search
top

Worst Editorial on McDonald So Far

From the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, which still does not explicitly call for the Supreme Court to deny incorporation, though I get the impression the editorial board for the Gazette are lightweights when it comes to constitutional laws. They are definitely unhappy about the current state of affairs with regards to gun control.

8 Responses to “Worst Editorial on McDonald So Far”

  1. Dustin says:

    I personally am happy that they are unhappy. Otherwise it would be the other way around. :)

  2. Dannytheman says:

    Imagine what “they” will say when the crime rate in DC and Chicago plummets after the law abiding people are free to arm and protect themselves.
    The proof is in the statistics, and unless some anti gun guru plays with them, they look pretty solid that crime will go down in these areas.

  3. Chas says:

    “…never mind the inconvenient mention of “a well regulated militia” that suggests a collective right.”

    Markie Marxist sez: “Yeah, that individual right decision was tough for us Marxists. We even regard thinking as a collective right.”

  4. Carl from Chicago says:

    I was feeling pretty happy this Friday afternoon. After having read that, I am feeling happier.

    I am happy because many of those people who have long supported the infringement of our cherished right to arms are frustrated and woeful.

  5. Matthew Carberry says:

    Dannytheman,

    The data isn’t that clear cut and if we make predictions like that and then the rates don’t drop then we’ve lost credibility for all our other arguments.

    Far better is to point out that there is no data showing crime rates will INCREASE and, that being the case, there is therefore no compelling reason to restrict the law abiding from carrying.

    That uses the most solid and incontrovertible science we have (that gun law tightening or relaxation has no effect on crime) to support the argument that the rights of the law-abiding may only be restricted with a documentable compelling public interest.

    Using that technique the anti’s are left without a factual or even logical argument AND are denied their technique of distracting from their weaknesses by attacking our disputable claims.

  6. Carl in Chicago says:

    Dannytheman Said, October 2nd, 2009 at 5:01 pm
    Imagine what “they” will say when the crime rate in DC and Chicago plummets after the law abiding people are free to arm and protect themselves. The proof is in the statistics, and unless some anti gun guru plays with them, they look pretty solid that crime will go down in these areas.

    I echo what Matthew said. Far too many gun owners are repeating the false cannard that “in every state that has passed carry, crime rates have dropped significantly.”

    One of our best advocates on the issue, John Lott, would disagree. The best we can say is this:

    In every state that has passed carry, crime has either stayed the same, or dropped slightly to substantially. We just can’t say that it’s dropped significantly in every carry state. That’s just untrue, and our cause is damaged when we repeat that claim.

  7. Matthew Carberry says:

    Furthermore, relying on a “positive effect to gun carry” takes the argument away from one based on natural rights to one based on utility.

    If we rely on utilitarian arguments for gun possession and carry we are left without an argument at all should someday the facts eventually prove us wrong.

    Far better to argue strictly from a rights-based perspective and reduce the utilitarian effects to a happy coincidence or side-effect.

    Argue that we as individuals have the inalienable right to possess and carry regardless of the effect “on society” as a whole. That as long as we as an individual do not directly interfere with the rights of another particular individual by possessing and carrying, then our right to do so cannot be infringed.

    Let justice (natural rights) be done though the heavens fall, in effect.

  8. Melancton Smith says:

    Yeah, I am always dubious of the crime deterrance measurements. First, it will take some time for the crooks to learn. I’m sure they don’t follow scotusblog. Second, many Chicagoans that want a gun already have them, just laying low. They’d have used them if needed and possible and let Hale DeMar protect them, as has happened once or twice. Third, other factors probably impact crime rates more than any deterrance effect.

    Of more import to me is that the most law-abiding of Chicago residents, those that don’t go ahead and keep a gun anyway, will have access to guns now. Maybe someone who wouldn’t have protected themselves or their family in a home invasion will be able to. You can’t put a price on that.

top