The internet is all aTwitter with the response to Costas reading Whitlock's article.
I have a few opinions, but first let me say that Guns is an issue where almost everyone has an established opinion. It is an issue with lots of people on both sides, and across the spectrum. It is a reasonable issue to discuss. One side isn't stupid and the other side smart.
My reactions to Costas was 3 fold:
1) It would be nice to hear an opinion from NYC Big Media that is not homogeneous.
2) What I think Whitlock meant and what I think Costas meant seem to me to be two different meanings. When Whitlock says "Gun Culture" I get the feeling he is talking about young men, especially athletes, having handguns, carrying them in the car or person, as if a toy, or jewelry. When Costas says "Gun Culture" I get the feeling he is talking about all guns, including the middle-aged husband in suburbia with a gun at home for self-protection, the CCW issue, hunting, et al, the broader base that Costas would change with "Gun Control". I think Costas believes that there is a solution to Costas' "Gun Culture" and it is more laws. I am not sure Whitlock believes the solution for the "Gun Culture" Whitlock is talking about is more laws. I am not sure Whitlock believes there is a solution.
3) The normal reaction I have to Gun Control. That is one side believe laws=no possession, the other side doesn't, thus they both do the Cost Benefit Analysis and arrive at different conclusions.
I think the most interesting reaction is #2. What's your reaction?