Megaphone Man
Another
in a series of posting I do on
letters and emails I get in response to
columns and blog posts. This one is
about gun control. I've done a number of
columns in support of a proposal to ban
handgun sales in Pennsylvania to one-a-month.
The idea is that by limiting sales, we can
also pinch the secondary (illegal) market
in handguns that make their way into the
streets and are often used in crimes.
When I write such a piece, I usually get
a passel of emails & voice mails from
pro-gun folks. This email, from Gregory
Niblock of Philadelphia, is an example.
Niblock is more vociferous than others, but the points he makes are very much the same.
One. Outrage that anyone who would propose such a limit, which they find (though the courts do not) violative of Second Amendment rights.
Two. Disdain at the person who advances the idea (in Niblock's case the fury is directed at me, John Grogan and Tony Auth), along with an assertion that we are dangerously liberal and astonishingly stupid.
Three. An assertion that gun violence is not a national problem, but a black problem, and therefore not solvable by broad legislation.
Niblock's missive is long, but my policy is not to cut these.
P.S. Please also note the comment that criticizes me for posting the letter. If I don't post, I get accused of stifling an opposing point of view. If I do post, I get accused of ...well, you get the point. I've emailed the poster and offered him space to air his point of view.
in a series of posting I do onletters and emails I get in response to
columns and blog posts. This one is
about gun control. I've done a number of
columns in support of a proposal to ban
handgun sales in Pennsylvania to one-a-month.
The idea is that by limiting sales, we can
also pinch the secondary (illegal) market
in handguns that make their way into the
streets and are often used in crimes.
When I write such a piece, I usually get
a passel of emails & voice mails from
pro-gun folks. This email, from Gregory
Niblock of Philadelphia, is an example.
Niblock is more vociferous than others, but the points he makes are very much the same.
One. Outrage that anyone who would propose such a limit, which they find (though the courts do not) violative of Second Amendment rights.
Two. Disdain at the person who advances the idea (in Niblock's case the fury is directed at me, John Grogan and Tony Auth), along with an assertion that we are dangerously liberal and astonishingly stupid.
Three. An assertion that gun violence is not a national problem, but a black problem, and therefore not solvable by broad legislation.
Niblock's missive is long, but my policy is not to cut these.
P.S. Please also note the comment that criticizes me for posting the letter. If I don't post, I get accused of stifling an opposing point of view. If I do post, I get accused of ...well, you get the point. I've emailed the poster and offered him space to air his point of view.
posted by Tom Ferrick Jr. at 9:53 AM
8 Comments:
excellent strategy. pick the biggest looney that emails you, and then marginalize him...
thus avoiding substantive debate on the issue.
bonus points for getting the racist angle in there.
nice play!!
What was it Abraham Lincoln said,
"Better to remain silent and be thought to be an idiot than to speak (or in this case write) and remove all doubt"?
In my opinion, the biggest argument for or against the one-gun-per-month legislation is whether it works. So far, I've heard people cite how total gun bans allegedly have done little or nothing to lower crime in other places, or that crime is rising in those places (I think European cities (London?) and Washington D.C. are often cited as examples).
I have yet to hear of a precedent for legislation like the one-per-month proposal. I also agree that it doesn't violate the Second Amendment.
Finally, I also see the previous poster's point that choosing the most loony response as an example is a little unfair. Choosing the responses with the best points might be a better strategy.
P.S. I'm fairly certain that a one-gun-per-month law at the city level will do little to fix illegal gun proliferation. It'll have to be at least a statewide law in order to have any noticeable effect.
my concern is, heaven forbid, if a one gun a month bill does pass, the mayor and his allies would have raised expectations to such a level that folks think it would in some way solve the crime problem we're having now.
one gun a month is a great policy and a good step towards a long term solution.
but its crass politics, when confronted with a crime epidemic, to divert focus to legislation in another legislative body that will have no impact on this epidemic if passed.
crime is worse than it was two years ago or five years ago - guns were widely available then too. lets solve the gun problem - but much more urgent is solving the crime problem.
Long term solution is teaching the residents of Philadelphia that shooting each other over trivial grievances is for rap video rejects, and that snitching makes neighborhood safer.
Instead, Philly democrats choose gun control as means to gain cheap political capital in troubled districts.
Good job, and may we all deserve the people we vote for!
not that i deserve special recognition, but tom mentions his email here, let it be known that I did respond.
Think Ferrick and the Inky's take is bad, look at the Commmissioner's comments that I analyzed on my blog, landsharkattack.blogspot.com. Tells you where they really want to go.
Post a Comment
<< Home