I’ve written several posts and column items recently on the issue of gun control — the most recent one asking for ideas from both sides about compromises that gun-rights people and gun-ban people might be able to live with.
And each time it has struck me how tiny, uninspired and vague the response has been from those who favor new laws to try to keep guns out of the hand of evildoers.
While the gun-rights folks weigh in quickly and forcefully with links to studies and detailed arguments, the gun-ban folks are mostly quiet. The suggestions seem to be mostly on the order of Police Supt. Jody Weis’ call in today’s paper to ban AK-47 rifles, which, as I have argued before, is beside the point, at best.
If gun-control advocates don’t want to or can’t join the conversation here, I’m prepared to shut it down as the futile exercise it may well be.
Oh my god, you mean we calmly refute your talking points with facts, figures, cites and logic? And take issue when you guys just parrot what an anti-gun group tells you? Another Chicago columnist learned this lesson a bit back. And see here. Mr. Zorn, meet the internet graveyard of anti-gun activists.
We’re passionate and ready. And, at the click of a button, I can send you all the Reasoned Discoursetm you can handle.
This is why we win. Sure, it’s like whack-a-mole in that we can’t stop or we lose. But there’s no shortage of us to counter your emotion-laden, feel good nonsense. That and, outside a few locations of which Chicago is one, gun control is just not very popular.
The anti-gun side even uses the wealth of the Joyce Foundation to pay people to appear as though there is a grassroots gun control movement when there is not. The pro-gun side does not pay me. I do it because I believe in it. Compared to your side which has to shell out $650K to an ad agency to set up a fake network of fake anti-gun activists.
Rusty points out you answered your own question.
Update: May be reading the piece wrong. See update here.