The Firing Line Forums

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old April 7, 2013, 07:43 AM   #1
L2R
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 5, 2010
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 232
How does this make you feel: Dan Baum, "Gun Guy?"

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/07/op...nted=all&_r=2&


I think he has a lot of good points describing gun owners.

I do think he is still taking things too far with responsibilities of ownership.

Until people who owns things, regardless of what it might be that is dangerous in the wrong hands, is held accountable, then it is not a sound solution.




Still a good read, and wonder how others here digest it.
__________________
L2R


Evil cannot be reduced thru Legislation!

Last edited by Vanya; April 11, 2013 at 02:58 PM. Reason: clarify title after merging threads.
L2R is offline  
Old April 7, 2013, 08:02 AM   #2
kmccabe
Junior Member
 
Join Date: February 23, 2013
Posts: 5
it makes me feel that the NEW YORK Times is once again deceiving their readership.

The video and the 'transcript' of it are so at odds that it is laughable. Control the media, control the message yet again.

This one's so obvious even the liberals have to see it - if they're honest with themselves.
kmccabe is offline  
Old April 7, 2013, 08:26 AM   #3
Baba Louie
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 23, 2001
Posts: 1,496
As always, the comments are revealing as to what their readers "feel" on the subject.

A whole lot of people "feel" that gun owners are "less than", apparently, "righteous" non gun owners based on recent tragic events where capital crime laws were already being broken, and "gun free safe zones" were violated.

So it is, they "feel" a need to pass more laws restricting a "right" they do not agree with and to castigate the law abiding into a class of felonious ner-do-wells, but have no clue as to what to do with the mental cases who want to go out with a big bang for their immortal 15 minutes of hellacious fame.

I have yet to read about any such interview where the "pro-rights" protaganist discusses SCOTUS rulings on police protection of the individual citizens (or lack thereof) in order to bring that point to the forefront of general awareness. I wonder why that is?

Must not fit the talking points or perhaps was "edited" out in the final edition, IF it was discussed at all. Such as politicians discussing duck or deer hunting when discussing the amendment/right in question as opposed to the historical reasoning as to WHY that right was enumerated/included in the first place in the BOR.

I expect nothing less from the media, sadly.

C'est la Vie.
__________________
A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government." - George Washington, January 8, 1790, First State of the Union Address
Baba Louie is offline  
Old April 7, 2013, 09:37 AM   #4
Skadoosh
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 13, 2010
Location: Virginia
Posts: 1,776
Excerpt from the article:
Quote:
But so what? We have turned this society upside down because 3,000 people died on 9/11. In the scheme of things, that number is also statistically insignificant. Yet we take extraordinary measures, limiting people’s personal freedoms, to prevent another act of terrorism on our soil.
The attacks on 9/11 took down multiple towers and buildings, including the Pentagon. Not the same, body count or not.
__________________
NRA Life Member (2003)
USN Retired
I think that one of the notions common to the anti-gunner is the idea that being a victim is 'noble'; as if it is better to be noble in your suffering than disruptive in your own defense.
Skadoosh is offline  
Old April 7, 2013, 11:09 AM   #5
Vanya
Staff
 
Join Date: July 7, 2008
Location: Upper midwest
Posts: 3,938
kmccabe, do you have a link to the video? I'm unable to find one.

Never mind -- it's a browser problem.


Edit:
Having watched the video as well as read the column, I thought the most revealing thing was the way Mr. Nocera came across as completely closed-minded, and rude along with it. The closed mind is hardly surprising given the NYT's stance, but I could have done without the rudeness.

I'm sure Mr. Baum's intentions are good, but he lost me completely when he said: "I think most of what happens with guns that is bad in this country could be solved by the gun guys themselves." It's true in the sense that most gun deaths in this this country are suicides, so, yes, gun deaths would go way down if "gun guys" didn't use them to kill themselves. But almost all the rest of "what happens with guns that is bad" involves people using them to commit crimes -- accidental gun deaths account for less than 2% of all such deaths. It's absurd to suggest that all this will somehow go away if "gun guys" just lock up their guns.

And I'm also not a fan of his insistence on the term "gun guys." Women make up roughly a third of American gun owners (according to an often-cited Gallup poll, 23% of women own guns, as compared to 46% of men). Mr Baum is no friend of mine when he uses language that perpetuates the invisibility of women. (Speaking of "disrespectful," which seems to be one of his buzzwords...)

So I guess how I feel about it is "the heck with both of them."
__________________
"Once the writer in every individual comes to life (and that time is not far off), we are in for an age of universal deafness and lack of understanding."
(Milan Kundera, Book of Laughter and Forgetting, 1980)

Last edited by Vanya; April 7, 2013 at 12:02 PM.
Vanya is offline  
Old April 7, 2013, 12:36 PM   #6
Texshooter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 17, 2006
Posts: 261
The supposed "gun guy" is a prostitute.

I accept people having different opinions than me, but when he wants to exercise the same rights, without the same responsibilites, to heck with him.
Texshooter is offline  
Old April 7, 2013, 01:15 PM   #7
Vanya
Staff
 
Join Date: July 7, 2008
Location: Upper midwest
Posts: 3,938
Moved to General Discussion -- this is more about media presentation of gun owners than law/civil rights.
__________________
"Once the writer in every individual comes to life (and that time is not far off), we are in for an age of universal deafness and lack of understanding."
(Milan Kundera, Book of Laughter and Forgetting, 1980)
Vanya is offline  
Old April 7, 2013, 01:55 PM   #8
dakota.potts
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 25, 2013
Location: Saint Augustine, Florida
Posts: 1,206
So, he thinks guns need to be locked up, regardless of what the Heller court stated? That alone made me lose all respect for his argument. Universal background checks? No thanks. Required police training for CCL even though he carried without it? Sounds to me like he wants to give our second amendment rights up little by little. People like him shouldn't be gibing high profile interviews. People will read this and say "look, even the gun guys want it!"

Makes me mad. That's how I feel about it.
dakota.potts is offline  
Old April 7, 2013, 02:26 PM   #9
CSG
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 6, 1999
Location: Out West
Posts: 176
It makes me feel half the country is lost and we haven't seen our last civil war.
CSG is offline  
Old April 7, 2013, 02:56 PM   #10
arch308
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 6, 2011
Location: DFW, Texas
Posts: 876
I see it as just more clever anti-gun propaganda. Another attempt to put any blame they can on lawful gun owners. Sadly many law abiding gun owners simply can't afford an expensive enough safe to deter thieves.
If somebody's car is stolen, then used in a bank robbery is the car owner held responsible? I can't follow this type of logic.
arch308 is offline  
Old April 7, 2013, 03:01 PM   #11
spacecoast
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 14, 2009
Location: Sunshine and Keystone States
Posts: 4,136
At least Dan Baum made a decent attempt to understand "gun lovers" (his/their term, not mine). He's wrong on a lot of stuff but at least he made an honest attempt. The other guy just makes me ill.
spacecoast is online now  
Old April 7, 2013, 05:14 PM   #12
TailGator
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 8, 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 2,009
I got the impression that Dan Baum, the man interviewed, was making an attempt to connect to and persuade the interviewer, even though he knew him to be virulently anti-gun. He made some concessions, true, but he also stood up for some valid points. Example:

"You don’t understand guns, and you don’t know gun guys, yet you want to make rules for things you don’t understand for people you don’t know. And that is not how we’re going to end up safer. Where gun guys draw the line is having you make consumer decisions for them. Because what you’re saying, Joe — you, on the Upper West Side of Manhattan — you want to say to some guy in Kansas, “You can have this rifle. But you can’t have that one.” And they’re saying, “What does Joe Nocera know about guns? What does Joe Nocera know about me?” It is offensive. We should be insisting on real responsibility from gun owners instead of doing what we’re doing now, which doesn’t get us anywhere. Because you don’t really think that by adjusting the number of rounds in a magazine we’re going to make everybody safer. You can’t possibly believe that."

That is pretty solid, really. I didn't like everything he had to say, but this particular passage emphasizes the point that gun control can be argued against on the basis of ineffectiveness, without focusing solely on the sanctity of the second amendment. That is a tactic that I have used some, and it makes some headway with some people.

I don't think it is necessary to rail on the NRA, but on the other hand the assertion that there are at least some gun owners who don't feel well represented by the NRA is undoubtedly true. I don't have handle on the proportion, and I suspect he engages in hyperbole in his statements on that subject, but there are a whole lot more gun owners than there are NRA members.
TailGator is offline  
Old April 8, 2013, 03:15 AM   #13
Metal god
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 10, 2012
Location: San Diego CA
Posts: 2,029
The 911 thing is when I stop listening to guys like that . It is SO not the same . The reason we have tighter security and more restrictions is because there are thousands of people actively trying to kill us as I type . The 911 thing reminds me of the conspiracy guys . They always say something that makes me stop listening too. They always come up something that's so far out there or totally wrong it puts in to question there credibility and for me there entire argument .

Now for the whole guns should be locked up at all times . I'm not sure how I feel about this . I feel it is my responsibility to keep my firearms away from those that should not have them . This does not include having them stolen . Let say I have a pool and I have friends over and they bring there kids . Although I would be keeping an eye out , it's there parents that should be watching them . Now if those kids get a hold of one of my firearms it would not be there parents fault it would be mine .

That being said I find it almost impossible to defend my family and home if all my firearms are locked up . Therefore I don't think I should have to keep them locked up . Well how do I keep them away from all that can get to them and still be able to quickly get to them if the need arises . The only thing I can think of is keep it on my person at all times . As much as I like my guns , I'm a city boy and that just seems odd to me .The screwed up part about that last statement is . Here in the big city is where I most likely would need to defend my self or family .In the last 20 years we have been burglarized 3 times and once when people were home asleep .

A little while back I woke up to something I thought was very odd . I will not go in to details but I did feel a need to grab a firearm . Have any of you tried to open your safe or steel gun cabinet as quietly as you can in the middle of the night . With all that steel clunking , pinging , squeaking OMG in the middle of the night when it's very quite( man it seemed loud ) . It made me reevaluate a lot of thing when it came to my home defense from how full my safe is to where I keep my phone . My phone was on the other side of the house cus thats where I put my day to day stuff like that .

Anyways sorry got a little off topic . I do feel It's the gun owners responsibility to keep there firearms out of the hands of anybody that could get to them but it's a real problem to have them all locked up when you need it .

So if the government passes a law stating all firearms must be locked up . The government should be responsible for all damages to your home life and family do to the fact they made it impossible for you to defend your self and family . If the government is going to make it virtually impossible to defend my self and family . They should have some capability in it .

As far as the NRA and do I feel they represent me and my thinking . I would say no I don't feel they represent my complete ideals . I don't think that matters really . I have voted many times in my life and I can't think of one person I voted for that I felt they were the perfect match to how I was thinking ( probably cus they're often a lot smarter then me ) You vote for the person and or group that closes represents what you want . Right now that's the NRA .

P.S. I woke to what turned out to be nothing
.
__________________
As of this date 8-18-14 at 6:42am I became a proud grandfather I guess I'm officially old

Last edited by Metal god; April 8, 2013 at 04:33 AM.
Metal god is offline  
Old April 8, 2013, 03:48 AM   #14
Dr Big Bird PhD
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 26, 2012
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 778
I liked the way Dan put it, the AWB and high capacity magazine bans being a "limit on gun guy consumerism". That's really what it boils down to, I just never thought about it that way.

The comments are nauseating and the logical fallacies between the interviewer and interviewee are dreadful. Could be worse, they could have interview Stallone to represent the gun side haha.
__________________
I told the new me,
"Meet me at the bus station and hold a sign that reads: 'Today is the first day of the rest of your life.'"
But the old me met me with a sign that read: "Welcome back."
Who you are is not a function of where you are. -Off Minor
Dr Big Bird PhD is offline  
Old April 8, 2013, 04:25 PM   #15
Skans
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 20, 2008
Posts: 7,898
The article is a load of crap. It's all about punishing "gun guys", who do absolutely nothing wrong. Not a word about what should be done to people who steal guns to kill other people.
Skans is offline  
Old April 8, 2013, 10:40 PM   #16
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 11,508
I did like the part about how "you're making laws about things and people you don't know".

Other than that, its crap. Polite crap, but still crap. Responsibility is a good thing. Its the way people should be. Safety is good, but should it be the law?

Most of the safety laws we deal with daily are nothing more than the govt's excuse to dig into your wallet if they catch you taking what they consider an unacceptable risk.

And any law telling me how I have to store my private property, inside my home is just such a thing, written LARGE.

I've been around guns in the home my entire life, grew up in a house with parents who hunted and plinked. Dad was an NRA hunter safety instructor. My children grew up in a house with guns in it. Lots of them. Guns are not the problem.

The problem is general irresponsibility, beginning with and about guns, but going all the way up to general parenting, and beyond.

I intensely dislike the concept that I need do something, or be prohibited from doing something because someone else was supidly or criminally irresponsible. And forcing me to do, or not do this thing, by law is even worse.

Like the "background checks for everyone" (proposed) laws, the reason we oppose them (which the media NEVER mentions) is what else they put in the law. Language that would make one a criminal for common everyday actions, actions that are now,and ALWAYS have been legal.

Hand a friend of 20 years a gun to try without going through a federal agent (FFL dealer) to have a background check run, you're now a felon, etc...

Have TWO guns out of the safe at the same time? Now you're a felon....

And, of course, we will need compliance inspections (searches) of your home, every so often, maybe licensing, storage permits, limits on how much you can own, etc...

The proposed laws DO have language in them like that. Somehow that never seems to come into discussion, outside of us "gun guys"...
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old April 10, 2013, 12:40 AM   #17
DaleA
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 12, 2002
Location: Twin Cities, MN
Posts: 1,598
Wow. All the comments to the story knocked me back a bit.

The comments are so hateful against gun owners and so ready to stereotype us as paranoid vigilantes using our guns to compensate for our ‘short comings’ (if you know what I mean) I suspect there is NO OTHER GROUP of people they would be willing to malign as foully as they do gun owners.

Sheesh!

There were few pro-gun folk posting (and I might agree…what’s the use) and lots of folk pushing for eliminating all guns and I mean ALL guns from private ownership.

I knew there were virulent anti-gun folk out there but I didn’t think they were so deep rooted. In MN the anti-gun press usually gets a ton of pro-gun comments. Not so in New York!
DaleA is offline  
Old April 11, 2013, 12:51 PM   #18
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 11,508
Quote:
The comments are so hateful against gun owners and so ready to stereotype us as paranoid vigilantes using our guns to compensate for our ‘short comings’ (if you know what I mean) I suspect there is NO OTHER GROUP of people they would be willing to malign as foully as they do gun owners.
My experience has been that there is no other group so intolerant as the gun banners. They don't just hate guns, they hate anyone who has or wants a gun. (a generality, I admit, but very, very common)

After only a few sorjourns into various "open" chat forums, I quickly realized the wisdom of the old saying,

"Never wrestle with a pig. You just get dirty, and the pig likes it."

They can call us every name in the book, and what are we going to do about it? Shoot them? No. Scream epithets back at them? No, for the simple reason that doing so works in their favor.

Logic? Reason? That only has a chance of working on those who are not "true believers". And then, only a chance, as the other side is working hard at their goal to sway the undecided against us.

The people who really profit from gun control are those who would rule over others, harming them, or not, at their whim.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old April 11, 2013, 12:56 PM   #19
Brian Pfleuger
Staff
 
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Central, Southern NY, USA
Posts: 18,791
Quote:
Originally Posted by 44AMP
They can call us every name in the book, and what are we going to do about it? Shoot them? No. Scream epithets back at them? No, for the simple reason that doing so works in their favor.
Yep.

It's like telling someone that they don't accept criticism well. What are they supposed to say? It's lose-lose. "Have you stopped beating your wife?"

Oft-used tactic when the facts aren't in your favor. Make accusations against your opponent that appear to be self-confirming based on the opponents objections.
__________________
Still happily answering to the call-sign Peetza.
---
The problem, as you so eloquently put it, is choice.
-The Architect
-----
He is no fool who gives what he can not keep to gain what he can not lose.
-Jim Eliott, paraphrasing Philip Henry.
Brian Pfleuger is offline  
Old April 11, 2013, 01:58 PM   #20
DaleA
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 12, 2002
Location: Twin Cities, MN
Posts: 1,598
These are 'gun guys'???

I think this might be a trend in the gun debate.

I saw a PBS TV show last night with Paul Barrett (Glock: The Rise of America's Gun http://www.amazon.com/Glock-Americas...merica%27s+gun representing the ‘pro-gun’ side and then today on public radio I heard Dan Baum representing the ‘pro-gun’ side of the argument.

Neither Barrett or Baum would be what I would call solid advocates for ‘our’ side of the argument. Both are critical of the NRA and both see little problem with all sorts of ‘reasonable’ and ‘sensible’ new restrictions.

What’s worse is the host of callers they had calling in and saying they were ‘gun guys’ and ‘pro-gun’ and then blasting the NRA and saying things like ‘they only have guns because of all the guns out there and all the gun nuts.’

Sheesh! With ‘friends’ like this who needs enemies?

One guy I kind of liked said he was a ‘sports shooter’ with an AR and he defended ordering bullets ten thousand at a time for reloading.

He said he was very careful at work about NOT talking about shooting because the overwhelming folk he socializes with see gun ownership as something bad or aberrant. The moderator of the show pounced on this and he gleefully tried to get the gun owner to admit that this was just like homosexuality. When the gun guy finally admitted there were some similarities I thought the moderator was going to wet himself in excitement.

Where are the folks that are going to point out that these new laws would not have prevented the notorious shootings?

When people criticize the NRA statement that ‘the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun’ when are we going to get someone to say ‘well, what DID stop them?’

Last edited by Vanya; April 11, 2013 at 03:13 PM. Reason: threads merged, removed redundant link
DaleA is offline  
Old April 11, 2013, 02:02 PM   #21
ClydeFrog
Junior member
 
Join Date: May 1, 2010
Posts: 5,798
Gun Guys...

I saw a Fox News item about a new non fiction book called Gun Guys. I didn't watch the whole segment but the author spent time researching guns, the US gun culture, the media(films, TV, video games, etc), crime.

CF
ClydeFrog is offline  
Old April 11, 2013, 02:09 PM   #22
BarryLee
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 29, 2010
Location: The ATL (OTP)
Posts: 2,757
Well, part of it boils down to the fact that some people see no problem with gun control as long as it does not impact them personally. Also, many fail to understand that this battle is about freedom and responsibility and not some piece of hardware. We need to assure personal freedom, but hold those responsible who abuse that freedom. However, many find it easier to regulate society as a whole than to discipline individuals who violate the law. Ever notice it is many of the same folks that support gun control who in turn call for leniency for a convicted murderer?
__________________
A major source of objection to a free economy is precisely that it ... gives people what they want instead of what a particular group thinks they ought to want. Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself.
- Milton Friedman
BarryLee is online now  
Old April 11, 2013, 02:14 PM   #23
gaseousclay
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 4, 2010
Location: Frozen Tundra
Posts: 869
Quote:
Neither Barrett or Baum would be what I would call solid advocates for ‘our’ side of the argument. Both are critical of the NRA and both see little problem with all sorts of ‘reasonable’ and ‘sensible’ new restrictions.
so if you criticize the NRA you're anti-gun, is that it? believe it or not, there are plenty of gun owners out there that do not pay lip service to the NRA, nor do they think the NRA is necessarily doing gun owners a favor.

as for the 'reasonable' or 'sensible' gun law debate, I don't see anything wrong with some of the things being proposed. for example, gun shows. if I have to go through an NICS background check when buying a firearm from a LGS, why doesn't John Doe have to go through the same procedure at a gun show? I think it's disingenuous to suggest that there are no criminals obtaining guns at gun shows, especially because there is no mandatory background check. you can't have your cake and eat it too
gaseousclay is offline  
Old April 11, 2013, 02:51 PM   #24
Vanya
Staff
 
Join Date: July 7, 2008
Location: Upper midwest
Posts: 3,938
Gaseousclay, it sounds like you maybe operating under a bit of a misconception here. Under the current law, if John Doe buys a gun from a dealer, he has to go through a background check whether the sale takes place at the dealer's shop or at a gun show. If John Doe buys a gun from a private party, no check is necessary if they both live in the same state, regardless of where the transaction takes place.

This is why the "gun show loophole" is a misnomer: the goal of the folks who came up with the term has always been to prohibit private sales.

All we really know about the current bill is that it's supposed to be an improvement over Sen. Schumer's version, under which practically any transfer, even most temporary ones, would have required a background check. Until we see the text of the current version, we don't know how it differs from that. And rank-and-file Senators haven't seen it either, last I heard.

Getting back to our regularly scheduled thread... I'm merging this one with the other thread discussing Mr. Baum and his book tour.
__________________
"Once the writer in every individual comes to life (and that time is not far off), we are in for an age of universal deafness and lack of understanding."
(Milan Kundera, Book of Laughter and Forgetting, 1980)
Vanya is offline  
Old April 11, 2013, 03:07 PM   #25
Old Grump
Member in memoriam
 
Join Date: April 9, 2009
Location: Blue River Wisconsin, in
Posts: 3,144
Quote:
so if you criticize the NRA you're anti-gun, is that it? believe it or not, there are plenty of gun owners out there that do not pay lip service to the NRA, nor do they think the NRA is necessarily doing gun owners a favor.

as for the 'reasonable' or 'sensible' gun law debate, I don't see anything wrong with some of the things being proposed. for example, gun shows. if I have to go through an NICS background check when buying a firearm from a LGS, why doesn't John Doe have to go through the same procedure at a gun show? I think it's disingenuous to suggest that there are no criminals obtaining guns at gun shows, especially because there is no mandatory background check. you can't have your cake and eat it too
1934 – National Firearms Act
1968 – The Gun Control Act
1986 – Firearms Owners Protection Act
1993 – Brady Handguns Violence Act
1994 – Assault Weapons Ban
1995 – Gun Free School Zones Act
A 1997 Justice Department survey of more than 18,000 state and federal convicts revealed the truth:

• 39.6% of criminals obtained a gun from a friend or family member
• 39.2% of criminals obtained a gun on the street or from an illegal source
• 0.7% of criminals purchased a gun at a gun show
• 1% of criminals purchased a gun at a flea market
• 3.8% of criminals purchased a gun from a pawn shop
• 8.3% of criminals actually bought their guns from retail outlets

Time to stop compromising and time to get our heads pit of the sand and stop believing the hog slop the politicians tell the public about the gun show loop hole.
__________________
Good intentions will always be pleaded for any assumption of power. The Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern will, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters.
--Daniel Webster--
Old Grump 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 02:42 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 0.13507 seconds with 7 queries