PDA

View Full Version : Pro Gun Op-ed piece in the SF Chronicle


barfer
04-27-2009, 8:30 AM
Nice to see something like this in that publication for a change:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/04/23/ED1C177RRU.DTL

Legasat
04-27-2009, 8:45 AM
I don't think I would call that Pro-Gun, but certainly Pro-Common Sense!

evan69
04-27-2009, 10:25 AM
Finally an alternative to the media's typical sensationalist crap.

AEC1
04-27-2009, 10:27 AM
I dont have to read it not to trust it. I am sure when I read it I will have a million reasons why it is a cover for something bad...

Vtec44
04-27-2009, 10:31 AM
It's common sense, which isn't common these days. I approve that article, "In reality though, it takes our time, our resources and our serious efforts. That is far more difficult than simply passing a law and thinking our society will change any more than it has since July 1, 1993".

HowardW56
04-27-2009, 10:31 AM
I don't think I would call that Pro-Gun, but certainly Pro-Common Sense!

I agree

AEC1
04-27-2009, 10:35 AM
So I read it and it is common sense, which is usually pro gun, but I still dont trust it...

Matt C
04-27-2009, 11:12 AM
On July 1, 1993, I went to work at 101 California St. in San Francisco and thought the day would be like any other. I was wrong.

That day, I was putting the finishing touches on court papers that needed to be filed before handing them to our courier for delivery when I noticed people coming down the staircase. They were yelling that a man was shooting everyone on the floors above.

My colleagues found refuge in locked offices. I went to our kitchen area and waited. Seconds later, someone knocked on a secured door outside the kitchen. After negotiating with men who identified themselves as a police SWAT team, I opened the door and found myself looking down the barrels of three assault weapons. The SWAT team moved in and secured our floor.

A moment later, a man with blood-soaked clothes came from upstairs explaining that he needed to use my phone to get help for his dying secretary.

When it all ended, Gian Luigi Ferri lay dead, 30 feet from where I was, after brutally killing eight innocent people before taking his own life.

Having been raised around guns and losing my brother in a hunting accident, I understood the power of guns and how they can change lives very quickly - both for good and for bad. For months after the 101 California St. massacre, there was a call for stricter gun laws from victims, victims' families and advantageous politicians.

Legal Community Against Violence was established to help enact stricter federal and state gun laws, and I seriously thought about joining. After the emotions of the shooting subsided, however, I decided against it, realizing that more gun laws wouldn't solve the problem. History has confirmed my view.

Since 101 California, mass shootings have happened across the nation: Columbine High School, Virginia Tech, and Thurston High School in Springfield, Ore. Most recently, terrible shootings took place in Binghamton, N.Y., and Pittsburgh. And just last month, after four Oakland police officers were slain by convicted felon Lovelle Mixon, I again heard the call for new and stricter gun laws.

Yet what new gun law stops desperate people from committing horrific crimes?

Will felons like Mixon care about additional laws when the mere possession of any gun sends felons back to prison?

Guns may not be the main reason violent crime exists in our country. Perhaps there is a stronger corollary between weakened families and society, rather than too few gun laws.

I would argue that people who are raised in single-parent households, drop out of school or join gangs stand an increased chance of committing gun felonies and eventually killing someone, versus a kid who has a stable home life.

Yet can we (or should we) pass new laws to keep kids from dropping out of school or from living in single-parent families or from hanging around the wrong friends?

Making more laws when tragedy strikes is not the answer.

Instead, maybe we should focus our efforts on trying to provide more secure home lives for our children, rather than putting more penalties on the weaponry used when they lash out. It is so easy to point our finger at guns and say we've found the culprit for many of society's ills. In reality though, it takes our time, our resources and our serious efforts. That is far more difficult than simply passing a law and thinking our society will change any more than it has since July 1, 1993.

Tracy L. Hickman is an attorney and legal marketing consultant in Redwood City.

...

soopafly
04-27-2009, 11:49 AM
I don't think I would call that Pro-Gun, but certainly Pro-Common Sense!
Spot on. Guns are neither the problem, nor the solution to preventing acts of mass murder. The sooner people realize this, the sooner they will realize passing more anti-gun laws is not the answer.

jafount
04-27-2009, 12:02 PM
Too bad it comes only after their daily readership is down to about 335,000

1BigPea
04-27-2009, 12:06 PM
Spot on. Guns are neither the problem, nor the solution to preventing acts of mass murder. The sooner people realize this, the sooner they will realize passing more anti-gun laws is not the answer.

Exactly, I just don't understand the mentality of people who think more laws will stop crime. The laws ALREADY don't work.

Now...I do understand why politicians call for more laws, it makes it look like they are trying to help their sheeple but they are only trying to further themselves.

Steyr_223
04-27-2009, 12:55 PM
Good post..Thanks!

7x57
04-27-2009, 1:22 PM
Too bad it comes only after their daily readership is down to about 335,000

Maybe they're desperate enough to try something besides The Agenda?

7x57

CalNRA
04-27-2009, 2:03 PM
Too bad it comes only after their daily readership is down to about 335,000

ever read Mark Mulford? I have been telling everyone I know to cancel their subscriptions if they still had it. Most of them were pissed at the rants he does against anyone who is not him, and that their money was going toward supporting that buffoon.

Nice job Mark Mulford, SF Chronicles lost at least a dozen subscriptions on my initiative. Freedom of press is there, so is freedom of choice.:thumbsup:

JDay
04-27-2009, 3:37 PM
Exactly, I just don't understand the mentality of people who think more laws will stop crime. The laws ALREADY don't work.

Now...I do understand why politicians call for more laws, it makes it look like they are trying to help their sheeple but they are only trying to further themselves.

Don't laws create crimes?

barfer
04-27-2009, 3:54 PM
I dont have to read it not to trust it. I am sure when I read it I will have a million reasons why it is a cover for something bad...


The author of the piece is a good personal friend of mine. We go shooting together. There is no hidden agenda here.

Canute
04-27-2009, 4:03 PM
I would have written things a little differently, but that's me :).
Nice, though.

Kid Stanislaus
04-27-2009, 4:24 PM
Finally an alternative to the media's typical sensationalist crap.


AND, in the San Francisco Chronicle, of all places!!

Kid Stanislaus
04-27-2009, 4:26 PM
Too bad it comes only after their daily readership is down to about 335,000


And is printed in the SPORTS section!

The Wingnut
04-27-2009, 4:44 PM
Wow...this article is a breath of fresh air in an otherwise stale newspaper. Much respect to the author and I'm impressed that the Chronicle actually printed it.

...doesn't change my opinion of the Chronicle, but at least they're showing a shred of common sense. :cool:

BTF/PTM
04-27-2009, 6:34 PM
Why the mistrust from some of our members? What kind of hidden agenda do you see there? And yes, I'm asking seriously. If it isn't just a retaliatory shout of "conspiracy!" then please cite how it's somehow anti-gun.

N6ATF
04-27-2009, 7:57 PM
After negotiating with men who identified themselves as a police SWAT team, I opened the door and found myself looking down the barrels of three assault weapons.

Politically charged term most often used by antis.

radioburning
04-27-2009, 9:43 PM
Guns are neither the problem, nor the solution to preventing acts of mass murder.

Well, I'd argue that a CCW carrier could keep a murder from becoming a mass murder.:cool:

soopafly
04-27-2009, 10:07 PM
Well, I'd argue that a CCW carrier could keep a murder from becoming a mass murder.:cool:
I was talking more about the greater context of the root cause of committing/wanting to commit acts of violence on another person/persons. I agree with the above statement, but it still has not provided a solution to the root problem.

Kind of like this:
PROBLEM: heartburn, indegestion(it kills ya, doesn't it?)
DEFENSE: bottle 'o Pepto(stops it every time, but is not the solution-you WILL get heartburn again)
SOLUTION: put down the double chili cheese onion fries and eat some fruits and veggies!!!!(you will never have heartburn again, problem solved)

Vtec44
04-27-2009, 10:13 PM
Politically charged term most often used by antis.

If the weapons belong to the SWAT team, there's a high probability that it was used correctly. ;)

N6ATF
04-27-2009, 11:24 PM
If the weapons belong to the SWAT team, there's a high probability that it was used correctly. ;)

The sentence up to that point was designed to generate fear and almost seemed like it was out of a first-person POV thriller novel. Replace "assault weapons" with "broomhandle Mausers" and it would have been much less of a cherry on top of a fear cake.

barfer
04-28-2009, 8:28 PM
Tracy (author of the article) is on Sirius radio speaking right now. You can listen online at:

http://www.nranews.com/nranews.aspx

N6ATF
04-28-2009, 8:35 PM
Listening...

Vtec44
04-28-2009, 8:37 PM
The sentence up to that point was designed to generate fear and almost seemed like it was out of a first-person POV thriller novel. Replace "assault weapons" with "broomhandle Mausers" and it would have been much less of a cherry on top of a fear cake.


To a typical person, these weapons are evil and often associated with high profile crimes. But the point that the author was trying to make is that even though we are afraid of guns, they're not the problem in our society... at least that is how I take it.

jrcarr2
04-28-2009, 10:05 PM
That was a good op-ed piece.

Don't laws create crimes?

From Atlas Shrugged:

Rearden: "But, after all, I did break one of your laws."
Bureaucrat Ferris: "Well, what do you think they're there for?"
Continues bureaucrat Ferris: "Did you really think that we want those laws to be observed? We want them broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against . . . We're after power and we mean it. You fellows were pikers, but we know the real trick, and you'd better get wise to it. There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted [Frederick Mann: Obfuscation of meaning is a key element of the con games bureaucrats and politicians play.] - and you create a nation of law-breakers - and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Rearden, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with."

tonelar
04-28-2009, 11:56 PM
well written
and kudos to the chron for publishing it