In support of my argument -- namely that hand guns remain a problem in the US -- I cited a report from the admittedly left-leaning Soros Foundation, mistaking it to be recent. (It turned out to be eight years old.)

Within a day, I'd received numerous irate comments about the post. I began responding, and before long I'd made several enemies -- all of whom fell on the "pro" side of the gun debate.

But one gentlemen, who wrote under the handle "Charlz" and who had begun the attacks against my post, and I quickly evolved from foes into friends. We began to comment back and forth about not only gun control, but the kinds of biases we unintentionally bring to an emotionally-charged issue like gun control. Such biases, we agreed, allow us to readily believe statistics that we'd be wise to scrutinize a lot more closely.

Charlz revealed himself to be not only for the licensing and legal distribution of guns, but also a reasonable and intelligent interlocutor. He raised a number of valid points, and while he didn't convince me that guns should be legal nationwide, he did make me think. He even came to my defense a few times against others whom I'd upset by the post.

We also discussed the nature of blogs, and how they open the debate to anyone who wishes to join in. Not long ago, readers had no recourse to the people who fed them the news, beyond writing a letter to the editor and hoping it got printed.

With blogs there are no gatekeepers. If you want to chime in, go for it. And the more points of view, the better. Otherwise we're just a bunch of pundits on one side of the political divide preaching to our respective choirs. If everyone who reads this blog already agrees with what they find here, what kind of progress are we really making?