Interesting article in the Wall Street Journal on Gun Control

sbmike · Feb 16, 2013

http://professional.wsj.com/article...178156938.html?mod=WSJPRO_hps_MIDDLEForthNews

The writer makes many good points and a few points that made me raise my eyebrows but they were reasoned points. Overall a good article in my opinion. Your particular mileage may vary.

mcbruzdzinski · Feb 16, 2013

sbmike said:
http://professional.wsj.com/article...178156938.html?mod=WSJPRO_hps_MIDDLEForthNews

The writer makes many good points and a few points that made me raise my eyebrows but they were reasoned points. Overall a good article in my opinion. Your particular mileage may vary.

Just finished reading the article over breakfast. Like you stated, many good points are discussed.

miben · Feb 16, 2013

I call BS, he's not a gun guy.

jpk1md · Feb 16, 2013

miben said:
I call BS, he's not a gun guy.

Ditto

He's a blathering leftist who made a pile of moronic arguments

One of the only good points he made is that the lefts ceaseless attempts at incremental gun confiscations is the best advertising the GOP ever had

Verbotene · Feb 16, 2013

What I got from the article was, "If a small portion of people won't store a firearm responsibly, we need to ban them all."

Not buying the dude as a "gun guy."

Docster · Feb 16, 2013

Verbotene said:
What I got from the article was, "If a small portion of people won't use common sense when storing a firearm, we need to ban them all."

Not buying the dude as a "gun guy."

Really? The entire article and that's all you come away with? That's the exact problem he writes about--we as gun owners only see things one way.. First, what ban??? He spoke of safety--as a group we don't want to hold other gun owners responsible for safety and we are paying or going to pay the price sooner or later, that's his point:

What could the NRA and the community of responsible gun owners do to reduce gun deaths without government intervention? They could make unsafe gun behavior socially unacceptable, just as it has become unthinkable, among most Americans, to smoke inside another person's house or to make lascivious comments about underage girls.

Some are trying. Robert Farago, who writes a popular gun blog called The Truth About Guns, runs a regular feature called "Irresponsible Gun Owner of the Day"—often a YouTube video of young men acting stupidly or a news item about a needless tragedy. After Arizona instituted "constitutional carry"—allowing any adult to carry a concealed gun with no training or permit—a group called TrainMeAZ.com organized to urge citizens to get trained and to help them find trainers.

I don't think I necessarily agree about gun safes for all but as seen with the recent Baltimore police training tragedy, where the training officer was seen being 'playful' with his gun yet none of the witnesses did anything to stop him, it's hard to argue that's there may be more than can be done regarding safety and being proactive about unsafe gun behavior.

Try reading TTAG's "Irresponsible Gun Owner of the Day" for a few weeks and you'll get the idea. Rights do indeed have responsibilities for all of us, individually and as a group. When our Founding Father's wrote 2A everyone learned how to use their firearms out of necessity to survive. Now, the firearms are there, the learning not so much. Nowadays, that learning/training may need to involve safe/secure storage if certain circumstances are present such as teenagers, demented/mentally disabled adults, young children, etc.

His article was well thought out and well-written. Just because you may disagree with one portion does not negate the entire article. It's still worthy of consideration and debate.

sbmike · Feb 16, 2013

Docster said:
Really? The entire article and that's all you come away with? That's the exact problem he writes about--we as gun owners only see things one way.. First, what ban??? He spoke of safety--as a group we don't want to hold other gun owners responsible for safety and we are paying or going to pay the price sooner or later, that's his point:

What could the NRA and the community of responsible gun owners do to reduce gun deaths without government intervention? They could make unsafe gun behavior socially unacceptable, just as it has become unthinkable, among most Americans, to smoke inside another person's house or to make lascivious comments about underage girls.

Some are trying. Robert Farago, who writes a popular gun blog called The Truth About Guns, runs a regular feature called "Irresponsible Gun Owner of the Day"—often a YouTube video of young men acting stupidly or a news item about a needless tragedy. After Arizona instituted "constitutional carry"—allowing any adult to carry a concealed gun with no training or permit—a group called TrainMeAZ.com organized to urge citizens to get trained and to help them find trainers.

I don't think I necessarily agree about gun safes for all but as seen with the recent Baltimore police training tragedy, where the training officer was seen being 'playful' with his gun yet none of the witnesses did anything to stop him, it's hard to argue that's there may be more than can be done regarding safety and being proactive about unsafe gun behavior.

Try reading TTAG's "Irresponsible Gun Owner of the Day" for a few weeks and you'll get the idea. Rights do indeed have responsibilities for all of us, individually and as a group. When our Founding Father's wrote 2A everyone learned how to use their firearms out of necessity to survive. Now, the firearms are there, the learning not so much. Nowadays, that learning/training may need to involve safe/secure storage if certain circumstances are present such as teenagers, demented/mentally disabled adults, young children, etc.

His article was well thought out and well-written. Just because you may disagree with one portion does not negate the entire article. It's still worthy of consideration and debate.

Yup.

Robert · Feb 16, 2013

I think the "jist" of his argument is on target. I think it would make a huge impact if the NRA and other high profile sportsman groups made it a point to discus/show bad practices in it's main stream media productions.

I didn't understand this however...

"To the legislatures of 27 states and the District of Columbia, the solution to both problems seems obvious: Require guns to be locked up, trigger-locked, stored separately from their ammunition, or some combination of the three. A lot of gun guys hate these laws. They argue that a gun separated from its ammunition, disabled or locked away is useless in an emergency."

Source

Then turned around and say:

"Not true. I keep my handgun loaded in the bedroom, in a metal safe the size of a toaster that pops open the second I punch in a three-digit code. I bought it on eBay for $25. The gun is secure but instantly available—to me only. Many gun guys use such safes. They just don't want to be told to use them."

Source

Does he not understand that the criminals (the ones that broke into your house) remove such $25 safes from the house where they are easily opened.

As it pertains to people stealing guns, and alluding to the owners fault, this doesn't make much sense.

Dogabutila · Feb 16, 2013

What exactly were the good points? A gun in the safe or trigger locked is NOT instantly accessible when I am downstairs and somebody breaks in. His safe doesn't actually prevent somebody from stealing it. If it's toaster sized they can easily steal the safe and work out breaking into it later. If you mandate safes, that is exactly what happens.

Must notify laws are always without fail terribly written. Must notify within 72 hours of when it was stolen? What if I am on vacation and not even around? How do I even know when it was stolen and that 72 hour clock begins. Or maybe written as "when they should have known" who defines "should have known"? When they get home from vacation immediately check? Wouldn't that mean you'd have to check every time you come home? Even from work?

This guy isn't a gun guy. There's no evidence he understands anything at all. "NRA extremism" right... Just another leftist trying another tack at incrimentalism.

jpk1md · Feb 16, 2013

Docster said:
Really? The entire article and that's all you come away with? That's the exact problem he writes about--we as gun owners only see things one way.

There's only one thing that needs to be pointed out.

"Shall Not Be Infringed"

Any questions?

No?

Good......the rest of the article is crap

Bob A · Feb 16, 2013

Actually, he is a gun guy. In fact, I bought his old Detective Special from him when he decided he needed to carry something with the firepower of a Glock. He'd been through the gamut of C&R pistols as well - he does have a C&R license.

We had some interesting email exchanges.

The WSJ article is probably a leader for the book he wrote on the subject, coming out in the beginning of March.

While you (and I) might not agree with everything he says, his is a valuable voice in the segment of the population that many of us do not mix with. He wrote for the New Yorker for a while, and lives in Boulder with the chai and latte set. Anyone who can get their attention and slip some real information past the cultural barriers they've deployed in their minds is a very valuable asset to our cause.

And come on, he likes guns too. You see his Broomhandle, with the shoulder thing that goes up? I'd like one my ownself.

We're not in a position to be picking off our allies because we don't agree with them 100%. The Dems love that stuff; keep us at each others' throats, and provide them with plenty of material to make us look bad.

tsphillips · Feb 17, 2013

jpk1md said:
There's only one thing that needs to be pointed out.

"Shall Not Be Infringed"

Any questions?

No?

Good......the rest of the article is crap

I agree completely with the sentiment of jpk1md. Although the article is written well, it comes across as almost apologetic. I would not call it crap, but it certainly seems compromising. In my home, with my family, a firearm is treated with respect, no matter where it is. Firearms are dangerous exactly the same way that a 110 volt, 15 amp wall socket is dangerous. Firearms are dangerous exactly the same way that an automobile is dangerous. Firearms are dangerous exactly the same way that the gasoline used to run the lawn mower is dangerous. Firearms are dangerous exactly the same way a gas grill in dangerous.

For those prone to being apologetic, firearms are not in the least bit as dangerous some materials. Timothy McVeigh, a truly evil man, said "the truck rental — $250. The fertilizer was about... it was either $250 or $500. The nitro methane was the big cost. It was like $1,500. Actually, lemme see, 900, 2,700,... we're talking $3,500 there... Lets round it up. I just gave you the major expenses, so go to like five grand... what's five grand?" For those too young to know better, or those who have "forgotten," you can read about McVeigh's atrocity here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklahoma_City_bombing

In this country there is a serious cultural problem. People need to understand that the world has perils, and that we all should show respect to each other and pay more attention to the people who will deliberately do us harm. Stop glorifying violence and demand more personal responsibility.

Sorry -- was I on a soap box? :innocent0

Tom

Bob A · Feb 17, 2013

Rigid positions, set in concrete, might make those who hold them feel righteous, but they don't do any good at all at persuading people whose views might be swayed.

Anyone who can bring otherwise disinterested or marginalised undecided people into the pro-2A camp is OK with me. I might not think Baum is spot on in everything he says, but if he can persuade more folks to open their eyes and use their brains, I'm for him.

We cannot afford to dump on anyone who is pro-2A; most especially if he has a strong position in the literate media. Those are the folks we need most: articulate and educated people who can be convinced that the Second Amendment is a good thing which is getting a bad rap. They are the group that is most in need of being won over, because of their access and influence. These people are Baum's target audience.

But coming on with blunt uncompromising sound bites is not going to win them over. They've heard it before, and whatever truth those statements may contain will fall on deaf ears. Some of them are susceptible to being influenced by reasonable arguments; humanising the Gun Guys is an important step in the right direction.

The more folks who can be brought into the fold, the better. If we alienate the middle-of-the-road gang, we will not win this fight.

tsphillips · Feb 17, 2013

The Constitution was created by articulate and educated people. There is also a process for changing it if anyone takes issue with any part of it.

You have a valid point, Bob A -- polarization and a refusal to compromise wins few arguments. Although, I would think that not many people on this forum are ambivalent about the need for the second amendment, and I would cringe at the thought that anyone might be convinced, in the name of compromise, that governments can justly impose limits on the degree to which someone may act to defend their own life or the lives of their family members.

I am glad the article was written and published -- the article was refreshing amid the din of fear-stricken rhetoric. I do not in any way mean to belittle Baum's work, though I am disappointed how far astray we have wandered from the intent of the Constitution.

Tom

AntiGun · Feb 17, 2013

Bob A said:
...
The more folks who can be brought into the fold, the better. If we alienate the middle-of-the-road gang, we will not win this fight....

extremism is going to be our downfall

few things turn people away as quickly as righteous indignation

Dogabutila · Feb 17, 2013

This is what I would call a good article.

http://www.michaelzwilliamson.com/blog/item/the-post-in-which-i-piss-off-everybody

jpk1md · Feb 17, 2013

There are folks here that are making comments about "Rigid People" and "People who are extreme"

I'll tell you what.....MY RIGHTS aren't up for discussion, debate or compromise and if you think each of us should "Go Along to Get Along" with this creeping incremental infringement on natural rights then I suggest you sit down and decide how you're going to explain to the next generation that you compromised THEIR rights away because you lacked the morals/values and intestinal fortitude to defend them.

If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom — go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen! -Sam Adams

The time has come for folks to put up or shut up....its time to show up at hearings and run legislative aides ragged with phones, email and letters...its time to badger politicians as they walk to/from their cars, at their homes and anywhere else they can be found in public...use the Soap Box and Ballot Box not so that no one has to consider the use of any other boxes.

And its high time folks start thinking about what it may take in terms of personal committment to put these politicians in their place.....if gun manufacturers are going to make the commitment to move to another state and deprive liberals of their labor and revenue then maybe its high time you started thinking about it too.

woodstock · Feb 17, 2013

"In part, it was a voyage of self-discovery. I'm a weirdo hybrid: a lifelong gun guy who is also a lifelong liberal Democrat. I often feel like the child of a bitter divorce who has allegiance to both parents."<<<~this convinces me the guy is full of BS. He writes in third person, then first person narrative in an effort to appeal to all.

And as for the NRA EXTREMISM, as he put it, if the government wanted to pass sweeping legislation on the First Amendment, prohibiting any media outlet or organization from spewing the partisan rhetoric we see in the "press" today, we would see an extremism that could dwarf what took place in Tiananmen Square, maybe.

Moon · Feb 17, 2013

Bob A said:
Rigid positions, set in concrete, might make those who hold them feel righteous, but they don't do any good at all at persuading people whose views might be swayed.

The more folks who can be brought into the fold, the better. If we alienate the middle-of-the-road gang, we will not win this fight.

The fight is already lost when you accept the idea that you need to convince the "middle of the road gang" not to vote your rights away.

SigMatt · Feb 17, 2013

The funny part about articles like this is two months ago, our position was the status quo. Nothing extreme in it. One crazy loser and suddenly we're the extremists?

I happen to like articles that paint the NRA as extreme. I like it because it shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the NRA, its structure and those who are members. The irony being the truth can be found in five minutes if the people screaming about NRA extremism would actually do a small amount of research.

The NRA teaches marksmanship, gun safety, LE training, range development, manages competitive shooting and so on. That's what you $35 year buys. That money cannot be used to fund lobbying at the State and Federal levels. That is the NRA-ILA. They are separate and draw their funds from donations. So when anti-gun people scream about the NRA being a tool of the gun industry, it is the NRA-ILA they are really screaming about. The NRA proper is barred from doing that.

Why is it when someone say "Bad person over there did something wrong with a gun. As a result, I am going to impose my will on you and force you to follow my rules so it MIGHT not happen again. It's hard on you but my feelings and society are more important than you!".

And when I say "No!", I'm the extremist.

I grew up in Canada. Better than half of my guns and their accessories would have me serving life sentences up there. I quite enjoy the freedom of being a free sovereign, able to make my own choices. If, for no other reason, because I can. And I will be damned if I am going to have some ignorant, immature, clueless soccer mom or sheltered college brat tell me how to live and what I can have to make them not have to face their own inadequacies, lack of self-esteem and simplistic herd-think.

I've found gun owners in general to be a wide cross-section of backgrounds and thought. If anything, the extremist "one size fits all" broad brush our enemies paint us with needs to be applied to them.

Matt

Interesting article in the Wall Street Journal on Gun Control

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

Ultimate Member

NRA Training Counselor

Active Member

Ultimate Member

Lurker Supreme

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Having Fun Yet?

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

όυ φροντισ

Member

όυ φροντισ

Member

.

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Banned

M-O-O-N, that spells...

Ultimate Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics