Your friend Jim George thinks you'd be a great addition to Ricochet, so we'd like to offer you a special deal: You can become a member for no initial charge for one month!
Ricochet is a community of like-minded people who enjoy writing about and discussing politics (usually of the center-right nature), culture, sports, history, and just about every other topic under the sun in a fully moderated environment. We’re so sure you’ll like Ricochet, we’ll let you join and get your first month for free. Kick the tires: read the always eclectic member feed, write some posts, join discussions, participate in a live chat or two, and listen to a few of our over 50 (free) podcasts on every conceivable topic, hosted by some of the biggest names on the right, for 30 days on us. We’re confident you’re gonna love it.
Michael: I listed to your podcast for the first time this morning while driving to court from near Los Angeles to Orange County. It was very well done and I will became a regular listener during my morning commute.
I wanted to push back on your idea that conservatives should be more proactive in discussing potential gun reform in the wake of the Las Vegas shooting. Your idea makes sense in the absence, but exactly what laws should conservatives work to pass? What specific arguments should they be making other than the ones they are?
I agree with Kevin Williamson that cold logic is the only effective response in the long run. I’d like to use myself as an example. Leaving aside the Second Amendment (which i always interpreted as a flat-out prohibition on federal government regulation of firearms), I used to believe that gun control would be a wise and effective response to mass shootings. Over the years I have slowly changed my opinion by reading the statistics and analyses showing that gun laws are ineffective and that guns actually increased safety. So now I would not favor much legislation even if the Second Amendment was not an issue.
Again, great show, and I will be back for more.
No 5-star review for this episode. You demonstrated a serious lack of knowledge when you agreed with HRC that ‘silencers’ would have made it worse. 1) They are not silencers. Silencers are only used in movies. They are sound suppressers, like the muffler on a vehicle. 2) These devices suppress sound but not to the pffft level that you hear in movies. Most suppressers lower the sound level to about 120 to 130 dba. You can still hear it very well. It protects one’s hearing from the nasty crack of gas escaping from the muzzle. 3) With a concert going on, I am surprised that the attendees heard and noticed something amiss as quickly as they did. The comment by Hillary is the deluded thinking of someone looking for power, not solutions to a problem.
I appreciate the feedback, but you may want to give this another listen. I specifically rejected the HRC argument as ridiculous. I gave it a beatdown on CBSN Monday and Tuesday night, too. So maybe a mis-hearing?
I absolutely agree that we need to use logic and be smart about what policies work/don’t work. But remember: People do not vote based on facts and logic. They vote based on tribal concerns and general feelings. Doing something that makes ambivalent Americans feel better but has no impact on Second Amendment rights–say, a GOP-pushed proposal to ban “bump stocks”– could very well be the smart move.
If i mis-understood, please accept my apologies.