Feinstein Assault Weapons Ban Wouldn’t Prevent Mass Shootings; Speaks Before Facts Are Known

Feinstein Assault Weapons Ban: Sen. Diane Feinstein renews calls for an Assault Weapon Ban would  not prevent mass shootings. What’s more, the Sr. Senator from California renewed her perennial call to ban before the facts of the Navy Yard Shooting were clear.

Following the tragedy at the Washington Naval Yard in Washington, D.C., Senator Feinsten is renewing her perennial call for more gun control laws. Feinstein said: “When will enough be enough? Congress must stop shirking its responsibility and resume a thoughtful debate on gun violence in this country. We must do more to stop this endless loss of life.”

Which begs the question, what could have been done that was not already done that might have prevented this tragedy?

Washington Naval Yard is a military installation located in the nation’s capital. As a military site, it is a gun-free zone. Located in D.C., it is illegal to carry a gun outside of your home. Access to the Naval Yard requires passing an armed checkpoint. It doesn’t get much more ‘controlled’ than that.

“This is one more event to add to the litany of massacres that occur when a deranged person or grievance killer is able to obtain multiple weapons — including a military-style assault rifle — and kill many people in a short amount of time,” Feinstein said.

NBC news reported that the attack began with a shotgun, but by the end of the incident, the attacker also had picked up a 9mm pistol and an AR-15 off a fallen police officer; a victim of the shooting. CNN also reported that, “sources, who have detailed knowledge of the investigation, cautioned that initial information that an AR-15 was used in the shootings may have been incorrect”, and that the weapons besides the shotgun “may have been taken from guards at the Navy complex.” So “obtain” in this case appears to mean taking off the body of a murdered police officer armed with the weapons. One wonders what law even could prevent such a thing from occurring in the future. UPDATE: FBI confirmed NO AR-15 was used, after the initial publication of this article.

Feinstein’s comment about the “endless loss of life” is also wrong. As I have written in this column recently, in the last 20 years homicides, violent crime and gun murder have been cut by 50% – in the case of gun murders in particular, they have dropped significantly by 65% since 1993.

This gets us to the heart of the matter: a so-called “assault weapons” ban does not reduce crime or prevent mass shootings. Calling for one, while grandstanding and exploiting a tragedy to push a personal agenda, may make for a nice soundbyte for unscrupulous politicians, but it ultimately futile. They admit as much. There are several problems that make any assault weapons ban unworkable.

First, rifles – which includes bolt-action, semi-automatic rifles that are not labeled “assault weapons”, like the rancher Mini-14, as well as so-called “assault weapons” – are rarely used in homicides. FBI data for 2011, the latest year available shows 323 murders with any type of rifle. Handguns are by far the most commonly used gun in homicide at 6,220 (out of 12,664 total homicides). So even if legislation were successful in preventing 100% of all rifle homicides, it still is minuscule reduction in the overall murder rate.

Also relevant is that Feinstein’s failed attempt at renewing a federal assault weapon ban from earlier this year specifically exempted over 2,258 makes and models of rifles she believed were ‘hunting rifles’ (apparently ignorant of the fact that AR-15 rifles can be chambered to fire a plethora of ammunition from .22LR, to .50BMG and is used to hunt everything from varmint to deer, hog, elk and large game). Included in this list are many varieties of shotgun rifles. There was nothing in it to prevent the Naval Yard shooter from legally possessing the shotgun he began his attack with.

Second, there is the problem of all the existing weapon stock that would be “grandfathered in.” This means already purchased so-called “assault weapons” would be exempted and their owners allowed to keep possession of them; only new purchases would be banned under the failed bill. This means that the millions of so-called “assault rifles” are still available for use.

Third, the highest year for mass shootings – 2003 – occurred during the last federal Assault Weapons Ban. Columbine and Virginia Tech occurred during the federal Assault Weapons Ban. The Virginia Tech shooter – the worst school shooting in U.S. History – used handguns & mostly 10-round magazines. There is no logical reason to conclude that a ban would prevent a future mass shooting, because past bans did not. Academic researchers and government agencies conclude the same thing: the CDC, National Research Council and others found the last federal Assault Weappons ban produced no clear, measurable reduction in crime or mass shootings.

UPDATE: Feinstein's proposed ban would not include the shotgun used by the shooter at the Navy Yard. This means even if she were able to see this legislation enacted, it would have had ABSOLUTELY NO effect on this shooting.

Feinstein’s comments amount to empty rhetoric and meaningless hyperbole. Her failed, proposed legislation would not be a solution to end “enough is enough”. When one considers her words to “resume a thoughtful debate on gun violence” one wonders if she means speaking before the facts of this case are fully known, or pushing a policy that is known from the start to be a non-solution.

By Matt MacBradaigh. Matt is a Christian, Husband, Father, Patriot, and Conservative from the Pacific Northwest. Matt writes about the Second Amendment, Gun Control, Gun Rights, and Gun Policy issues and is published on The Bell Towers, The Brenner Brief, PolicyMic. TavernKeepers, and Vocativ.

Follow Me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/2AFight  

Follow Me on Facebook:   https://www.facebook.com/2ndAmendmentFight
 

This article also appears on The Brenner Brief. (Original publication September 17, 2013).

Assault Weapons Ban Wouldn’t Prevent Mass Shootings; Politicians Speak Before Facts Are Known

by Matt MacBradaigh | Sep 18, 2013 | Gun Control Facts | 4 comments

Following the tragedy at the Washington Naval Yard in Washington, D.C., Senator Feinsten is renewing her perennial call for more gun control laws. Feinstein said: “When will enough be enough? Congress must stop shirking its responsibility and resume a thoughtful debate on gun violence in this country. We must do more to stop this endless loss of life.”

Which begs the question, what could have been done that was not already done that might have prevented this tragedy?

Washington Naval Yard is a military installation located in the nation’s capital. As a military site, it is a gun-free zone. Located in D.C., it is illegal to carry a gun outside of your home. Access to the Naval Yard requires passing an armed checkpoint. It doesn’t get much more ‘controlled’ than that.

“This is one more event to add to the litany of massacres that occur when a deranged person or grievance killer is able to obtain multiple weapons — including a military-style assault rifle — and kill many people in a short amount of time,” Feinstein said.

NBC news reported that the attack began with a shotgun, but by the end of the incident, the attacker also had picked up a 9mm pistol and an AR-15 off a fallen police officer; a victim of the shooting. CNN also reported that, “sources, who have detailed knowledge of the investigation, cautioned that initial information that an AR-15 was used in the shootings may have been incorrect”, and that the weapons besides the shotgun “may have been taken from guards at the Navy complex.” So “obtain” in this case appears to mean taking off the body of a murdered police officer armed with the weapons. One wonders what law even couldprevent such a thing from occurring in the future. UPDATE: FBI confirmed NO AR-15 was used, after the initial publication of this article.

Feinstein’s comment about the “endless loss of life” is also wrong. As I have written in this column recently, in the last 20 years homicides, violent crime and gun murder have been cut by 50% – in the case of gun murders in particular, they have dropped significantly by 65% since 1993.

This gets us to the heart of the matter: a so-called “assault weapons” ban does not reduce crime or prevent mass shootings. Calling for one, while grandstanding and exploiting a tragedy to push a personal agenda, may make for a nice soundbyte for unscrupulous politicians, but it ultimately futile. They admit as much. There are several problems that make any assault weapons ban unworkable.

First, rifles – which includes bolt-action, semi-automatic rifles that are not labeled “assault weapons”, like the rancher Mini-14, as well as so-called “assault weapons” – are rarely used in homicides. FBI data for 2011, the latest year available shows 323 murders with any type of rifle. Handguns are by far the most commonly used gun in homicide at 6,220 (out of 12,664 total homicides). So even if legislation were successful in preventing 100% of all rifle homicides, it still is minuscule reduction in the overall murder rate.

Also relevant is that Feinstein’s failed attempt at renewing a federal assault weapon ban from earlier this year specifically exempted over 2,258 makes and models of rifles she believed were ‘hunting rifles’ (apparently ignorant of the fact that AR-15 rifles can be chambered to fire a plethora of ammunition from .22LR, to .50BMG and is used to hunt everything from varmint to deer, hog, elk and large game). Included in this list are many varieties of shotgun rifles. There was nothing in it to prevent the Naval Yard shooter from legally possessing the shotgun he began his attack with.

Second, there is the problem of all the existing weapon stock that would be “grandfathered in.” This means already purchased so-called “assault weapons” would be exempted and their owners allowed to keep possession of them; only new purchases would be banned under the failed bill. This means that the millions of so-called “assault rifles” are still available for use.

Third, the highest year for mass shootings – 2003 – occurred during the last federal Assault Weapons Ban. Columbine and Virginia Tech occurred during the federal Assault Weapons Ban. The Virginia Tech shooter – the worst school shooting in U.S. History – used handguns & mostly 10-round magazines. There is no logical reason to conclude that a ban would prevent a future mass shooting, because past bans did not. Academic researchers and government agencies conclude the same thing: the CDC, National Research Council and others found the last federal Assault Weappons ban produced no clear, measurable reduction in crime or mass shootings.

UPDATE: Feinstein’s proposed ban would not include the shotgun used by the shooter at the Navy Yard. This means even if she were able to see this legislation enacted, it would have had ABSOLUTELY NO effect on this shooting.

Feinstein’s comments amount to empty rhetoric and meaningless hyperbole. Her failed, proposed legislation would not be a solution to end “enough is enough”. When one considers her words to “resume a thoughtful debate on gun violence” one wonders if she means speaking before the facts of this case are fully known, or pushing a policy that is known from the start to be a non-solution.

This article was originally published on Brenner Brief. Original publish date Sept 18, 2013. Original author, Matt MacBradaigh.

Open Letter to MIT Professor Christopher Knittel: 5 Ways You Don't Get It On Gun Control

MIT professor Christopher Knittel recently penned an opinion piece in The Huffington Post titled "Time for Real Gun Control, Not Just Window Dressing." Knittel is a self-described life-long hunter and applied economics professor in the Sloan School of Management at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology whose research focuses on the costs, benefits, and effectiveness of policy.

Knittel says "Let's not kid ourselves: An assault weapon ban (AWB) is purely window dressing. An assault weapon is merely a semi-automatic rifle that carries its bullets in a magazine and looks vicious." Gun rights advocates would like that ... until they realize he means AWB doesn't go far enough. Knittel proves the truth of Will Rogers proverb — take someone out of their arena, and they're just plain dumb. In five major ways, Knittel proves he doesn't get it on gun control.

1. Knittel: Ban all semi-automatic weapons that accept magazines:

Knittel: "Meaningful gun control starts with banning semi-automatic weapons that carry their ammunition in magazines."

Counterpoint:
The major problem with this idea is that it's not constitutional. Really. The classic response is that "regulation is permitted" on some basis of degree. This is only part true.  The Supreme Court agrees restrictions on prohibition of arms by felons and mentally ill and against carrying in certain places like courthouses, jails, and schools. That doesn't mean any gun you believe is "too dangerous" is justifiably banned. The Court ruled in U.S. vs. Miller (1939) and D.C. vs. Heller (2008) that weapons in "common use at the time" are protected arms. Semi-automatics are in very common use in our time and have been since 1903. The Court has also said in Heller it is unconstitutional to ban an entire class of weapons popularly chosen by the American people (p.56-57); and there is no legal basis for limiting the right based on interest-balancing policy concerns. This means that the right can't be limited just because gun violence is a problem (p.62-63). The Court states, "we are aware of the problem of [gun] violence in this country, and we take seriously the concerns raised by the many amici who believe that prohibition of handgun ownership is a solution...But the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table" (p.64).

2. Knittel: Use gun buy-back programs to reduce existing guns:

Knittel doesn't propose making existing guns illegal. "Instead, I propose we adopt an aggressive buy-back program that is funded through a tax on gun and ammunition sales... For example, the first year of the program could pay $200 for such weapons. The next year could pay $300. And so on."

Counterpoint:
Gun buyback? Scholarly peer-reviewed research – like that from the British Journal of Criminology – concluded it didn't have any effect in Australia. Would it work here? While not attempted at a national level, local level attempts have yielded poor results. By what reason do we conclude it's likely to produce better results nation-wide? The National Research Council published a study in 2004 that analyzed any effectiveness of these programs and concluded, "the theory underlying gun buyback programs is badly flawed and the empirical evidence demonstrates the ineffectiveness of these programs."

Estimates in 2009 held there were 310 million guns. There have been millions purchased since. CNN reported in December 2012 alone there were more than 2.8 million NICS checks. True not every NICS check results in a sale, but many checks result in more than one firearm purchased. Who in their right mind would accept $200-300 for a rifle that costs $800-3,000?  It's a safe bet that millions of gun owners in the "take them from my cold, dead hands" crowd would never turn in a gun under any circumstances.

And how are we going to pay for buying back millions of guns? With a tax on guns and ammunition? This would also likely be subject to legal challenge if the tax were high enough it made purchase prohibitive and thereby made the right to self-defense impossible to exercise from a practical standpoint (The Court said, "a statute which, under the pretence of regulating, amounts to a destruction of the right, or which requires arms to be so borne as to render them wholly useless for the purpose of defense, would be clearly unconstitutional" (p.57). There's also the minor problem of $16 trillion in national debt, and possible sequestration of the Federal government's budget. Given that a buy-back would likely cost billions, the financial feasibility seems questionable.

3. Knittel: Hunting and Home defense would be preserved ... kind of:

Knittel: "But, what about the legitimate uses for guns? Such a ban would still allow hunters to use bolt-action rifles and pump-action shotguns for hunting mammals and birds. These are the same weapons I used in the past to hunt deer, pheasants, ducks, doves, and more. A pump-action shotgun or a single-action revolver is a also quite effective home-defense weapon."

Counterpoint:
First, this completely misses the point of the Second Amendment. While hunting is a lawful purpose of guns, it is not the main "core lawful purpose", which is "self-defense" (pp.56 & 58). Second, single-action revolver?  This is from a guy who grew up using guns?  I'm not buying it. For the uninformed, single-action revolvers hold a maximum of 6 shots, but more importantly, the hammer must be manually cocked each time you fire. Even if there is just one attacker, this is not ideal for self-defense in stressful situations. If there are multiple attackers, forget about it.

4. Knittel: Enjoyment vs. Safety trade-off:

Knittel: "Such a ban, while reducing the ability for people to kill other people, does not come without costs. Millions of law-abiding citizens get more enjoyment out of carrying and shooting semi-automatic weapons than they do from their close cousins. Many also get enjoyment from of carrying vicious looking "assault weapons." Again, this is the fundamental trade-off: lowering the enjoyment law-abiding citizens get from shooting semi-automatic weapons, while reducing the number of Newtown-like events."

Counterpoint:
Enjoyment of guns? Dude, what?! Okay, yes, it is fun to go to the range and pop off a few rounds, but Knittel clearly has no idea what he's talking about when it comes to the purpose of the Second Amendment (as noted above, self-defense). It has nothing to do with "enjoyment". There is no utilitarian calculus used to evaluate our inherent, pre-existing right to defense — and even if there were, the idea that banning semi-automatic rifles would yield positive results in such a calculus fails to consider at least three important things: First, according to widely respected criminologist James Alan Fox of Northeastern University in Boston, handguns are the favorite weapon of choice among mass shooters — not rifles (the Virginia Tech shooter used handguns and mostly 10 round magazines); second, this assumes that such a ban would be effective in reducing homicides or preventing mass shootings — but no evidence exists to suggest this is the case; third, citizens use guns to defend themselves by even the most cynical peer-reviewed study 152,000 times per year (other peer-reviewed research suggests 256-373,000 is more accurate).

5. Knittel: The 'citizen-owned Nukes' straw man nonsense and other falsehoods:

Knittel: "The United States has a long history of regulating firearms. Normal citizens cannot bear nuclear arms; they can't bear rocket launchers, tanks, or a long list of other arms. There are also severe restrictions on owning fully automatic guns. These restrictions effectively make them illegal for most of us."

Counterpoint:
This argument both teeters on the ridiculously absurd as well as being factually incorrect.  Let's start with the absurd. No one credible (and maybe no one at all) is arguing for private ownership of tactical nukes. This is straw man fallacy at its worst; straw man means you set up a fictitious argument that your opponent isn't even making and then tear it down to make the opposition look weak. Now let's tackle the incorrect. According to the ATF, you actually can own a rocket launcher under the 1934 National Firearms Act. Where can you find one and at what cost? I don't know or care; the fact is, it's legal. If you can afford it, you just have to pay a $200 tax and fill out the paperwork. Machine guns are also legal according to the ATF. Critics cite cost of pre-1986 full auto machine guns, however according to the ATF, you can convert or "make" your own — just fill out the paperwork and pay $200.

So if you're reading Mr. Knittel, or someone sends you this article, two things: I would expect a better prepared argument from someone as highly educated and intelligent as I presume you must be to be teaching at MIT. Second, if you ever want to debate the topic, let me know and I'll be happy to oblige.

By Matt MacBradaigh. Matt is a Christian, Husband, Father, Patriot, and Conservative from the Pacific Northwest. Matt writes about the Second Amendment, Gun Control, Gun Rights, and Gun Policy issues and is published on The Bell Towers, The Brenner Brief, PolicyMic. TavernKeepers, and Vocativ.

Follow Me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/2AFight  

Follow Me on Facebook:   https://www.facebook.com/2ndAmendmentFight
 

This article also appears on PolicyMic. (Original publication February 23, 2013).

Open Letter to MIT Professor Christopher Knittel: 5 Ways You Don’t Get It On Gun Control

by Matt MacBradaigh | Feb 23, 2013 | Gun Control Facts | 1 comment

MIT professor Christopher Knittel recently penned an opinion piece in The Huffington Post titled “Time for Real Gun Control, Not Just Window Dressing.” Knittel is a self-described life-long hunter and applied economics professor in the Sloan School of Management at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology whose research focuses on the costs, benefits, and effectiveness of policy.

Knittel says “Let’s not kid ourselves: An assault weapon ban (AWB) is purely window dressing. An assault weapon is merely a semi-automatic rifle that carries its bullets in a magazine and looks vicious.” Gun rights advocates would like that … until they realize he means AWB doesn’t go far enough. Knittel proves the truth of Will Rogers proverb — take someone out of their arena, and they’re just plain dumb. In five major ways, Knittel proves he doesn’t get it on gun control.

1. Knittel: Ban all semi-automatic weapons that accept magazines:

Knittel: “Meaningful gun control starts with banning semi-automatic weapons that carry their ammunition in magazines.”

Counterpoint:

The major problem with this idea is that it’s not constitutional. Really. The classic response is that “regulation is permitted” on some basis of degree. This is only part true.  The Supreme Court agrees restrictions on prohibition of arms by felons and mentally ill and against carrying in certain places like courthouses, jails, and schools. That doesn’t mean any gun you believe is “too dangerous” is justifiably banned. The Court ruled in U.S. vs. Miller (1939) and D.C. vs. Heller (2008) that weapons in “common use at the time” are protected arms. Semi-automatics are in very common use in our time and have been since 1903. The Court has also said in Heller it is unconstitutional to ban an entire class of weapons popularly chosen by the American people (p.56-57); and there is no legal basis for limiting the right based on interest-balancing policy concerns. This means that the right can’t be limited just because gun violence is a problem (p.62-63). The Court states, “we are aware of the problem of [gun] violence in this country, and we take seriously the concerns raised by the many amici who believe that prohibition of handgun ownership is a solution…But the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table” (p.64).

2. Knittel: Use gun buy-back programs to reduce existing guns:

Knittel doesn’t propose making existing guns illegal. “Instead, I propose we adopt an aggressive buy-back program that is funded through a tax on gun and ammunition sales… For example, the first year of the program could pay $200 for such weapons. The next year could pay $300. And so on.”

Counterpoint:

Gun buyback? Scholarly peer-reviewed research – like that from the British Journal of Criminology – concluded it didn’t have any effect in Australia. Would it work here? While not attempted at a national level, local level attempts have yielded poor results. By what reason do we conclude it’s likely to produce better results nation-wide? The National Research Council published a study in 2004 that analyzed any effectiveness of these programs and concluded, “the theory underlying gun buyback programs is badly flawed and the empirical evidence demonstrates the ineffectiveness of these programs.”

Estimates in 2009 held there were 310 million guns. There have been millions purchased since. CNN reported in December 2012 alone there were more than 2.8 million NICS checks. True not every NICS check results in a sale, but many checks result in more than one firearm purchased. Who in their right mind would accept $200-300 for a rifle that costs $800-3,000?  It’s a safe bet that millions of gun owners in the “take them from my cold, dead hands” crowd would never turn in a gun under any circumstances.

And how are we going to pay for buying back millions of guns? With a tax on guns and ammunition? This would also likely be subject to legal challenge if the tax were high enough it made purchase prohibitive and thereby made the right to self-defense impossible to exercise from a practical standpoint (The Court said, “a statute which, under the pretence of regulating, amounts to a destruction of the right, or which requires arms to be so borne as to render them wholly useless for the purpose of defense, would be clearly unconstitutional” (p.57). There’s also the minor problem of $16 trillion in national debt, and possible sequestration of the Federal government’s budget. Given that a buy-back would likely cost billions, the financial feasibility seems questionable.

3. Knittel: Hunting and Home defense would be preserved … kind of:

Knittel: “But, what about the legitimate uses for guns? Such a ban would still allow hunters to use bolt-action rifles and pump-action shotguns for hunting mammals and birds. These are the same weapons I used in the past to hunt deer, pheasants, ducks, doves, and more. A pump-action shotgun or a single-action revolver is a also quite effective home-defense weapon.”

Counterpoint:

First, this completely misses the point of the Second Amendment. While hunting is a lawful purpose of guns, it is not the main “core lawful purpose“, which is “self-defense” (pp.56 & 58). Second, single-action revolver?  This is from a guy who grew up using guns?  I’m not buying it. For the uninformed, single-action revolvers hold a maximum of 6 shots, but more importantly, the hammer must be manually cocked each time you fire. Even if there is just one attacker, this is not ideal for self-defense in stressful situations. If there are multiple attackers, forget about it.

4. Knittel: Enjoyment vs. Safety trade-off:

Knittel: “Such a ban, while reducing the ability for people to kill other people, does not come without costs. Millions of law-abiding citizens get more enjoyment out of carrying and shooting semi-automatic weapons than they do from their close cousins. Many also get enjoyment from of carrying vicious looking “assault weapons.” Again, this is the fundamental trade-off: lowering the enjoyment law-abiding citizens get from shooting semi-automatic weapons, while reducing the number of Newtown-like events.”

Counterpoint:

Enjoyment of guns? Dude, what?! Okay, yes, it is fun to go to the range and pop off a few rounds, but Knittel clearly has no idea what he’s talking about when it comes to the purpose of the Second Amendment (as noted above, self-defense). It has nothing to do with “enjoyment”. There is no utilitarian calculus used to evaluate our inherent, pre-existing right to defense — and even if there were, the idea that banning semi-automatic rifles would yield positive results in such a calculus fails to consider at least three important things: First, according to widely respected criminologist James Alan Fox of Northeastern University in Boston, handguns are the favorite weapon of choice among mass shooters — not rifles (the Virginia Tech shooter used handguns and mostly 10 round magazines); second, this assumes that such a ban would be effective in reducing homicides or preventing mass shootings — but no evidence exists to suggest this is the case; third, citizens use guns to defend themselves by even the most cynical peer-reviewed study 152,000 times per year (other peer-reviewed research suggests 256-373,000 is more accurate).

5. Knittel: The ‘citizen-owned Nukes’ straw man nonsense and other falsehoods:

Knittel: “The United States has a long history of regulating firearms. Normal citizens cannot bear nuclear arms; they can’t bear rocket launchers, tanks, or a long list of other arms. There are also severe restrictions on owning fully automatic guns. These restrictions effectively make them illegal for most of us.”

Counterpoint:

This argument both teeters on the ridiculously absurd as well as being factually incorrect.  Let’s start with the absurd. No one credible (and maybe no one at all) is arguing for private ownership of tactical nukes. This is straw man fallacy at its worst; straw man means you set up a fictitious argument that your opponent isn’t even making and then tear it down to make the opposition look weak. Now let’s tackle the incorrect. According to the ATF, you actually can own a rocket launcher under the 1934 National Firearms Act. Where can you find one and at what cost? I don’t know or care; the fact is, it’s legal. If you can afford it, you just have to pay a $200 tax and fill out the paperwork. Machine guns are also legal according to the ATF. Critics cite cost of pre-1986 full auto machine guns, however according to the ATF, you can convert or “make” your own — just fill out the paperwork and pay $200.

So if you’re reading, Mr. Knittel – or someone sends you this article, two things: I would expect a better prepared argument from someone as highly educated and intelligent as I presume you must be to be teaching at MIT. Second, if you ever want to debate the topic, let me know and I’ll be happy to oblige.

This article was originally published on PolicyMic.com, now Mic.com. Original publish date Feb 23, 2013. Original author, Matt MacBradaigh.