“You don’t understand guns, and you don’t know gun guys, yet you want to make rules for things you don’t understand for people you don’t know. And that is not how we’re going to end up safer. Where gun guys draw the line is having you make consumer decisions for them. Because what you’re saying, Joe — you, on the Upper West Side of Manhattan — you want to say to some guy in Kansas, ‘You can have this rifle. But you can’t have that one.’ And they’re saying, ‘What does Joe Nocera know about guns? What does Joe Nocera know about me?’ It is offensive.” – Dan Baum in What Gun Lovers Think [via nytimes.com]

55 Responses to Quote of the Day: Speaking Truth to Ignorance Edition

  1. “Where gun guys draw the line is having you make consumer decisions for them.”

    He mispronounced “security decisions”.

      • What ever is said in the media needs to be palatable to the antis.

        “OMG your infringing on my god-given constitution granted right to have a gun.” Might be closer to the truth, unfortunately it does make us look…odd.

    • Dan Baum is a veiled gun grabbing fascist, akin to a political botfly. I have yet to see someone who is not a commenter on this site present a reason for acting otherwise. So he’s better at saying he likes guns in proper technical terms. Familiarity does not mean he is an ally.

        • Thank you. Check out this video of him on youtube wherein he talks about the need to keep your firearms “secured” and he opens his gun locker for the camera (?!?!) and worse yet you can see the door wobbling in the camera light, so thin you could probably cut it open like a can with a brush knife. Then he goes on to drop the usual insulting lie that most gun owners support universal registration. It’s just flagrant, and insulting, I dunno why anyone pretends at this point.

          http://youtu.be/IX75CHkCJhk

          He talks about his book some, which is full of some of the most condescending pedantry I have ever had the displeasure of reading.

  2. If I remember right, this was someone Dan interviewed, not Dan’s words himself. Maybe in the next week I’ll re-read his book and write a review – I must say, I was rather appalled at the constant condescension towards gun owners that was inserted into every single chapter.

    • Totenglocke,
      So true. Can you imagine these two enlightened solons speaking likewise about any of the popular special interest groups? They’d be instant pariahs, Oprah fodder.

  3. I read the NY times article in the link. Dan Baum is no gun guy. He is all for all of the “common sense” infringements. It’s ignorance speaking to deeper ignorance.

  4. In the article Dan said, “The N.R.A. is a hideous organization. Every day I get e-mails from people who say, “I’m a gun guy, and I can’t stand the N.R.A.”

    Dan, if you read this, would you please articulate what those gun guys and you “can’t stand about the N.R.A.”

    • I’ll tell you what this gun guy can’t stand about the NRA – the fact that they’ve sold us out in the past and that they’ve become shills for the Republican party, going so far as to flat out LIE about Romney’s record during the last election. The Romney worship and lying to make him appear pro-gun when he is very anti-gun is what caused me to end my NRA membership.

    • honestly, i dont think that the NRA gets better until we have some more SCOTUS rulings under the belt.

      The NRA in its current form exists because groups like the Violence Policy Center and the Brady Campaign exist (whose goals are to ban handguns, and have for 40+ years). Yin and Yang. Both extremes are equally bad.

      Groups like the VPC and Vinny DeMarco will go right up to the line an cross it. And they are more than willing to twist, stretch, or make things up to do it. Its is phenomenally irritating and intellectually dishonest to include suicides in “gun violence” statistics as if background checks and straw purchase penalties somehow address that. Or a gun registry. These guys have a playbook, and part of the playbook says “we are not coming for your guns and the NRA is crazy.” Well, in point of fact the VPC and the brady campaign (formerly handgun control inc) are coming for guns.

      And the NRA exists in its current form to beat them down.

    • The problem is many people don’t take the NRA for what it is and they have an image in their minds of what THEY think it should look like.

      The NRA is our 800-pound gorilla inside the Beltway and just about the only pro-2A organization with enough clout to bark in the ears of politicians in DC. People would like to see the NRA focus more on outreach and becoming an ambassador, but they fail to realize that at this point in time the NRA is most helpful functioning as a PAC getting pro-2A candidates elected and giving the boot to gun grabbers. If it weren’t for the NRA, I fear we’d have more Democrats (and some R’s too) willing to strip away gun rights in order to align with party lines, yet these politicians know the NRA would rip them apart in their home districts and they wouldn’t have a snowball’s chance in hell at re-election.

      Let the outreach be conducted by the smaller 2nd Amendment groups and us as individuals, and the NRA can focus on twisting gun grabber panties in DC.

      • The NRA may be the 800 pound gorilla at lobbying, but the wine club, discounts at random hotels, and other various endorsements and gimmicks are stupid and a waste of resources.

    • Because the NRA is the largest gun control organization in the US. “Enforce the current laws” is gun control. “Repeal the current laws” is the only option for “Shall not be infringed”.

  5. Yes they want the gun guys to sit in the back of the bus…, No LIBERTY does not take a back seat . our RIGHTS are GOD given…. EAT THAT anti. !!!

  6. “We have turned this society upside down because 3,000 people died on 9/11. In the scheme of things, that number is also statistically insignificant. Yet we take extraordinary measures, limiting people’s personal freedoms, to prevent another act of terrorism on our soil. ”

    And you use this as an example of a good thing?!

    “JOE: Why do gun owners get to have this level of “respect” that no other segment of society has? I could say, “I’m a responsible driver. Why does the government get to tell me that I have to wear a seat belt?” ”

    That’s a very good question. Seatbelt laws for people over 18 are stupid. (I personally always wear mine even when I’m driving for less than a minute.)

    • Funny that some other guy named Anonymous deconstructed the same points I was going to — especially the post 9/11 security theater. I guess anonymous minds think alike. I will, however, add that

      > “JOE: Why do gun owners get to have this level of
      > “respect” that no other segment of society has?

      Every liberal special interest group is treated with far more respect by the mainstream media, legislators, and courts than gun owners are.

      Can you imagine if gays, blacks, women, illegal Mexicans, etc. were villified the way that gun owners are? Nocera, Baum, etc. would have a conniption.

      There has been an incredible double-standard at work for decades. And gun owners are well aware of the Left’s “politically correct” hypocrisy. Or what Dan Baum called a “permitted prejudice” when I saw him speak at the Boulder Book Store a few weeks ago.

      As Glenn Reynolds once wrote:

      I have no problem with unenumerated rights. I do, however, find it odd that they so often seem to receive more judicial (and interest-group) solicitude than do rights explicitly enumerated in constitutions.

    • For example, the Gun Control Industrial Complex cites a low and decreasing number of gun owners (to around 45 million), compared to Gallup’s 70 million – 80 million, or even the 100 million number cited by Dan Baum when I saw him speak a few weeks ago.

      They do this becuase they believe that if they tell people there’s fewer gun owners, it makes it easy to infringe on our rights.

      Contrast with the number of of gays — about 15 million (less than 5% of the population *). Yet gay rights is one of the most pressing issues for liberals. Note that I’m not making a value judgment about gay rights issues, just an observation.

      Likewise, less than 1% of the population will require an abortion in any given year. But any restrictions on abortion — even a prohibition on taking minor girls across state lines to get an abortion without notifying her parents — is viewed by liberals as “endangering” teenage girls.

      According to Leftist Logic 101, it’s OK to infringe on the rights of gun owners, because there’s “only” 45 million of us, but 15 million gays is such a large segment of the population that attention and resources must be focused on their issues.

      * Like the number of gun owners, it’s difficult to determine the number of gays, due to possible underreporting. It’s an argument the Left accepts for gays, but not for gun owners.

  7. Wow… Dan does NOT speak for me, or any of the gun guys I know… Universal background checks is by definition universal registration, or how else will they know when I sold that gun? And his definition of holding gun guys responsible for other people’s actions is retarded… So if someone breaks into my car, hot wires it and drives it into a crowd I should be thrown into prison?

    • +100

      Everything he espouses is already in the books. Background checks are already the law of the land. Leaving your loaded gun unattended at a home with children is already a crime……

  8. I’ll respond to DonWorsham, as I relate to Dan Baum’s opinion of the NRA. I wouldn’t go so far as to say they are a hideous organization though, but I certainly don’t feel that they consistently represent me on this topic.

    My trouble with NRA is that they are so geared toward the defense on the topic of guns and 2A that they consistently miss opportunities to take the lead on enacting real change to prevent/reduce gun violence in such a way that the sweet spot of gun owners can support. I have yet to hear them even acknowledge that we have a gun violence problem in the US, and provide suggestions on ways that responsible gun owners can contribute to solving the problem while at the same time respect and maintain 2A rights.

    For example, I firmly agree that if you describe yourself as a responsible, law-abiding gun owner that you also recognize your responsibility to keep your guns locked up safely and out of the reach of thieves and children. Dan uses a couple of good examples to this point (i.e. gun in the glove box or in a place where kids can easily get to them). And this is a topic that is very relevant to the Sandy Hook shooting, that these guns were so easily accessible by the shooter, who had evil in his heart, no laws capable of preventing his action. But somehow he still was able to gain access to these guns and kill the one person that might have had a chance to prevent the shooting – his own mother.

    So why can’t the NRA come out as a leading voice on gun rights to say that they are implementing a program to add a 5th rule to the existing 4 Basic Rules of Gun Safety – Store Your Guns in a Safe?

    This is just but one example from a dude that doesn’t do this for a living. I’m sure there are many other issues and topics in the same vein that any gun owner with a desire to reduce gun violence would get behind. More importantly, doesn’t target the rights of individuals to own weapons of their own choice.

    Because here is the problem that many don’t recognize, gun owners are part of society too. But because of the NRA’s absolutist stance on so many things, as well as their heavy association to the conservative political movement, they only help to continue to marginalize gun owners from society. My fear is that the wants and desires of a the Joe Nocera’s of the world will continue to gain more popular traction, and you’ll see a movement to repeal the 2nd Ammendment. To answer the question of a previous post which was “What’s Next?”, I think the gun-grabbers will start to realize that as long as the NRA has the 2A to hide behind that no real improvements to reducing gun crimes will ever occur.

    I’m a responsibile gun owner, and I respect the 2A and what it stands for. But I also take responsibility to make sure my guns don’t end up in the wrong hands. Which is why every gun in my house is stored in a safe.

    • Wait till they want to inspect your safe Tim, just to be sure it’s(stay with me now) safe. When they inspected the UK safes they took a pad of paper with them & it wasn’t so they could contact lottery winners, Randy

      • You just made my point, why does there need to be a law before something is considered a good idea? Seat belt laws don’t affect me, wearing a seat belt is the responsible thing to do but it’s an abomination of the constitution that the government can require people to wear seat belts. But make no mistake, I wear a seat belt b/c I don’t want to die, not b/c the government told me to. In terms of being a “good idea”Gun safes should be no different. If we greatly reduce the risks on our own, and the instances of stolen guns and guns in the hands of curious children greatly decline, so should the perceived need for a law.

        • My child has 3 firearms she keeps in her room. She is trained in gun safety and knows not to point them at anyone she is not wanting to kill. Sounds like the problem is with YOUR kids.

    • The absolutism comes from the fact that if we give an inch, they then want 6ft. How much are you willing to give up? Where is the line drawn? At some point, you must make a stand.

      The abomination that was just passed in CT we are told on this Sunday’s local news, is not enough. The anti-gun crowd wants round 2.

      There can be no compromise when only one side compromises. The President going to CT to speak will just add fuel to the fire and we are the fuel. It does not mean sh!t that you are a responsible gun owner, look at the laws, it is not about responsibility or saving lives, it is about control and ultimately banning — slowly and methodically they are taking your rights.

      As good gun owners, many if not most have already have safe and practice the necessary safe gun handling that is necessary. There is never a 100% solution so dumb mistakes will always be made.

      My only issue with the NRA is that they are not inclusive enough. They are still an OFWG organization, they have not changed with the times and the demographic shifts. They should have gun safety classes in Spanish and other languages. While they have gun specific workshops for Women, they are not widely advertised or promoted. Gun owners are a diverse group.

      However, having been screwed more ways than I can count in CT, I do not believe in bending because the anti-gun crowd just sees this as willful weakness and then simply wants more until there is no 2a. The chants to abolish the 2a is not by mistake, this will be their new song if we let them.

      I am unimpressed by Dan Baum, he does not speak for me. All I have read is that he is willing to compromise, I have yet to see him fight for our rights.

    • Tim,
      Why are gun owners the only ones charged with being immune to thieves and other miscreants? Why are gun owners criminally culpable for someone else’s crime?
      It’s a gun grab, dude.
      Since you cannot absolutely guarantee your possessions (any of them) won’t be stolen, demanding that gun owners secure that guarantee makes it impossible to fully comply with the law.
      With such a restriction, a potential gun owner on the fence, now has to think about a safe. How safe must the safe be? How expensive will it be to assure that my $400 plinker remains safely guarded by snarling pitbulls, laser equipped sharks and heavily armed (duh) mercenaries 24/7. Because if you don’t take drastic (expensive) enough steps to secure your property and someone commits a crime by taking your property, you are responsible for any crime committed thereafter with your stolen property. This isn’t a gun grab? This isn’t cruel and unusual punishment?
      Tim, we all want to be responsible gun owners, and car drivers, and moms and dads and citizens — except for those who don’t. But in the case of the gun owners, when someone acts irresponsibly, or worse, it is the law-abiding owner who shoulders the responsibility.
      Nancy Lanza paid for her irresponsibility with her life. Why should you or anyone else continue to pay? Especially since it’s gun owners who are least responsible. We offer the one potentially viable solution to the Nancy and Adam Lanzas of the world. (I think. Correction welcomed.)
      I submit that the people who would have you bury your gun deep beneath the surface of the earth and live every second a paranoid wreck are the same people who clutch their pearls and swoon at the very thought of doing the one thing that might have saved “just one child’s life” — putting you or another responsible (which includes trained) gun owner on the grounds of Sandy Hook. Go there, and then, and only then, can we begin to talk about “reasonable” steps to reducing the results of violence by those who choose guns — or any other instrument — to pursue their horrid deeds.

    • The NRA does espouse storing guns properly, but not as strongly as they could. I also did not renew my membership last year because the NRA reflexively shills for a Republican that holds many positions that I do not support. While I like their 2A stance, I’m not a single issue voter.

      In regards to safe storage, I whole heatedly support it and store my firearms in a safe. However, I do not support mandatory safe storage laws. Enforcing them would require grotesque violations of privacy rights (home inspections) and I think parents whose kids or visiting children shot themselves accidentally because they foolishly left loaded firearms accessible to kids have been punished enough already for their lack of foresight.

  9. > JOE: Forget about banning. What if the law said,
    > “Your gun must be locked up at home. If it’s not,
    > we’ll prosecute you.”
    >
    > DAN: I’m with you.

    Liberals: Wanting to legislate what we do in our bedroom.

    • It’s along the lines of your being in no way held accountable should your car be stolen and used to attack a crowd – unless you left the keys in the ignition.

      Yes, it’s ones right to leave keys in an ignition, but it’s irresponsible to do so. It’s also my right to never clean a rifle and to use ridiculously hot loads, but if I hand such a grenade to a range buddy, I’m liable.

      He’s not suggesting a safe law with inspections, but rather a safe law in which if your “arsenal” goes walkabout a safe better’ve been peeled.

      No safe? Then don’t report the theft, receive no compensation from your underwriter and don’t get the guns back should they be recovered.

      Seems reasonable. The right is to keep and bear arms, not to leave them lying about.

      • If my weapon is inside my house, it is not “lying about” . And if some one steals my car, no matter where my keys are, they usually stay in the car, all fault is with the person who stole my car. PERIOD.

        When you make my house payment or car payment you can tell me how to store my property, until then FOAD.

  10. Most of the meat in the Nocera-Baum debate will be picked off by everyone else, but there was a comment that seemed out of place for the NYT:

    LarryFresno, California
    When I read this discussion between Dan and Joe, it seems like they inhabit a different planet from my own.

    I’m now in my 60’s. When I was a young boy I was taught firearm safety. I had a .22 rifle hanging on the wall in my bedroom when I was in 6th grade. So did many of my friends. We respected firearms and were careful with them.

    All of my acquaintances at work have advanced degrees, and all have firearms at home. Some have several. Some have more than several. Many of us are members of the NRA. We had our children learn the Eddie Eagle jingle: “Stop. Don’t touch. Leave the area. Tell an adult.” (What to do if one finds a gun.)

    We do not think of ourselves as “gun guys.” We think of ourselves as ordinary Americans. We think of gun control advocates as kooks.

    And we want you to leave us alone.

  11. > JOE: I don’t know. Here’s what I would like to see, though.
    > I would like to see a cultural change, like the cultural shift
    > that took place with drunken driving, where a behavior that
    > was once acceptable becomes unacceptable. I would like to
    > see a cultural protocol, for instance, that would make it O.K.
    > for parents to ask other parents if there is a loaded gun in the
    > house prior to allowing a play date.

    Should parents ask if there’s a gay male in a household prior to allowing a playdate?

    Because some parents have an irrational fear of gays, and believe (rightly or wrongly) that gay men are more likely to be pedophiles. Should those fears (whether they are rational or irrational) be accomodated?

    The logic of gun control justifies some of the most vile bigotry imagineable.

    • Not necessarily should, but may.

      Is there a loaded gun on the ‘phone table Blythe front door (because my kid doesn’t know sh!t about guns and is too damned touchy with new things)?

      Is therea gay guy (ecause I’m a fundamentalist Christian and I don’t want him to meet any of those)?

      Is there a television with no parental controls?

      The list is endless, but it’s may ask, not should.

      To see keeping a loaded firearm equated to drunken driving or forcing kids to endure a house full of tobacco smog is offensive in the extreme.

  12. > DAN: Perhaps they should be. But let me ask you this. Do you
    > favor having a course in school for children, “What to do if you
    > find a gun?” To educate children on how to handle a gun —
    > would you favor that? Because most liberal parents would not.
    >
    > JOE: I don’t know. Here’s what I would like to see, though. I would
    > like to see a cultural change…where a behavior that was once acceptable
    > becomes unacceptable.

    Translation:
    JOE: I want to take the “abstinence only” approach to gun safety.

  13. Reading this Dan “The Nanny” Baum – Joe “The Dick” Nocera drivel is like listening to two jerks deciding on how to dock a Doberman Pinscher’s tail. Nocera says “cut it all off at once.” Baum says, “no, that would be cruel. Cut off one inch at a time.” But neither one of them says, “the tail is just fine the way it is. Leave it alone.”

    A plague on both their houses. Which is a polite way of saying f^ck ’em both.

  14. Robert Farago could learn a lot from Dan Baum about being respectful to non-gun owners and sounding more like a reasonable citizen and less like a radicalized extremist. This is coming from an avid gun guy and daily reader of TTAG.

  15. I find worrying about Dan not being “one of us” to be misplaced. Lots of people out there are not “one of us” anyway, and he is not a polar opposite either. On the other hand, if it is humanly possible to make Joe Nocera question any of his assumptions, Dan is the right man for the job.

  16. Dan seems to be and anti-gun guy making an attempt to understand gun guys and I’ll give him credit for that at least. But on the subject of safe storage he really needs to google “Merced Pitchfork Murders”.

    • The impression I get is that Dan is against an AWB and magazine size restrictions. And he gets concealed carry. That wouldn’t be your typical “anti-gun” positions.

      Where I think he has some sort of blinders on is in his visceral dislike of the NRA. The question I would pose is what sort of gun laws would we have had by now were it not for the NRA lobbying efforts over the years. One may yearn for the NRA to project a milder image, but can one really be mild and genteel and yet succeed in fighting off all the bad gun laws that have been pushed over the years, with no end in sight? Maybe one can do better, but probably only to a point.

  17. More Hero Worship. The left just doesn’t get it. I don’t make my decisions based on what some revered public figure tells me. I might revere certain public figures, but I do so because I agree with what they’re saying and/or doing. Joes lack of experience with firearms or lack of comprehension of my ideals is completely irrelevant. If he said anything even remotely logical, I’d listen.

    If *All rise* John Moses Browning *Be seated*, David Codrea, and Alan Gura all told me I couldn’t have an AR, I’d tell ’em all to eat a d!ck.

  18. Why is this Gun Guys meme still being pushed; because the antis are still acting like Lawless Communists? To push book sales?
    The Radical Left is not going to purchase, or read this book but they will blog endlessly about it in an attempt to poison the minds of the non-committed as a means of furthering their agenda, just like Obama. The fly in the oinkment here is that there are very, very few non-committed people left, a few slackers, hipsters and nerds they will not buy or read the book either. The armed intelligentsia need not read it as it is a redundant tomb for them. For actual Gun Guys reading this book would be like Charlie (GRHS) reading Travels With Charlie.
    So why the Big Push?

  19. I love how they closed the comments section of the article.
    That being said I wanted to say you don’t have a constitutionally protected right to have a car, or a swimming pool. Both kill more children every year than any gun does.

    By all means if you think you have the votes repeal the 2nd amendment, go ahead.

    You see since we are fighting for our rights to make our own decisions which are protected as a right, then the civilian disarmament crowd just can’t handle it. Yes there are laws against drunk driving but many still do it, so public perception is a false one. People hate smoking, but thousands still do it. Murder by any means is illegal but people still do it. Drugs are illegal but millions still do it.

    You see none of those fall under the constitution, but it is just about saving just one life right? Then why don’t we take away everyone’s cell phones so you don’t text and drive, maybe fill in all the pools in the world, mandate no car go over 30 miles an hour.

    We have heard the civilian disarmament crowd loud and clear, they are looking to take away all guns piece by piece. They are using the powers of commerce clause, and anything else they can think of to take them away, but a disarmed populous will simply turn into a Mexico or UK. It is certainly not difficult to understand, and we have video proof that this is their ultimate end game.

    This is why we will have no more compromise.

  20. I find comparing and contrasting the comments about Dan Baum between here and the NY times’ comments sections interesting. Dan has one thing in common he is vilified by pro-gun and anti-gun people at the same time. He’s a long haired flag burning anti-american hippie gun grabber here and a baby killing gun fanatic on NY times.

  21. why is it that whenever you have a guy like Dan Baum who is part of the way there, instead of trying to convince them to come the rest of the way, I see people respond with intense vitriol? I don’t think the 2A crowd is going to do much good if we scare everyone off who we don’t consider “ideologically pure”.

  22. I went to the NYT link, and I’ve read the interview and it’s curious how Dan Baum fails to mention the Constitution or the 2nd amendment as a defense against this NYT Joe Q. Know-Less-Than-nothing. Joe has been citified. He’s hive. He doesn’t get it, and worse, he doesn’t want to get it. Dan has approached the gun issue as either a point of some cultural misunderstanding, or a lack of responsibility by gun owners. This is called muddying the waters. His only job is to Divert the conversation away from the Constitutional protections of the 2nd amendment, and change the topic to a more pedestrian discussion of securing guns and more “gun guy” responsibility.
    Dan isn’t a gun guy, and he isn’t here to represent gun guys, not honestly anyway. He’s a sheep in wolfs clothing. “Hey, I’m one of you guys, help me explain it to the anti-gun guys who don’t know you.” Duh, that’s why we have a Constitution. It’s so you don’t have to know someone, or why he wants to own an AR with a 30 round magazine, because it’s his right to have them if he wants them, not because some legislator wants to amend the Constitution through legislative action. That’s not how the Constitution is amended. No, Dan is no supporter of the Constitution or the 2A, and he’s definitely not our friend.

  23. Unfortunately, every man made agreement is vulnerable and subject to change in history.

    In order to avoid undesired changes making efforts is necessary.
    Unity is strength!

  24. This quote was hilarious to me: “If you get licensed to carry a handgun, you can carry it anywhere. But you have to be trained at least as well as a police officer.” The ammo shortage has severely restricted my range time, but when it was available, I shot more than an NYPD precinct. Which isn’t saying much, I know.

    That statement cost Dan a lot of credibility in my book. Anyone who thinks of cops as some sort of benchmark for gun proficiency is not serious about guns.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *