Category: Anti-Gun Folks

Bloomberg View, over at Huffpo, takes a look at a couple of gun rags, sees no minorities, and declares gun owners racists, and guns being for white people. What kind of person buys magazines and goes through tallying people up by race? A racist maybe? I think these people need to look in a mirror, and then read some of the scholarship we’ve used to support gun rights in the courts, a good deal of which revolves around attempts by radical Republicans to ensure Blacks were free to exercise their right to keep and bear arms.

The Daily Caller notes Bloomberg’s coalition has been surprisingly silent on some recent mass shootings. On the surface, I suppose we shouldn’t consider this a bad thing. But the reason neither of these was so readily exploited by MAIG is because neither of them really work for accomplishing their goals.

One goal is keeping wealthy political elites engaged with the issue. At this point, MAIG probably realizes a broad grassroots movement isn’t possible with this issue, or at the least realize building one is a decades long effort. In the mean time, they have to motivate their base. Most wealthy elites don’t live in crappy apartments with seedy tenants. In order to stoke the fears and insecurities of elites, they have to be able to imagine they, or others like them, could be the victims. That’s one reason Sandy Hook was so ripe to exploit for political purposes, it struck at their very heart. Humans are tribal creatures, and for better or worse, we’re more concerned about what happens, or what could happen, to our own tribe than we are about people who are perceived as not being one of us. In the short term, MAIG needs political elites in the fight, both for funding and for political support.

The second shooting mentioned happened in California, where the weapons used were quite illegal. That doesn’t really fit the narrative either. Do you really want the risk the media will start the discussion of how California’s strictest-in-the-nation gun control laws aren’t effective at stopping mass killers? The killer illegally built a banned-in-California AR-15, and converted a black powder revolver into a cartridge firing revolver. We’ve always mentioned that these people are more resourceful than they are often given credit for, and strict gun control isn’t likely to offer much of an obstacle. This is proof of that. Bloomberg is already aware how quickly our side can snatch the media narrative if they aren’t careful. I wouldn’t want to touch this one either if I were them.

But of course, these are cold, hard strategic calculations we’re talking about here, and gun control advocates would never engage in such things. They care: about you, about the children, and most of all about victims. No more names! It’s certainly not about using the news cycle in a strategic manner to further a political agenda. No. That’s only something the evil corporate gun lobby would do.

I notice that Heidi Yewman’s continuing saga is now up to 1174 comments. That’s an order of magnitude more than appear over at Ms. Magazine. Going through them, I notice one or two obvious trolls, but most of the comments seem to be to be pretty reasonable. I just tried to post a comment there myself, and it appeared immediately. This tells me The Daily Beast isn’t really moderating heavily, and to the extent they are, only after the fact. I’ve been keeping a close eye on the comments and they all seem reasonable to me. Remember she claims this:

The Ms. Magazine blog moderator withheld most of the threatening comments, and ultimately the magazine, its small staff overwhelmed by the flood of vituperation, initially decided not to run the rest of the series, a development Joe Nocera of the New York Times noticed and reported on.

Also, don’t forget that the staff at Ms. claimed the same. Where is this vituperation at The Daily Beast? How is it they managed to gather an order of magnitude more comments than Ms. without any of this “vituperation?” We’re dealing with people who have an agenda, and that agenda is to take a small number, perhaps one or two individual who really crossed the line, and smear an entire community of reasonable people with that brush. The gun control crowd always insist that brutish behavior from gun owners is a common, regular occurrence, in comments we mysteriously never get to see. In reality, their standard operation procedure is to crush dissenting opinion any time they start losing an argument. Having better arguments would seem to equate to brutish behavior for many of them. That certainly seems to be the case for members of the Brady Campaign Board. They are not interested in dialog.

I’m still completely amazed at the world Heidi Yewman lives in. Let’s see what other ways we can get ourselves or others in trouble in ways that are more dangerous than guns, and where the law won’t intervene to enforce common sense.

You can install a pool without the whole family having to take swimming lessons as a prerequisite for getting the permit. You can also buy a house with a pool without even the barest knowledge of how to swim. More children die every year in swimming pools than are killed by irresponsible gun owners in gun accidents.

You can buy a bicycle for your child without even the barest knowledge of traffic safety rules. What if the child takes the bike in the street? About 116 people aged 20 and under are killed on their bicycles, most of them involving collisions with motor vehicles. In total 677 people are killed in bicycle accidents. Injuries number 48,000. Yet we allow people to purchase these machines freely, and without training on responsible use.

Fires are burns are the third leading cause of death for children 14 and under, yet we allow people to cook, and purchase electrical appliances without even so much as basic training. Each day nearly 8 children are treated for shocks or burn injuries sustained tampering with wall outlets. Our government does not require parents to secure access to wall outlets from children, which can be done with an inexpensive plastic part.

Approximately 36,000 people are treated at emergency rooms each year for injuries sustain from use of chainsaws. These can be bought at home centers without even the most basic of training. Additionally, power tools in general are responsible for a great number of injuries and fatalities each year, and the government requires no training in their use, and they are bought and traded freely.

Do we really need government coming in and dictating all common sense, and throwing us in jail when we make poor decisions? Or treating us like children and making choices for us, because we can’t be expected to be responsible enough to make smart choices ourselves? I find that attitude baffling, but it is apparently the kind of world people like Heidi Yewman want to live in. Nerf goes the world!

When Heidi Yewman first published her highly controversial piece in Ms. Magazine, I thought she was a bit irresponsible with how she approached the topic of gun ownership. After reading her continuing drama, now published by the Daily Beast, I believe she lacks the moral clarity, level headedness, and common sense required of someone being a gun owner. On this we agree. Where we disagree is that the government’s job is to enforce responsibility, and that training can fix the problem for someone like her. Training will not help Heidi Yewman; she quite simply lacks the emotional makeup necessary for gun ownership. Perhaps that is her point, but her real problem is not something the government can successfully evaluate, and she should really stop projecting her own inadequacies onto other people. I thought a bit how to deal with her article, but a good old fashioned fisking is about all I can come up with.

I put my purse on the counter and then spent the next hour out on the back deck. Walking into the kitchen to refresh our drinks, I noticed my purse with the 9mm Glock still inside it. I’d forgotten to lock it up! Panic set in as I realized my teen son was playing videogames just 10 feet away.

If you’re a forgetful person, off body carry is not the correct option for you, and this is why. Also, your 15 year old son is old enough to be trained in responsible gun handling. If he had proper training, if he managed to find your Glock in your purse, it would be no danger to him. If you have small children, or unruly children, you quite simply need to learn to be more responsible, and perhaps consider a different carry option.

A gun in a home is 43 times more likely to be used to kill a family member than kill someone in self-defense.

No, it’s not. This is based on a study that has been long discredited as junk science.

 I lie awake thinking: “Is someone breaking in? How fast can I get to the gun? Will they hear me? How much time do I have before they get to my bedroom? What if they go to my son’s room first? Will I shoot them in the face or heart or stomach?” And then I think: “How in the world would I live with myself knowing I took a life?”

I generally encourage anyone buying a firearm for self-defense to give serious thought as to whether they are capable of killing another in self-defense. Not everyone has the emotional makeup to do it. It is a serious question, and I don’t blame her for giving it thought. But nonetheless, she seems awfully fearful. As her article continues, I can’t help but come to the conclusion that her fearfulness rises to the point she ought to consider counseling.

For example, do I tell my 15-year old where the gun is so he can help if someone breaks into our house? My husband travels a lot, so often it’s just the teen and me.

That depends a lot on the teen, your relationship with him, and whether he’s been properly trained in safe and responsible gun handling, as is your moral duty as a gun owning parent to teach him.

A few years ago, a friend of mine’s 16-year-old son was given the combination to their gun safe so he could help protect his family. The very next day, after being cut from his basketball team, he opened the safe, went to the back yard, and killed himself with that gun.

Do you think your son is suicidal? If he is, why aren’t you getting him help? And yes, if he is suicidal, or your relationship with your son has issues, then no, he should not have access to the firearm.

Since having the gun I’ve had two repairmen, a carpet cleaner, and a salesmen in my home. If the gun’s for self-protection, it’s not going to do any good in the safe, but it’s not really practical to have the gun pointing at them as they work.

This would land you in jail, and rightfully so. The solution to this, if you’re concerned about a strange man in your house with you alone, is to use on-body carry with the firearm concealed and in a holster. Pointing a gun at someone not attacking you is morally wrong and illegal, but you know that, of course.

How else would I eliminate the element of surprise if I were attacked? Suspiciousness and fear of people is new to me, and I don’t like it. Living with a gun has not been easy.

If you were carrying concealed on-body, you’d have an element of surprise on your part as well. Learn how to draw and fire from concealment safely and properly. It’s not rocket science here. If you’re suspicious and fearful of people, this is something you really ought to seek help with, as it amounts to an unhealthy phobia.

The urine smell was particularly strong in the grimy, dimly lit downtown parking garage’s stairwell. I was late for a meeting and barely noticed the large man enter behind me. When I got to the second floor I became nervous, and the Oprah episode where a man attacks a woman alone in a situation just like this played in my head. I thought about the 9mm in my purse as I clumsily continued down the stairs in my skirt and heels. He followed me. I looked back at him so he knew I knew he was there (like Oprah’s expert suggested.) I thought: “Should I pull the gun out? Should I point it at him?” I realized the gun wouldn’t do me any good because he was behind me.

I would strongly advise you to not take self-defense advice from Oprah Winfrey. I’m pretty certain she is not a subject matter expert. Also, if anyone came to me an recounted this experience to me I would advise them to immediately stop carrying a firearm in public, and rethink whether they had the emotional and psychological makeup to continue the practice. This isn’t something training can fix. This is an emotional problem that you need psychological counseling to overcome. This is not an issue with carrying the gun.

Already, I’d been to the grocery store, church, the bank (yes, in a bank!), business meetings, restaurants, Starbucks, and even yoga.

Were you planning to rob the bank? If not, then what’s the problem? You’re not a bank robber, are you? Did you even think about robbing the bank?

I played two tennis matches with the gun in my backpack next to the court, and I went to three parties in homes where children played just feet from the pile of guests’ jackets and purses, including mine with the gun inside.

I can’t even begin to tell you how utterly irresponsible this is. You are not the kind of person who should be carrying a firearm in public. This is a situation where the gun is best left in a locked vehicle or at home. Though, I’ve managed to keep a firearm safely concealed while playing tennis, just wearing some shorts and an untucked t-shirt.

The worst part was running into friends as I ran errands. I’m a hugger, and I learned very quickly that hugging is not a good idea when wearing a weapon. I stuck my hip out awkwardly to avoid detection.

This part makes me skeptical she was actually carrying. How do people hug you? I’ve never had this problem, expect when children hug me who can only reach up to my waist (the only time I’ve ever been made is by children, actually). But then again, most new carriers are very awkward, and believe that other people can see or detect the gun when they really can’t.

I couldn’t go into Peet’s Coffee & Tea, and I had to leave the gun in the car when I spoke at a community college about gun violence, which was ironic, because 89 of the 90 crimes reported there last year were car break-ins. About half a million guns are stolen every year, putting them directly into the hands of criminals. I should have just left it at home.

And maybe the solution is not creating situations where people have to leave a gun in their car. In Pennsylvania, because we have so few restrictions on places you can carry, I very rarely find myself in a situation such as this.

I thought the gun would make me feel more powerful, more confident, and less fearful. I was wrong. All I felt was fear. Physically taking the gun out of the safe and putting it in a holster on my hip literally reminded me that I was going out into a big bad scary unsafe world. There were days when I put the gun back in the safe and stayed home because it simply took too much energy to be scared. It was easier to be at home without the worry and responsibility of being “the good guy with the gun.”

You feel frightened because you have emotional issues. It may be that the gun exaccerbates the issue, but you probably assume most of us who carry also feel this way. We do not. You would need professional counseling to get over your phobias if you were really interested in carrying a firearm for personal protection. I would advise counseling if you were actually serious, before continuing with carry for personal protection.

The man in the stairwell probably doesn’t remember walking down those stairs. I will never forget it. The surge of adrenaline and fear made an imprint on my psyche. If I’d confronted him with the gun, would he have fought or fled? Either way, one of us might be dead or seriously injured.

If he had drawn his own gun and shot you dead, he would have been justified in the eyes of the law. If you had shot him, you’d have been indicted for murder. Why? Because you would have been the attacker.

She later went and turned in the gun to an artist who will turn it into a sculpture. This was the smartest thing she did during the whole series, because she is psychologically unfit to carry a firearm. But that was her point, wasn’t it? Because she knows she’s unfit. Her implication, and fallacy, is that you and I are likewise unfit. This is a classic case of projecting your own inadequacies onto others.

One of the fundamental differences between us and the gun control advocates is that we generally trust that ordinary people will, much more often than not, do the right thing. Even Heidi Yewman, as someone who is not generally criminally irresponsible, knows what she’s doing is wrong and irresponsible. She committed those wrongs to make a point. She believes the government needs to step in and restrict everyone. She would put the decision in the hands of a bureaucrat, because she assumes you and I, and most everyone else, are unable to make that call.

It’s clear that concealed carry permit holders, even in states that require no training, are extremely law abiding compared to the general population. Most people do not possess her fear of others. Heidi Yewman is writing a prescription for a disease that doesn’t exist anywhere except her own mind. That’s something she has to personally wrestle with, but in doing so, it would be nice if she left the rest of us out of it.

… they’ll publish a map that puts crosshairs on the districts of “targeted” politicians. And here I thought we were the violent ones.