Mikeb302000 [not shown] doesn’t like gun owners much. No surprise there. He doesn’t like guns. Or, more specifically, what people with guns do with them. Some people? I’m not sure Mikeb’s capable of—or interested in—making that distinction. Nor am I sure if Mikeb’s gun control agenda would lead to total civilian disarmament. But his critics assume so. Which displeases them no end. The result: gun control debate that generates a great deal of heat and very little light. Yesterday, Mikeb opened a new front in his campaign to tar all gun owners with the same metaphorical brush . . .
Most of you guys have friends or relatives who you know are not fit to own guns. You do nothing about it for several reasons, you feel it’s none of your business, or you feel it’s their right to own guns in spite of whatever disqualifying problems they may have. Maybe you even have mixed feelings about it but inertia takes over, you do nothing.
That’s where you’re complicit . . .
I’ll change that “most of you guys” to all of you guys. Every one of you knows some gun owner who drinks too much for his own good, or who flies off the handle showing signs of anger problems. You justify not intervening because maybe, let’s hope, it never results in a bad scene. How about the prescription medication guys, the ones who’ve had back problems or depression and got hooked on the medicine. And let’s not forget the accident prone.
Of course some of you go much further, you have friends or relatives with violent criminal pasts who seem to have straightened out. What are you going to do, play cop and criticize their desire to exercise a natural human right like everybody else. Of course not. That’s why you’re all complicit in this.
After yesterday’s shoot/don’t shoot post, where members of TTAG’s armed intelligentsia considered their responsibility to defend innocent strangers, this suggestion strikes a similar chord. My own take: it’s not my job to police fellow gun owners. It’s the police’s job. Put another way, judge not lest ye be a judge.
But the question remains: are there times when a gun owner should perform an intervention on a fellow gun owner? Does the fact that both parties in this recommended interaction are armed make any difference?