David at the Boston Globe published a completely one sided argument for gun control, not even using the word “self defense” once.
The anti gun movement regularly tries to appease 2nd Amendment advocates by saying things like, “no one wants to take your guns” and “we just need some common sense regulations.” Essentially trying to convince the pro gun movement to give up just a few bits and pieces of the 2nd Amendment here and there with the vague understanding that those compromises will be enough. The problem is, they aren’t ever enough.
The anti gun movement has been pursuing the death by a thousand paper cuts method and wanting the “slippery slope” of gun control to win one small step at a time. As time goes on, the anti-gun movement is hiding their end goal of total firearm confiscation less and less.
Just the other day, David Scharfenberg of the Boston Globe wrote an article calling for total gun confiscation in America. The entire article is very one sided, naturally, and never even attempts to address any points made by the pro gun movement. A good journalist analyses things from all sides and goes out of their way to address the various sides of the issue. David? Doesn’t even try.
A completely one sided “article”
“Self Defense” doesn’t appear once in the entire article. David did not entertain the idea that guns can be used to save lives. Not once did he mention the CDC Study from President Obama that shows guns are used 300,000 times a year in crime, but guns are used 500,000 to 3,000,000 times a year in lawful self defense. Not once did he address the original intent of the 2nd Amendment, which is to arm the population against tyrannical governments, both foreign and domestic. Not once did he even mention the word “militia” in his article. David did bring up the recent Texas church shooting, but didn’t even mention the law abiding citizen with an AR-15 who took down the madman.
I’m not sure if I have ever seen such a completely head-in-the-sand, one sided article.
David concludes his “article” with the following:
Still, even if we find a way to keep guns out of the hands of people who have engaged in disturbing or violent behavior — no small task, given all the stories of the troubled shooters who slipped through the cracks — it will only get us so far.
The United States’ astronomically high rates of firearm violence aren’t rooted in some unique American propensity for derangement and delinquency. Studies show our levels of mental illness and basic criminality are on par with other wealthy countries.
Other common explanations, like the social fissures created by our racial diversity, have been debunked by researchers, too. The only explanation left — an explanation borne out by a number of careful studies — is the sheer size of the American arsenal. There are 310 million handguns, shotguns, and semi-automatic weapons in American homes, garages, and waistbands.
Ultimately, if gun-control advocates really want to stanch the blood, there’s no way around it: They’ll have to persuade more people of the need to confiscate millions of those firearms, as radical as that idea may now seem.
How can someone advocate for a position, any position, without countering any of the points an opponent makes?
David didn’t have any arguments to counter any of the points made by the 2nd Amendment community, so he simply ignored them and acted like his arguments won. I’d say I’m surprised to see that coming from a large scale production, but I’m no longer surprised at all.