PDA

View Full Version : LAME LA TIMES writer: OPPOSES OC CCWers


Tarn_Helm
02-03-2009, 5:21 AM
Click here for the full article:

"Cut through all that and you're left with a legitimate societal debate: Should any citizen with a clean record who is properly trained be allowed to carry guns on the street?

To me, it's a big fat no.

The idea of defending oneself on the street is hard to argue against, but what happens when the "protector" accidentally shoots an innocent bystander instead of the bad guy in a moment of frenzy?" (http://www.latimes.com/news/columnists/la-me-parsons3-2009feb03,0,5014229.column)

This guy is a perpetual idiot whose drivel I have excoriated for decades.

The above-quoted column shows why.

"Frenzy" indeed.

After reading his junk "writing" I canceled my subscription to the LA Times in a "frenzy" about 11 years ago.:90:

CitaDeL
02-03-2009, 6:03 AM
The idea of defending oneself on the street is hard to argue against, but what happens when the "protector" accidentally shoots an innocent bystander instead of the bad guy in a moment of frenzy?"

What happens when the "protector" is a uniformed peace officer that shoots a handcuffed and subdued detainee? Or another uniformed peace officer shoots a homeowner who makes the mistake of answering their door armed in defense of his family and property? Will you also argue that police should not be armed or will you advocate a subjective inequality that recognizes only the State and its representatives have the right to defend themselves?

The answer to the authors 'what if' scenario is, the shooter will likely be held criminally and civilly responsible. This liability should not preclude everyone elses right to keep and bear. People are killed in auto accidents, yet the rest of us are still driving in dangerous 2,000 pound weapons. I dont see much of a difference.

mister dize
02-03-2009, 6:06 AM
This fellow should spend some time with the BART police.

blackbox
02-03-2009, 6:33 AM
Actually, I thought this op-ed piece was pretty good. Sure, the author's conclusion is anti-CCW, but he does a damn good job presenting both sides of the issue. The majority of the column, in fact, is making a pro-ccw argument. He gave Eric Magness's quotes + reasoning without making him sound like a gun nut (chime in if you're reading, though :) ).

Please don't send him hate mail, this is the sort of "wobbler" we need to pull over to our side, not alienate.

This really is the key, and I'm impressed by this quote:

Cut through all that and you're left with a legitimate societal debate: Should any citizen with a clean record who is properly trained be allowed to carry guns on the street?

Very few people on the pro or anti side break it down that explicitly. The above is 100% true. Obviously, I and most people here would be on one side of that debate, but I do think its a public policy issue that is fair to disagree on. (unlike, say "may issue" policies or the AWB, which are just bad discriminatory legislation there's no legitimate logic to supporting).

AEC1
02-03-2009, 6:34 AM
Wow.

Glock22Fan
02-03-2009, 7:57 AM
but what happens when the "protector" accidentally shoots an innocent bystander instead of the bad guy in a moment of frenzy?"

Can the author point to any actual cases where this has happened? And, if so, how does the count of such cases compare with the count of cases where the "protector" has succeeded in protecting?

jb7706
02-03-2009, 10:37 AM
People are killed in auto accidents, yet the rest of us are still driving in dangerous 2,000 pound weapons. I dont see much of a difference.

I do see a huge difference. CCW holders are, IMO, much more likely to think about the effects of pulling a trigger than most any one of us is to think twice about flooring the peddal to make that lane change, cutting off a minivan full of kids and a stressed out mom that is only half watching the road.

Let's face it, even if you count every single gun related injury there are still fewer people injured by guns than cars. Now reduce the gun related injuries to those with a CCW involved and I am betting that you have a VERY small number compared to licensed car drivers.

Law abiding CCW holders are much less likely to injure or kill someone than a law abiding licensed car driver.

http://www.i2i.org/main/article.php?article_id=643

"The Florida/Dade reports show the following:
- There was no known incident of a permit-holder intervening in an incompetent or dangerous manner, such as shooting an innocent bystander by mistake. "

That statistic appears to be pulled from data gathered between September 1987 and August 1992 in Dade County, Florida.

How many innocent bystanders are injured or killed every day in Dade or the US by cars? I don't know, but I be it is more than zero.

I know preaching to the choir, right? :D

KCM222
02-03-2009, 10:39 AM
I actually thought this article was very good. Here's the response I sent:

Dear Dana,

I completely agree with the bias of your article (Looking down the barrel of an argument over guns http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-parsons3-2009feb03,0,3251472.column?track=rss). It's high time we changed the constitution to amend "keep and bear" to just be "keep (in the privacy of your own home)", or maybe get rid of the whole amendment completely.

It's obvious that ordinary citizens can not or choose not to control themselves when given a firearm as evidence of the huge number of innocent bystanders that are shot in relation to the number of people that are murdered, mugged, raped, or otherwise victimized. I'm sure the number of innocent bystanders that are shot are far greater than the number of people that "defend" themselves or others with fire arms (excluding the police of course - they use fire arms in an entirely different way than ordinary law-abiding citizens, except for the BART police).

Why can't we stop these gun nuts from spreading their propaganda? Is it time to introduce legislation that would prevent these types of people from spreading their lies? Can we silence their voices? Can we give police the right to search and seize the property of registered fire-arms owners to prevent the distribution of their propaganda?

I realize the principle of the first amendment asserts that the "government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea offensive or disagreeable" (Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989)), but surely there can be exceptions. What if one of these radicals were to incite a revolt? How many people could lose their lives if such an event were to occur?

Finally, I specifically agree with the following point:

"...you're left with a legitimate societal debate: Should any citizen with a clean record who is properly trained be allowed to carry guns on the street?

To me, it's a big fat no."

I think our society is safe enough that police officers should no longer carry fire arms. It sets a bad example for our children. If the good guys use guns, and a clean record and training isn't the issue, then we're really sending the wrong message to our youth, don't you think? I realize that police often patrol dangerous areas and respond to emergencies involving guns, but the people living in those areas are surviving without carrying guns. Why can't our trained officers do the same?

Thank you Dana for writing this article. I'm glad to see this issue is being brought to light.

Sincerely,
Kevin Moller

gcrtkd
02-03-2009, 11:08 AM
To:
dana.parsons@latimes.com
Hello--

I just read your article "Looking down the barrel of an argument over guns" and simply put, you need to read: "ON SHEEP, WOLVES, AND SHEEPDOGS"
By LTC(RET) Dave Grossman, RANGER, Ph.D.. The article is located at http://www.degrata.com/pdf/onsheep.pdf . In your column you talk about "feeling safe(r)" with all potential crime victims being disarmed. Would you /feel/ safer if you were in Washington DC, which (until the DC v. Heller Supreme Court decision) had virtually a complete prohibition on functional firearms both in public and in the home for 30 years, but which also consistently ranks #1 in violent crimes and gun crimes per-capita? (Just check the FBI's crime report to verify these facts.) Like it or not, your feelings of safety count for nothing in the real world. Your feelings have no correlation with the data. While violent crime in America is still quite rare, there absolutely are bad and evil people in the world who will try to do bad and evil things to others.

(The article is a 4 pg. .pdf and it contains a lot of truth... Give the whole thing a read.)

Let me know if you have any questions or would like to "see the light" of the reality of firearms ownership and usage.

-yours
-gcrtkd

pfl101
02-03-2009, 11:14 AM
"If he wants a new sheriff who'll let more people carry guns on Orange County's streets and freeways, fair enough.

The election, sir, is next year."

Despite disagreeing with his piece, Dana gave Magness (and the rest of us) good advice: vote.

In the meantime, write letters and the like.

The Anti's have been doing this for years, and their efforts have paid off.

We can win but we have to beat them at their own game.

Cypren
02-03-2009, 11:25 AM
I thought this article was pretty fairly presented for an "issues" piece. The author has his own bias, but discloses it, and like blackbox pointed out, he didn't make our side come off as psychotic loonies just itching for an excuse to kill someone, like many reporters love to do.

I wish he'd covered Hutchens' police-state tactics, but in all fairness, given the lead-times on editorial pieces, this might have actually been written in response to the Nov. 18 meeting, not the January one. Or he may have just decided that focusing on the issue was more important than on the players -- which isn't an unfair stance to take, since, in the end, despite the underhanded tactics, the policy question of what constitutes "good cause" is still the most important thing on the table.

Our best weapon is still our right to speak and encourage people to vote. Bill Hunt made a good run for sheriff against Corona -- maybe he could be convinced to make another go at it against Hutchens next year. Maybe we could even force a recall election before that. The political process opens a lot of options, and she's doing her damndest to bite the hand that feeds her by pissing off the Board of Supervisors.

FUSIBLE
02-03-2009, 12:36 PM
I would like to see the response from those that sent messages to the columnist. Of course when he answers the responses and if he chooses to.

CHS
02-03-2009, 12:52 PM
Thanks, but I'll take freedom before safety any day of the week.

oddball
02-03-2009, 2:13 PM
Thanks, but I'll take freedom before safety any day of the week.


100 percent.

Kid Stanislaus
02-03-2009, 6:30 PM
Why would ANYBODY be surprised that a commentator for the LA Times would oppose gun rights?

Tarn_Helm
02-03-2009, 7:54 PM
Why would ANYBODY be surprised that a commentator for the LA Times would oppose gun rights?

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/J6_1Pw1xm9U&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/J6_1Pw1xm9U&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
Who said he was surprised that "a commentator for the LA Times would oppose gun rights?"

KWA-S
02-04-2009, 3:26 AM
Thanks, but I'll take freedom before safety any day of the week.

I'll have me cake and eat it: A 1911 gives me safety more quickly than 911 (especially when my phone's out of range)

lawaia
02-04-2009, 8:29 AM
My e-mail to dana.parsons@latimes.com

Dear Mr. Parsons,

I must tell you that I am disappointed to see your article run in the LA Times on Feb. 3 about the argument in Orange County over CCW permits.

While I can certainly appreciate your position in this matter, I do not agree with the way it was presented in your article. The article seems to reflect only your opinion, without any facts to reinforce why you think the way you do.

For example, you say that you feel that citizens should not be allowed to "carry guns on the street." And that, "The idea of defending oneself on the street is hard to argue against, but what happens when the "protector" accidentally shoots an innocent bystander instead of the bad guy in a moment of frenzy?"

Yet you offer no actual cases where this has happened, or statistics of how often this occurs. What about the ratio of how many lives are saved by citizens using guns vs. how many "accidents" happen?

"I don't feel any safer knowing that anybody walking down the street might have a gun under their jacket. Even law-abiding citizens get angry, flip out for a second, start arguments . . . and I don't want them doing that with a gun within easy reach." How many cases can you find of a law abiding CCW permit holder that has "flipped out" and used their gun in anger? I will not say you cannot find one, but you did not present any evidence here. Only your opinion.

You refer to your own opinion quite a bit in the article, such as, "I don't buy it," and "To me, it's a big fat no." You are unnecessarily spreading FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt) using nothing but your uninformed opinion. The FUD you spread serves no purpose except to push others into an uninformed opinion based on misinformation.

While I do appreciate your position, I would prefer that you refrain from spreading misinformation that will only lead to further infringement on the rights of law-abiding citizens that wish to retain their Constitutional rights. Believe it or not, there are citizens that prefer to take responsibility for their lives and those of their family, as opposed to relying on the government to provide for them. Have you tried to call 911 lately? Try it and see how long you are on hold. And then when they do answer, see how long it takes for responders to arrive.

You are right in one regard. The election is next year. However, the election should have no direct bearing on our 2nd Amendment rights as citizens of the United States.

Respectfully,