I know it doesn't seem that way right now, but I think CNN actually tries very hard to present both sides. You have to give some people on CNN credit. Last night Anderson Cooper had 3 guests on, and the most intelligent one was actually the beautiful blond woman, Margaret something, who made a lot of good points in a very short time interval. So not only did he try to have people there to discuss the topic responsibly, he found a hot blonde with brains. Clearly he's a fantastic reporter.
What I see as the biggest problem in this debate is that many of the people getting air time on the pro-rights side don't communicate well. They especially don't communicate well with the more liberal media, that needs to be presented with a scholarly discussion, not an argument. The gun crimes that private citizens firearms ownership could show a demonstrable impact on, are actually very rare. Even Lott's discussions on the topic are fairly weak from a statistical analysis perspective. Nearly as weak as the arguments currently being presented to support a ban on assault style rifles and full capacity magazines.
The science and proof aren't there for either side, so the discussion on decreasing violent crime needs to focus on real numbers, maximum benefit for any further infringements on firearms rights, and an honest evaluation of cost benefit that takes into account both human rights and money.
We can't cover all those issues in a short video, but we can start the conversation by pointing out some of the flaws on both sides. I'm confident that if we do this, we'll be heard by a lot of reasonable people who are simply misinformed right now. But even if we aren't, well
“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”
― Edmund Burke
Last edited by toddler; 01-10-2013 at 09:18..