A writer's epiphany: Guns save lives
Jeffrey Goldberg, The Atlantic's national correspondent, has just had a moment of semi-clarity: “The ideology of gun-ownership absolutism doesn't appeal” to him, yet he's now “sympathetic to the idea of armed self-defense, because it does often work ... .”
He writes thus in his lengthy piece, “The Case for More Guns (And More Gun Control).” He pines for tighter restrictions on gun purchases, yet acknowledges that armed, law-abiding citizens do discourage crime.
Admitting liberals' vision of a no-guns America is unrealistic, he notes the estimated 280 million to 300 million guns in private hands and a 2011 Gallup poll showing 47 percent of adults keep at least one gun and only 26 percent favor banning handguns.
Mr. Goldberg even acknowledges that after passage of concealed-carry laws, Ohio's firearms crime rate “remained steady” and crime rates in Florida and Colorado dropped.
Making guns harder to obtain is, of course, incompatible with the Second Amendment's “shall not be infringed” language and the U.S. Supreme Court upholding individuals' right to bear arms. It's also incompatible with the Pennsylvania Constitution, which says that right “shall not be questioned.”
Still, Goldberg's half-epiphany is a sign that common — and constitutional — sense might be gaining in the debate over guns, potentially providing common ground for shaping a safer, freer America.
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments â either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.