to dumb it down in such a way as to deliver a take-home message to his readers that actually DOESN'T hurt us, and can help RKBA a good deal. Many of his readers (heck, some we meet in our own hallowed halls) would not have the patience to follow a deeper explanation and would not like/accept the message they heard if they did. But Milloy's oversimplification delivers the 'hook' that promotes our message, even so.

Just like any political speech -- trying to explain the TRUTH in that format and to a broad audience is a dead cause. Mashing it into a few 'truthy' sound-bites that prod people in the direction we want them to go is the very best we could hope for in this -- and he succeeds!

 

[JustinJ]

I agree, that in this instance the victim's arming himself with a shovel and engaging in hand-to-hand combat with his attacker was foolish, but on the other hand, as was pointed out, the attacker followed him to his residence. How was he to know the attacker didn't intend to harm his family?

I don't think that is what the article says happened. It reads to me that the knife wielder was following him home and caught up before he got there. After being cut the guy went home and then returned to the original place of the fight. I would guess that the guy with the shovel probably did not have a gun even in the house or he would probably be in jail right now for murder.

In thread after thread regarding self-defense shootings, I see members nit-picking and pontificating as to how they would not have gotten into that predicament in the first place! It's the same blame-the-victim mentality that I used to observe all the time in rape cases.

The "victim" may have been such after the first encounter but when he returned with a shovel it was mutually agreed combat. He was a loser, not a victim at that point.

My point is that the man who was stabbed exhibited extremely poor judgement and such an example provides ammunition to the those who argue against concealed carry. There are so many far better examples of victims who potentially could have been saved by concealed carry.

 

[JohnBT]

The point, once again, is that any example appeared in the Post at all.

If you must pick nits, go right ahead.

John

 

[JustinJ]

The point, once again, is that any example appeared in the Post at all.

If you must pick nits, go right ahead.

So we should all just take turns agreeing this article is a good thing because its progun? Just because somebody agrees with us on concealed carry being a good thing doesn't mean we should consider them above reproach. The article is an editorial. Read any major paper and you will find editorials and all sides of every issue. And threads about how "surprised" somebody was to see a progun article in a news source are anything but rare.

 

[jbrown50]

If Mr. Milloy really wanted to find convincing evidence to support a pro-gun opinion in DC he need not go any further than the articles such as this one in his own Washington Post.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local...t-washington/2012/02/15/gIQAevixGR_story.html

Armed robberies and attacks have risen in the city in recent months. Police said they have made more than 100 arrests in such cases this year.

It's also just one simple Google search away to find all of the articles from all of the news agencies in the DC area that are reporting of the rash of armed robberies and car jackings that have happened in the city just from the beginning of this year.

Mr. Milloy's editorials are nothing more than half hearted attempts at an opposing point of view.

 

[JohnBT]

"The article is an editorial."

No it isn't. He is not a member of the editorial staff. He is a columnist. There is a big difference. A huge difference.

I suppose being a daily reader of the Post since the mid-60s, I understand that this column does not reflect a major change on the part of the folks who run the Post and control the editorial page. Courtland Milloy isn't one of them, he's a paid columnist.

"So we should all just take turns agreeing this article is a good thing because its progun?"

I don't know that it's good, but it is interesting they printed it. You can make of it what you will and do what you like once you understand the significance of what the column represents and what it doesn't. It's fairly simple overall and the content isn't earthshaking, but they printed his column and we got a smile out of it because it is in the Post.

Y'all want to argue and pick nits and complain it could have been this and could have been that, well have at it. Like the thread title says, they printed a pro-gun column. (Not a pro-gun editorial.)

John