Washington Post publishes A PRO GUN ARTICLE!

[spartan00054]

Concerning the neccesity of high-cap magazines, specifically for Glocks.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/04/AR2011020406709.html

 

[Panzercat]

Takes a bit to get to the point, but hey, we'll take what we can get, I guess.
Or to put it more succinctly...

 

[XM855]

Finally! A sane journalist...

 

[Tommygunn]

Does this mean hell has frozen over? Good--it may counter-act Global Warming!!

 

[Hatchett]

Knew before I clicked it Stephen Hunter wrote it.

 

[pacerdude]

Wow, I am thoroughly impressed by that article! Good thing I read past the first paragraph .

 

[oldbear]

As one poster noted it was a little wordy, but lots of good general background information for the uninformed. All in all Mr. Hunter made a good case, for large capacity mags, one that most can understand and perhaps relate to.
IMHO this is the kind of press we can use more of.

 

[Ole Coot]

Wonder where and if he's working now? Seriously that is a shock to me after almost 20yrs of working in DC and reading the Post daily. I hope his article is read and taken seriously but I am afraid that's too much to ask for.

 

[earlthegoat2]

Well Stephen Hunter is not going to be writing an anti article now is he.

 

[bobbarker]

Does this mean hell has frozen over? Good--it may counter-act Global Warming!!

Hell freezes over every year, as any resident of Michigan could tell you. The current conditions in Hell are mostly sunny, and the temperature is hovering around 10 Degrees (Without the wind chill.) http://www.weathercity.com/us/mi/hell/

 

[GreenTriumph]

Very good article but actually didn't like the opening sentence. As civilians, which is what he is talking about, we use guns for self-defense. We stop treats and don't necessary have to kill them. They may, and in many cases, will happen but it is important to the perception of CCL by the public to make this distinction.

 

[merlinfire]

The article is *ok*.

Pro is better than anti, but I don't see it convincing a nay-sayer. Gotta love the comments, especially the ones that say "well if you need that many rounds you must be a bad aim". So people with bad aim deserve to die?

 

[HGUNHNTR]

I thought newspapapers were supposed to present facts, not take sides. I no more want to read a "pro" gun article in a newspaper than an "anti" gun article in a newspaper. Just tell the story. It didn't appear this was from the opinion section of the paper either.
Why should anyone be surprised anyway. Don't be too quick to lump groups of people together and put labels on them. The most ardent supporters of the second amendment I know are extremely liberal in their politics.

 

[tyeo098]

...that was beautiful
A very well though out piece. It wasnt wordy, because he was working up to his main point, describing the history and purpose behind it. Without it, it just would have been something like:

Why ban hicap mags? Thats silly, old people use them

A very good read, my facebook peeps will be seeing this soon

 

[Tim the student]

HGUNHNTR, it is from the opinion page.

Hunter is very pro 2-A, and I think got his start at the Post. He is the author of several novels, and the creator of Bob Lee Swagger.

 

[xfyrfiter]

Stephen Hunter writes a good newspaper article, but he writes great books. All guns in his books are thoroughly researched and authentic. Some of the shooting is a little "out there", but it is fiction LOL.

 

[fast200]

I guess you guys missed the anti-gun feature articles the Post ran the past couple of months. They basically ran a weekly series of articles doing their best to bash gun owners and gun shops.

This one is their "balance" I suppose.

 

[Leanwolf]

HGUNHNTR - " The most ardent supporters of the second amendment I know are extremely liberal in their politics."

That's strange. The most ardent haters of the Second Amendment I know are extremely liberal in their politics.

L.W.

 

[LibShooter]

HGUNHNTR - " The most ardent supporters of the second amendment I know are extremely liberal in their politics."

That's strange. The most ardent haters of the Second Amendment I know are extremely liberal in their politics.

Which is why us Liberal supporters of the Second Amendment are so very ardent. We're surrounded at all the meetings. It's easy to support gun rights at a TEA Party meeting.

Try doing it at an ACLU meeting.

 

[Justin]

I thought newspapapers were supposed to present facts, not take sides. I no more want to read a "pro" gun article in a newspaper than an "anti" gun article in a newspaper. Just tell the story.

So far as I know, the editorial page is a time-honored feature in practically every newspaper published.

 

[Madcap_Magician]

1. Steven Hunter wrote the article. OF COURSE it was going to be pro-2A. It was about as likely as Ted Nugent writing a pro-gun article, only it was more likely to be better written.

2. Hunter is a film critic for the Washington Post, but he's worked at a lot of other papers and didn't start at the Post.

 

[MikeNice]

I didn't really think it was worth the time it took to read. He makes a great case for LEOs and military use. Then he hobbles something together for civilian use. He should have picked his thesis and tried to nail it as much as possible.

It would have been better if he put it in context with examples, statistics, and useful information. As it is, it comes across as nearly pointless. He also came across with a huge goof saying that cartridges hadn't advanced any. A modern Winchester PDX hollow point is light years beyond the old Silver Tip.

If I had turned that in to my English 112 professor she would have marked the whole thing with a red "X."

Ofcourse, if she saw my spelling and grammar on THR, she would probably beat me with a Norton's Anthology of World Literature. It would be very similar to a cop using a phone book on a perp.

 

[Leanwolf]

LIBSHOOTER - "Which is why us Liberal supporters of the Second Amendment are so very ardent. We're surrounded at all the meetings. It's easy to support gun rights at a TEA Party meeting."

Yeah, I know what you mean. Conversely, I've spent years in various organization meetings, business meetings, and social meetings with extremely left wing liberal gun haters and gun owner haters. Mention I actually believed in the U.S. Constitution, including the hated Second Amendment, and it was like a shark feeding frenzy.

I will admit, at times it was fun watching them go super nova and screw right up through the ceiling... they being oh so tolerant and all that stuff.

Nothing like causing apoplexy in those who despise our Rights, Freedom, and Liberty.

L.W.

 

[VA27]

I would bet that the anti's all thought it was a good article too, because they will ALL zero in on and only remember the last 10 words of the last sentence. It will become their rallying cry, "IS IT WORTH IT IF IT COSTS JUST ONE LIFE!"

Was that last sentence part of the original article, or was it 'added' by an editor? Only Mr. Hunter knows for sure, but make no mistake about it, that last sentence made it an anti article and a clear call for a ban.

 

[Justin]

The point he clearly made was this:

Antis will claim that a magazine ban is worth instituting "if it saves just one life."

Hunter's response to that is to unequivocally point out that there may be an opposite side to that claim, in that the ban may very well result in a situation where someone was unable to defend themselves because they were forced by law to use the neutered capacity magazines.

In other words, antis can claim that a ban will save lives, but unless it can be proven that the ban will not cost more lives on the balance, then not only is such a ban ineffective, it actively fails to do what it's supposed to.