Sunday, January 16, 2011

Phoenix | Shooting revives gun control debate

[A Glock 19 similar to the one used in Tucson]

A week after the Jan. 8 attempted assassination in Tucson, Ariz., of Democratic Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords left six people dead, and 12 other bystanders wounded, The Arizona Republic's opinion page today once more wades into the debate on gun control:

Yes: Let's revisit gun laws
The rampage had everything to do with a 9mm semiautomatic Glock pistol -- a sleek, efficient killing machine that our lax gun laws allowed an unstable young man to purchase, carry anywhere he wanted and ultimately use to shoot Giffords in the head, says Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson.

No: Avoid knee-jerk reaction
The truth is, Arizona is not awash in gun carriers (unfortunately). If it were, when the gunman started shooting, a dozen people would have shot back and stopped the massacre sooner, says Mark Moritz, an estate-planning attorney in Chandler, Ariz., and graduate of the American Pistol Institute.


  1. This post seems off-topic: Though it's from a Gannett paper, it's merely about gun control and doesn't raise any questions nor impart any information about Gannett business. ::shrug::

  2. I often like to show how Gannett newspapers and TV stations tackle news subjects. The discussion that follows can help other sites when they plan editorial.

  3. Everyone knows Eugene Robinson is the #1 boot-licker for Obama. What do you expect him to say?

    Mortiz's column was spot-on.
    Glad the Republic ran it.

    I do like the idea that if you are crazy, you should not be allowed to own/carry a weapon. If that were passed though, wouldn't they have to take Obama's pen away from him? ;-o

  4. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

  5. I wonder why the Republic chose a national columnist to support gun control and a local one to oppose it?

  6. I heard recently that Iowa is either considering or has enacted regs allowing people to carry unconcealed pistols virtually anywhere.

    What the heck is this, a TV oater come to life?

  7. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

  8. Jim has given us more jump-the-shark moments than we can count, but setting up a thread for the pro-gun lunatics has to be near the top of the list.

    The Constitution refers to a well-regulated militia. Gun ownership should be well-regulated.

  9. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

  10. I don't like Jon Stewart, I think the writing is weak and too dependent upon him mugging for the camera.

    However, in a piece at the end of last week he made the salient point that laws are written and followed by people who obey laws.

    Not entirely sure, but I think it's still against the law to shoot twenty people, even in Arizona.

    Jim, you've made the point several times over the years that this is a Gannett-focused blog, and contributors have stayed largely away from election or legislative issues where they don't directly pertain to Gannett concerns.

    Despite your later clarifications on what you would hope to get as far as feedback on this topic, the initial post combined with your understandable desire for more advertising does somewhat smack of creating a tempest to drive page views and click-thru's.

    Sometimes the needs of the publisher and of the community coincide, but if the reader feels it's forced, credibility is lost.

    But what do I know.

  11. I had, indeed, hoped for a more Gannett-focused, about-journalism discussion. Unfortunately, as with many controversial topics -- immigration, abortion, etc. -- that's difficult. So, following your suggestion, I'll close this particular discussion.