The Wall Street Journal features a piece in its weekend edition entitled “Why Our Gun Debate is Off Target.” It may eventually become available only to subscribers, but as of Saturday morning, anyone can access it. The piece is penned by former TTAG contributor Dan Baum, who is in his own words “a lifelong gun guy who is also a lifelong liberal Democrat.” Now, there are a lot of folks who think that sort of person doesn’t exist, but they do. Not everyone who owns a gun is a Republican. One example I can point to is the Yankee Marshall, whose videos are featured periodically on this site is a self-described liberal. So, let’s get past that first hurdle and accept that there are people who buy into much of the liberal agenda, but who also treasure the RKBA . . .
Baum’s article is worthy of note for two reasons. The first is that his general thrust is that the current approach to more gun regulation is a non-starter. There are just too many people who own guns who also value the RKBA for sweeping new gun laws to work. Besides that, even if the vast majority of Americans wanted strong gun control, the Constitution was specifically set up to prevent the tyranny of the majority from impacting the minority. Whether civilian disarmers like it or not, the 2A is here to stay (that sounds like a great chant for the next gun rally on the steps of some state capital – but I digress).
Setting aside some rather foolish things the author has sprinkled throughout the piece ( he says he’d “flash” his concealed carry gun to let other gun guys know he’s part of the fraternity), his point is that the gun violence situation in this country can be addressed not through new laws, but rather through the increased responsibility of gun owners. Much of the gun violence in this country is related to guns that were at one time legally purchased, but through carelessness were allowed to fall into the wrong hands.
Baum argues that if gun owners started to apply peer pressure to their friends to get them to change poor gun management behavior, we could reduce a lot of the gun violence in this country. Furthermore, by properly securing our guns when they’re not on our person, we could reduce (not eliminate – but certainly reduce) the number of guns that get into criminal hands through theft. He cites a couple of examples of organizations that are attempting to either call dumbasses out for doing dumb things or elevate the level of firearms training. In fact, he specifically mentions our esteemed publisher and website by name, citing the Irresponsible Gun Owner of the Day feature.
I think that many of us can agree that we know at least one gun owner whose gun security standards are less than stellar. One of my wife’s friends has a husband who keeps a loaded gun in his nightstand – and he has two kids under eight in the house. As a result, my kids don’t play at their house without either my wife or myself being there. On the other hand, we also know a lot more people who take security very seriously and their guns are less likely to fall into the wrong hands.
The main point Baum’s trying to make is that if we, as gun owners, take our responsibility for safe handling a gun to the next level, we as a community could do more to dramatically reduce the number of firearm-related deaths and injuries than a whole boatload of new laws and jackbooted government thugs could ever hope to accomplish. In a few years, we really could reduce incidences of gun violence to those perpetrated by real criminals. And hopefully by reducing the flow of easily stolen firearms, could even have an impact on bad guys committing crimes with guns.
Baum notes that the vast majority of gun owners are responsible and careful with their guns, but it only takes relatively few idiots to screw things up for everyone. Newtown would likely either not have happened or would have had a much different outcome had Lanza’s mother secured her guns in a safe rather than in a downstairs closet. Some of the other “mass shootings,” which are really the only thing that gets the public riled up in a major way, could have been prevented — or at the very least reduced the body count — had guns been better secured.
In the end, Baum is not trying to attack gun owners. The overwhelming message of the piece is that the constant push for gun control isn’t only wrong-headed, but ultimately ineffective. While he may vote on the wrong side of the aisle on other issues, Baum, like many other Democrats and liberals, understands that legislation will not prevent gun violence. Instead, it will produce unintended consequences as law abiding people will no longer be able to defend themselves.
Another point of interest about Baum’s article is the reaction of the people who commented. I read a sample of them and many of them were very angry and took Baum to task for some of his points and examples. It makes me wonder how many of these people ever took the SAT or ACT test in high school.
Back in the dark ages, when I took it, there was a section on reading comprehension. You had to read a few paragraphs and answer some questions about the passage. Many of those who commented on Baum’s piece clearly failed that exercise. Instead, they criticized him for not mentioning 2A or for citing statistics with no backing. Granted, some of these criticisms were accurate, but they miss the forest for the trees. Baum’s point that we must hold ourselves to a high level of responsibility was evidently lost on these folks.
One thing I’ve learned in my years of watching political theater is that there is often an inverse relationship between how angry a person is about an issue and how well they actually understand the issue. Callers to drive-time political themed talk shows are a prime example of that as they take a small sound bite they heard and use it as a launching point.
In the case of the RKBA, we understand the 2A implications as well as the benefits that firearms ownership in private hands brings, but often simply can’t understand why so many of our fellow citizens simply don’t see the obvious logic of our arguments. What would be interesting is if we as a community could exert more control over ourselves and our weapons safeguarding procedures. I submit that we could have a measurable impact on gun violence and deprive the gun control proponents of their strongest arguments.
All I’m suggesting is that we give it a try. Take some of Baum’s advice and do a self-audit on our own gun security. Secure our weapons in a way in which we can get to them quickly, but that reduce the chances of someone inappropriate being able to do the same. Talk to our friends in the firearms community and encourage them to do the same. After all, the gun rights we save through these actions could be our own.
It’s a start, CTD. But you’re not off the hook yet.
Jim Barrett– any relation to the author Paul M. Barrett?
Spoken like a true government thug.
FOAD. Terrorists living amongst us masquerading as “good guys.”
Thanks for eliminating that ad. It was incredibly annoying.
That was almost funny.
I’ve started looking at their site again, so they’re getting there. THey just gotta keep it up.
WE are all resposible for our actions if we fail we pay.
The war on drugs hasn’t stopped the drug cartels. The laws don’t stop criminals. And most politicians are snake oil salesmen. Here’s a question. If the weapons bans they are proposing fails to do anything to lower the deaths of citizens will the politicians agree to repeal the laws and put themselves in jail? And at what number of deaths will it take to realize that it doesn’t work? What if it kills one more than it saves? They will only then blame the criminal for his actions because the law-abiding will be the victims. I refuse to be a victim.
While I agree with the sentiment your question assumes that reason, accountability, and respectability exist within the personality make-up of those pushing the bans.
If only…
“The war on drugs hasn’t stopped the drug cartels. The laws don’t stop criminals.”
True. Many (if not most) murders in this country are drug-related. End the idiotic war on drugs and watch the murder rate ebb.
I think the issue is that the trigger pull is very long and stiff. This s probably a design feature to avoid premature discharge when using the gun as a CCW.
However, it is MOST distracting.
The Ruger manual that comes with the weapon clearly states that +P should be avoided.
Assault weapons, assault magazines, assault bullets, and now assault ads. When will the madness end?
I read his article this morning in the Journal. The problem I have with his article is that he believes that all gun owners should have and use gun locks at all times. As a long time gun owner, my children grew up around firearms and never touched them without my supervision, now their children have learned the same. I want ready access to my handgun next to my bed without having to go through some procedure to unlock a gun safe no matter how simple he says it is.
Practicing gun safety and responsibility is paramount for gun owners, so it makes my head spin when I see people say a safe isn’t necessary, keeping guns loaded and lying around is their right (it is, but it’s dumb) and so on.
People that act like that are no different than the idiot waving around his loaded gun at the range, passing the muzzle over other shooters and not even realizing it. If you keep your guns in an unlocked closet and they get stolen, you weren’t too smart about it. It’s the criminals doing, but you need to be aware that the opportunity to steal your guns exists and you need to protect yourself against that. If the criminals are determined enough to steal your safe or break into it, then there isn’t much you can do about it. If you take NO steps to safeguard against theft though, you’re kind of an idiot.
I realize what I said is anathema to the super 2A fundamentalists, but so be it.
From your lips….
California will have to be beaten down. They truly bel;ieve they are a seperate nation here and the rules of the land do not apply to them. You would think with the example of the Confederacy’s fate to guide them they would return to the constitution before it gets to far out of hand.
We punish people who make a poor decision, but we ought to reward people who realize it and change course in response to us. To continue to punish a company once they make a mea culpa sends the wrong message and eventually hurts gun owners. If they have responded to their mistake and are on the right course, then they get my business again, to remind them that they will get it when they make the right decisions.
I think Mike has a good point here. If we shun a business forever no matter what they will ever do in the future, what is their incentive to please us … especially given that they may not know how to please us in the first place?
I felt the x was plenty to allow me to choose to shut it down if I didn’t want it there. Kudos to you for listening to your readers however! Hopefully you can find other revenue generating streams to cover what you would have lost with that ad.
I have no problem with ads (that don’t make noise), but ones that interfere with my ability to actually read the site (such as the high-powered assault ad) are a problem.
Thanks Midway for your support. In the long run you’ll be remembered and richly rewarded.
Midway, CTD, the ball’s in your court now Brownells….
If I may add my 2 cents…CTD is not even in the same ballpark as MidwayUSA… Larry’s a true patriot and his company policies are proof positive of that … But I like what you’re trying to do here. 🙂
I second that Skyman!! Great minds think alike!
GOOD! Hear the case, repeal the laws and then we can start charging these wanna-be representatives with Treason and have them removed from office.
I have a couple comments here. I read the blog post here and have a little bit of a problem with it. You see, after more than a half century’s experience at reading news stories and being a bit of a history fan I view things with a grain of salt. I like some plain old facts and corroboration with the story I read.
Let me start off saying I do NOT I approve of the Patriot act, BATFE excesses or other alphabet agency misdeeds in the least.
Now in regards to this story, and I use the term “story” on purpose here I have a few questions.
First, Why no names? After all, since the homeland security (rather amorphous name there since it covers multiple agencies and I doubt ALL of them were involved) already had multiple warrants they served, they already know the name of the individual whose property was searched. Who is the author protecting here? An unnamed reader? Really???? I would think given the circumstances the feds already know the guys name. Why conceal it from folks who might be sympathetic to his plight unless it might not all be factual as presented of course.
Secondly, why no links at all to any other source of information? Yeah I know some folks put up a link to a NM news station story that has similarities. Why didn’t the author provide a link to that info? Is it in fact the same situation?
Third there are a LOT of rather negative comments in the article that seem to be designed to be inflammatory rather than informative. If you have a GOOD story, based on real facts why not let it speak for itself without the hyperbole? The reader is certainly capable of forming an opinion based on the facts of the story rather than the colorful descriptive terms used. That is unless it is considered good for embellishment if it serves the conservative agenda vs the liberal agenda. Is not over zealousness in excess as bad on both sides of the political spectrum? Does it not make the conservative just as bad as the zealous liberal in that regard? Isn’t it better to be based on fact and not innuendo and demagoguery?
I know this is a blog, not a news service. That does not mean I should not expect rational discourse and factual information. In fact a blog, being independent, could possibly be more factual than a slanted news service. Being a slanted blog however does not lead credence to the information provided any more than a slanted reporter does to the main stream media. Please, please, give me the facts, back them up with sources that can be independently verified. I’ll make my own opinion thank you.
My 2 cents…
I’ve owned a Taurus PT92 for over 10 years and enough rounds I have no idea the count. Never once have I had a problem. Never. So when I was shopping for a small carry gun I had zero reservations about going with a Taurus, and chose the PT145. Once again, I’ve encountered zero problems with this gun and I feed all sorts of cheap ammo through it.
I suspect the vast majority of the Taurus haters here have never owned one. I’ll stick with what has worked.
Does anyone have a link to video or a transcript of Scalia’s remarks?
I can’t seem to find any.
A Dem-voting gun lover is to gun rights as gun control laws are to law abiding citizens.
Way to Go Midway. Thank you
May we all pray and hope for the Court to side with us and kill all AWB and all of fascist Obama’s dreams of a Nazi like America.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/marcwebertobias/2012/07/27/unsafe-gun-safes-can-be-opened-by-a-three-year-old/
Sorry, that was a dead link.
Well in a Brightbart news piece I read in Wisconsin Dems dont want to ban guns but ban all HP even SP ammo. Whats the WI legislator look like?
Scott Walker is Governor so zero chance of becoming law.
Do you people understand how government works? Anybody can introduce legislation but you have to get a majority of the legislature to pass it and have the Chief Executive sign it. So before going off the deep end look up who controls the legislature and who is the Governor. If any component of the process has an (R) after it and is not named Christe don’t go off the deep end.
Nice to see that Midway supports the 14th Amendment as well as the 2nd.
I quit reading at the first insult. The whole thing upon scanning thru it is insulting. Pro or Con, that just don’t work.
This is all quite complicated and the outcome is uncertain. There are preemptive clauses that apply both to the SCOTUS and the States. As long as these laws do not violate the Constitution it boils down to who enacts the laws first, Federal or State. This is why the anti-2A folks are all over the States legislation movement, they know how it works. They want to get all their stuff in, and quickly.
You said it, RF….
DISGUSTING!
Memo to Mrs. Pendleton:
I USED to feel sorry for your loss…..
Now….
Go FOAD!
Self-inflicted wound my ass! I have trouble believing that a guy who had already gunned down several LEOs, and who by all indication was looking to make stand-off and make it hurt, took his own life – not until an autopsy is conducted by one or more completely independent medical examiners.
I have place myFNH P-12 on lay-a-way at my LGS. They had one at a good price so I bought.
As much as I hate to be “that guy”, while I agree with their message, the math is off majorly. Five out of 769 homicides is .65%, not .007%.
Killed by a scum bag gang banger piece of sh** criminal let out by Chicago’s justice system. Put the blame on the murderers, then sue the AH’s that let them out in the first place dam it. Now that’s common sence
If Yee is getting realistic death threats, maybe he ought to get a CCW?….
On another note, are we really to believe that some Silicon Valley engineer doesn’t know how to hide his e-mail address? Or that they found “precurser chemicals” for an ED but no ED and more importantly, NO GUN? I betcha precurser chemicals include gas for the lawnmower and turpentine….(Something’s happening here, what it is ain’t exactly clear….)
One thing the media loves to omit, is her well known gang affiliation.
She wasn’t just ” randomly ” targeted.
Ah geez. I fear this will never end.
Alright LAPD armorers. Its time for a shakedown.
Accountability NOW.
Thanks Larry, Midway is a class act. It’s nice to know who we can count on, Randy
Sheez, a whole 2 seconds to hit the “x”. Some people are a little high maintenance.
That receptionist had some nice reflexes there. That security guard should be commended for his quick action.
Now we laugh when they invest in companies that don’t perform as well and their pension funds run dry.
The answer used to be: “shoot .22”. Then I went to a chain sporting goods store yesterday and learned I’m going to need to make the box of Remington 22LR (500 count) last. .22LR is nowhere in sight …..
I guess I could go back to making wine….
Its well known that bill writers slip things in the middle or end of the bill hoping nobody will see it. That should be illegal. I wouldn’t want something slipped in my home mortgage saying that I needed to let the bank executives sleep over once a year for free! Give me a break folks. If you don’t have time to read the bill you are supporting you shouldn’t be supporting it. Is congress brain dead?
Ideologically I agree with most of the posts above. But I do think we need to find some common ground with the left if we are going to make progress with gun laws. This is not a perfect analogy, but I see a parallel with the politics of hunting. The hunting community got a lot of broad based support by becoming the preeminent champions of game conservation. It’s not that they were saying they were responsible for game depletion, it was a move that both served the needs of hunters AND got broad-based support for the activity.
I think the firearms self-defense community would be very smart to get farther out front on gun safety, including storage. We are absolutely not the cause of poor gun safety, but we are the perfect group to show positive civic responsibility on an issue. I think there is a tendency to take the position that we have 2A and Heller, so the antis should just leave us alone. That would be great in a perfect world. But as long as the government shows they can violate 2A at will, we need broader public support to accomplish our goals.