Home Quote of the Day Bellah: Guns are Crafted for the Controlled Application of Violence

Bellah: Guns are Crafted for the Controlled Application of Violence

Bellah: Guns are Crafted for the Controlled Application of Violence
courtesy Andrew Bellah
Previous Post
Next Post
In 2018, there has been a total of 307 mass shootings, and possibly more undocumented, according to a database by the Gun Violence Archive. Survivors, as well as friends and families of those killed, have been bravely outspoken about the effects of gun violence on their lives– the pain of losing a loved one, the fear of living life under threat. Yet despite this, they’ve retained the courage to issue a simple and seemingly practical call to mitigate some of the gratuitous violence.

Guns, or more accurately the accessibility of guns, has been the target of most of these outcries. When I think about the gun I owned, and the violence it’s capable of, I realize that there’s a greater meaning imbued into it than what I may prescribe. In the wake of countless atrocities, a gun is no longer a tool, but a weapon, and demands to be treated as such.

Guns are violent–regardless of the common argument that they’re harmless unless in wrong hands–they’re tools crafted for the directed and controlled application of violence. This is more apparent in some guns than others –the most infamous being the Colt AR-15 and its assault-style derivatives.

The AR-15, the Glock 21, the Bump Stocks, and the Remington 870 are all entangled with violence, fear, and despair as they continue to take lives in incidents of gun violence across the United States. – Andrew Bellah for The Politic, The Original Design: Guns, Culture, and Violence

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. Liberalism is a mental disorder; untreatable. The stupid never ends with such people.

    Not saying these people are not cunning, nor that they can’t out-breed normals. Other liberals listen to other liberals, the circle of dumb may be a perpetual motion machine. No matter, liberals are a danger to small children and other living things.

    • The hard fact is that despite the oh-so-carefully-nuanced meditations of urban-bubble cosmopolites like the good Mr. Bellah, America—at least out here in “flyover country” where a sagacious rationality still confronts social justice warriors—after Sandy Hook has armed itself. Millions of new and powerful firearms have been bought, tens of millions of rounds of ammunition have been bought and stored and a new population of armed, concealed carry permit holders have come into existence.

      As a result there are now two competing constructs of reality. The first insists that “gun-free” spaces are so sacred that they must be maintained even when it is painfully and deadly obvious that armed killers intentionally choose them because their innocent and unsuspecting targets will be unprotected. The second holds that private citizens have a right to use their own firearms to defend themselves and others when other armed people come to do them harm.

      Gun-controllers embrace the idea of a gun-free America because it frees them from having to question their most closely held beliefs. Increasingly, the appearance of licensed, armed citizens who defend themselves and others from others is intolerable to gun-controllers who will happily sacrifice our liberty and freedom so that they can enjoy the luxury of maintaining beliefs that are deadly dysfunctional.

      • “Gun-controllers embrace the idea of a gun-free America because it frees them from having to question their most closely held beliefs. ”

        Roger that.

  2. Cam across a stat yesterday, 330,000 deaths/year in the US and Europe from FDA approved, properly prescribed medications. I don’t have the citation, but can pull it, if these numbers are only a fraction true, it’s glaring obvious the people at the top calling for gun control are in no way concerned for anyone’s safety.

    • “Cam across a stat yesterday, 330,000 deaths/year in the US and Europe from FDA approved, properly prescribed medications.”

      Defenders of the constitution (POTG) never seem to “get it”. All these other causes of injury and death are the result of people who were seeking something they needed, and the luck of the draw went against them. That is not a social problem. No one “needs” a gun. That is the social problem.

      People killed and injured by gunfire didn’t need to be killed. People who are victims of other sources of death and injury needed whatever they were seeking, in order to sustain or improve their lives. Things just somehow went bad for them.

      Nowhere in Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs is there a mention of guns. Ergo, no one needs a gun. It’s settled science.

      • What about the tens of thousands of people killed with fists, booted feet, knives, hammers and clubs? Were those items “needed” Did the people that died from that kind of violence seek that out? I think not. The means to defend oneself is INDEED A NEED.

        • “What about the tens of thousands of people killed with fists, booted feet, knives, hammers and clubs? Were those items “needed”?”

          Good question; two part response:

          1. Fists, booted feet, knives, hammers, clubs; none are guns; case closed.
          2. Each item was needed for sustaining, or improving everyday life; guns are not needed for everyday life, pro-gun statistics demonstrate the likelihood of being attacked is statistically extremely small. (pro-gun people keep pointing to the serious drop in overall crime since 1993)

          It may pay to take another look at my comment to which you are responding. Easter egg.

      • Sam, youre right about 1 thing, 3-4 million preventable deaths per decade is not a social problem, it s holocaust.

      • Gun-grabbers never seem to “get it,” you mean. Not all deaths from medical mistakes and malpractice are necessarily from medications or procedures they needed. There’s an awful lot of waste in healthcare, most of which you can blame on the government for micromanaging it to death. https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/05/11/overkill-atul-gawande That is a public health issue, not guns.

        Some people killed or injured by gunfire did need to be killed, or at least society lost no real value in their passing. 80% of all homicides are gang-related, if the CDC’s Vital Statistics Reports Vol. 61, No. 6 (2011) is to be believed, anyway. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr61/nvsr61_06.pdf It’s a similar if somewhat lower percentage of all injuries by gunfire, too. That’s a criminalogical issue with a lot of social overlap, not one of public health.

        Oh, and guns could very well be inserted into Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs, too, because chief among those needs is safety. There’s no rational argument against the ability of one to provide this need for themselves with a gun or have this need fulfilled for them by someone with a gun. That is what’s actually settled science, as well as how Western society is organized in general. Seems to work fairly well, for the most part. (At least for now, anyway.. But, that’s a whole other discussion.) Oh, and this is not even about “needs” in the first place, either, as alleged “needs” are altogether irrelevant. We have an inherent right, as well as an innate instinct, to defend our lives just as any other organism would do everything in its power to defend itself. This right is, at least in these United States, among others enshrined in the Bill of Rights — whose amendments very clearly outline pre-existing rights that are affirmed, not “granted”, by it.

        • “Oh, and guns could very well be inserted into Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs, too, because chief among those needs is safety.”

          There are many other effective ways to improve safety. Think about how many people alive today do not have a gun, yet are “safe” (never experienced a physical attack). Fact remains, a gun is not on the Hierarchy Of Needs.

          “…as well as how Western society is organized in general. ”

          Western society is not organized around having a gun in the home, or on the person. You are projecting an extremist viewpoint on the entirety of Europe, which on the whole is safer than the US.

          “80% of all homicides are gang-related,”

          Aren’t you admitting the threat of deadly attack on peaceful persons is extraordinarily low? If you are not in a gang (or crime-infested neighborhood) your risk of deadly attack is so statistically low as to be not worth considering (as millions and millions of people do not). Let’s give Lott the benefit, and consider 2.5 million DGUs a factual figure (and there are no DGUs in gang territory). What percentage of the US population is involved in a DGU? Somewhere near .008. That is statistical noise, and it supports the pro-gun claim that we are safer today than anytime in the last 75 years.

          • It doesn’t matter how many other “effective” methods to improve safety. None yet devised are as relatively compact, readily-available, easily carried, and immediately effective as the firearm for personal defense. If this were not the case, then firearms would have already been superseded by other tools and methods. It’s as simple as that. The actual face remains, that the gun fits into the Hierarchy of Needs, and it doesn’t have to be explicit, either.

            So, you’re also saying that Europe is not defended by standing armies and armed police officers, then, because you conveniently missed the bit where I mentioned the need for safety being fulfilled by someone else having a gun. There was no projection there to speak of. Oh, and Europe is not safer than the U.S. on the whole, either, and never really was.

            What I’m actually dictating to you is that the overwhelming majority of crime is between criminals, so the one tangible excuse that you could possibly use (i.e. criminals using guns for nefarious purposes) is already gone out the window, and that’s whether you want it to be or not. Also, as long as there is any chance above zero that I can be attacked, there is no rational argument that you or anyone else alive could possibly make for me deliberately gimping myself should I ever have to face a criminal who will most likely be armed themselves — regardless of whatever laws are on the books against it, and no matter how strictly they are enforced. It’s absolutely worth considering no matter what you or anybody else says.

            Oh, and riddle me this, Batman. Do you have a fire extinguisher in your house (or maybe even in your vehicle)? If so, I regret to inform you that the chance you even have so much as a grease fire in your kitchen (which don’t even require a fire extinguisher to deal with actually) is even lower than having to defend yourself with a gun by an order of magnitude. Hell, you have a lower chance of dying in a car wreck even if you don’t wear a seat belt then defending yourself with a gun by at least an order of magnitude, and yet I can safely bet that you do still wear one when you drive or ride along, anyway. Neither of those things are explicitly mentioned in the Hierarchy of Needs, either. So, you can go ahead and miss me with this whole “needs” bullshit. “Need” isn’t even necessary and I already made that (non)argument better than you, regardless.

            It’s still going to make perfect sense to have one for self defense literally no matter what you say.

            • “It doesn’t matter how many other “effective” methods to improve safety. None yet devised are as relatively compact, readily-available, easily carried, and immediately effective as the firearm for personal defense. If this were not the case, then firearms would have already been superseded by other tools and methods.

              Didn’t we read on this blog that the deaths and injury by other weapons (including hands, fists, feet) were more numerous than those traced to firearms?

              No, I don’t have fire extinguishers. Nothing here I can’t live without. As long as I can “abandon ship”, there is no need for me to be a firefighter.

              Your message seems to boil down to, “Ah got muh rats, ah got muh gun; STFU”. Understandable, but not particularly creative. Do you have an estimate of how many gun controls your stance blocked or repealed? How many judgeships were flipped? Or how many firearm and ammunition taxes were voted down?

              Interesting how you would shrug off risks, calculate the amount of damage and carry on, but you have zero tolerance for only one risk, and one that represents 0.008% potential for occurring.

              Rather than thinking about ways to counter the anti-gun wave that is coming, too many POTG revert to sloganeering. Mightn’t it be more useful, productive, to learn to dismantle opposition arguments in ways most likely to appeal? Bunkering doesn’t seem to be winning the day, now does it?

        • I’m sure we have read such a thing here, somewhere, and I’m quite sure that we’ve also seen it repeatedly stressed on this blog that guns make it oh-so-much easier to injure people. Hence why they haven’t been unseated at the best and most effective tool for personal defense yet.

          Your message seems to boil down to, “I don’t absolutely need that, so neither do you!” Which is not only not understandable, but even off-putting. I’m afraid I don’t have a solid number of gun-grabbing laws, ordinances, rules, and regulations that my stance has stopped. Not even at the federal level where there thankfully hasn’t been a whole lot of progress in the wrong direction in the last twenty or so years until very recently. Nevermind at the state, county, and city level. But, tell me this if you can, how many gun-grabbing laws has your stance blocked or repealed? Better yet, how many lives has it saved?

          And what’s really interesting here is that I’ve not shrugged off any risks at all, but you’ve danced around such risks that are well below those of having to endure a DGU. Seems you danced right around the whole seat belt argument altogether, which is very telling.

          Rather than actually having arguments to start with as well as addressing the arguments of their opponents, too many gun-grabbers revert to sloganeering and emotional hyperbole. Truthfully, we already sit here and do just what you suggested: dismantle their (non)arguments in ways meant to appeal to them. We do it all the day long. We can keep on doing it until the heat death of the universe, for that matter. The problem with your theory is that they don’t want to be convinced. Sure, you’ll likely be able to persuade onesies and twosies here and there with reason and evidence, and we see their stories here often. But, it must be said that they’re very much the exception by mere dint of their actually being open to reason and evidence in the first place. The majority of their ilk simply aren’t. Were this not the case, there’d already be no gun-grabbers left to argue with in the first place.

          No, they just wants guns to be banned. Not just any one specific type, either, but ALL of them for as many times as they’ll lie through their teeth at us and say that isn’t the case. You and I both know damn well it won’t just stop at so-called “assault weapons.” It won’t even stop even IF they somehow manage to winnow it all down to spring-powered, single-shot BB guns. Hell, you shouldn’t be the least bit surprised if they not only ban the very image of guns but the very WORD “gun.”

          We repeatedly exhaust ALL conceivable avenues of approach to convincing these people that they’re willfully wrong and pig ignorant about this. All we seem to get for it are ad hominems, wrongful attributions of motive, accusations of callousness and bigotry, and death threats. All we can really do at this juncture is take aboard all those that we can convince and flip the bird to the rest. You don’t keep trying to reason with people that have openly stated that they’re after nothing more than your physical destruction merely because you disagreed with them on some inane facet of some far-off ideological issue, and it doesn’t really matter what it is, either. You don’t reason with psychopaths like them. You keep them at bay with whatever means avail you, and make it clear that in no uncertain terms you will use those means with immediate and devastating effect should they set upon you.

          I know, it sucks. But, such is the way of the world. Same as it ever was. And the beat goes on.

      • May want to take a closer look at the shelter section of the needs and what it really means. Security from environmental dangers temperature, weather, predators etc often means a secure home. When one expands on this what secures the home? Police, cultural norms of civility, or ultimately whatever is at hand to resist the predators that seek your life when the walls are not enough.

        • A gun is not on the Hierarchy. You can stretch the general categories to cover the entire universe; doesn’t validate anything. But following your line of thought, how do we account for the millions and millions of people on the planet who do not have guns to secure their “shelter”? Are they under constant barrage of deadly attack. Are you arguing that POTG are safe only because they have a gun, and everyone else is under unrelenting attack?

          320,000,000 people in the US. 2,500,000 DGUs. What percentage of the population is involved in a DGU? Do you have unlimited healthcare, or healthcare insurance? Do you consider yourself on the brink of medical disaster, daily? Do you have unlimited self-defense insurance? Do POTG give that much thought? Do you have a personal liability insurance to protect you should you unintentionally harm someone else, or their property? Do you consider yourself financially safe from lawsuit? Despite all these considerations, do you feel you are unsafe, that your shelter is not secure?

          As a general question, how can the millions and millions of people who do not have a gun manage to get through a day, much less a year, without a gun for protection? If they are just lucky, maybe we should take some of them to Vegas and fund their gambling.

          POTG are numbers people. How do “the numbers” justify rampant gun ownership and carry? Stick to the facts. The constitution protects your right to a gun. That is all there is to it. There is no moral, intellectual, or statistical basis. Bottom line is, people have a right to a gun, over and out; done. Everything else is superfluous, self-gratifying justification.

          Now, how to sell “I got my rights” so effectively that people promoting “common sense” gun control are considered a fringe group? Ever notice how the “common sense” people have a parade of victims, yet the pro-gun people rarely publish anything quoting people who benefited from gun use? “Common sense” people actually have statistics to back their claims, but emotion sells better.

        • Need has nothing to do with firearms, Maslow or otherwise.

          If ownership became based solely on need, the average WalMart Supercenter would be the size of a two-car garage.

          • “Need has nothing to do with firearms, Maslow or otherwise.”

            The original proposition was/is that other activities injure or kill more people than guns. The counter was that in the majority of the situations, people were in need of some activity to sustain or improve their life situation. The most often cited cause to compare with firearm deaths/injuries is medical (which is at or near the top of the CDC/FBI lists). People very often do find themselves in need of a medical treatment, the alternative being decline in health, or maybe death. An average of risk assumed for such procedures is between 1% and 3% (except extraordinary situations requiring extraordinary procedures).

            When citing the justification for firearms in private hands, the risk is statistically negligible that a person will find the firearm sustains or improves life. Indeed, the risk of attack requiring an armed defense is ~0.008%. For medical situations, the risk often cannot be avoided, and we see the potential for bad endings is not insignificant. For defending against personal attack, the potential for bad endings in any encounter with other persons is almost vanishingly low.

            Regarding Maslow, his work is the gold standard for understanding basic motivations of humans. The common term is “needs”. It is a list/pyramid of things a person must resolve in order to have a sustainable life. While it is possible to argue that one or more of the items on Maslow’s list could be considered to include self-defense, the need existed, and mitigations established long before the invention of firesticks. Note that nowhere in Maslow’s work are weapons included in the hierarchy. Two ways to create safety (or security) are vigilance (observe dangers and flee) and avoidance (stay away from stupid people doing stupid things in stupid places); neither requires a weapon.

            When it comes to guns, reviewing the above, both pro and anti gun people can agree “need” has nothing to do with guns. There must be some other explanation. That explanation seems to be, “because I can”. or, “because I have a right”. Such reasoning does not justify the risk placed on others who intend the gun owner no harm. Given the very low expectation of ever being attacked by someone intending harm, “need” does come into the discussion. Considering the overall freedom from deadly attack, no one needs a gun (hunting is no longer a “need” at all). Do you see the futility, in face of a subdued world, especially in this country, of arguing that “need has nothing to do with it”? When faced with large segments of society demanding the justification for possessing firearms be more than, “because I can”, do you see that “because I can” does not improve the acceptability of firearm proliferation? You are guilty of posing an unnecessary risk on the rest of the nation, and slogans don’t move the football for supporting private gun ownership. You need to face the challenge with something more attractive. If not, the wave will soon wash over you.

        • Sam, you hinge arms ownership only on the Second Amendment. When they take it away, on what justification will gun ownership be based? Or, are you fine with losing that right?

          • Perhaps you need to better understand what you are reading?

            Anyway, continuing the exercise…..

            The Constitution is so 1790s. Does anyone really believe that archaic document has any objective meaning? The courts tell us what the Constitution means. And those decisions are based more on current culture and society than “law”.

            In the beginning, news and communication traveled very slowly, if at all. Exchanging proposals between the States very difficult. The Constitution set up a virtual roadblock to making changes to the Constitution. That roadblock (the Amendment process) frustrated democracy (the real, actual “will of the people”), and allowed politicians to spend more time with personal affairs. Beginning in the 20th Century, life became so fast-paced, that there is no longer time for that myth of “careful consideration” of the needs of the country. Congressional legislation (and court rulings) are better suited to run the affairs of the country. We all live on “internet time”, while pretending that adherence to a dusty old time in history remains a viable and valid means to conduct political affairs. We simply do not have the time for “careful deliberation”. The constitution stands in the way of doing the right things at a time when “the right thing” changes hourly. When individual “rights” frustrate the progress of a virtuous government, those “rights” are eligible for modification without all the pomp and circumstance of paying homage to a time long gone. Why is it we still have formal elections (ballots, polling places, etc)? Whenever Congress wants to pass legislation, they should put it on the internet, and let the people vote on everything immediately? Power to the people. E Pluribus Unem, Ipso Facto, Post hoc Ergo Propter Hoc; Mens Rea, Non-Legitimus Corbonium. Illegitimi non carborundum, And. All. That. Jazz.

      • Sam, I assumed you were joking when you involved Maslow, the owner of the phiospophy that sex is akin to a religious experience.

      • In Seattle, two officers were called to a reported break in. As the door opened, they were attacked by a woman wielding two knives. The next day the family did the “could of, should of.” Pointing out that they knew the woman had mental issues. Issue, when you’re in a confined area and someone is coming at you with a knife, your options are very limited.
        In Pennsylvania two officers make a routine traffic stop. The driver appears to fail a sobriety check then resisted the officers. A taser is used, then the two officers attend to restrain him. Amazing how strong he was. The driver esacapes, pulls a gun. In the shootout both officers are wounded and the driver escapes. Here a less lethal method fails, physical force fails and the driver shoots two officers.
        Last is a home invasion. A 21 year old crashes through a driveway gate, hits a car, the breaks into a house the elderly homeowner attempts to physically stop him, then uses a gun, killing him. The man smelled strongly of marijuana, and had no connection to the people of the house. It was totally random.

        “People killed or wounded by gunfire don’t need to be killed.” Exactly and specifically, in each case, what alternative was there? In the first case the police were in a confined area with l8mited movement. The attack was sudden and there was no warning. The second case had less lethal forces used. Then the driver started shooting. What “should have happened? The last case was a totally random attack with no warning. The homeowner was physically able to defend himself or his wife. The attacker was on drugs and had no justification for his actions.

        • Understand you response, but the phraseology I used confused things. What I was trying to convey was that people had individual needs to seek medical treatment, people killed by gunfire had a personal, individual “need” of their own to be killed (a “need to die” is different). Those killed didn’t wake up and think, “Hmmm, not feeling so well all week, think I should find someone to kill me.”

          I apologized for the lack of clarity; it’s on me.

      • Thanks for reminding us that the words “settled science” means that your argument is anything but science. Rather than bringing legitimacy to a false argument, falsely pulling the mantle of science on your political belief has only hurt the image of legitimate science. You would better use the phase “my rigid ascientific politcal belief” , than degrade science.

        • “Thanks for reminding us that the words “settled science” means that your argument is anything but science.”

          Agree. There may actually be a reason for the choice of words, but the phrase wasn’t inserted to stop people from reading and thinking about the rest of the words. It was a tip off.

          In reality, “settled science” is mantra for a form of religion.

        • “In reality, “settled science” is mantra for a form of religion.”

          Damn straight. By design, it shuts down debate.

          It. Shall. Not. Be. Questioned.

          (And that’s how they want it…)

      • If you think an armed citizenry isn’t a necessity in this Constitutional Republic, just do away with arms and find out what happens (we’ll no longer have a Constitutional Republic in 10 to 20 years).

        Europe repeats this in cycles and they are about to do it again. Revisit the issue in 20 years and you’ll see.

        • “If you think an armed citizenry isn’t a necessity in this Constitutional Republic, just do away with arms and find out what happens (we’ll no longer have a Constitutional Republic in 10 to 20 years).”

          Notwithstanding your time line is way too optimistic…this country has not suffered what you predict for Europe since, forever. We have not suffered a monarchy, dictatorship, or “Dear Leader” in over 225 years. Where do people get the idea that we are constantly on the cusp of government tyranny? Any concrete examples of “the government” (all three branches) being in agreement that despotic rule should be instituted?

          Do you really think is it private guns that has kept us free? Maybe it is a rather benign government, subject to regular flagellation by the voters. Maybe it is a nation (thus a government) of laws the keeps government in check, not the threat of insurrection. Maybe you should put more faith in “We the People”, than in inert objects with no mind of their own. What you write sounds like you view your fellow citizens as a frothing mob, bent on taking everything from you, and binding you in chains. The people you want to war against have the best of intentions for you and everyone else. How can you doubt them?

        • “We have not suffered a monarchy, dictatorship, or “Dear Leader” in over 225 years.”


          It’s not for a lack of coordinated effort by “Those who know what’s best for you!”, I *assure* you…

        • “What you write sounds like you view your fellow citizens as a frothing mob, bent on taking everything from you, and binding you in chains. The people you want to war against have the best of intentions for you and everyone else. How can you doubt them?”

          You must be kidding. I work at a university. Couple all of the post-modernist crap with the Democratic party platform and nanny Bloomberg and you get Uncle Joe.

          Their “best if intentions” is to suppress speech so no one is offended like in Europe, to ban firearms so thier criminal associates have the upper hand, provide due process only to the groups that deem righteous, and to generally eliminate the the Bill of Rights.

          A “frothing mob, bent on taking everything from you, and binding you in chains” is a good description.

        • Literally laughing….some people still think they’re free….at the same time, our nation of debt slaves can look forward to losing everything from property privileges to reproductive privileges, and much more after we are disarmed.

      • What about the lives saved with civilian owned guns? They greatly outnumber the lives taken. Every society that implements strict gun control has shown a net detriment. Murders in the U.K. Skyrocketed in the years following their gun control laws while the U.S.enjoyed a continued decrease in all violence.

        So tell me who doesn’t get it again?

        • “What about the lives saved with civilian owned guns? They greatly outnumber the lives taken.”

          Are you comparing the DGUs to lives saved through medical activities? Lives saved through medical procedures and care would seem to be greater.

      • Figured I would have to start a new sub thread for you to see this. From your other posts earlier, you state that there is a .008% chance of a defensive gun use. You need to learn how to do your math, because you are wrong.

        .008 is simply the fraction given by 325 million (us residents) divided by 2.5 million (defensive gun uses). To get percentage, you multiply by 100, so that’s 0.8% chance. If we want to go on the low end, and this is according to the 2013 CDC report, 300,000 defense dive gun uses. That comes to a 0.1% chance. Those are low numbers. But those are per year.

        Let’s say that only a person of average adult lifespan could ever have a DGU (which is false, as seniors are commonly predated upon and commonly show up in the news having used a firearm to defend themselves) so only from ages 18-65 will you ever have a DGU, that’s 47 years which any person has a 0.1-0.8% chance at having a DGU.


        For a 0.1% to 0.8% chance of a DGU per year. That equates to 1 in 22 to 1 in 3 people having a DGU during their adult lifetime. That is not statistical noise.

        You lose.

        • No, the idea that people have a 1 in 3 chance of a DGU us not supportable as a conclusion. (yeah, my original “math” was too simplified for your purposes, but .008% of the population faces a DGU event every year – noise).

          The generally accepted stats on cancer are that 1 in 3 will suffer some form of cancer in their lifetime, and there is data available to support that number. But let’s go with everyday experience. I have personal experience with 16 members of my extended family (going back three generations) having cancer. Is that representative? Don’t know. But in my position, that is a lot of cancer. Now, going back three generations, only three people in my family have experienced gunfire, and those happened in formal combat during declared wars. In those same three generations, no one has faced a DGU, and no one known to any of my family members has faced a DGU. Indeed, through all my careers, meeting a coupla thousand people, none have reported a DGU, nor mentioned any family member or friend who was involved in one. That experience is more representative of reality than your 1 in 3 calculation permits.

          If one in three Americans faced DGUs, that would be at least 100 million DGUs every year. Given the dramatic decline in violent crime since 1993, the 1 in 3 statistic seems to be opposed by the declining slope of crime. Even if one completely accepts the projections of Lott and/or CDC, several million DGUs per year seem to also conflict with overall violent crime statistics. It is difficult to envision a condition where declining crime is associated with the supposed number of DGUs as an annual count. Unless, that is, one believes that a rising number (or high number) of annual DGUs means fewer and fewer people available to commit crimes, thus the number of crimes and the DGUs are a provable inverse relationship.

          Almost forgot, “If we want to go on the low end, and this is according to the 2013 CDC report, 300,000 defense dive gun uses. That comes to a 0.1% chance. ” Yes it is, isn’t it? And my point.

      • Actually the hierarchy lists security as second… ergo you are a fool as guns are one of the most effective forms of personal security particularly when put in a situation that one did not expect.

        Also often in the hierarchy I find property is a frequent mention which includes guns as they can be owned, so it sorta mentions it twice…

        • “Also often in the hierarchy I find property is a frequent mention which includes guns as they can be owned, so it sorta mentions it twice…”

          Any item on the list can be stretched to mean whatever, same as there really is not reason to remember but one “gul law”, Treat all guns as if they are loaded.

          Guns are not mentioned as a basic need anywhere on the pyramid.

          • “Any item on the list can be stretched to mean whatever, same as there really is not reason to remember but one “gul law”, Treat all guns as if they are loaded.

            Guns are not mentioned as a basic need anywhere on the pyramid.”

            Sam, security covers many things be it house, castle whatever, cops are not security (only security theater), paid security guards only offer so much security, having a B2B security system on your home only offers so much. Your own security should always have a means of defense as well hence why i say firearms are a part of it. It could mean a knife, sword, bow and arrows or any of a number of other means as well but being that guns are in this day and age the most efficient and portable means of defense and security I say they top the list of needs as far as security goes. They also are not limited to a home base but also provide a level of security when you are out and about. They like most other forms of security (other than cops and paid security guards) are as stated by BR also a form of property.

            my conclusion therefore is that guns ARE included in the hierarchy of needs

            • “my conclusion therefore is that guns ARE included in the hierarchy of needs”

              Such a stretch must thus include armed police and military, of which there is an abundance. Thus each individual has a portion of both to provide security….all without the need for a private citizen to need their own gun.

              The further extension of the pyramid demands every sort of “need” is mandated to be in the possession of the individual, which clearly is not the case, else everyone is of need of everything, otherwise one’s “needs” are not being met.

              You are arguing that a personally owned gun falls under the pyramid. I then argue that I need Bill Gates’ house. If your riposte is that a house of simpler construction is all I need, you must accept my parry that if I only need a standing structure, then you only need a rock for self-defense.

  3. Just another libertard fudd. More guns control laws and fewer guns make us all SO much safer don’t you know because criminals are so so likely to obey each and every law the gun grabbers pass.

  4. Wait we’re putting the glock 21 in the scary black gun category now with the slow fat 45 acp? Face it you want to confiscate all guns ,and I doubt there is any clarity on if victims of shootings were innocent, or trying to harm others study after study is manipulated for the cause that is paying for it because you don’t say this shooting was a man trying to break into a home , or this group was a mass shooting or this on was suicide you pool them all together to fit your agenda

    • The term “mass shooting” has specific meaning in the anti-gun world. “Mass shooting” is a mind stopper. It evokes images of dozens, if not hundreds of people shot. Anti-gun people may be mentally disturbed, but they ARE devious.

      • I have been considering purchase of Remington 870. If I knew it was entangled with violence, fear, and despair (together with the AR-15, the Glock 21 and the Bump Stocks, as they continue to take lives in incidents of gun violence across the United States), I would have not even think about getting one. The horror!
        I’m so glad I’ve got nice non-violent Mossberg 500 instead!
        ….And cuddly Tri-Star G2 for my 9 y. o. son.
        …And fluffy CZ 720 for my 11 y. o. daughter.

  5. According to the Gun Violence Archive, we have mass shootings six days a week.

    Yeah, right.
    I figured they were FOS when I noticed they had Gun Violence in their name.
    Knew it beyond any doubt when I saw the quoted statistic.

    • “According to the Gun Violence Archive, we have mass shootings six days a week.”

      The claim may be accurate, depending on your definition of “accurate” (American english, as commonly spoken is an imprecise, sloppy language).

      The Congressional Research Service concluded there is no universally accepted definition of “mass shooting”. Different interested groups use a methodology that best fits their narrative. A basic inhibit to understanding “mass” anything is what activities/events are included. FBI has an official definition of “mass murder”, and if four or more people are only injured by gunfire, such an event is not included in FBI data. “Mass shooting” is more a media term than a universal understanding of an event.

      From research, one can conclude that in a single event, where three or more people are killed or injured (including the “perp”), we have a “mass shooting”. Using three as a general guide, it is quite plausible that we have one “mass shooting” per day. However….

      The term “mass shooting” in the popular vernacular is designed to convey the image that such events are equivalent to the Florida instances, or even Las Vegas. Oddly, since all the data used by media are drawn from media reports, local shootings of less than five individuals (killed or injured) are not commonly reported locally as “mass shootings” (don’t expect that restraint to hold for long).

      Rational people want to have a pretty concrete understanding of terms used to convey information. Clarity assists normal people in assessing the value of what is being conveyed. For anti-gun forces (people suffering the mental disorder of “liberalism”), clarity is the fearsome enemy. Obfuscation serves the liberal political agenda, and is highly difficult to counter.

  6. Once again, anti gun people can’t seem to grasp math.

    let’s just take your number of 307 at face value. How many guns does that require? Well, I suppose at least 307 and, given the typical number of hands people have, probably less than 614. 614 is about 0.00015% of the guns in the U.S. Why does this small fraction define the character of the other 99.99985% of the guns. Oh, I realize that there is violence committed with guns that does not qualify as a mass shooting but I’m not the one who chose to use the most emotionally charged type of gun related event to prop up my argument. Even considering all the gun related violence, in excess of 99.9% of the guns in this country are *not* used in a violent manner each year.

    All this of course ignores the fatal flaw with your position that is already stated right there in your article – Guns are indeed harmless unless in the wrong hands. They are not created for the directed and controlled application of violence but for the directed and controlled application of force. Specifically, the firing of a projectile over distance at speed. That is not violence without intent and guns have no intent. Sure, they can be used for violent ends, which is often a bad thing but also often a necessary thing. I’m sorry Mr. Bellah but you can’t make the case that the mere existence of an object foments violence – It’s just no true.

    What you are really saying is that you don’t think other people, at least not the ones who fail to agree with you, can be trusted. Since ‘those’ people can’t be trusted, you want to take away any means they might have to harm you (or in truth, to scare you since you are not really likely to be harmed by them). If, we were to let you take our guns away, well, at some point you would call for our hands to be removed because, accept it or not, the gun is not what you hate, it’s people like me.

  7. Since yesterday was Thanksgiving, I’ll give thanks, Thanks for giving me the means to defend myself and family against the growing hoard of ignorant liberal assholes and their criminal minions.
    Now I’ve got to go, I saw some guns on sale that need a new home.

  8. Interesting how lib-progs embellish facts (or just fabricate them) and combine them with their feelings to come to the anti-gun conclusions they arrive at. It’s quite a stew. Sometimes I wish I could think like that.

    • “Sometimes I wish I could think like that.”

      It is quite easy, actually. Simply abandon your grip on reality, slip into the soft cotton of dementia. You can do it. So many others have done so successfully. It’s the getting back that can be challenging.

    • Yes. I’m just waiting for her very public ‘come to Jesus’ when she disposes of her evil ARs. All in a bid for ‘common sense’.

      • Lol, that’s good. She’s been soft pedaling gun control here since day 1, her transparent agenda didn’t seem to fool many.

    • The Truth About Guns is this:

      There are gun owners who don’t believe as you do.

      The truth about guns:

      Those gun owners are not required to believe as you do. They’re allowed to own, train with, and practice with guns just as you are even though they don’t believe as you do.

      The truth about guns:

      Those gun owners are allowed to have their own opinions and voice them freely on a blog called The Truth About Guns.

      Like it or not: That’s the truth about guns.

      And the truth about the Truth about Guns is that Dan Zimmerman is a thoughtful, intelligent man who makes space for people who are Not Like You.

      TTAG is not a safe space.

      • Never said or claimed it was a safe place. Never called for your banning or censorship. You seem to be sensitive when folks point out the truth.

        You’re not a POTG. And that’s the truth. Feinstein had a gun and a carry permit. She was no more a POTG than you, elaine d.

        • @jwm

          I own ‘em, I train with ‘em, I practice with ‘em. That’s enough for me and it’s enough for DZ to accept my articles.

          Whether or not a small subset of people I don’t know think I am one of “them” or not literally doesn’t matter to me; I already own and use guns and have my people I practice and train with, and don’t need admission to a “club” for any of those things. I’m not going to be denied admission to anything I’m interested in just because some people on the Internet think I don’t “belong.”

          I write from my own perspective, and there are people who like it, and as long as it works for TTAG it works for me. That’s all I need. Simple, not complicated. Statements of fact, and not feeling sensitive about any of it; I like to write, people like the writing, end of story.

        • You can’t be denied admission to a club by us, elaine d. It’s the constitution and bill of rights that allow you into the club. The same constitution and bill of rights that you actively work against by voting dem.

          You are way too sensitive and way too misguided to wear the POTG title. Grow a thicker hide and some more sense and we’ll re-evaluate your application to this very exclusive ‘club’.

          As for why DZ has you posting here? It’s the clicks. Got to generate them clicks.

          • “As for why DZ has you posting here? It’s the clicks. Got to generate them clicks.”

            We would benefit from fewer clicks?

        • @jwm

          OF COURSE it generates clicks. Why wouldn’t it? That’s the whole point. I’m glad to provide that to TTAG and DZ. I mean, duh. For me it’s a fun thing to do: that’s it. And believe it or not, I have fans, so I was told the other day. I find that funny but apparently it’s true.

          I don’t need to “apply” to anyone’s “club.” What am I interested in? Tactical and defensive pistol and rifle shooting. That’s it, and I’m already in the “club” I need to be in: my trainers, my range, the courses I’ve been accepted to take, the matches I want to participate in, and my awesomely informed and demanding shooting buddies. It’s already a done deal. Don’t need more than that.

          Not trying to come down on you jwm. Just saying, I don’t get this mentality that somehow I have to try to belong to some kinda “POTG club.” I’m already doing what I want to do with guns, with the people I want to be doing it with. That’s already happening. Just don’t understand the mentality, and certainly don’t need anyone’s permission to do what I’m already doing, other than my trainers, who have already given it.

          that’s what I have to say about it I guess.

        • To JWM. Time out. Elaine D is a writer. She writes – quite well IMHO – and is very articulate. Her thoughts are I believe are solid enough. I don’t really draw a line between who’s right and who’s wrong there’s simply to much grey area in the world we live in. I am compelled by her POV enough to talk to my many POTG friends about the discussions in these forums.

          What in Heaven’s sake is a POTG? From what I gather it’s a religious fervor to guns. It is a mindset that 15 variations of an AR-15 i are not enough. It is the “tribal” mentality that if you don’t think exactly like us, you are not one of us. I own guns. I practice weekly at the range and like Elaine D I am committed to defensive and tactical shooting. I love doing this stuff but I will not shut the door on an opinion that may help foster a better understanding and perhaps a peaceful coexistence between two vastly different ideologies. Sadly, according to the “definitions” stated here, I am not POTG.

          I would urge the 2A community here to reconsider such opinions. Because come 2020, you’ll need all the votes you can get. Just saying.

          • “…but I will not shut the door on an opinion that may help foster a better understanding and perhaps a peaceful coexistence among to vastly different ideologies. ”

            Let me make it simple….there two major points of view, those who are feverishly working to disarm private citizens (except criminals, gangers and themselves), and those who oppose disarmament or regulation of the last means of preventing full government tyranny. These are two unalterably opposed world views.There is no middle ground, there is no compromise, there is no “getting along”. What you seek is the political equivalent of being slightly pregnant, permanently.

            All compromise, middle ground, “getting along” is unconditional surrender of privately firearms. At the heart is a question of how a rational mind can believe in the constitutional right to carry firearms (which identifies no limits), yet vote for politicians dedicated to eliminating that “right”.

            If you open your eyes, you see that the anti-gun mafia is more and more open about their intention to confiscate all firearms (except for criminals, gangers, and themselves). How do you reconcile billionaires who have private security, but denounce the idea that the general public should also have whatever private security they can afford?

        • Co-exist, Eli? What part of them wanting to make it impossible for us to own our guns, exercise our human and civil rights, do we co-exist with?

          Owning a gun is just a small part of the equation. Protecting human and civil rights are the big picture.

        • ” I’m already doing what I want to do with guns, with the people I want to be doing it with…”


          But the thing is, what you are also doing (besides that) is grievously damaging the rights of others who wish to do that in peace.

          How. You. Vote.

          An Inconvenient Truth About Guns – If your political party had the votes, you would not have an inalienable right to carry one in public. No one would. Unless they could prove a totally arbitrary ‘need’.

          What is your opinion of arbitrary civil rights, Elaine? That is what you vote for when you pull the ‘D’ lever.

          Hawaii would be their model of ‘gun carry rights’. You either don’t see that, or are incapable or unwilling to see that.

          And you don’t seem to have a problem with that. Worse, you seem kind of amused by it.

          That makes you a dangerous as a pissed-off rattlesnake, Elaine…

        • @Geoff

          I certainly understand why you see it that way. As do others here.

          As a lifetime Dem, what I know is that there are a hell of a lot of Dem gun owners. We don’t talk much about it because all the air in the room is getting sucked out by people who keep saying we have nothing to say, even though we would be the biggest allies to those same people in making sure that there is reason and debate within our own party.

          So we just mind our own business and let y’all fight it out. Our time is not here yet. But it will, because the United States is becoming more, not less, urban and diverse. At some point there will be a place for our voice INSIDE the Democratic Party, which is already starting to subdivide into some pretty interesting segments that don’t all hold the same views. Democratic Centrism being one, Democratic Socialism being another.

          I don’t believe in doomsday approaches. People bitch and bitch but when I hang out with gun people and look through their collections what I see is that in reality people have more choice and variety in arms than they’ve ever had in this country. So yea, I think it’s kind of funny when everyone goes straight to “They’re coming for all our guns.” I mean yeah that looks ridiculous especially when you look at what people have access to in other countries just even in terms of what’s available to get.

          And, I’m not going to get into more involved political reasons because of my pledge to Dan re keeping it about guns. But I’m going to say just this: I am deeply concerned about how our President seems to be wiling to ho it out for Putin and MBS, neither of whom can even be remotely construed to be interested in citizen rights or free speech. I’m deeply concerned about the fact that the NRA is actually not interested in representing people like me at all, and was infiltrated by a Russian spy who was arrested earlier this year.

          If the boys are going to outsource the running of our country to another nation….I’d at least prefer it if they did so to people who had some kind of damn success running their own.

          Okay, off the political soapbox.

        • I accidentally posted my response to this thread at the bottom of the comments. Chickbait clicks will continue working until the male posters here lose interest in fawning over and flirting with a female profile that soft sells gun control while feigning interest in firearms.

        • @Eliane D
          There is no practical difference between communism and socialism. Both are about putting absolute power into the hands of a few who think they know better what is best for us all than the individual trying to live their life.
          Most of the laws in both your country and mine if put before juries that knew their lawful rights and duties would fail the test to become common law. This is why people are not told about Jury Nullification in jury duty or indeed in school where it should be taught. That would be contrary to those in positions of power gaining the power and control that they wish to gain.
          Jury Nullification is a counter-check against unlawful laws and also abuse of good laws being applied badly. Juries today are not asked to rule on what they feel is lawful but rather whether they agree that the body of evidence shows that they broke a law despite whether the law is morally right or wrong. When a jury is being selected they will always try to avoid selecting someone who knows these things and will try to educate the rest of the jury on their rights and duties as a jury. ALL law that has not passed through this process is not common law but simply statute law which is law by dictate, IOW dictatorship.
          Any party or person who wishes or attempts to infringe on others liberty by whatever means is a traitor. You say you support registration. Unfortunately that is a stepping stone to the next traitor who them wishes to take them all. This IMHO applies to all forms of registration be it gun, car, business or indeed anything else. Registration itself is legalized theft as in legal terms it effectively signs over ownership of the thing being registered to the registering body while leaving possession and responsibility of maintenance in the hands of the person possessing. This is how police are able to seize and if they choose not return something seized when someone has broken a law of which there is no victim.
          I can expound on this further if you wish

      • @Eli

        Well, that’s the whole thing. “POTG” appears to be some kind of loose self styled thing but I don’t even know if various types of “POTG” would even agree on what it is.

        My shooting history is (I’ve learned) somewhat unusual in that I been trained by, and practice with, only real operators: former and current SF, NCIS, LEO. They consider me a serious student and support me in my training and growth and know I am responsible, serious, and dedicated to improvement.

        I really wonder what those guys would say if I asked them what they think a “POTG” is. I’m pretty sure of this: as people whose lives have lived, breathed, and depended on guns, they don’t consider people who don’t regularly train, practice, and grow as being worth listening to. Their “POTG” bar BEGINS with training and practice and always includes it. They don’t have much to do with people who don’t do those things. Even though they’re far above my level, they’d rather practice with me than some kind of “armchair gun person.”

        Yet you have self styled “POTG” on here who claim that training is onerous and unnecessary and that it’s somehow elitist to pursue those things. And I can safely say that the number of times I’ve been asked about my “POTG status” is exactly zero. None. It literallly has no impact, and no meaning, in how my shooting life plays out. And if that’s the way it is with real operators who do this for a living…

        I mean – what are you gonna do. LOL.

        • It would seem that others are trying to point out how foolish your worldview is. Bully for you, you shoot and operate. The camp you claim and the words/styling you use belies what lies under this POTG veneer you put out. Supporting those who would go against your best interests is an extremely odd position to be in yet here you are. I find it off-putting and it would seem I’m not the only one. It’s hard to get a read on your angle with all the doublespeak.

        • This is not a case of dueling resumes. It’s not about how often or with whom you go out shooting or what kind of training you do. We all go out and shoot, some more than others.

          Simply put, the gripe is that you evangelize guns at the same time you vote Democratic. Sleeping with the enemy, so to speak. It goes a long way to tarnish your credibility.

          I understand that a lot of gun owners can’t go “single issue”. They’d love to back the 2A, they say, but they’d have to buddy up with those horrid conservatives and fundamentalists in the Republican party to do it. And of course, liberals are way to intelligent to do that, so they hold their noses and vote D even though they may be trashing out a fundamental right. Seems like a fair trade, right?

          If you look at the trail of constitution damage left by the fight for 2A, you’d see it’s not really “single issue” any more. Along the way to savaging the 2nd amendment, the anti-gun lobby has savaged due process on multiple levels along with it. I have no doubt that the 1st amendment will come under fire as well– you’ll know when this website is no long here.

          I hate to put it into a “with us or against us” framework, but… are you with us or against us?

        • @Broke and @UpInArms

          The thing I find really puzzling about this blog comments section – and this is nothing against you, I truly appreciate your responses – is really two things.

          1. It isn’t a question of “for” and “against”. That is far too simplistic a view to take of something as complex as the issues guns create in a rapidly urbanizing society. If it was that damn simple we wouldn’t need all these courts and these rulings. If it was that damn simple this debate wouldn’t have been raging for all the years that it has.

          Let’s face it: If every gun owner was a self-respecting, law abiding citizen, we would have exactly zero issues with guns in our society. There would simply be nothing to talk about. We could all own whatever we wanted because it would be fine and no one would question it. Or if our society was one where, for whatever reason, people didn’t elect to shoot up schools and churches and hospitals with enough regularity to greatly upset others and bring up questions about the “liberty” of guns vs. the “liberty” of people being able to live their lives in relative safety without needing a weapon to go to school, church, or the hospital.

          If those things were the case, this blog wouldn’t even need to exist.

          Attempting to simplify this into “for” and “against” is facetious. We have always had the 2d, AND we have always had gun control. Period.

          I’ve worked in law. I’ve worked in healthcare. I’ve worked on legislative policy. I now work in mental health. *Nothing* that can take a human life can be reduced to a set of black and white arguments and attempting to do so ignores the way in which humans actually function in favor of some idealized fantasy that, from what I can tell, has never actually existed.

          I actually see the debate about guns being very similar to the debate about abortion, for a lot of reasons, which is not “solvable” either. However, since I promised DZ I would not talk about abortion on this blog, I don’t make those analogies.

          What I reject is the idea that guns are some kind of “you’re on my side or you’re not” “black and white” issue. They are not, they never have been, and they never will be. And I won’t engage “discussions” that are not actually discussions but long screeds of “Anyone who is not with me is against me.” Yeah, that’s really not how human beings work. Temporarily maybe, but not in the long term.

          2. There is this whole “club” mentality in the comments that seems to constantly “imply” that I need to try to “do the right thing” to “belong.” I find this ridiculous because it seems like a 7th grade mentality and I left trying to be cool while hanging out by the water cooler behind a long time ago.

          My first article for TTAG stated clearly that I do not believe everyone should own a gun. None of the operators I study and practice with believe that everyone should own a gun, either. And if it came down to taking guns away, they actually might be a lot more draconian about it than I am, because the standards are high. I just don’t get the mentality around here sometimes and the lack of actual meaningful discussion and dialogue as opposed to a bunch of junior high school sounding ranting about made up terms like “libtard” and “celebutard.” I’ve never heard the gun people I spend time with use such terms or ascribe to such immature behavior. This is probably because they are actually, REALLY experts on guns and know what it takes to be taken seriously. Especially by non gun owning people. These are people who bear real responsibility and respect in their everyday jobs around their knowledge of guns, training, and tactics. They conduct themselves like the high level professionals they are, and they have no problem with how I vote, because democracy and the freedom of diversity is what they have chosen to protect, not some kind of herd mentality.

          So, that’s what that is. I’m not invested in trying to make friends or win people over to my views, whatever that means. To me democracy means people being able to have and exercise different views. There’s a lot of ranting on here about Communism and Socialism. Well, I have both Communists and Socialists in my family. And I see a hell of a lot more “groupthink” over here in the comments than I do in those folks. I doubt that the people who rant about this on here have ever actually met a true Communist or Socialist and had a real discussion with them. And by that I don’t mean somebody who decided yesterday that that’s what they were. I’m talking about people who actually lived and live under those systems and, surprise surprise, see benefits to it and wouldn’t actually want to change places.

          So yeah.

        • There’s that odd doublespeak again. Look at it from an outside prospective. You have decided to embrace one of your rights as an American while at the same time endorsing this political ideology that openly calls for the eradication of individual gun rights. Either whole hog or one little chip at a time. You espouse this counterproductive stance as though it is a good thing. Aside from how confusing it is to wrap my head around it triggers that alarm in me that I am speaking with a wolf in sheep’s clothing. It’s entertaining to be sure, it just doesn’t seem honest or on the level.

        • @Broke

          Understood. Has it ever occurred to you that maybe the reason I see this differently is that I’m bicultural?

          I’m not just “American.” I’m Vietnamese American. I have an identity in more than one nation and more than one way of seeing things. I’m also a direct product of the Vietnam War. More than one world and way of seeing things lives inside of me as a person. I’ve got friends and family on four continents. I travel in many worlds.

          The fact that I am culturally diverse is part of why there are people who are interested in my writing in particular. I bring a different set of views to things, one you don’t usually hear from because there aren’t many women like me in the world of guns, and the ones there are don’t write articles. I came in with a clear statement of my views and not once have I ever attempted to “convert” anyone to anything. Nor are you going to see me doing that. I believe in diversity and also that it’s valuable to try to understand people who are not like you.

          Professionally, I specialize in minority populations of all kinds. Guess what, gun owners are a minority population in this country. I’m one of the few therapists around that people can actually talk to about guns knowing that I won’t freak out or judge them because they know I am a serious and responsible gun owner. You might be surprised at some of the conservative clients I have had. My field needs more people who are conversant in these issues and not afraid of them, but I gotta say, the attitude of a lot of gun owners doesn’t really inspire a lot of people to try to learn about them or to help them with stuff that is particular to gun owners.

          I never expect that it’s going to be easy to understand someone different than me. Nor am I going to reject someone for being different than me and try to tell them that they need to become someone else and join my “club.” To me that just ain’t what democracy is about.

        • Bi-cultural. There’s something we have in common. I’m not in some club anyone has to or would want to join, I’m just trying to feel out why your writing stirs my gut reaction. Maybe it’s a result of what I’m a product of. The therapist thing probably doesn’t help but there’s so much between your words that stinks of thought reform. It’s truly… unsettling.

        • @Broke

          That’s honest. I’m different than you. I’m also known by both gun and non gun people as a highly independent thinker.

          Most people aren’t independent thinkers. My experience has been that when you actually are one, it’s almost always regarded with suspicion, as though you are trying to “pull something over” on someone. Because how dare you step outside the party line. How dare you not be like everyone else. How dare you mix avocado and almond milk. How dare you how dare you how dare you.

          And yet that, THAT, is exactly what being multicultural IS. More than one world. That is why it is difficult and that is why it is beautiful and that is why it brings up so many issues. Especially in the United States, which is astoundingly multicultural.

          Part of the reason I’m enjoying writing for TTAG is that it’s pretty much the only way I get exposed to a larger group of lifetime gun owning folks who are nothing like me. I’m urban and always have been and live in a liberal gun owning city. So, my life path hasn’t involved things like being taught by a grandfather how to hunt and those kinds of things. My relationship with guns is different and is partially a legacy of my family history on the Vietnamese side and also a result of living as a woman of color in America, which ain’t no easy damn thing to do and stay safe when you grew up in a mostly white Southern state. It is what it is. The stories of others are different. People don’t have to be interested in my story but there are enough who are that it’s been valuable for me, and for TTAG, so far.

        • “There’s a lot of ranting on here about Communism and Socialism. Well, I have both Communists and Socialists in my family. And I see a hell of a lot more “groupthink” over here in the comments than I do in those folks.”

          An interesting thought to say the least. You state you are Vietnamese-American. Welcome to my world. One thing that needs to be said in this forum is that the Left, yes, those people, have committed to and focused their entire political attention on minorities because in the present America the minority vote is the key to winning most elections. If you don’t think so I invite you to look at the voting stats of the recent Arizona Senate race.

          Now then, the people on this forum have an affinity for deducing that a person who makes a decision to take a different view of an issue is automatically a “traitor” to the gun rights movement. Even though said person owns and practices with a gun regularly. You see, not all gun owners regard the 2A as the alpha and omega of U.S. law. Some of us actually think that 200 million plus guns is a bit much for even a country as large and diverse as us should have. Some of us also feel that bargaining for political position is in the best interest of ALL gun owners. And that a future WITHOUT constantly warring factions is preferable to burying your guns 6 feet under.

          Most Asians I know in America abhor guns. Most Asians I know in America vote democrat, all day, every day. But the times they are a changin. Now at the gun range I’m starting to see more and more Asians who are not only shooting guns but are interested in the laws regarding them. They want to buy guns for (who woulda guessed it) SELF DEFENSE. And they seek a measure of camaraderie from those who are knowledgeable in the field. Will the 2A contingent welcome them with open arms or despise them because they are currently democrats? Or because they eat Pho instead of spaghetti? The left saw this coming years ago and embraced the immigrant population for their votes. They played the long game, and in 2020 they just may take over the country. Perhaps Oprah will be the new president. Can you imagine gun laws under her watch? I was a democrat when Hillary ran last but I voted for Trump because my gun shooting friends convinced me that it was the right thing to do. What will the gun rights people do in 2020? Will they convince people like me to vote once again for a republican? It’ll be interesting.

          • If “Asians” all lack knowledge of the history of this country, of the freedom and liberty it was erected to protect for the citizens, you have identified the cause for the lack of reasonable negotiation your decry. If “Asians” do not understand there cannot be too much liberty and freedom, cannot be too many people in favor of extremely limited government, cannot be a free society if government can dictate every facet or your life, do not recognize that the background and culture of this newer nation are not based on reverence for centuries old concepts of subjugation of the person to ancient family and ancient culture, cannot understand that the protection of the constitution is toothless without the means to apply harsh discipline to government if needed, cannot understand that if 2A is not the “end all, be all” of those who value their natural and human rights, no one has any rights that cannot be given or taken away by government on a simple majority vote. If “Asians” do not know and understand why it is they have a right to firearms in the first place, then we do not have a group identifier of “Asian-American”**. What we have is a group better labeled “Asians living in America, clinging to their pasts, while enjoying the benefits others created and defended.

            The Second Amendment is not a suggestion to be traded for this or that other thing that you like better. The reason for the divide is that Dimwitocrats hate the Second Amendment, except as they find it convenient for themselves temporarily. The duplicity and double-mindedness of Leftists and their fellow travelers, is to proclaim their enjoyment of a fundamental right of nature, while simultaneously facilitating/enabling the destruction of those fundamental rights through adherence to a belief system completely antagonistic to those rights.

            Be a leftist, Dimwitocrat, or whatever bizarre system of beliefs you wish; it is your right. but don’t insult our intelligence by proclaiming you believe in the premise and intent of the Second Amendment, but…

            We know who you are. And yes, people who hold the Constitution near sacred are guilty of group think…thinking the Constitution is the most important secular gift to mankind.

            **Read what one of our most influential (and progressive) presidents thought of hyphenated Americans:

        • @Eli

          Oprah isn’t gonna be president. Heh. She’s too smart to ruin her life like that, just as is Michelle Obama. Someday there will probably be a brave woman of color who goes for it but I’m just not sure our society is ready for that yet.

          I am very proud of the fact that Americans, in this midterm, chose to elect a House of Representatives that actually LOOKS like the United States: diverse. For me this was a historic moment that I am glad I was alive to see. What do you know, we might have it in us after all to finally admit that the good old US of A ain’t just for white straight Christian people. It’s very encouraging.

          Yeah. That’s the whole thing. “Agree with us or you are a traitor”? That ain’t democracy. In fact, that’s the kind of repressive and dictatorial thinking that supposedly “2A”ers are against. The United States has always had, and will always have, gun control, plenty of it imposed by Republicans, because EVERY SOCIETY across the globe that has guns and a functioning government has gun control. It’s not a new thing, it’s not a “liberal” thing, it’s something that societies must do and DO do. The constant denial of this basic fact on this forum strikes me as delusional, to be honest. And people who have come here from countries where you’re not allowed to dissent can tell you: they don’t see the current President as being on the side of democracy.

          I don’t think ARs will be banned either. Because it isn’t freedom that runs this country. It’s money. Anything that makes as much money as the AR and accessories market ain’t gonna disappear. And because we give corporations the legal status of people, there will be lawsuits if anybody tries because revenue.

          The NRA isn’t interested in us. The NRA was in bed with a Russian spy and setting her up to make connections with the Republican Party. The NRA isn’t interested in everyday gun owners. It has another agenda, who knows what, but it ain’t gun rights.

        • To Sam I am. Never thought I’d get a thoughtful response like that but… it was interesting. If you know the history of this country then you know that Japanese-Americans fought AND died in WW2 while their families and neighbors were placed in internment camps. So, to rebut, WE definitely know about the constitution and the 2A, and the 1A, etc. etc. It was used against us and we have not forgotten.

          My uncle was “placed” in an internment camp. He flew the flag every day on his lawn. He totally committed to the American way and when he was released from the camp he came back to nothing. The U.S. government had taken all his property. He was given an apology and “awarded” $25,000 FORTY years later. My father said that when my uncle was released from camp the first thing he bought was not shoes, it was not food. It was a Beretta pistol from a G.I. Years later he showed me the pistol and we both went out in his backyard and shot it. He told me, “America is a great country but always be prepared for the worst.”

          Many Asians are from third world countries and yes they have been subjugated under tyrannical regimes. They are new to freedom but they will learn. If they are taught that freedom comes at a cost of their race and their background they will happily go over to the left. But if they are taught that freedom is to be fought for and won just like we fight over the 2A, then there is a good chance that they will come over to our side. Excuse me, your side. Unfortunately, I’m a democrat who votes republican.

          • ” If they are taught that freedom comes at a cost of their race and their background they will happily go over to the left.”

            The Left is where tribalism and separation live. People who want to be Americans, but retain all the trappings of life under their ancestral cultures do not really want to become Americans, or embrace the culture of America. The simply want to move their culture to a place where they remain segregated, but free to remain segregated. The end result of that is tribalism and “otherism”.

            One of the extraordinary things about the founding of the US was the complete lack of retribution on the part of the “victors”. Retribution was (and is) a staple of government upheaval caused by every other revolution. We almost lost control of ourselves during the so-called “Reconstruction” period after the second American revolution.

            Maintaining grudges for generations has never resulted in an improved society. One reason is that grudges can never be satisfied, there is no amount of money, trinkets or other obeisance that will remove the wrong, or facilitate “getting over it”. One of the crucial failings in this nation is that not only do people hold grudges for what were awful “wrongs”, but they cannot even articulate what it is that will end their grief, and allow them put aside old trespasses, and melt into the melting pot (BTW, the original concept of the US as a “melting pot”, was not that of a Lazy Susan – all the ingredients resting on the same conveyance, but fully separate from all the other ingredients).

            Through our history, when elections were finished, we all dusted ourselves off, and carried on under new representatives. What you are seeing to day is the breakdown of that peculiar social consensus – people are refusing to accept the bargain that kept us from fracturing into irreconcilable factions, where only armed conflict can settle the question of the direction of the nation.

            While it may seem prudent, acceptable, smart, desirable, just, or whatever feels good, being an adherent of the constitution while aligning with people who intend to control your every decision, people who would tell you that you can be punished for using “the wrong word”, people who exploit your grievances for political gain, is not a rational line of thinking. So, to become an American are you required to “give up your culture”? Only in the sense that you cannot truly be an American if you put ancient culture and family ties above becoming that new person, and American. Celebrate your heritage, and share it if you wish, but if you demand that you be allowed to establish the Old World in a ghetto in the New World, that is not being an American. That is being an outpost of a foreign nation.

        • To Sam I am.
          “So, to become an American are you required to “give up your culture”? Only in the sense that you cannot truly be an American if you put ancient culture and family ties above becoming that new person, and American. Celebrate your heritage, and share it if you wish, but if you demand that you be allowed to establish the Old World in a ghetto in the New World, that is not being an American. That is being an outpost of a foreign nation.”

          Well… normally I blow this stuff off and reason that it is just some retiree or a person who loves to blog. But I’ll be honest for once and say that you made me think for more than a minute that there is relevance to your comments. Frankly, the points you brought up have at times troubled me. Am I really an American or a product of my upbringing? I suppose both are true. I will say I lean heavily on what I was taught in college (this was when “higher education” meant something and wasn’t an invitation to change my sex) and not so much what I was taught at home.

          At home we were taught self-defense or unarmed combat but guns were a no-no. So were motorcycles and blondes. I don’t like motorcycles but I did marry a blonde and I have always had a passion for firearms. I have never demanded that my culture be established in any ghetto but I understand what you mean and I respect it. Unfortunately, the current political climate dictates that we pursue this path until we are all San Franciscans.

          The world is changing too fast for my tastes. As I grow older I gravitate to a simpler time and a more conservative one. If that means moving to Utah and voting Red all the way then so be it. But if there is a chance for dialog between two hardcore segments of our society then I must as my college professor taught me, look in to it. It may turn out that Utah was a good choice after all. In the mean time I’ll continue to vote republican, be skeptical of the NRA and avoid Irish Whiskey. It’s my choice. Right?

          • Thanks for your return comments. If something I wrote caused a pause in your thinking, the exercise is a success. Not being of any particular ancestry, except “my family”, I do not know first hand what it is like to have to weigh Old World vs. New World. The proposition is understandable, however, it is all about commitment, about which I have significant experience.

            One of the difficulties I see for people who have a notion about being a hyphenated American, it that clinging to ancestry can become more a worship than a reverence. Not always easy to sort that out. Because of being a voracious reader, life lessons and principles come from several sources regarding the same subject. One homily that comes to mind, “A double-minded person is unstable in all their ways”. Shakespeare used “Hamlet” as an analogy to this idea.

            “But if there is a chance for dialog between two hardcore segments of our society then I must as my college professor taught me, look in to it.”

            There is a hint of ambiguity in your words. “Chance” is completely subjective and speculative. “Dialog” is also fuzzy (like “negotiation” that means one side completely surrenders, or maybe something else…fuzzy). “Chances” have been taken for decades, always ending in more government control over the individual. “Dialog” ends in shout-downs, and and the intelligence stifling claim of “racist”, “bigot”, whatever-phobe. If you would like to see how the current condition played out once before, study the history of the US between 1830 and 1860. Don’t rely on old textbooks, or current group-speak. Search for the text of the speeches, contemporary commentary on political events as they were happening. In sum, the times resulted in irreconcilable differences that required not justice, but armed conflict to resolve. And if you look closely today, you find a similar divide between overarching government control advocates, and advocates of limited government and more personal liberty.

            From what I have read (but may be mistaken), you not only have one foot in the past and one in today, you have one foot if “feel good” (Leftist/liberal/Democrat), and one foot in personal accountability and responsibility (“Conservative” – which is not actually synonymous with “Republican” – also known as “Republicrat”). If you consider yourself, objective, middle-of-the-road, remember that you get hit by traffic going both ways.

          • @Eli2016
            What Sam said may be a little hard to swallow, but it applies to any country you move to. The only countries willing to accept other cultures in their countries are western countries of christian heritage. Every other nation bad things tend to end up happening if you dont 100% fit in and accept and embrace their culture. Yes you may get accepted as a tourist or a VIP worker (eg helping guide construction work they are undertaking that they dont have someone skilled enough to do) but not as an immigrant. They would especially treat you harshly if your tried to forcibly move to their country. Currently one of the worst regions for this is the middle east

        • @Elaine D. — Oprah isn’t going to be President because she will not command sufficient votes to be elected to the office. Nor should she be, for that matter. Our society is more than ready for it, but without anyone actually qualified for the job.

          And if you’re really going to talk about “diversity,” realize that the only diversity that truly matters is diversity of thought. That’s something you will not find on the left by any meaningful measure. Especially not with its virtual take-over by far-left regressives, which will inevitably destroy the Democratic party. That’s not very encouraging, and shouldn’t be to you.

          You know what else isn’t democracy? America. It’s a Constitutional Republic, and yes, there is in fact a huge difference. Oh, and don’t get me started with the left’s constant baying, “Agree with us or your a bigot” mantra that’s designed exclusively to shut down debate, get people fired from their jobs, end their relationships, and socially and financially isolate people they don’t like. You don’t see that happening on the right. And, no, gun control is actually something that society must NOT do, but does anyway. Why must it NOT happen? As explained ad nauseum and ad infinitum on this blog, it doesn’t work and it’s a gigantic waste of time, money, and manpower used exclusively by politicians and their appointees to say, “Look! I DID SOMETHING!” It accomplishes literally nothing else by any objective measure. By and large, though, it is absolutely IS a leftist liberal thing. Your constant denial of this doesn’t strike me as anything but boring and predictable. And I guess those people coming from other countries don’t know what a peaceful transfer of power looks like, either, because otherwise they’d see a President who is on the side of the Republic as much as any other leader in the last thirty years.

          If you don’t think ARs will be banned, you’ve completely forgotten the 1990s. You’ve also completely forgotten the 2000s and 2010s up to today, as well. The federal AWB was just the first step towards doing exactly that, and it was supposed to start with the ban on manufacturing and sale of them, slowly ratcheting up beyond mere “evil features” to an outright prohibition of the type altogether. Leftist localities have gone ahead and taken the step of doing so themselves, and in spite of any and all state preemption laws, no less. The gun industry doesn’t have the clout or money that you like to think it does, either. It only stays afloat because its customer base, and that’s because it’s more politically active than its opposition.

          Oh, and the NRA isn’t “in bed with a Russian spy,” either. If it was, there would have been charges left and right because they’re not Democrat politicians. But, I guess they’re not interested in the plight of everyday gun owners like Otis McDonald (McDonald v. Chicago) or Josaphine Byrd (Doe v. Willmington Housing Authority) or Shaneen Allen. Or maybe you’re just ignorant.

        • @Faysal

          TTAG has about 1 million views per month. The people who comment here are a very, very small percentage of the people who actually read and follow TTAG. Different commentary happens on other social media outlets that TTAG has. I think those commenters probably choose not to post here because they already know nothing they have to say is going to be listened to, and they aren’t interested in being called names.