The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > General Discussion Forum

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old February 17, 2013, 08:31 PM   #26
ClydeFrog
Junior member
 
Join Date: May 1, 2010
Posts: 5,798
LA Times, Dormer; federal govt-tyrants ...

I'd add that it's already documented in some states like CA & FL that gun sales/ownership has increased but violent crime rates have DECREASED!



Clyde

Last edited by ClydeFrog; February 17, 2013 at 08:42 PM.
ClydeFrog is offline  
Old February 17, 2013, 08:37 PM   #27
mrbatchelor
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 18, 2010
Location: South Carolina
Posts: 237
Re: WSJ: Why Our Gun Debate is Off Target

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fleabag View Post
"We're already divided. 100 million Gun owners. 4 million NRA members. You want to tell me how that's unified?"

Point made, point taken. Still, if you can influence the would be NRA backers into disliking the NRA before the issue rises to the point where they would back the NRA and become members themselves, it would promote their agenda, and I think he has one up his sleeve.
I do not believe he has nefarious intent any more than I have when I have suggested other liberal gun organizations to dyed in the wool Democrats who would rather puke than speak the word LaPierre.

Believe it or not, those people are not necessarilarly our opponents. And we push them away at our peril. We could do the lighten up and do ourselves some good.

But as far as other organizations go, they do not have to compete. They can compliment. The American Medical Association does not compete with the American Psychiatric Nurses Association. They compliment one another nicely.

Yes, the NRA needs to be more inclusive and grow substantially. But it needs to not feel threatened by other groups.

Last edited by mrbatchelor; February 17, 2013 at 11:19 PM.
mrbatchelor is offline  
Old February 17, 2013, 11:28 PM   #28
btmj
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 1, 2011
Location: Near St. Louis, Missouri
Posts: 766
I read the article this morning... All in all, I thought it was good, and it was good for the WSJ primary audience to hear it.

The author asks that gun owners exert peer pressure on those of us who are unsafe or careless... But that has been exactly my experience. Gun owners DO exert peer pressure to promote safe and responsible ownership. I have witnessed it several times... I myself had to remind some dit-ship a few years ago that his Ruger 10/22 was not a toy, I was afraid he was going to shoot one of his kids (!!!)

But I think the author heaps too much blame and responsibility onto gun owners. He asks us to self-police ourselves... But a few pages later I read that 4000 pedestrians are killed every year by cars.... So why are drivers not being asked to police themselves better? Under that logic, any racial/ethnic group could be held morally responsible for the behavior of a few, and we could ask them to do a better job policing themselves.

If a gun owner does not keep his guns locked up, and burglar steals them, well, bad on him. That gun owner bears some moral responsibility. But is the entire gun-owning population somehow to blame because we did not properly shame the guy into buying a gun safe? Really?

Jim
btmj is offline  
Old February 18, 2013, 12:07 AM   #29
mrbatchelor
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 18, 2010
Location: South Carolina
Posts: 237
WSJ: Why Our Gun Debate is Off Target

Quote:
Originally Posted by btmj View Post
...The author asks that gun owners exert peer pressure on those of us who are unsafe or careless... But that has been exactly my experience. Gun owners DO exert peer pressure to promote safe and responsible ownership.

[...]

But I think the author heaps too much blame and responsibility onto gun owners. He asks us to self-police ourselves...

[...]

If a gun owner does not keep his guns locked up, and burglar steals them, well, bad on him. That gun owner bears some moral responsibility. But is the entire gun-owning population somehow to blame because we did not properly shame the guy into buying a gun safe? Really?

Jim
I agree that gun owners are responsible people, for the most part. And I agree that the author would have us fall on the sword of honor without need. So I do think he goes a bridge too far.

But I would point out that the prevailing attitude among the gun community has been "it's not my responsibility what those damned KRIMINALS do. Now get off my lawn, punk."

And while it's true we aren't responsible for the actions of the criminals, we have to all live in this society together. We had darn well better participate in the solution or we'll get handed a solution. And I'll bet we won't like that.

So we must, *MUST* begin engaging the non-shooting, non-gun owning population in positive ways. Not necessarily the hard core antis, but the uncommitted.
mrbatchelor is offline  
Old February 18, 2013, 12:38 AM   #30
zxcvbob
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 20, 2007
Location: S.E. Minnesota
Posts: 4,186
Quote:
I dislike the NRA. I dislike that they will support a Republican, even if a Democrat has a better track record when it comes to guns.
Not true. In my district, the Democrat incumbent and the Republican challenger both had the same 'A' ratings, and the NRA endorsed the Democrat. (that Democrat is now waffling, and talking about "sensible" restrictions like "assault weapon" and magazine bans) I've sent him several emails but he's listening to his party more than us.
__________________
"The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is with a good guy with a gun"
zxcvbob is online now  
Old February 18, 2013, 06:01 AM   #31
MLeake
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
I really don't understand the stereotype about the NRA always backing Republicans, either. I can think of several high profile elections where that was not the case.

But I do notice amazing similarities in the responses from gun control advocates in Congress, whose party begins with D. It seems like somebody provided a template and handed it out throughout the party.
MLeake is offline  
Old February 18, 2013, 03:26 PM   #32
Mesquito Whitey
Member
 
Join Date: January 21, 2009
Location: Nevada Desert
Posts: 84
Bart Roberts re: Reed

Harry Reed was accompanied by LaPierre to open the Clark County Gun Range before that election. If that isn't a declarative "endorsment" I don't know what is. The NRA can blather all it wants about who it endorses, but ACTIONS (yes i know i'm not supposed to use caps) are what matter. Yes I'm a life member of the NRA, that does in no way indicate that I believe that they are always, or even mostly, correct in their actions.
Mesquito Whitey is offline  
Old February 18, 2013, 03:52 PM   #33
SPEMack618
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 21, 2010
Location: Central Georgia
Posts: 1,424
Rep. John Barrow (D-GA-12) got the NRA endorsement in the past election and an A rating.

He's a good man and takes a hard line position on gun rights.

In fact, he got targeted for a hatchet job by one of the anti- groups who edited a campaign commercial of his to make it like he was a gun nut.
__________________
NRA Life Member
Big Sister: "You should be sponsored by Allen"
Me: "If you can't shoot good, at least look good walking to the firing line."
Big Sister: "Can you not afford a Pelican? Then buy an Allen gun bag."
SPEMack618 is offline  
Old February 18, 2013, 06:46 PM   #34
Webleymkv
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 20, 2005
Location: Indiana
Posts: 9,890
The author seems to misinterpret, overestimate, or simply have his facts wrong in a number of areas.

The author first addresses accidental death and suicide by firearm among children and adolescents. The way the author writes the article, we would be had to believe that firearm accidents and suicides are of epidemic proportion. This, however, does not bear out when one examines the numbers.

According to the National Center for Health Statistics (part of the CDC), as of 2007 accidental death by firearm among children age 0-19 years (138 per 100,000) is well behind motor vehicle accidents (6,683), drowning (1,056), fires/burns (544), poisoning(972), and suffocation/strangulation (1,263).

When it comes to suicide, the author points out that firearms are the most popular and effective means used in the U.S. While that statement is not overtly false, it is misleading. While the majority of successful suicides in the United States are by firearm, the majority of attempted suicides are not successful. This is primarily because of the different methods chosen by males as opposed to females. Males are more likely to choose a firearm to commit suicide and, as such, are more often successful. Females, while less likely to actually die from suicide, are much more likely to attempt suicide.

Moreover, one would think that because firearms are among the most effective means of suicide that the United States would be near the top of the list of countries with the highest suicide rates due to the easy availability of guns in the U.S. Such, however, is not the case as the U.S. ranks 34th in the world for suicide rate which is well behind other industrialized nations with far less availability of firearms including Russia, China, Japan, and France. This would seem to suggest that people who wish to take their own lives choose whatever means is available to them. As such, we cannot conclude that restrictions on the availability of firearms would necessarily reduce the U.S. suicide rate.

The author further points out that many of the guns used in crimes are stolen with the implication that had the owners of said guns stored them more securely, these thefts would not have occurred. The author makes some pretty big assumptions here the primary being that the majority of the guns stolen were not securely stored. Different types of storage devices offer differing levels of security. An inexpensive gun safe might prevent a child or "smash and grab" thief form accessing its contents, but a determined thief with a moderate amount of time and simple hand tools could gain access quite easily. Likewise, other safe storage devices such as trigger locks and portable safes only prevent immediate access to the firearm. A thief could simply make off with the whole kit and caboodle so that he can access the firearm at his leisure later.

Likewise, the author also assumes that all or nearly all of the reported thefts were indeed thefts. There are a number of reasons why a person might falsely report a gun stolen including insurance fraud and to cover up the sale of a gun to a known prohibited person both of which are already illegal. Furthermore, the author cites that a large percentage of crime guns were believed to be "probably stolen" by the criminals. This would seem to suggest that the criminal acquired the firearm from another criminal such as a fence, drug dealer, or drug user and simply assumed that it was stolen. The problem is that there are several other means by which a criminal can obtain a firearm including straw purchase, illegal purchase or gift from a friend or family member, or in trade for drugs or other illicit goods.

The author also cites "tens of thousands" of shootings by people who previously had no criminal record. Since the author neither provides an exact figure nor cites a source, we can only assume that the number of people who suddenly snap and shoot someone is between 10,000 and 99,999. If we're extremely generous and assume that every year 100,000 people suddenly snap and commit a violent crime with a gun, that still only gives us 0.1% of the 100,000,000 gun owners that the author cites. When we contrast this to the 1,246,248 violent crimes in 2010 for a population of 308,745,538, we find that violent criminals represent 0.4% of the total population.

Finally, the author mentions so-called "safe storage" laws and brags about his own $25 gun safe. Where the author goes awry here is that he assumes that what is an adequate level of access or security for one person would be adequate for another. For example, his toaster-sized $25 safe would probably be adequate to keep a curious child away from his gun, but not a determined burglar. Conversely, a gun owner whose only weapon is a rifle or shotgun cannot store his/her firearm with the same degree of security while maintaining such easy access.

Overall, I think the main mistake that the author makes is to assume that those wishing to enact ever more restrictive gun laws can be placated through self-policing of the gun-owning community. The anti's continue to push for more and more draconian gun laws despite the continuing decline of violent crime and the lack of effect that gun control laws have upon it. Even the author admits that the gun-owning community is by and large very responsible. Despite this, the gun grabbers continue to latch on to isolated incidents to further their arguments. I see no reason to believe that such people can be appeased nor that they want anything short of a total ban on private firearm ownership.
__________________
Smith, and Wesson, and Me. -H. Callahan
Well waddaya know, one buwwet weft! -E. Fudd
All bad precedents begin as justifiable measures. -J. Caesar

Last edited by Webleymkv; February 19, 2013 at 11:31 AM.
Webleymkv is offline  
Old February 19, 2013, 09:43 AM   #35
btmj
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 1, 2011
Location: Near St. Louis, Missouri
Posts: 766
Well said Webley... you should write to the WSJ, they do publish insightful letters.
btmj is offline  
Old February 19, 2013, 04:53 PM   #36
Skans
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 20, 2008
Posts: 7,838
The WSJ guy sounds like an idiot to me. Here's why:

Quote:
He makes the point of being a liberal democrat, a gun owner, permit holder and makes no secret of his disdain for the NRA and he accuses them of extremism
Disdain for the NRA? Extremism? Why? Does he lay out any solid reasons why he hates the NRA? If so, what are they? Or, (as I suspect), does he just like to go around, claim to be a liberal gun owner, then profess his general "disdain" for something he likely knows nothing about. The NRA is far from extreme - in fact many non-member gun owners refuse to join because they claim the NRA is too meek and prone to compromise their rights away. Baum's article is a thinly veiled hit-piece on the NRA....with no rational or reasoning behind that position. That bothers me. It should bother you.

Quote:
In the article he states that the voice missing from the current debate on guns is that of the 100 million gun owners. He makes the point that the NRA only represents four million of them
How many gun owners, EXACTLY, did Mr. Baum interview in depth? Before he makes a dumb statement that the NRA only represents 4,000,000 gun owners, lets have him answer that first. I bet its less than 200; perhaps less than 100. So, Baum claims to speak for the other 96,000,000 gun owners because he chatted it up with maybe a hundred or so. So, we should listen to this buy, Baum, who owns a gun and has friends that own guns vs. the NRA. What if I showed up at your private or semi-private gun range and started spouting off about how I know what's best for your gun range, vs. the dedicated people who groom, clean, maintain the range and provide for RO's and organize events....oh, and pay dues?

I'll have to read some more about Baum, but if what the OP states is truly representative, the guy sounds like a real dummy.

PS: Mr. Baum, you are free to come here and debate me, show me where I'm all wrong about you.

Last edited by Skans; February 19, 2013 at 05:04 PM.
Skans is offline  
Old February 19, 2013, 05:48 PM   #37
22-rimfire
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 19, 2005
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 4,594
Seems like the author interviewed like minded people such as Ridge Runner when doing research for his book. How many othe like minded folks did he chat it up with?

I don't call the NRA extreme. Only people who want to ban, confiscate, or severly restrict citizen access to guns consider the NRA extreme. If they are extreme in any way, they are extreme in the sense that they know the road that politicians are traveling and where it leads. Hence, they might be considered extreme. I call the NRA extremely perceptive.

The author basically suggested that lawful gun owners are at fault for gun violence by their casual treatment of firearms in their homes. This leads to kids getting access to guns when they shouldn't or guns being stolen. He goes on to say that gun owners don't want to tell the police when they have a gun stolen. I told the police when it happened to me, but I didn't turn in an insurance claim. I think I was pretty responsible.

He suggests that gun shops should not sell a gun unless the owner has a way to restrict access. I think that is none of his business and it certainly is not the government's business. Does he want US law enforcement entering people's homes to inspect their gun safes?? Oops, this one is loaded and not in the safe... write him up. That may lead to many bad situations that most don't want to consider as honest citizens.

The article blames gun owners. Why is a gun owner responsible if a kid commits suicide? Has his home robbed? Is robbed at gun point on the street? Or assaulted on the street or in their homes??? The bad guys are responsible.

When he said he was liberal. He was right. He can do what he wants to with his firearms, but stay the hell out of my life and my business!

Last edited by 22-rimfire; February 19, 2013 at 06:36 PM.
22-rimfire is offline  
Old February 20, 2013, 12:39 AM   #38
DaleA
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 12, 2002
Location: Twin Cities, MN
Posts: 1,560
Webley - Very clearly written and well thought out.

IMhO there are some real insights there in your article and if you or anyone else claim it's just 'common sense' I'd reply it's just the antidote we all need to counter a lot of the nonsense that's being put out by much of the news media.

I like reading articles like this and the one written by Larry Correia.
DaleA is offline  
Old February 20, 2013, 02:51 AM   #39
mrbatchelor
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 18, 2010
Location: South Carolina
Posts: 237
WSJ: Why Our Gun Debate is Off Target

Quote:
Originally Posted by btmj View Post
Well said Webley... you should write to the WSJ, they do publish insightful letters.
But two words have to change. You can't say "antis" or "gun grabbers" or the ears stop up. You may as well say "bitches" or something equally as onerous.
mrbatchelor is offline  
Old February 20, 2013, 06:18 AM   #40
shortwave
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 17, 2007
Location: SOUTHEAST, OHIO
Posts: 5,937
Article had some points to it but the supposition that all gun owners bear some responsibility for all the gun related crimes is about as retarded a statement as I've ever heard. That's like saying that cause I'm a man and men do most of the raping, I must bear some of the blame for those raped.

Don't think so, scooter.
shortwave is offline  
Old February 20, 2013, 07:06 AM   #41
thallub
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 20, 2007
Location: South Western OK
Posts: 2,092
Webley:
Thanks for a very well written post.
thallub is offline  
Old February 20, 2013, 08:39 AM   #42
Webleymkv
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 20, 2005
Location: Indiana
Posts: 9,890
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by btmj
Well said Webley... you should write to the WSJ, they do publish insightful letters.

But two words have to change. You can't say "antis" or "gun grabbers" or the ears stop up. You may as well say "bitches" or something equally as onerous.
It depends on who I'm talking to. Around here, I think everybody pretty much knows exactly who I'm referring to with terms like "anti" and "gun grabber". Were I writing to a broader audience, I'd choose different terms.
__________________
Smith, and Wesson, and Me. -H. Callahan
Well waddaya know, one buwwet weft! -E. Fudd
All bad precedents begin as justifiable measures. -J. Caesar
Webleymkv is offline  
Old February 20, 2013, 11:49 AM   #43
mrbatchelor
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 18, 2010
Location: South Carolina
Posts: 237
Re: WSJ: Why Our Gun Debate is Off Target

Quote:
Originally Posted by Webleymkv View Post
It depends on who I'm talking to. Around here, I think everybody pretty much knows exactly who I'm referring to with terms like "anti" and "gun grabber". Were I writing to a broader audience, I'd choose different terms.
Around here yes. Audience appropriate terms prevail.
mrbatchelor is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:56 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.16060 seconds with 9 queries