Since the folks at Adevărul have not seen fit to post the story containing my responses to their questions, I'm just going to include the entire exchange here:
Initial Contact:
Dear Mr. Codrea,
My name is Cristian Lupsa and I am a reporter on the foreign desk of Adevarul (www.adevarulonline.ro), a nationally-distributed daily newspaper in Romania.
A colleague of mine and I are currently researching and reporting a piece on gun culture and gun debate in the United States. European media has had various reactions following the Virginia Tech shootings, but few have taken the extra step of explaining all sides of the debate along with existing legislation and the context surrounding America's relationship with guns.
We'd much appreciate it if you had time to answer a few questions (which I've included below), either via e-mail of phone if it's more convenient for you. Our deadline is Wednesday and it'd be great if you could find a few minutes. Readers in Romania would benefit greatly from direct input on this matter.
My Reply:
Hello Mr. Lupsa,
See interlineated responses. I didn't know how much you wanted, so I probably included much more than you need. I'd appreciate a link to the finished article.
Thank you for considering "the other side." Please let me know if you need any further information or clarification.
Q&A:
- What do you think are some issues/topics that are overlooked when the world starts discussing and opining on America's relationship with guns in the aftermath of a tragedy such as the one at Virginia Tech?
The single most overlooked issue in this story is that Virginia Tech bans guns from its campus--even if a person can otherwise lawfully carry a concealed weapon. Past press statements from their spokesman, Associate VP of University Relations Larry Hincker, ridiculed reasoned pleas to end this prohibition, and lauded the demise of legislation that would have done that. In light of the total failure of authorities to protect students and faculty who are forbidden from protecting themselves, one must ask why major media outlets have almost universally omitted this information from their reporting.
Another big problem, both for European observers of the American scene and for our own populace, is that most people get their information about guns from a media that is overwhelmingly hostile to guns, rather than through personal experience. So when they are asked if they think gun control laws should be stricter, many will have no idea as to the current level of restrictions, of the inevitable failure of such laws to prevent societal violence, and of the credible, peer-reviewed studies showing guns in private hands save lives.
People who don't know about these things, or who are unfamiliar with and afraid of guns, are susceptible to hyperbole and misrepresentation. And unfortunately, people who react emotionally, rather than with knowledge and deliberation, make up much of the voter base for those who exploit them to ban guns.
- You write a popular blog supporting the right to bear arms. Could you summarize for an international audience the main tenants of the pro-gun position? Feel free to also address the most frequent charges from gun-control advocates.
The position of Second Amendment supporters is no more complicated than this: Each of us has a right not to be hurt by someone else, and if someone tries to hurt us, we have a right to protect ourselves. But we cannot effectively protect ourselves without the possessing the means of defense.
The most frequent charge is that guns are responsible for causing death. Left unexplored are the lives saved using a gun, the acts of violence deterred where the mere presence of a gun discourages an attack.
Look at the membership of the NRA, estimated at up to 4 million people. You will not find a more heavily armed yet law-abiding group of individuals on the planet.
If gun control worked, you'd expect places with the most restrictive laws, America's urban areas, to show the greatest benefit from severe restrictions. Yet these are invariably the most violent and dangerous places in our country. Is it any wonder, when the good people are forbidden by law to possess the means of defense? Yet such laws do not deter the bad people. Who would expect someone so debased they would rob or kill another human being to pause and consider that he'd better not violate a gun control law? It's not coincidence that mass murderers invariably select "gun free" zones, where they are guaranteed their prey won't be able to shoot back.
- When the Virginia Tech shootings happened, you wrote on your blog: "The renewed cries for disarming you and me will push this debate into a level of hysteria and demands that will be unlike anything we have yet encountered. This will be a catalyst. Count on it." What do you think will happen and how might this debate be different from others--such as the one following Columbine?
A primary difference between the present and the Columbine incident is we now have a case before the courts (Parker v District of Columbia) that has confirmed the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. So now, in addition to calling for a ban on gun ownership, citizen disarmament proponents are calling for repealing the Second Amendment. Seeing as how, for years, they've asserted it was only intended as a collective right of states to train and equip their militias, this new tack seems particularly disingenuous--if the 2nd meant what they've been telling us it does, there would be no such need.
Right now we're seeing much posturing, hearing a lot of noise. Translating this into further federal edicts may be more problematic, with a major election approaching--we've seen Republican politicians with anti-gun records like Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney now cozying up to gun owners and making pro-gun overtures.
Still, we also see renewed efforts, such as Carolyn McCarthy's resurrection of the federal ban on semiautomatic firearms, and even the NRA teaming up with her to expand the federal background check. We also see new state level bans going after semiautos, .50 caliber rifles, and a host of other restrictions that will impact lawful gun owners but won't make a bit of difference to evil men who have no intention of following any law.
As we related in a previous post, the paper did print the story last Friday--it's just that they never posted it to their website. Naturally, if a link ever shows up, I'll include it here.
Initial Contact:
Dear Mr. Codrea,
My name is Cristian Lupsa and I am a reporter on the foreign desk of Adevarul (www.adevarulonline.ro), a nationally-distributed daily newspaper in Romania.
A colleague of mine and I are currently researching and reporting a piece on gun culture and gun debate in the United States. European media has had various reactions following the Virginia Tech shootings, but few have taken the extra step of explaining all sides of the debate along with existing legislation and the context surrounding America's relationship with guns.
We'd much appreciate it if you had time to answer a few questions (which I've included below), either via e-mail of phone if it's more convenient for you. Our deadline is Wednesday and it'd be great if you could find a few minutes. Readers in Romania would benefit greatly from direct input on this matter.
My Reply:
Hello Mr. Lupsa,
See interlineated responses. I didn't know how much you wanted, so I probably included much more than you need. I'd appreciate a link to the finished article.
Thank you for considering "the other side." Please let me know if you need any further information or clarification.
Q&A:
- What do you think are some issues/topics that are overlooked when the world starts discussing and opining on America's relationship with guns in the aftermath of a tragedy such as the one at Virginia Tech?
The single most overlooked issue in this story is that Virginia Tech bans guns from its campus--even if a person can otherwise lawfully carry a concealed weapon. Past press statements from their spokesman, Associate VP of University Relations Larry Hincker, ridiculed reasoned pleas to end this prohibition, and lauded the demise of legislation that would have done that. In light of the total failure of authorities to protect students and faculty who are forbidden from protecting themselves, one must ask why major media outlets have almost universally omitted this information from their reporting.
Another big problem, both for European observers of the American scene and for our own populace, is that most people get their information about guns from a media that is overwhelmingly hostile to guns, rather than through personal experience. So when they are asked if they think gun control laws should be stricter, many will have no idea as to the current level of restrictions, of the inevitable failure of such laws to prevent societal violence, and of the credible, peer-reviewed studies showing guns in private hands save lives.
People who don't know about these things, or who are unfamiliar with and afraid of guns, are susceptible to hyperbole and misrepresentation. And unfortunately, people who react emotionally, rather than with knowledge and deliberation, make up much of the voter base for those who exploit them to ban guns.
- You write a popular blog supporting the right to bear arms. Could you summarize for an international audience the main tenants of the pro-gun position? Feel free to also address the most frequent charges from gun-control advocates.
The position of Second Amendment supporters is no more complicated than this: Each of us has a right not to be hurt by someone else, and if someone tries to hurt us, we have a right to protect ourselves. But we cannot effectively protect ourselves without the possessing the means of defense.
The most frequent charge is that guns are responsible for causing death. Left unexplored are the lives saved using a gun, the acts of violence deterred where the mere presence of a gun discourages an attack.
Look at the membership of the NRA, estimated at up to 4 million people. You will not find a more heavily armed yet law-abiding group of individuals on the planet.
If gun control worked, you'd expect places with the most restrictive laws, America's urban areas, to show the greatest benefit from severe restrictions. Yet these are invariably the most violent and dangerous places in our country. Is it any wonder, when the good people are forbidden by law to possess the means of defense? Yet such laws do not deter the bad people. Who would expect someone so debased they would rob or kill another human being to pause and consider that he'd better not violate a gun control law? It's not coincidence that mass murderers invariably select "gun free" zones, where they are guaranteed their prey won't be able to shoot back.
- When the Virginia Tech shootings happened, you wrote on your blog: "The renewed cries for disarming you and me will push this debate into a level of hysteria and demands that will be unlike anything we have yet encountered. This will be a catalyst. Count on it." What do you think will happen and how might this debate be different from others--such as the one following Columbine?
A primary difference between the present and the Columbine incident is we now have a case before the courts (Parker v District of Columbia) that has confirmed the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. So now, in addition to calling for a ban on gun ownership, citizen disarmament proponents are calling for repealing the Second Amendment. Seeing as how, for years, they've asserted it was only intended as a collective right of states to train and equip their militias, this new tack seems particularly disingenuous--if the 2nd meant what they've been telling us it does, there would be no such need.
Right now we're seeing much posturing, hearing a lot of noise. Translating this into further federal edicts may be more problematic, with a major election approaching--we've seen Republican politicians with anti-gun records like Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney now cozying up to gun owners and making pro-gun overtures.
Still, we also see renewed efforts, such as Carolyn McCarthy's resurrection of the federal ban on semiautomatic firearms, and even the NRA teaming up with her to expand the federal background check. We also see new state level bans going after semiautos, .50 caliber rifles, and a host of other restrictions that will impact lawful gun owners but won't make a bit of difference to evil men who have no intention of following any law.
----------------------------
As we related in a previous post, the paper did print the story last Friday--it's just that they never posted it to their website. Naturally, if a link ever shows up, I'll include it here.