An Apology for Trying to Start a Discussion

[jackstar7]

This is surreal to me, and be warned, the comments are best avoided.

http://www.gunsandammo.com/2013/11/06/response-december-2013-backpage-column/

I made a mistake by publishing the column. I thought it would generate a healthy exchange of ideas on gun rights. I miscalculated, pure and simple. I was wrong, and I ask your forgiveness.

So Guns and Ammo published an editorial that exploded their readership with just unbridled fervor. Looking beyond the gun topic and just at the response of an audience, how is a person not ashamed to see such a reaction from the people to whom one labors to inform.

Certainly there are subjects that are non-starters, but even those I could have a conversation or a discussion about. To see that to preserve his readership he had to push this editor into early retirement... it's just uncomfortable to see from a publication that is largely informational.

Must everything within a culture never deign to question the pervasive opinions lest it be exiled or worse?

Again, I'm not talking about guns or gun culture specifically... just this group of people and their reaction to someone trying to start a discussion.

 

[sandorski]

lol, I don't even know what to say about this. Confirms just about every stereotype there is.

 

[AViking]

I have two hardcore gun friends and although they're great and balanced people they are a bit crazy when it comes to guns. I really wouldn't have even realized this without facebook either. I've known both for over 20 years but with social media you can really see the direction people are taking with respect to guns and the 2nd amendment. They are literally like small children worried we're going to take their favorite blanky away.

There is such a huge difference too. I'd say that the vast majority of my friends have guns and go hunting. It's definitely part of our culture. However this idea that "gun culture" also entails a rabid obsession with semi-automatic weapons that look like machine guns and our right to any type of firearm doesn't seem to be accurate. Americans want to have their hand guns, shot guns, and rifles for hunting and home defense. Sure. I don't think we need to defend everything that can fire a projectile like lunatics though. I don't think we need to have people carrying AR-15's to Walmart. I don't think we need to have these huge magazines. Licensing, wait times, and mental health checks are ok in my book. So what's the real "gun culture" and do we have a problem with irrational people?

Look at those comments. Those are your neighbors. Your friends. Coworkers. Maybe even family. You can clearly see healthy gun owners surrounded by rabid people foaming at the mouth. Two different crowds.

Then there's the whole other problem we're having where you can't have a healthy discussion and a poor guy got fired for it.

 

[AViking]

DHurdle Jacob S • 4 hours ago −

The problem with licensing is that the people issuing the license get to decide who meets the requirements. I am sure Obama would not consider me "fit" to have a CC license, although all my true peers would. For instance, the "mentally insane" phrase can mean different things for different people.

As a rational person what does one say to this guy?

 

[irishScott]

lol, I don't even know what to say about this. Confirms just about every stereotype there is.

The internet does that for every issue under the sun. It's a window into what happens when people can speak without consequence.

As for the whole editorial situation, that's the reaction you get for the gun control advocates being as ignorant as they've been for as long as they've been. Imagine if there was a political element that had been devoted, for the last 30 years, to preventing car accidents by placing a mandatory breathalyzer in every car, by only allowing you to drive 10 miles a day, by limiting gas tank size to 5 gallons, and completely outlawing SUVs.

Note this isn't your typical (and much derided) "car analogy", I'm just demonstrating how asinine most gun control suggestions are, and the few that aren't completely asinine are coming from the same source, so they're broken-clock-right-twice-a-day at best; and it's a damn shame, because we could use some reasonable gun control to good effect, but there's a virtual guarantee from those advocating it that it won't stay reasonable.

When you have a situation like that for decades, you polarize people. A lot of normal gun owners have been pushed out of apathy by such measures, and we've allied with the lunatic fringe because they were already there and we acknowledge the need to circle the wagons (as opposed to gun advocacy groups in Europe and elsewhere, who splintered and were defeated in detail).

I'd also like to point out that this isn't new behavior:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_&_Wesson

In March 2000 Smith & Wesson was the only major gun manufacturer to sign an agreement with the Clinton Administration.[5] The company agreed to numerous safety and design standards as well as limits on the sale and distribution of its products. Gun clubs and gun rights groups responded to this agreement by initiating large-scale boycotts of Smith & Wesson by refusing to buy their new products and flooding the firearms market with used S&W guns.[5][6][7] After a 40% sales slide,[8] the sales impact from the boycotts led Smith & Wesson to suspend manufacturing at two plants.[9] The success of the boycott led to a Federal Trade Commission antitrust investigation's being initiated under the Clinton administration,[7] targeting gun dealers and gun rights groups, which was subsequently dropped in 2003.[10] This agreement signed by Tomkins PLC ended with the sale of Smith & Wesson to the Saf-T-Hammer Corporation. The new company (Smith and Wesson Holding Corporation), which publicly renounced the agreement, was received positively by the firearms community.[11]

Gun owners care about their 2nd amendment rights, and if everyone cared about all the amendments as much as pro-gunners care about the 2nd, the nation would be in much better shape.

 

[AViking]

Isn't it really unjustified paranoia though? What exactly has the Obama administration done to second amendment rights? What laws?

 

[irishScott]

Isn't it really unjustified paranoia though? What exactly has the Obama administration done to second amendment rights? What laws?

Some of it is. The gun-buy craze when Obama was elected back in 2008 was stupid IMO. But were you watching Obama's legislative push post Sandy Hook? Where to begin...

He appointed Joe Biden, one of the primary advocates of the original Clinton AWB, as the head of his gun control commission that was supposed to come up with "common sense solutions". He endorsed a renewed AWB that was near identical to the old one, in that it included items such as bayonet lugs, barrel shrouds, and thumbhole stocks as characteristics of an "assault rifle". Never mind that the Clinton ban was never proven effective by anyone, which makes sense as ALL rifles, assault or otherwise, account for less than 3% of all gun homicides according to the FBI. He also advocated 10 round magazine limits, which once again no one has shown to be effective. Oh and he wanted to make "armor piercing bullets" illegal. "Armor piercing bullets" being a diabolical spin for cheap target ammo (usually of Russian origin) made with a steel core instead of a copper one.

In more recent news, he also forbade the re-importation of Korean War era M1 Garands, on the grounds of "keeping guns off the street." Because 60 year old 8-round M1 Garands are just killing people left and right these days.

Keeping Surplus Military Weapons Off Our Streets

When the United States provides military firearms to its allies, either as direct commercial sales or through the foreign military sales or military assistance programs, those firearms may not be imported back into the United States without U.S. government approval. Since 2005, the U.S. Government has authorized requests to reimport more than 250,000 of these firearms.

Today, the Administration is announcing a new policy of denying requests to bring military-grade firearms back into the United States to private entities, with only a few exceptions such as for museums. This new policy will help keep military-grade firearms off our streets.

The firearms in question:

Perhaps most transparent was his press conference where he announced all this (and more), where he trotted out children from the Sandy Hook area who read the most obviously scripted lines, in support of his legislation of course. That and his pathetic attempt to "relate" to gun owners with that picture of him shooting skeet at Camp David.

Obama, like far too many Democrats pushing gun control, has demonstrated a complete lack of understanding of firearms and gun crime. His few "reasonable" proposals were packaged with a slew of unreasonable, proven ineffective ones that have no rational basis and gain no traction outside of the aftermath of mass shootings. A renewed AWB has been formally proposed in Congress every year since the original sunset in 2004. Funny how it took until 2013 to gain even momentary traction, and now it's dead in the water again. You'd think a legitimate "common sense" measure would have more staying power.

 

[dank69]

I have two hardcore gun friends and although they're great and balanced people they are a bit crazy when it comes to guns. I really wouldn't have even realized this without facebook either. I've known both for over 20 years but with social media you can really see the direction people are taking with respect to guns and the 2nd amendment. They are literally like small children worried we're going to take their favorite blanky away.

There is such a huge difference too. I'd say that the vast majority of my friends have guns and go hunting. It's definitely part of our culture. However this idea that "gun culture" also entails a rabid obsession with semi-automatic weapons that look like machine guns and our right to any type of firearm doesn't seem to be accurate. Americans want to have their hand guns, shot guns, and rifles for hunting and home defense. Sure. I don't think we need to defend everything that can fire a projectile like lunatics though. I don't think we need to have people carrying AR-15's to Walmart. I don't think we need to have these huge magazines. Licensing, wait times, and mental health checks are ok in my book. So what's the real "gun culture" and do we have a problem with irrational people?

Look at those comments. Those are your neighbors. Your friends. Coworkers. Maybe even family. You can clearly see healthy gun owners surrounded by rabid people foaming at the mouth. Two different crowds.

Then there's the whole other problem we're having where you can't have a healthy discussion and a poor guy got fired for it.

You have to remember, Obama is going to come for our guns. He will declare Marshall Law. I haven't figured out what he wants once he does, but that doesn't change the fact that it will happen. When it does happen, I'll need large magazines to defend my property from this socialist tyrant.

 

[Agent11]

Obama's political action groups made a serious push for some pretty outrageous legislation in the state legislatures as well.

 

[TerryMathews]

As a rational person what does one say to this guy?

Well, the VA decided that any former service member receiving cash assistance wasn't of sound mind for the purposes of gun ownership and started reporting as such.

Its not paranoia if they're actually out to get you. Last I checked, poor and crazy didn't necessarily go hand in hand...

 

[AViking]

I'm not an expert. I see point A and point B and don't know what should happen in between.

Point A is today: Lots of gun crime
Point B: Not lots of gun crime.

I live next to Finland which if I'm not mistaken has the most guns per capita. Why do they have so little gun crime?

I think it has a lot to do with our healthcare and the lack of a link between healthcare, mental health issues, and gun ownership. Why are we allowing people to stock up arsenals when they are mentally unhealthy?

In Sweden I think I can get a permit for a bazooka if I want to. It's not really a problem though because they do background checks, mental health checks, have mandatory gun safety and training, and registration.

In the US I can go to a gunshow buy a gun and go kill someone the same day last I checked. Correct me if I'm wrong but do they do a mental health check or even a background check at these? For all I know I can get on craigslist and buy a gun and that's gotta be even crazier.

Common sense should tell us that we have a serious problem with guns in the USA and there needs to be a solution implemented asap.

 

[AViking]

Well, the VA decided that any former service member receiving cash assistance wasn't of sound mind for the purposes of gun ownership and started reporting as such.

Its not paranoia if they're actually out to get you. Last I checked, poor and crazy didn't necessarily go hand in hand...

Who does the VA give cash assistance to?

 

[TerryMathews]

Who does the VA give cash assistance to?

Destitute war veterans.

 

[AViking]

No link to mental health issues? I'm being the devil's advocate since when I think of destitute veterans I think of the guys who came back from Vietnam who were simply unable to integrate back into society and had issues. My friends who were in the military are all living very comfortable lives as technicians, engineers or in other technical fields. The job placement program was very impressive for them at least.

 

[dank69]

I'm not an expert. I see point A and point B and don't know what should happen in between.

Point A is today: Lots of gun crime
Point B: Not lots of gun crime.

I live next to Finland which if I'm not mistaken has the most guns per capita. Why do they have so little gun crime?

I think it has a lot to do with our healthcare and the lack of a link between healthcare, mental health issues, and gun ownership. Why are we allowing people to stock up arsenals when they are mentally unhealthy?

In Sweden I think I can get a permit for a bazooka if I want to. It's not really a problem though because they do background checks, mental health checks, have mandatory gun safety and training, and registration.

In the US I can go to a gunshow buy a gun and go kill someone the same day last I checked. Correct me if I'm wrong but do they do a mental health check or even a background check at these? For all I know I can get on craigslist and buy a gun and that's gotta be even crazier.

Common sense should tell us that we have a serious problem with guns in the USA and there needs to be a solution implemented asap.

The shortest distance between point A and B is to work on eliminating the reasons people commit crime, not eliminating the tools they use to commit crime.

 

[TerryMathews]

No link to mental health issues? I'm being the devil's advocate since when I think of destitute veterans I think of the guys who came back from Vietnam who were simply unable to integrate back into society and had issues. My friends who were in the military are all living very comfortable lives as technicians, engineers or in other technical fields. The job placement program was very impressive for them at least.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/12/03/veterans-gun-rights-sticking-point-in-defense-bill/

It's Fox News, but its the most complete article I could find on short notice.

No link to mental health issues, unless you consider being unable to properly manage your finances a mental health issue.

 

[irishScott]

I'm not an expert. I see point A and point B and don't know what should happen in between.

Point A is today: Lots of gun crime
Point B: Not lots of gun crime.

I live next to Finland which if I'm not mistaken has the most guns per capita. Why do they have so little gun crime?

I think it has a lot to do with our healthcare and the lack of a link between healthcare, mental health issues, and gun ownership. Why are we allowing people to stock up arsenals when they are mentally unhealthy?

In Sweden I think I can get a permit for a bazooka if I want to. It's not really a problem though because they do background checks, mental health checks, have mandatory gun safety and training, and registration.

In the US I can go to a gunshow buy a gun and go kill someone the same day last I checked. Correct me if I'm wrong but do they do a mental health check or even a background check at these? For all I know I can get on craigslist and buy a gun and that's gotta be even crazier.

Common sense should tell us that we have a serious problem with guns in the USA and there needs to be a solution implemented asap.

It's not gun-show dependent, it's private sale vs FFL (gun store) sale. FFLs are required to do a background check, doesn't matter if they're in their store, online, or in a booth at a gun show. Private sales vary from state to state. Some legally mandate background checks, some don't. However the efficacy of such laws is up for debate, as criminals are not likely to care about the legalities of getting a background check for their private sale in the first place.

And speaking as a gun-toating NRA member I fully agree the mentally unstable should not be anywhere near guns. The issue is the definition of "mentally unstable" and how it's determined. Is someone who's mildly depressed "mentally unstable"? Can this be determined by a psychologist? If said determination is made, should a person be able to appeal and get a 2nd opinion? 3rd opinion? Right now the law is if a court finds you legally insane you fail the background check (assuming your records are properly submitted to NICS, enforcement of which is another problem).

We've already seen such problems in New York City, which has handgun ownership permits. They started confiscating handguns from anyone they found out had a permit and was on antidepressants. Haven't kept up to date on the few lawsuits that came out of it, but I know it happened. There was no other criteria, no psychological consult, nothing. On anti-depressants? Own a gun? No gun for you anymore.


I'd argue that yes, we do have a serious problem with gun crime in the US, but the core issue is not gun availability. Gun homicides have decreased by ~20% in the last 5 years despite historic gun proliferation and loosening concealed carry laws. Gun crime also remains the largest problems in the inner cities, which ironically have the strictest gun control.

On the flipside you have towns like Kennesaw Georgia, a small city of 35,000 where it's been legally mandated that every household able to afford one must keep a gun and ammo for it in the house. Been on the books since 1982, and their violent crime is virtually nonexistent. However it's notable that the average income/household in Kennesaw is around 60k/year, above the national average.

So the way I see it: Fix inner city ghettos and gangland violence, extend mental health coverage (which congress is actually working on right now in conjunction with Obamacare), enforce reporting to NICS, and US gun crime would be cut in half, at least IMO.

 

[poofyhairguy]

Common sense should tell us that we have a serious problem with guns in the USA and there needs to be a solution implemented asap.

There is no "solution." Gun control is the ultimate "horse is already out of the barn" issue. Every policy to "help" assumes there isn't this huge secondary market for grandfathered weapons but there is.

American is a violent place. Built into our DNA. The only real choices are to stock up yourself and hope you never need to use them.

 

[jackstar7]

But my question is not about guns, or gun culture specifically, but rather is when any culture reaches the point of being too insular and dogmatic where it cannot tolerate a discussion, shouldn't that be a cause for concern within that membership of that culture?

This could easily be a scientific, religious, or even just some other hobby group. This started when someone deep within the culture tried to start a conversation and the result is they lost their job. This wasn't some outsider trying to attack or provoke the group, it was an insider...



UPDATE: And it looks like Jim Bequette himself is resigning over this.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/07/us/guns--ammo-editor-resigns-after-gun-control-column/

How is that not just a sign of an unhealthy culture?

 

[sandorski]

But my question is not about guns, or gun culture specifically, but rather is when any culture reaches the point of being too insular and dogmatic where it cannot tolerate a discussion, shouldn't that be a cause for concern within that membership of that culture?

This could easily be a scientific, religious, or even just some other hobby group. This started when someone deep within the culture tried to start a conversation and the result is they lost their job. This wasn't some outsider trying to attack or provoke the group, it was an insider...



UPDATE: And it looks like Jim Bequette himself is resigning over this.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/07/us/guns--ammo-editor-resigns-after-gun-control-column/

How is that not just a sign of an unhealthy culture?

Indeed. If the 2nd Amendment can not be defended with Discussion, has it any purpose at all?

 

[poofyhairguy]

But my question is not about guns, or gun culture specifically, but rather is when any culture reaches the point of being too insular and dogmatic where it cannot tolerate a discussion, shouldn't that be a cause for concern within that membership of that culture?

Depends on the culture. Some simply are more insular, more insulated.

I remember when I was part of the church "culture" they hated when I tried to intellectualize things in small group meetings. They didn't want to mix theology with some philosophy, they wanted that separate like a navy mess hall plate. No mixing the peas and carrots.

Which is fine I think. Cultures need a mechanism to make sure their insulated nature doesn't lead to criminality (like with cults or the mob), and they need a way to replace bad leadership.

But if they want to not debate the platform or the views of the culture that is not necessarily a bad thing.

 

[MooseNSquirrel]

It's not gun-show dependent, it's private sale vs FFL (gun store) sale. FFLs are required to do a background check, doesn't matter if they're in their store, online, or in a booth at a gun show. Private sales vary from state to state. Some legally mandate background checks, some don't. However the efficacy of such laws is up for debate, as criminals are not likely to care about the legalities of getting a background check for their private sale in the first place.

And speaking as a gun-toating NRA member I fully agree the mentally unstable should not be anywhere near guns. The issue is the definition of "mentally unstable" and how it's determined. Is someone who's mildly depressed "mentally unstable"? Can this be determined by a psychologist? If said determination is made, should a person be able to appeal and get a 2nd opinion? 3rd opinion? Right now the law is if a court finds you legally insane you fail the background check (assuming your records are properly submitted to NICS, enforcement of which is another problem).

We've already seen such problems in New York City, which has handgun ownership permits. They started confiscating handguns from anyone they found out had a permit and was on antidepressants. Haven't kept up to date on the few lawsuits that came out of it, but I know it happened. There was no other criteria, no psychological consult, nothing. On anti-depressants? Own a gun? No gun for you anymore.


I'd argue that yes, we do have a serious problem with gun crime in the US, but the core issue is not gun availability. Gun homicides have decreased by ~20% in the last 5 years despite historic gun proliferation and loosening concealed carry laws. Gun crime also remains the largest problems in the inner cities, which ironically have the strictest gun control.

On the flipside you have towns like Kennesaw Georgia, a small city of 35,000 where it's been legally mandated that every household able to afford one must keep a gun and ammo for it in the house. Been on the books since 1982, and their violent crime is virtually nonexistent. However it's notable that the average income/household in Kennesaw is around 60k/year, above the national average.

So the way I see it: Fix inner city ghettos and gangland violence, extend mental health coverage (which congress is actually working on right now in conjunction with Obamacare), enforce reporting to NICS, and US gun crime would be cut in half, at least IMO.

As long as an organization as the NRA exists and is the primary gun rights spokes group we will never make any progress on any of this.

They have consistently opposed all types of sane legislation over the years much to the detriment of their own members and society at large. In addition, they have created this culture of us vs them, hence the paranoia factor.

The statistics around gun violence and injury/death do not support your theory about gun homicides, but on the other hand the data isn't that great thanks to -- once again -- the NRA and its push for legislation years ago to prevent the CDC and other government agencies from properly collecting data.

 

[dank69]

Does anyone have a link to the original article? I'd like to read it before I decide if the backlash was justified or not.

 

[MooseNSquirrel]

There is no "solution." Gun control is the ultimate "horse is already out of the barn" issue. Every policy to "help" assumes there isn't this huge secondary market for grandfathered weapons but there is.

American is a violent place. Built into our DNA. The only real choices are to stock up yourself and hope you never need to use them.

I was also going to out the unfortunate confirmation bias type of thinking that pervades the gun sub-culture, but I think your posts in this thread are cases in point.

For example, only 1 in 3 Americans owns a gun according to one poll.

What does this tell us?

 

[irishScott]

But my question is not about guns, or gun culture specifically, but rather is when any culture reaches the point of being too insular and dogmatic where it cannot tolerate a discussion, shouldn't that be a cause for concern within that membership of that culture?

This could easily be a scientific, religious, or even just some other hobby group. This started when someone deep within the culture tried to start a conversation and the result is they lost their job. This wasn't some outsider trying to attack or provoke the group, it was an insider...



UPDATE: And it looks like Jim Bequette himself is resigning over this.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/07/us/guns--ammo-editor-resigns-after-gun-control-column/

How is that not just a sign of an unhealthy culture?

The discussion has been had and a consensus agreed upon, generally speaking. You think people heavily invested in a political issue don't talk about said issue? What Dick Metcalf wrote was not seen as starting a discussion, it was seen as supporting the opposition. It would be the equivalent of a pro-lifer writing about how abortion is murder in a pro-choice newsletter, then complaining when the pro-choicers call for that person to stop writing. It's seen by many as "dissension in the ranks."

And frankly there's some validity to that, given how small fragments of information have been exploited by gun control advocates to ridiculous heights. In the 90s there was a widespread rumors that Glocks could pass through metal detectors because of their plastic frame. Even more recently, regarding the LAX shooting, Senator Feinstein said "the rifle used was an MP-15, MP stands for military and police, clearly not designed for the general public." She failed to mention that the rifle was actually an AR-15, the "M&P" line is a Smith and Wesson product line, nothing more. I could buy an identical rifle from any number of manufactures and it wouldn't be called an M&P-15. There are M&P pistols and revolvers as well.

Granted the NRA has its own propaganda and spin, but at least they don't typically blab it to the media as technical facts. Then again the media is typically not supportive of a pro-gun agenda, so perhaps it's simply not worth their while.


Information spin aside, it also goes to show the siege mentality that's been steadily spreading among gun owners. A good number of us feel like a persecuted minority. I know that probably sounds silly, but I've gotten weird looks in public just talking about guns with my shooting buddies. And not in a creepy way either, we'll just be talking about some new model, pros and cons, ergonomics, suitability for carry, etc. Granted most people are reasonable about it, but I definitely hold off on telling new acquaintances that I like shooting until I get to know them a little. And that's just icing on the cake of the political fight. Essentially every owner of an AR-15 or AK-47 feels at least a little persecuted at this point, and there are millions of such people. Let alone owners of your average pistol (essentially every modern pistol holds more than 10 rounds).