Is This What Passes for Feminism These Days?

Heidi Yewman courtesy womendonors.org

By Jessi J.

While surfing the internet at work this morning, my husband ran across a blog with a post so… um. ..interesting that he emailed me the link and accompanied it with a note: “Be sure to read this in an open field, so that when your head explodes it won’t make a mess in the house.” I was intrigued. As soon as I had the baby down for a nap, I sat down to read the post, Heidi Yewman’s ‘My Month With a Gun’, which you can find here. I then spent the first half of the baby’s nap writing a retort response, which you can’t find at the address at the link, as, to the surprise of no one, it did not pass the blog’s mediation standards . . .

However, if you’re interested, here it is:

Allow me to be clear and frank, so as to avoid confusion. The author is not a “good guy with a gun” nor will she ever be, until such time as she begins to take her new found responsibility as a gun owner seriously instead of using it as a social experiment in order to further her own political views.

Owning, and worse, carrying a gun about which you have no knowledge is one of the absolute least responsible things an individual can do. Furthermore, all of this about “shaking hands” and “surges of adrenaline” make the author sound like an over dramatic teenager- so perhaps she is just an irresponsible individual and I’ve previously overestimated her… but I digress.

And, for the information of the author and whoever may find her melodrama intriguing, the reason that the handgun purchase was so fast was because she already held her concealed carry permit. That background check and fingerprinting process ran her information through the system of her state’s Bureau of Investigations. Once you have passed the BI check and are “in the system” that same check can be performed much more quickly and easily by simply running your permit number for future firearm purchases. In addition, the author failed to mention the waiting period between the application and background check and the actual awarding of the concealed carry permit. It must have slipped her mind.

How do I know these things? Because I am a legal concealed carry permit holder. I underwent the same application process, though fees in my state are much more steep. Furthermore, several years ago, before obtaining my permit, I purchased a pistol for my husband as a gift (no worries, he’s not a felon, either.) Purchasing that gun took me several hours. As a permit holder, I appreciate the expedited process for obtaining new firearms, as I have now proven that I am responsible with the ones that I own.

Now, I do hate to burst the bubble of the legions of adoring fans of this blogger, but come on. Even the leftest of leftist individuals can see the hilarity of this post. We all get the point. She’s proving how easily firearms can be legally obtained by individuals who have absolutely no business obtaining them.

I’d like to invite you all to look at the facts of the matter. Real facts. How many of the murderers in shooting deaths this century obtained their firearms legally? Careful. I don’t mean “How many of the guns were obtained legally?” I mean “How many of the SHOOTERS, THEMSELVES legally obtained the guns?” If you can even find this information on the internet, I’ll be impressed.

Again, I digress. Supporting this woman’s warped idea of a social experiment is almost as ridiculous as her decision to perform it. Go home. Hug your kid. Remember that this woman actually believed a reputable gun dealer might have sold her a loaded gun. (Omigod, if ONLY firearms came with free ammo! Have you priced 9mm rounds lately?!)

So, the moderator didn’t care for my opinion, again, to no great surprise. However, it did get me thinking — what the hell are we thinking?! Is this really what passes for research these days? Worse, as I read through a few of the comments that were published, I realized that this piece was apparently part of a series that was set to run in The New York Times – a well-known, long running, and once-respected publication. And THIS is what it sells?

The talk of “shaky hands” and “surging adrenaline,” as if the gun is going to magically jump off her hip, load itself (as I’d bet you dollars to donuts this woman is carrying it openly and unloaded,) and fire into a crowd of children is nauseating. I credit women like this one for the prevalent misconception that all women are frivolous and dramatic little creatures who live for buying pretty little things that they don’t need. I cannot understand this mindset. And again, how utterly irresponsible of her as someone with no gun knowledge, no gun experience, and no interest in actually using a gun for self-defense to go and purchase and carry a gun “just to see what it’s like.”

I apologize for rambling and jumping from subject to subject, but honestly, the number of issues that I take with this woman, her ridiculous idea of an experiment, and the number of vapid fans proclaiming their support and talking about how they’d “never have the nerve to do something like that” is so vast that I’m having difficulty narrowing my thoughts. I suppose I’ll start from the beginning.

As I attempted to share in my response to the original post, the idea that this woman is “a good guy with a gun” is about as far from the truth as it can be. Carrying a gun (loaded or unloaded) openly and without any intention of putting it to use in a self-defense situation is just plain ignorant. A gun that a person is willing to carry but not to use is a liability, not a weapon. This is even more true if the gun is being carried openly.

People can sense discomfort in others. If she is actually half as obviously uncomfortable carrying her pistol as she says she is, she’s just painted a giant red bull’s eye on her back. Uncomfortable carrying will make her and anyone else in her situation stand out to those meaning to do her harm, whether physically or otherwise.

A person with a gun he or she is unwilling to use is, in my opinion, at least as big a danger to themselves and those around them as any armed individual can be. What happens if, God forbid, she is actually threatened? Can you imagine the delight in the perpetrator’s eyes when she pulls out the Glock of which she is so afraid, then pulls her ammo (assuming she bought some- remember, she thought it might have been sold to her already loaded) out of her pocket, Barney Fife- style, and starts loading it, while her hands are shaking and her adrenaline is pumping?

Furthermore, the fear with which she speaks of this gun is preposterous. It’s as ludicrous as if I wrote of a fear of purchasing kitchen knives out of concern that one might fall out of the closed drawer and kill me or a member of my family. WHAT?

In closing, please allow me to rant briefly about what women like this one and those who support her are doing for the social perception of American women. It isn’t good. Magazines tailored to women focus on fashion and diets and the next shiny thing we just have to have. News outlets are mesmerized by the name of Kim Kardashian’s baby. And here we have a woman trying (albeit misguidedly) to actually stand up for something she believes in and this is what we get? A weak and weepy woman shaking like a leaf out of fear of an experiment (albeit a stupid one) that she voluntarily undertook? Really?

This is not feminism. This is not a woman standing for what she believes. This is a woman in fear for fear’s sake. Rosie the Riveter is shamed and disappointed. We can do better. I know we can.

84 Responses to Is This What Passes for Feminism These Days?

  1. avatarK. Nguyen says:

    Great read, we certainly need more women like you Jessi J.

    • avatarbuzzy2439 says:

      +1

    • avatarRoscoe says:

      I’m extremely impressed with the quality and passion of the articles written and shared by contributors such as Jessi and the many others recently on these pages.

      Their words speak volumes and clarify why our gun rights should be left intact for the betterment of our society. This kind of sincere impassioned logic needs to be heard by our political representatives both to educate them about their constituents who support gun rights, and about the topic and true politics of the discussion itself. It goes to the heart of the issue that law abiding responsible firearm owners should not only be left alone, but supported in our decision to own and use our guns responsibly, safely and seriously.

  2. avatarGyufygy says:

    A-freaking-men.

  3. avatarLiberty2Alpha says:

    Give this one a prize too!

    Well done, Jessi!

  4. avatarGtfoxy says:

    I posted a response yesterday right when the page failed.

    It went something like this;

    I would first recomend this women for the TTAG “Irresponsible gun Owner of the Day” award as she is carrying a firearm around that she has absolutely no knowledge or understanding of.

    Her ideals are detestabley flawed. Her emotional state based on irrational rationale. Her actions steeped in personal objectivity of a stalwart misconception. Her possition is a loathsome spiral into complete hyper-paranoia. She has no concept of reality due to her completely skewed perspectives. And worst of all she attempts to bring more people into this disturbing emotional and reactionary state.

    What is most telling here is her affiliation with the Brady bunch as it is a true indication of the true mental disorder to which their organization is not only harboring but propagating.

    Her article, if that is what you want to call it, is emotional dribble in writtten form that is abhorrent to the very concepts of the Second Amendment & private firearm ownership to which it was codified to protect.

  5. avatarSkeeter says:

    From the referenced article, and conclusion of social experiment. “The cop thought I was an idiot and suggested I take a class…”. The cop’s comment was the most intelligent contribution to the entire article. I concur.
    The author probably researches her purse and shoe purchases more than she did her gun purchase. The fault is her’s, not the gun dealer.
    I am female, avid shopper, and capable with my very well researched gun purchases. I am embarrassed for the original articles author.
    Her keyboard/”voice” should have a safety engaged before she sprays the unsuspecting public with ignorance disguised as research in the name of public safety. Stop. Think before you speak, and unleash a torrent of ignorance around the children.

    • avatarLeo338 says:

      Great comment Skeeter. What’s really scary is when you read the comments on that article. We all know this lady is an idiot but look at how many people look up to her and support what she is doing.

    • avatarLabman says:

      Her keyboard/”voice” should have a safety engaged before she sprays the unsuspecting public with ignorance disguised as research in the name of public safety.

      +10 Skeeter. If only we could make that a prerequisite for all those trying to “save the world”.

      • avatarMatt Richardson says:

        +10 Skeeter. If only we could make that a prerequisite for all those trying to “save the world”.

        I have an idea, LET’S PUT MORE GUN LAWS ON THE BOOKS! Really ironic that that statement followed…

        Her keyboard/”voice” should have a safety engaged before she sprays the unsuspecting public with ignorance disguised as research in the name of public safety.

        You trackin’?

      • avatarScout says:

        True. My head started to swell from all that dumb the editors let through. As for their call for a law forcing people to know something about guns before buing and carrying them: Do you realy need a law which will make you wipe after no. 2? It’s common sense. I don’t care about anti’s copyright on the phrase.

    • avatarWill says:

      She was determined to do the BARE MINIMUM, and not even a fraction more. So she went and got the gun, purchased on what the legal dealer suggested. KNEW NOTHING about guns are not sold ready-loaded. Was deathly afraid of it. Bravely wore it in public (more than likely unloaded) making herself a target of a bad guy’s stealth tactics (if any). Thinks thoughts of the kiddies at Starbucks getting hurt by it (impossible when not loaded), and remains of the mind that the gun may decide to shoot someone.

      She’s dangerous in that she refuses to do anything more than the bare minimum to own it (and questionably carry it if all she did was buy a permit to get one.) She won’t even take a class on guns (safety, shooting, etc.) or go to the range with it. She’s motivated for all the wrong reasons to have one.

      It seems only certain comments that shows any dissent will make it past their moderators.

  6. avatarJAS says:

    Ok, So you are stupid. You know nothing about guns and still decide to get a permit to carry a deadly weapon around with absolutely no training. Guess what? It’s on you honey! This has nothing to do with the state, or the country for that matter. You are not a responsible person, period. And this is what it is all about – personal responsibility. Does that mean that I’m like you? Hardly.

    Hope she reads this…

    • avatarMatt Richardson says:

      She isn’t.

    • avatarRed Sox says:

      I just hope more of these gun grabbers come forward and we can identify them and publish their names in publications so as to point out the “gun free zone, homes” and the see what their perspective is……

  7. avatarmediocrates says:

    so, the real question then, is how do separate the idiots like this from the citizens of this country that deserve our respect? how do we separate the irresponsible from the responsible? I reckon it to be about the same time we start sterilizing the idiots that should not be pro-creating, but I digress…

    • avatarMatt Richardson says:

      The only appropriate way is to make them social pariahs and guilt them into behaving acceptably. Passing laws, “sterilizing,” etc would either be a violation of someone’s rights or counter to our cause.

    • avatarMister Fleas says:

      No, just call them out on their bull, their illogic, their lies, etc., and then publicly shame them so that the next time they write a column or go on TV, people say “Oh, that crank again!”

  8. avatarChase says:

    What a wonderful read. That was one of the most well executed response articles I’ve read on TTAG.

    Thank you Jessi J.

  9. avatarGlenn Goewert says:

    This was originally published in Ms. magazine. The Internet is full of complaints that NO critical comments were posted on the article. Joe Nocera wrote a column in the N Y Times claiming that the rest of the series was canceled because of thousands of threats on her life by gun nuts! Not only is she silly, ignorant, and ineffectual, she is a bare face liar, and needs to be called on it. I’m betting they canceled it because they realized it was making them look like idiots.

    • avatarRopingdown says:

      I think the post is excellent, but also that your assessment of Ms. Magazine’s pulling the article is probably the truth.

  10. avatarNWGlocker says:

    Posted a comment. Lets see if they deign to allow it.

    • avatarNWGlocker says:

      Nope– rejected. Not surprised. Here’s what I said: “Just because you can, it doesn’t mean you should. And *please* get some training from a qualified firearms instructor. “

  11. avatarJ says:

    Can she try this with an airplane?

    • avatarScout says:

      They are regulated to death. But let her try dirt motorcycle. OMG – the dealer did not have to check if she can ride and sold her this wheeling monster! With gas in the tank!

  12. avatargemalo says:

    Remember the old Superman TV series, when he confronted the bad guy; and let the bullets bounce off his chest? This dingbat reminds me of the bad guys next step,
    he throws the empty gun at Superman. If she was in a Starbucks that was being robbed, I’m positive she would throw her gun rather than pull the trigger.

  13. avatarSteve says:

    I wrote several comments in the original story… each one they refused to allow to be posted.

    Obviously they don’t like being called out on and only accept opinions they agree with to be posted.

    • avatarLabman says:

      That’s ’cause it’s an “agenda”.

      • avatarRoscoe says:

        That’s because liberal extremists are rabidly closed minded and will not tolerate, in fact will shout down, demean and obliterate by whatever means necessary, any opinion or thought that does not support their own. Often this is done by way of ad hominem attacks on the proponent of the opposing views.

        These libs only want to preach; listening and comprehending is not part of their repertoire.

        Unfortunately, we are not immune from that malady amongst a few of our commentors here; but fortunately we have only a very few. The libs have clearly out performed us in the area of intolerance and will continue to do so because it’s in their nature.

        • avatarLeo338 says:

          And these are the type of people some on this site want us to pander to. Did you read that pathetic article titled “A Left-Leaning Reader’s Guide to Winning the Gun Control “Debate” which was posted on here yesterday? That article calls this lady Heidi Yewman a fellow gun owner, and we shouldn’t attack her. To h3ll with these people. I hope TTAG doesn’t plan on taking the advice given in that article.

        • avatarpsmcd says:

          Ain’t it interesting that fundamentalism and cult behavior exhibit in liberalism. What seems a contradiction is actually a window on truth. If you seek to control the choice of others, you become rigid and narrow.

  14. avatarSelousX says:

    Here’s where I come off sounding like a tool. Please indulge me. I’ve had my WA CPL since 1992.
    Unless things have changed since 2011, in Washington state, you wait until your background check clears, or 30 days has elapsed. Only then do you receive your “License to Carry a Concealed Pistol”. It’s not a permit; a license must undergo judicial review before revocation.
    I’m not certain where she gets sense of instantaneity; personally I think she ‘forgot’ that time period as doing so sure sounds scarier.
    I trust most CPL holders that I come in contact with because they demonstrate that sense of gravitas that, in my humble yet deadly accurate opinion, most CPL hosts possess.
    She does herself and the rest of us here in the Evergreen State a disservice to bear arms with no training.

    • avatarSkyMan77 says:

      Thank you SelousX… IMHO you’re no tool but that thing sure is…

    • avatarJeff says:

      But you can take your WA CPL and use it to walk out of any gun store with a pistol the day that you buy it. Otherwise, you have to wait five days for a pistol purchase in WA, or until the purchase is approved by LEO, in which case you can skip the waiting period.

    • avatarSkeeter says:

      Please, please! Don’t confuse the author with concrete facts based in reality. You will distract her from saving the ignorant masses. You’ll deprive her of that warm fuzzy feeling of being superior as she reads her article…. Sandwiched no doubt between an article on “eyebrow shaping for career advancement”, and another for ” weight loss plans to reduce global warming”.
      Apologies, I couldn’t help myself. Anyone who reads those magazines and applies it to their daily life? It’s just sad.

    • avatarRoscoe says:

      @ SelousX

      You used the word scarier and I have a point to make about that word which is not directed at you, but rather at how that word has come to be used in recent years.

      I dislike the word “scary” and all it’s derivatives. In my view it should be avoided by all pro gunners and only quoted. It’s a term young kids use to describe frightening, threatening events that has been largely hijacked by liberal Dems, gun grabbers in particular, to negatively describe anything they want to demonize. Now it’s scary black rifles; next it’ll be scary black pistols.

      I think the way it has become part of the grabber vocabulary is insulting to us all. I personally avoid using it other to quote or sarcastically denigrate the grabbers unjust description of ARs. There are other words I choose to cover the description of fear, freight. “Scary”has become too much of an anti gun term for me to be sucked in to helping perpetuate the myth by using the term.

      That’s my opinion.

      Now back to my beer.

    • avatarHryan says:

      Can’t remember if it was Ace of Spades, Instapundit, or someone else; but basically they pointed out that the referenced information in the article, including the cost of a permit, training requirements, and time-table do not correlate to any one state in the United States, including Washington.

  15. avatarAlphapod says:

    I posted the article on Facebook, along with this comment:

    Alright, so this article reads as basically a list of what NOT to do with a gun. If you own a firearm, please learn the basics of safe firearm operation. If you’re planning on carrying a firearm on your person, please go to a range or a class and learn how to shoot it. Just as importantly, if you’re carrying or plan to carry, research self-defense laws and learn WHEN to shoot it. Firearms are serious business; frankly, this woman shouldn’t have one, as she is completely un-serious about her firearm and a hazard to herself and those around her.

    And, on a side note, if you’re a freakin’ board member of America’s most prominent anti-gun organization, is it too much to ask that you learn how firearms work before you try to ban them?

  16. avatarWolf says:

    …. Just no. She’s exactly the kind of person who shouldn’t have a gun. 10 bucks she won’t take any training to become safer with that weapon, and another 10 it gets stolen from her

    • avatarLeo338 says:

      That was pointed out to her and she stated it’s her goal to do as little as possible. So she is purposely NOT getting any training to show how bad guns are and how anyone can own one. Her words not mine.

  17. avatardarkstar says:

    What’s really scary is the fact she has a kid. She should be blogging about how easy it is to have children. No license, no permit, no parenting class, no background check. And people like her are reproducing.

  18. avatarFred says:

    “I spent some time in the shoes of a woman, literally, to see what it was like, along with a dress and wig with brand name purse on my shoulder. After hours of observation I learned how terrible it is to be a woman. People stare at you, point, and even laugh muttering phrases like ‘look at that beard’, and ‘look a crossdresser’. I now understand the plight of the modern woman.”

    That was a fictitious account to illustrate a point. Putting on a gun makes someone a responsible gun owner as much as putting on a dress and carrying a purse makes someone a woman that understands all the intricacies of living as a woman.

    I’m fairly certain she confused a pistol purchase permit for a concealed carry permit, that would give an answer to the simple question of why not carry concealed. In my state there is a required 10 hour course at $100 with shooting and operation evaluation, a $120 registration fee to the state, a background check, electronic fingerprinting, and a 6-month waiting period due to volume (supposed to take one month), and I have to appear before the gun board to answer qualifying questions and justify my desire to carry concealed.

  19. avatarRopingdown says:

    Heidi Yewman is representative of most young anti-gun people with no experience of guns in normal use, whether for carry or hunting. The lion’s share of their gun notions come from movies. They can’t actually see a real gun, whether in my hand or their holster: For months they just see a concrete representation of a movie gun. They tingle and giggle. They imagine what Samuel L. Jackson could make the thing do, as if what they saw in the movie was real. Time with actual guns at ranges or in the field is one cure, and it’s a slow one. But should they get mugged, home-invaded, car-jacked or raped, suddenly they understand a basic useful gun is not a movie gun. Speed-learning. I’ve seen it happen.

    • avatarLeo338 says:

      If people had any common sense then this article would help us out. She is showing her ignorance of firearms and the laws regarding them to the whole world. Shouldn’t a person like this be the last person on earth to tell us what firearms we should be able to own and what features they can have? Instead she is on the board of the Brady Campaign and probably has more input into new legislation than any of us do.

  20. avatarRalph says:

    Heidi Yewman is proof positive that America, once the smartest nation on Earth, is becoming dumber and dumber and dumber.

    As if we needed more proof.

  21. avatarStarrman0311 says:

    Here’s my response:
    Why does sitting in a Starbuck’s with a gun on your hip make you more fearful than you could have imagined? You can’t be afraid simply because you have a gun on your hip because the gun won’t go off unless you pull the trigger (a Glock has three internal safeties). So let’s not blame the gun. Are you afraid you’re going to shoot the guy behind the counter because he messed up your order, or that you’re going to shoot the kids because they’re making just too much noise? I doubt it because you seem to be a law abiding citizen. And that is why it’s so easy to get a gun, because in America, you have freedoms, and there’s a presumption of innocence. Thus, a citizen should be able to purchase a gun whenever he or she wants unless that person has committed a gun related crime in the past (which is the purpose of the background check). There is no reason why a law abiding citizen should be punished (in the form of stricter gun control laws) because of the unlawful acts of someone else, especially a complete stranger. That would be like limiting the number of drinks a person could have at a bar in order to prevent DUI deaths.
    My suggestion to you is this: Become familiar with your gun. Respect it and learn how to shoot it. When you do, your fears will vanish and you may actually enjoy being a gun owner.

    • avatarWilliam Burke says:

      One more time (how many times do I have to say this?): “progressive” gun-grabbers hate guns BECAUSE THEY OFTEN HAVE FANTASIES OF VIOLENTLY CONTROLLING OTHERS!

      And they figure everyone else is in the same movie with them. Not everyone is in the same movie. In fact, it’s one person, one movie. They fear losing control and causing violent harm to those that oppose them. And they can’t imagine you aren’t in the same movie.

      • avatarDyspeptic Gunsmith says:

        Yep. There’s a whole lot of “projection” going on with liberals and guns.

        • avatarWA_2A says:

          They know they can’t trust themselves with guns, and therefore they think nobody can be trusted with guns (except for the police, of course! [/s])

        • avatarPP9 says:

          There is a whole lot of projection going on with liberals, period, so it certainly is no surprise that they would behave so when it comes to guns. I think it was Ann Coulter (with whom I do not always agree, but I do this time) who said that all you need to do to know what the liberals are doing is to listen to the accusations they make of conservatives.

          Sort of like when Nancy Pelosi spoke of the movement that became known as the Tea Party as “astroturf.” The Democrats are the undisputed masters of astroturfing (just look at any of their spontaneous demonstrations with professionally pre-printed signs).

          There really are too many examples to list in one post. They’re the ones stereotyping and subjugating minorities and women (after all, they base electoral success on being the saviors of all of these poor victims… which means they have a vested interest in making sure there are as many poor victims as possible). It goes on and on.

          Among other things, liberalism (in the modern US sense of the word) is an ideology of immaturity. When a person is still a child, his needs are taken care of by the parents. If he needs food, shelter, or medical care, he expects it to be provided by his parents without cost to him. He’s entitled to it.

          The parents set limits to protect the child from harm, often from his own actions. They keep him from eating ice cream and candy for every meal and doing reckless, stupid things that kids are prone to do.

          Most of us, though, grow up. A liberal never does– he just substitutes the government for his parents. Now it is up to the government to give him what he needs to live and to keep his childish impulses in check. He does not have to grow up and be an adult, not ever.

          They say that a child wants limits to be set, even if he is not aware of it at the time. He tests the boundaries constantly, and when he learns that there is a line beyond which he may not go, he may moan and grouse about having mean parents, but at a deeper level, he is relieved to know that he is being cared for and protected.

          Liberals don’t seem to be able to live without that reassurance throughout their adulthood. They want to be limited– to feel that they are being cared for. They cheer the nanny state and heavy restrictions on guns, since things like large cups of sugary soda (on a regular basis) and guns can be harmful to unsupervised children.

          Everything about their bizarre mentality makes sense when you realize they’re just children in adult bodies. The problem is, though, that they won’t refrain from the very adult activity called voting. We would all be better off if they would hold off on this particular activity until they become true adults, if ever.

  22. avatarSpeleoFool says:

    Wonder if mine will stick. Doubtful, because it’s too rational….

    “The cop thought I was an idiot and suggested I take a class. But up to that point I’d done nothing wrong, nothing illegal.”

    I agree with the cop.

    And what does legality have to do with anything? No, it’s not illegal to be an idiot. Nor do we need laws to punish every possible poor decision. That’s kind of the whole point of “freedom” isn’t it?

    So, the cop suggested a class–are you going to take one? Or at least spend some time on YouTube learning about your new firearm? I can’t imagine many people would be OK with spending a few hundred dollars on any purchase and not take the time to learn how to use whatever it is they purchased.

    Yes, it’s pretty easy to buy a gun. It’s also very easy to learn how they work and how to handle, carry and operate one safely. And if you’re not familiar or comfortable with a gun you plan to purchase, it’s *extremely* easy to ask the person who is selling you that gun to show you how it works. I’ve never heard of a salesman of any product who wasn’t willing to take the time to answer a buyer’s questions before a sale.

    Finally, one of your four rules is “be prepared to use it for protecting myself at home or in public.” If you needed help from a police officer to check your gun for you, there is no way you can call yourself prepared. If you’re “shaking” and “jittery” and uncomfortable with your gun then you’re not prepared. If you’re not familiar with your local laws for defensive gun use, then you’re not prepared. If you haven’t practiced shooting your firearm, then you’re not prepared. Finally, if you haven’t considered and accepted the personal/emotional consequences of shooting another person in self-protection then you’re not prepared.

    If, on the other hand, the point of this experiment is to skip the whole idea of accepting responsibility for the firearm you’re carrying, then I’m not sure you’re proving anything more than the fact that it’s still legal in this country to be irresponsible. In the end, that’s a good thing.

  23. avatarDavis Thompson says:

    I tried to post this. Let’s see if it makes it past the moderator.

    Imagine you are a high school senior writing a term paper on “Mandatory Firearms Training as a Condition for Owning a Firearm.” The substance of your argument is: “I bought a gun, I was scared of it, so we should have mandatory firearms training.” Few would suspect this line of reasoning would earn a passing grade, yet it is exactly the argument Ms. Yewman employs.

    This is a perfect example of an argument is based in emotion (my shaking hands, those poor children) and not in reason, fact, or logic. (Such as the fact that concealed carry laws have been shown, in 18 peer-reviewed studies to cause a statistically significant reduction in violent crime and that this reduction is greatest where access to such permits is easiest.) Sadly, it is exactly the sort argument most used by those who favor expanded gun control.

    Ms. Yewman basic complaints are that it was “too easy” to get a CCW permit, that it didn’t take enough time to buy a gun, and there was no training required to own a gun. (And as an aside, in that same box that her potentially loaded gun sat was the gun’s owners manual, which, when read, would explain exactly how to load, unload, and check the weapon to see if it was loaded. An easier option than finding an off-duty cop, though not as dramatic for a blog entry. )

    Her raising of these issues is irrelevant as she presents no evidence that measures to alleviate those conditions would have a large enough beneficial impact on society to require significantly constraining the rights of those who do wish to own firearms.

    If one were to research the issue, they would learn that not only is there no evidence that universal background checks, mandatory training classes, or waiting periods have a positive effect on the crime rate, they actually have been shown to a slight negative effect.

    Simply put, there is no coherent argument presented here. She has substituted raw emotionalism for logic. Yet, as with many emotional arguments, it seems to be effective for some.

  24. avatarlittle pony says:

    Sadly for Ms. Yewman, her month-long experiment isn’t likely to find any traction, except amongst her own choir. It’s not her bias that will fail her, but the fact that she is trying to do an experiment without giving it a fair shake – she is willfully trying to make a bad go of it and that won’t make a persuasive argument.

    In fact, she is really setting herself up for failure, because the only way that someone would give any weight to this is if she experiences a change of heart. And after a few days of carrying a gun and realizing that nothing bad happens, this is a real risk for her.

  25. avatarGS650G says:

    2 hours at a range and Heidi would be buying an AR, another handgun and a shotgun to boot. All it really takes is some range time, I’ve converted a few antis already, including a pair of Brits who shot every round we brought to the range. They were checking all the boxes for more bullets before we left.

    I like this Super Size Me approach to things. Maybe I’ll spend 30 days in an OWS camp somewhere without shaving or bathing and write a blog about it. I can’t think of anything else these leftists do since it’s mostly about restricting what others can do for them.

  26. avatarScott says:

    Well, Jessi, looks like you just won another gun! A-W-E-S-O-M-E.

    • avatarScout says:

      And that’s exactly why she can’t risk it and actually shoot that darn thing. She knows she might get hooked.

  27. avatarcrndl says:

    +1 well said

  28. avatarjuliesa says:

    Yes, exactly and very well said, sister.

    They were taking comments for awhile and i got in one in reply to this trembling flower, although when I go on to the site, it seems to be still be in moderation weeks
    later :

    “Louise Chanarý says:
    June 12, 2013 at 4:35 pm
    Again (see my comments above): not everyone who buys a gun knows how to use it. There is no check on that whatsoever. Now she can take it to starbucks and shoot kids by accident (or not by accident, whatever she feels like actually, maybe she hs a hell of a day and gets a little crazy).
    And if you all (the other commenters too) say that taking lessons etc is what any responsible gun owner would do anyway, then why not make a mandatory exam part of getting a permit in order to protect those kids?”

    “juliesa says:
    June 16, 2013 at 1:42 pm
    Your comment is awaiting moderation.

    Why do you think women are likely to just go nuts in a Starbucks and start shooting children? Can you supply some incidents of this having happened? Do you think PMS makes us likely to do that? I know you’re a woman, but this seems sexist to me to suggest a woman is so hysterical that she can’t handle the responsibility of carrying a gun.”

    I’m embarrassed that adult women would admit to literally being hysterical, a word they would reject as a sexist epithet if coming from a white male.

    I’m glad for my old school Texas upbringing, in which women were expected to learn to hunt and shoot, drive stock trailers and boats–even airplanes, and play team sports too.

  29. avatarensitue says:

    I completely disagree:
    The New York Times was Never a respected newspaper.

    Feminism is just another leftist front that long ago descended into a tribalist cult of self-imposed victimhood

  30. avatarChaotic Good says:

    Next week she’ll drive drunk to prove how wrong it is to own a car and drink a beer with dinner.

    • avatarFred says:

      Next on the circuit: “My 4 Months with a Baby: An Abortion Experiment”. Out to prove getting pregnant with a stranger and having a late-term abortion is irresponsible and wrong.

      The more I read the more I come to understand their position. It’s actually quite consistent. They’re leftists and in leftist manner they literally want the government to tell you exactly how to live your life. If it’s dumb, irresponsible, or against the owner’s manual list of approved applications it should be illegal in their eyes so the government can fully dictate how we live. It’s not because they’re evil, it’s because they need someone to tell them exactly how to operate because they can’t figure out what to do when they have freedom. There’s a certain amount of uncertainty and some might even abuse their freedom and that’s scary. That’s the punchline, feminist groups that purportedly fight for women’s freedom constantly pine for the elimination of freedom.

  31. avatarJWhite says:

    “Go home. Hug your kid. Remember that this woman actually believed a reputable gun dealer might have sold her a loaded gun. (Omigod, if ONLY firearms came with free ammo! Have you priced 9mm rounds lately?!)”"

    HAHAHAH!!! I Started laughing so hard….

  32. avatarAharon says:

    Feminismm is a religion that preaches the hatred and discrimination of males. Feminismm is the belief in and action to create a Marxistt Female-Supremacistt State.

    Rosie the Riveter quit her WW2 factory job after a few weeks because of the demanding manual labor. Rosie is another false feminist icon.

  33. avatarCharles says:

    Okay folks,

    Do a google search and see who you were trying to argue with:
    http://gunvictimsaction.org/boards-of-directors/heidi-yewman-vancouver-washington/
    She is a card carrying member of a Brady Campaign/VPC board member for the state of Washington.
    Look at the blog again and her only other post on the Ms. Magazine blog or even their FB page and see that she doesn’t admit to being a member of an anti gun group nor being a board member. She is just as unethical and so is Ms. Magazine for not admitting the lapse in judgment.
    She had to quit with the series and Ms. Magazine quit running it because supposedly some nut job put her address up on the blog, which is shenanigans because as most if not all of you have seen the blog is heavily moderated.
    This whole stunt was a pure PR event and some of us bought it hook line and sinker, looking like fools that the anti-gun crowd and the left side of the political aisle want us to look like.
    She has decided to continue the stunt over at the HuffPo:
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/heidi-yewman/getting-the-gun_b_3512606.html

  34. avatarJW says:

    Well said!

  35. avatarJimD says:

    Well done.

  36. avatarSteve979 says:

    My comment:

    Steve979 says:
    June 16, 2013 at 10:38 am ( current as of the time/date for this post)

    Your comment is awaiting moderation.

    Here is where you went wrong:
    ” and carrying, and finally be prepared to use it for protecting myself at home or in public ”
    You have yet to be trained to carry in public and defend yourself.
    1) Get certified via NRA for pistol.
    2) Attend a course like this: http://massadayoobgroup.com/?page_id=7

  37. avatarDaveL says:

    Did anyone catch this?

    when I got home and opened the box and saw the magazine in the gun I freaked. I was too scared to try and eject it as thoughts flooded my mind of me accidentally shooting the gun and a bullet hitting my son in the house or rupturing the gas tank of my car, followed by an earth-shaking explosion.

    I guess she doesn’t know how gas tanks work either.

    • avatarstitch1870 says:

      Or maybe she’d like a paid for gun without a magazine, or perhaps next time she buys a car she wants to buy one without a trans or motor.

    • avatarWill says:

      Guess not.

      Putting a hole in a gas tank and having it blow up is slightly more likely to occur than rolling the car or driving it over a cliff and having it explode when it’s done with its acrobatics. In Hollywood, it happens all the time. In real life, not so much. Then again… Hollywood has shown helicopters and planes get hit with bullets and all they did was run out of gas much faster than normal, no explosions.

  38. avatarEric_in_NOLA says:

    Robert’s buddy Nocera at the NYT talked about how the NRA bullied Ms mag into stopping the series by flooding the blog with pro 2A comments. Nocera essentially call Ms mag’s blog staff a bunch of wimp who folded when people disagreed with what was posted. http://nocera.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/06/21/the-gun-report-june-21-2013/?_r=2

  39. avatarMike says:

    Here is my comment to the blog post. Doubt it will get through, but I tried.

    Actually, you have your facts wrong. The Newtown shooter was NOT a ‘responsible gun owner’. As a 20-year old young man he was not of legal age to own a handgun. In fact, he did not own the weapons that were used in the horrendous events that unfolded that day. The weapons were purchased by his mother, who he subsequently murdered and STOLE her firearms.

    The link provided is a summary of Connecticut gun laws provided for you to review if you’d like.

    Here is the thing about the inalienable rights that we have as U.S. citizens the come with an equal amount of implied responsibility. This responsibility is inherent in the social contract that allows our nation to function on a daily basis.

    What I think this experiment has proved, primarily though the comments, is that the majority of firearm owners view their right with corresponding responsibility that comes with it. Are there some that will purchase a firearm without appropriate knowledge or logic to be safe. YES! But does that fact really introduce the need for infringement on the rights of others? NO!

    The author is welcome to contact me and I will be happy to help review weapons familiarization facts and the 4 rules of gun safety. You see, most of us that responsibly own firearms enjoy teaching and sharing our sport with others.

    My final question, if the author had been previously threatened by a stalker would she be happy if it took her months to obtain the proper paperwork in order to procure a handgun like some states require? I doubt it. It is this group of people that I empathize with and pray the system does not fail them. They have a legitimate, immediate need for protection and their right is infringed on to the point that the encumbrance becomes a second route to victimization in their journey to protection.

  40. avatarstitch1870 says:

    My reply to said article, I don’t think mine will be posted either.
    I honestly don’t know where to start with what’s wrong with this article so I’ll hit points that stuck out to me. The salesman is just that, a seller, he’s not your instructor or trainer or babysitter. If you are buying a gun it is your responsibility to learn its parts, strengths, weaknesses, and order of operations; and for pete’s sake there’s a damn instruction book on all the basics of the freaking product you just paid for IN THE BOX. “only do what is minimally required ” is your problem right there in a nutshell as a majority of the people who use firearms at least know how to operate the dang thing without having a meltdown about it. “The cop thought I was an idiot and suggested I take a class. But up to that point I’d done nothing wrong, nothing illegal.” no, you’ve done nothing wrong other than purchase something you know nothing about and have no intention of actually learning anything about it, so maybe the cop was right. “Today, they have a woman with absolutely no firearms training and a Glock on her hip sitting within arm’s reach of small children, her hands shaking and adrenaline surging.” and who’s fault would it be if that child grabbed it? Certainly not yours right? I mean, you’ve accepted possession of said firearm so now for whatever happens you are responsible for it so if that child manages to grab your pistol and you delay reaction long enough for him to hurt someone it is YOUR responsibility since you obviously couldn’t or wouldn’t take the proper steps for weapon retention and that blood will be on your hands, not Glock’s. So if you cannot accept the consequences of those actions then you are not a responsible gun owner and thus cannot make a truthful article about appearing to be one. But accepting responsibility is just a silly outdated idea isn’t it.

  41. avatarIdahoPete says:

    “The cop thought I was an idiot and suggested I take a class.” – Heidi Yewman

    The cop was right. She is an idiot, and she is enough of an idiot that a class won’t help.

  42. avatarPavePusher says:

    Ms. Yewman’s journey can now be followed at Huff’n'Puff: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/heidi-yewman/getting-the-gun_b_3512606.html

    It’s a bit easier to get comments posted there than it was at Ms. Magazine. Some good ones in place already.

  43. avatarstitch1870 says:

    Well who’d of thought, my post on that hack of an “article” weren’t approved. Surprise surprise.

  44. avatarjoe says:

    i read the article and feel like i’ve become stupidier, i read the comments and realize it was written for stupid people. which made it make a little more sense lol

  45. avatarJoanne says:

    Excuse me. The fact of the matter is, nobody except active and retired police have the authority to own weapons. You should not own a gun and she should not own a gun. She was illustrating the fact that someone who knows absolutely nothing about firearms can obtain a tool capable of taking the lives of innocents. The gun problem in the US is so bad, that many have asked the UN to intervene because it has become a human rights violation. The author of the original article was demonstrating the point that nobody except trained LEOs deserve this privileged. In my town, police all carry ar-15s in their car and are armed to the teeth and we have never had any firearm incident with them. The fact is, the public cannot be trusted to own them. What do you think you’re doing? You’re supporting the right for an emoty-headed person like yourself to have access to a tool of death. Well guess what, not for long. You have no “right” to own a gun. There are no state militias in this day and age. If you want to own one then get out of our country.

Leave a Reply

Please use your real name instead of you company name or keyword spam.