Ground Breaking Hyperbole by the LA Times

Status
Not open for further replies.
Just got an answer from her. My response (along with snips from her email) follows:

-------------------------

Okay, I'll try to answer some of your points, as best I can. Please note that some answers may be lengthy.
---------------------------------
Dear Dennis,
You say you love shooting, but you don't say why. Your letter was long
and I read every word, but all you seem to say is that you like guns
because you have fond memories of target practice in the woods.

[Me] Because IMHO the act of placing a tiny projectile at a great distance onto a small target is, quite frankly, a challenge. Stripped of all "political" subtext, successful shooting is a difficult feat under the best of circumstances. I love it because it takes much MORE skill than clicking a button on a camera. (BTW, some would say that I'm also an accomplished amateur photographer...) There are no excuses; if I hit my target, I had proper control and technique. If I don't, then I didn't. I imagine that a baseball pitcher might get the same feeling if he pitches a great game, but it's MUCH more difficult to place a tiny metal projectile onto a tiny target at 100-300 yds than it is to place a 3" projectile into a 3 foot area at 50 feet. So it's the challenge, I guess, and the feeling of personal mastery (of the technique and the equipment) that I get from "doing it right". (Incidentally, I'm a computer consultant and electronic engineer, so there's some element of obsessive perfectionism in everything I do...)

Also you say that you view the 2nd Amendment as an obligation to carry a gun.

[Me] Perhaps I was unclear. I consider the 2nd as an obligation to OWN a firearm, and to LEARN/KNOW how to use one properly. This includes proper conduct under the law, and personal firearms responsibility, which are traits SORELY lacking in many people today.

Since we both know that my column dismissed any infringement of the 2nd
Amendment, I won't get into that with you -- I don't propose that it be
touched. I only suggest that gun owners might take a straightforward look
at what they get out of being around firearms.

[Me] I hope my answer above was informative on these points. Now, as to your claim to "dismissing any infringement of the 2nd", I'll let your own words speak FOR you:

"Never mind why a law written 200 years ago for colonial farmers would allow guns--why do people continue to crave the things? This is one of the safest, richest, most open democracies on the planet. Some 200 million guns are floating around in it. Why? What inner imperative are they addressing? What lust? What imagined inequality?

Why do gun owners' claims that they're defending the Constitution always sound so much like the protestations of those Playboy subscribers who "only buy it for the articles?" Why does it seem fitting that alcohol and tobacco should be grouped with firearms under the same federal regulatory agency?"

[Me]:

1) The phrase "never mind why a law written 200 years ago for colonial farmers" IMPLICITLY condemns the 2nd as being anachronistic and unnecessary in our modern (non-"colonial farmer") world. So indeed you DO slam the 2nd. Please don't lie.

2) "This is one of the safest, richest, most open Democracies on the planet...." These statements are VERY open to dispute, depending on which "experts" you talk to. (And I'm not talking about "lunatic fringe wacko" experts here, make no mistake). I CERTAINLY would not feel safe were I to venture into certain areas in certain cities. Do you remember the family that was gunned down in CA, just because they got lost and drove into a "gang area"? I sure do. You might make the admonition that people should "stay out of those areas", but last time I checked, the right of safe passage ANYWHERE in the U.S. was supposedly allowed. And if we do NOT go in to those areas, are we not admitting that certain parts of America are "off limits" to regular law-abiding citizens? Why do the police not arrest and jail the gangsters? Why can the police not guarantee our safety? Here's a question for you: WHY DO THE POLICE HAVE *NO* LEGAL RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT US? (This is based on multiple lawsuits brought by citizens alledging police non-protection. Are you even AWARE of those facts?)

I don't even vilify gun owners.

[Me] You say "Why do gun owners' claims that they're defending the Constitution always sound so much like the protestations of those Playboy subscribers who "only buy it for the articles?" Excuse me, but as an Elder in my church, I take offense at you telling me that I enjoy pornography, just because I like to shoot. Great offense. That characterization is flawed and untrue, and I feel QUITE "vilified", thank you.

You say: "Why does it seem fitting that alcohol and tobacco should be grouped with firearms under the same federal regulatory agency?"

[Me] I don't know "why" it seems fitting, but it was DONE for tax purposes, so "the common people's" luxuries could feed the ever-growing coffers of the Federal government.

I say that guns are a vice, like cigarettes and pornography,
which, last time I checked, were legal and considered garden-variety
fetishes. Ditto for bathhouse sex, for that matter. I say guns give
people a cheap thrill.

[Me] I know what you say, and you say it based upon prejudice, ignorance, and arrogance. Pure and simple. I never thought I'd see a LIBERAL BIGOT. (BTW, I am a LIFELONG Democrat, and have the precinct card to PROVE it.)

And so far, you haven't contradicted me.

[Me] Actually, I have. But you'll never see it. A bigot is NEVER willing to accept the fact that the hated group might have merit.

Why was target shooting in the woods with a gun better than, say, taking pictures
of wildlife with a camera?

[Me] Answered above.

If it's only the outdoors that you enjoyed, why not make birdwatching your hobby?

[Me] Why should YOU have the right to DICTATE what outdoor activities I should be allowed to enjoy? Again, your arrogance is showing.

The only difference is that guns are lethal weapons,

[Me] Guns are only WEAPONS if you USE them that way.

...and that makes them thrilling to have in your hands.

[Me] Your attempt to put words in my mouth and thoughts in my head is quite funny. Only trouble is, you have NO IDEA what you're talking about, at least in regard to my personal motivation.

Obviously, that takes a little confidence to admit, but only a little --
you say yourself that you've never done harm with your guns. Just as I'm
sure most users of pornography don't rape people, and most smokers of
cigarettes try not to give others lung cancer. Still, what's wrong with
calling a spade a spade?

[Me] Because, Ms. Hubler, the characterization is inaccurate and flawed, as has been your logic during this discussion. However, you will never understand this fact, so the debate is quite pointless. You did fail, however, to answer my statements on how you'd feel if someone saved you from a rape by shooting the assailant, or what YOU would do if confronted by an IMMEDIATE life-threatening attack. (call 911 and WAIT?)

You see, if I own a gun for self-defense, I get something that YOU never will. I get a CHOICE. I can CHOOSE to defend myself (or my family) using a tool that has the power to STOP a violent attack RIGHT NOW. You (and those who think as you do) would REMOVE that choice from me. I consider that a very great infringement on MY rights. You and your like-minded Pollyannas do NOT have the right to condemn me or my family to potential violence at the hand of those who would ravage our society. You advocate the victimization of my loved ones because of YOUR fear. YOU are a much more dangerous person than I.

Dennis Olson
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Dear Ms. Hubler-
I have read your latest piece on firearms in America and found it both interesting and original. Unfortunately, to paraphrase Mark Twain, "the portions that were interesting were not original and those that were original were not interesting". Your article stands as clear documentation that editors do not read.

You have not insulted firearms owners, but the entire American public, with your claims that we are incapable of resisting urges which you project onto us from your own lack of maturity and sense of inadequacy. You insult our intelligence with your ignorance of American history and civics. Your arguments are immature and irrational and assume that any tool which might be misused, will be misused by all who come in contact. Such anthropomorphic social drivel died with the Druids...or so we might have hoped. By your same reasoning, we might hope to regulate news columnists who appeal to emotion rather than reason...which, I believe, would be far more productive than your weak attempt to rewrite history.

You revel in emotionalism and ascribe your own failings to all Americans. These failings apparently include, but are not limited to, immature sexual identification, inability to act in a rational manner, addictive personality, perpetual grandiosity and terminal ignorance. In short, you are a champion in this "Age of the Common Man".

In closing, I would like to ask two simple questions:
1) Could this same argument not be applied tenfold to government agencies and personnel with command of tanks, incendiaries and high explosives?
2) Does the LA Times require an intelligence test for its writers?

Respectfully,
Richard J. Lucibella[/quote]

[This message has been edited by Rich Lucibella (edited September 28, 1999).]
 
Dennis, Tee hee, tee hee.

She hasn't yet responded to my second email. Guess she got busy answering all of you guys's. I have to give her credit for remaining calm in the face of a lot of insults. I actually apologized to her for being a jerk, but I still let her have it with logic and facts (perhaps a waste of "breath"). I pointed out primarily that guns are NOT the pornography or "vice" of the Second Amendment any more than mere words are the vice of the First. If pornography is the vice of the First, then a criminal misusing a gun is the vice of the Second, and a price which must be paid to ensure the continued fundamental right, the RKBA.
 
Futo,

I like to think that I haven't insulted her at all. I just used REALITY on her. Of course she'll never see it that way, but she's conditioned by the PRK, so what do you expect?

BTW, WAY TO GO EVERYBODY!
 
She wrote back!! I have to give her credit for that:
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>
Dear Dona,
Sorry the article hurt your feelings, but that doesn't make the
observation any less true. My column is intended to raise ideas and be
provocative; I don't have to be right -- I just have to make my readers
think. In this case, however, I believe I am right. The mention of the
2nd Amendment, by the way, refers to a very real debate among
Constitutional scholars, as you must know. And my point is not that one
side or the other is correct; it is that the debate itself is less
important than the underlying emotional motives for gun ownership. Of
course, it takes confidence to admit to a weakness, so I'm not at all
surprised that many gun owners would be upset at the column. If you don't
have enough confidence to feel equal to your neighbor without possessing
the capacity to kill him, how would you have the confidence to admit to
a vice? Nonetheless, I think self awareness would make the world a safer
place.
Shawn Hubler
LA Times
[/quote]

My reply:

Shawn....

My objection to your editorial is not your position...it is your intellectually weak and emotionally immature method of presenting your position. Rather than logically stating the rationale for your position, you make psycho-sociological pronouncements to imply psychological weakness; with the express intent to decrease the credibility of those holding an opposite position. You can't debate with fact, so you invoke PC psycho babble.

Rather than saying it is your opinion that gunowners are emotionally weak, you used your imaginary friend, "the expert in human behavior" to imply that said weakness is scientific fact; and that is your artificial authority to continue in that vein. As I said in my first note, your "expert" has no name and thus there is no way to confirm or deny the expertise from which you form your position.

1) You haven't hurt my feelings, I hurt yours by showing the factual weakness in your writing style and rhetorical delivery.
2) Your response, indicative of a junior high "chop session", demonstrates your lack of education and the tools of debate; to whit...if you aren't agreed with then your opponents are weak, insecure and lacking. In short, your style is pure hubris and you are obviously becoming petulant.
3)You imply that the ownership of guns is merely to bolster self-confidence by having the means to kill your neighbor. I hunt, target shoot and do varmit control on my farm....my emotional feelings about my neighbor have no bearing at all on the matter. As a matter of fact, for years I had no neighbors, yet I had firearms.
4) I personally have no problem admitting weakness...however, owning guns is not a weakness nor is owning any tool. It is the particular purpose for using that or any other tool that could be considered weakness.
5) As I said, I don't have a problem with your anti-gun position...but you lose much credibility for the position and in your role as a journalist or editor or writer when you present such emotionally weak, ill-researched and deceptive editorials.
Have a nice day
Dr. Dona Cicci

PS I made an assumption in my first note...Shawn indicated to me a male. I apologize.


------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes" RKBA!
 
"If you don't have enough confidence to feel equal to your neighbor without possessing the capacity to kill him, how would you have the confidence to admit to a vice? Nonetheless, I think self awareness would make the world a safer place."

Interesting line of thinking.

How can you "feel equal to your neighbor without possessing the capacity to kill him" when he/she has the capacity to kill you?

To use her logic, we should dump our nuclear arsenal & disband our army. After all, we'd still be (or at least "feel") equal to all our neighbors in the world community, right? And, if I live/work in one of those bad sections of town, I'm on equal footing with everyone, so I could walk down the street unarmed with $100 bills sticking out of my shirt pocket. Because, after all, we all "feel" equal, right? I guess we just have to trust our neighbors not to exercise any physical superiority they have over us, and the world will become safe. Of course, no one would ever take something or hurt someone just because they could, right?

How equal would she "feel" if a 200lb man showed up on her door and said "I'm coming in and taking whatever I want."?


"Nonetheless, I think self awareness would make the world a safer place."

Perhaps, but... As important as self awareness is, we also have to be aware of our surroundings, too. If self awareness could tell me which person I encounter is a fugitive from justice, rapist, mugger, murderer, or potential felon, I could become quite safe. But, no matter how well I know myself, I will never know what's going on inside someone else's head. Just as Shawn Hubler will never quite know what's going on inside mine.

Personally, I think preparation will make the world a safer place.

------------------
Beginner barbarians probably had the idea that every house they broke into would be full of untouched loot and frightened, unarmed victims. It just doesn't work that way, my friend.

I hope these evil men come to understand our peaceful ways soon - My trigger finger is blistering!
 
Clearly, Shawn's temper is getting the best of her! Shawn's response to me:
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Dear Rich,
Sounds like your feelings were hurt. I didn't say gun owners were criminals. I just suggest that they may suffer from a feeling of weakness, and an interest in power. If the shoe fits, all the name calling in the world isn't going to change things. Ask yourself why you love guns. Ask yourself why you feel less equal without them. That's all.
Shawn Hubler
LA Times[/quote]

My retort:
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Shawn-
Gotcha!
I never said I was a gun owner; Just an American with a brain...like so many others you underestimate.
I never said my feelings were hurt; Just my sense of history, psychology, human nature and journalism.
I never said I love guns; However, I do enjoy reasoned discourse. (Emphasis on "reasoned")
I never said I feel less equal without guns; Just that your statements indicate you are deluded and seduced by their perceived power.

I don't mean to be rude but, once again we come back, not to your readers' psychological conundrums, but to your own psychological projections.
Wish to rephrase your reply?
Rich Lucibella[/quote]

[This message has been edited by Rich Lucibella (edited September 28, 1999).]
 
I sent her this. Hope she replies--sounds like she's pretty good about it:


Mrs. Hubler:
I recently read your column discussing your theory that firearms represent some kind of "vice" for people who use them, especially those individuals who actually enjoy such use. This argument makes little sense to me, to be quite frank. I have used and owned firearms since the age of 9 and, like you, grew up in an area where such ownership and use was common. Your argument is baffling.
First, you contradict your own attempt to establish some kind of credential. Your attempt to assert fairness or reason by disclosing that you "grew up with guns in a place where everyone shot and hunted" has the ring of a racist long practiced in hiding his bias by protesting innocently: "Hey, I grew up with black people, and I have black friends. BUT . . . ." Had you stopped there, it would have been good for a chuckle, but you had to give in to the temptation to quote a story from your "friend" who is "an expert in human behavior."
The problem is, your friend was not describing the feeling of a person who grew up seeing and understanding firearms. He was describing the reaction of a person who grew up being told that firearms were evil and would magically "get him" if he ever looked at one--the common reaction to forbidden fruit. Your friend's reaction to a baked potato would have been much the same, for instance, if he had been trained for a long time to fear and avoid baked potatoes because they're bad and only bad people have them. The reason you and he feel that guns belong in a grouping with tobacco, alcohol, and pornography, in other words, is that you have taught and been taught that guns are taboo for so long, the same as you taught and were taught about pornography and the rest--NOT because of some ridiculous magical, innate power of an inanimate object to create emotions in your mind. BTW, did I mention that I have a friend who is an expert in human behavior AND firearms, and he says you're dead wrong? Not a difficult game to play, is it? Anyway, blame your emotions on inanimate objects if you wish. I refuse to do so.
Finally, before this letter gets too long to merit your attention, I should address your assertion that gun owners own their guns only because of some illicit thrill they experience in handling a weapon. I'm sure many others will point this out, but you are ignoring a lot of other reasons to own a gun by making such a blanket statement, as well as implying that you can read my mind and that I am a liar. Pretty bold assertions. Unfortunately, inaccurate as well. The main reason I own a gun, to put it simply, is that there are those who would attack me and those I love. Many don't know it yet. If anyone ever tries, he may not decide to do so until he notices my jacket or shoes as I walk by, or sees me walk up to an ATM. He may try to rob me. He may simply take offense at something I say or do and try to kill me for that. He may wish to rape my wife or some other woman and object to my interference. He may break into my house in order to steal my money and possessions, which I earned by trading away 8-hour segments of my life. He may threaten my children. These are things that no man can or should allow to happen. A gun is simply a weapon which gives me a better chance of stopping them. Why is that so difficult to understand? Another reason I own guns is that, as a citizen of the U.S., I feel obligated to protect it. An unarmed man CANNOT do so no matter how he may try, so I am armed, at least as well as the law allows. Finally, I own guns because I enjoy shooting and hunting. Feel free to respond as you wish. I hope to hear from you and assure you that this is not meant as a personal attack just as I am sure that you did not intend a personal attack upon me when you wrote your column. If I, like you, have unintentionally included personal insults, I apologize. Thanks.
Don M. Gwinn
dgwinn@monm.edu

"They who would sacrifice a bit of liberty to gain a bit of security deserve neither."
-Benjamin Franklin
 
My wife got mad and wrote:
You asked many questions. I would like to answer them, but I do not have time to write a book. Many others have already done this. I will share a few things, however.

Up until 6 months ago, I had never intentionally shot a gun other than a BB gun. I completed a hunter safety class this summer, my husband and I took concealed carry classes and we have applied for concealed carry permits. This week we plan to purchase a handgun and a shotgun. Why?

The guy across the corner has a gun and is not a law-abiding citizen. How am I to protect myself from him?

In January my husband was in an office building that was shot up by someone who has now been judged not mentally competent to stand trial. That several-hour-long incident was brought to a close when a concealed carry permit holder put a handgun to the perpetrator's ear and ordered her to the ground. One person died from the perpetrator's bullets. How many more would have died had not a brave citizen stopped the perpetrator? The police were not there. A citizen was.

Why did the news media not report the real ending of this story? One tv station reported it once, then changed the story to that of the perpetrator's gun jamming. Why?

I will no longer sit, helpless and scared, in front of the tv watching a situation unfold knowing my husband is helpless and at risk. He will be carrying.

I will not be a victim. My daughters will not be victims. We will have a shotgun at home. I pray we never have to use them.

The crime rate in our area has diminished since the state passed a "shall issue" concealed carry permit law. By arming our family, we're contributing to scaring off the criminals.

If you've read this far, it might be interesting to note that our family has not had a paycheck since April and our money is quickly running out. Therefore you can deduce that purchasing guns--and ammunition and range practice time--has become a significant priority to us. We feel very strongly about it.

I have much more that I could say. Suffice to say that I believe you have not done your homework, appeal to emotions instead of facts, and don't understand moral issues since you compare pornography--which is only evil--to guns--which are neutral just like tv and money. It is what is broadcast over tv or what is done with money that is evil or good.

Very sincerely yours,
Denise

------
We have not received a reply as of yet.
 
She and I have been exchanging emails:
First, my response to her editorial in the L.A. Times:
[/i]My original email to her:[/i]

On Tue, 28 Sep 1999 mguest@infomartusa.com wrote:

> Madam--
>
> You indicate that I, as a gun-owner, am a pornographer.
>
> You do not merely imply this; you openly state this to be fact. "Guns are
> a vice, and vice is its own punishment." Who are you, to be casting such
> dispersions about me? Do you know any gun owners? Your article indicated
> that you at least used to. Are they bad? Are they only cops? You've a
> forum to voice your opinion. That is your sole qualification. Yet you
> judge those you've NEVER MET.
>
> Talk about disgusting.
>
> That "a law written 200 years ago for colonial farmers [that] would allow
> guns" is actually a 210 year-old amendment to the Constitution, that was
> NOT for colonial farmers; it was for all citizens of this nation. This
> nation was 13 years old at the time, and an on-going war with an oppressive
> government had taught some lessons. The writers of the Constitution were
> giving careful consideration to how an individual should NOT be disarmed by
> his nation.
>
> You address that the possession of a firearm is possession of a power.
> Does that really frighten you? Are you so afraid of yourself that you
> would be afraid of individuals capable of projecting power beyond their
> physical means? I would be afraid, then, to allow you knowledge of my
> physical size, for fear that you would take my declaration of physical
> abilities greater than your own as being somehow "threatening." (Which, in
> fact, you would have no need whatever to EVER be afraid in my presence, or
> that of any other gunowner that I am personally acquainted with.) Would
> you thus propose to somehow equalize our physical abilities somehow, like
> having me take sedatives that would relax my muscles to the strength of the
> weakest individual in our society? You are equating power with seduction.
> It is not necessarily so.
>
> Pornography? Like it or hate it, it's protected by the very same amendment
> that protects YOUR right to publish your opinions in the _L.A. Times_.
> Which comes immediately before the right to keep and bear arms. Which
> right do you think has done more to protect the other? The second, in
> fact, helps protect the others.
>
> Question again-- who ARE you, that you should speak disparagingly of people
> you've never even met?
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Matt Guest
> Denton, TX

Her response to me:


Dear Matt, [Read, Long Path ]
The column says that gun ownership is a vice -- a fetish that people
develop in response to a particular feeling of insecurity. If the shoe
doesn't fit, don't wear it. But I suspect it does, which is why your
response was so vehement, and why you have to work so hard to persuade me
and yourself that your gun ownership is somehow special. I don't suggest
that you rob banks, commit crimes or are the spawn of Satan. I simply
suggest that guns are especially attractive to insecure people who have
an extreme fear of weakness. As for the 2nd Amendment being written for
colonial farmers, check your history books. Most Americans were colonial
farmers during the colonial times in which it was written, and the 2nd
Amendment was intended particularly to ensure that rural people -- aka
farmers -- didn't get taken advantage of by the urban intelligentsia, as
had happened in Europe. Of course, America is much different now -- not
only is it much, much larger, but it is now as overwhelmingly urban as it
was overwhelmingly rural 200 years ago. Technology and mass media have
made it highly unlikely that anyone would be as physically removed from
decision making centers as farmers and other rural people were in
colonial times. Nontheless, I don't for a moment believe that the 2nd
Amendment will ever be repealed, or that it necessarily should be. I
simply suggest that gun owners summon the courage for truthful
introspection -- in other words, call a spade a spade.
Shawn Hubler
LA Times

And, finally, my response to her response. (in retrospect, I wish I'd been less verbose...)

Congratulations on your swift and eloquent response to my earlier memo.

Shawn, why do you assume that vehemence equals insecurity? You say that I "have to work so hard to persuade [you] and [myself] that [my] gun ownership is somehow special." No, ma'am, I don't presume to think that I could change your mind on this topic. What I *do* wish to convey is the level of my indignance toward someone who libelously declares my decision to exercise a basic right as corrupt.

Your contention that my appreciation of owning a firearm is a manifestation of "an extreme fear of weakness" is not completely wrong, though flawed at its base. Ma'am, I would of course be afraid to be without my full assortment rights. I see the right to defend myself as a right equal in every way to my right to free speech, travel, privacy, etc. If any one of those rights were taken away, I *would* feel weakened, would not you? You're willing to cede your right. I am not. This makes me paranoid?
. . .

You say: "Technology and mass media have made it highly unlikely that anyone would be as physically removed from decision making centers as farmers and other rural people were in colonial times."

What's this? An argument against the electoral college? I'd be right there with you, if 't'were. But egad! What bearing does *that* have on the right to keep and bear arms? Focus, Shawn! Yes, yes, I know where you're driving at-- the "militia" business. You actually believe that these farmers were only allowed to be armed because there wouldn't be time in that age to muster and equip a standing army against outside aggressors to our nation. It was more personal than that, Shawn. It still is.


Consider it thus: if you chose to stay inside as a recluse, and not vote, nor pray, nor write, and nor travel-- if you chose to allow the police to search your premises at will without probable cause nor a warrant-- if you chose to bear witness against yourself and to quarter soldiers in your house without compensation, I would not judge you for it. Why, then, do you judge ME for holding a philosophy that is the antithesis of yours?

Truthfully introspective enough for you? Or do I still call a spade a "shovel?"

Sincerely,

Matt Guest

------------------
Will you, too, be one who stands in the gap?

Matt




[This message has been edited by Long Path (edited September 29, 1999).]
 
Here was my letter to her, and I went through and edited it, trying my darndest to be as nice as possible. I edited out all inadvertant personal attacks, so you can imagine what the first draft looked like.

Hello Ms. Hubler,

I would like to drop you a quick line about your recent article. I do not have much time these days, so let me keep to the point:

Your article makes some grave errors in your sophomoric attempts at psychologically analyzing gun owners.
Your major mistake is quite simply the same error that Sigmund Freud made many decades ago: he ascribed his OWN feelings and inadequacies to his patients.
In other words, just because YOU feel some sort of naughty feeling when you see a gun and get all excited does not mean that everyone does.

To me, a gun is just a tool. Like pots in the kitchen and the plunger next to the toilet. And before you judge me according to your own values (as you so like to do), remember my life is not your life...in my life, a gun is a daily tool. I get just as excited looking at a breadmaker (I cook for my family), getting in a car or any other tool that I use. In fact, sometimes tools, like guns, can become so commonplace that they become something of an anchor. I would probably feel happier if I did NOT need to carry my gun at some times, because it is annoying...but alas, it is a tool, and I need it (it is certainly not a "pornographic love toy" that I get some charge out of picking up).
Right now, with your ability to read minds and all, you are probably assuming that I am a Law Enforcement Officer. You would be wrong on that count. There are people that depend on guns as a tool and are not involved in Law Enforcement. Think hard and I am sure you could think of a few.

The physiological reactions (mainly caused by adrenaline which enters your system when you are in a new or different experience) you are referring to are only brought on because of the fact that to YOU a gun is a mysterious and taboo thing. (Possibly, hopefully, the only reason that it is such a "taboo" item is the way you were brought up?). To me, a gun is just another tool. It is unfortunate that you have been programmed to think of guns as some sort of mysterious or powerful item. To those of us that have no inadequacies and feel naturally self-empowered, a gun is just another inanimate object.
If it is more than that to you; if the gun is some sort of powerful talisman that makes YOU feel equal to your neighbor, then that is an inadequacy of YOURS, not mine. I feel just fine when I don't have a gun, and I feel no different when I have a gun. It is just a tool.
You have made a very common error that self-absorbed people tend to do: you think that everyone lives by your values, has your needs, and feels your feelings. I think you should reread your article and take a good look at what is it about guns that makes YOU feel so powerful and giddy. These are issues that you need to take up with yourself, not with everyone else.




[This message has been edited by Red Bull (edited September 29, 1999).]
 
Sbryce:

"In January my husband was in an office building that was shot up by someone who has now been judged not mentally competent to stand trial. That several-hour-long incident was brought to a close when a concealed carry permit holder put a handgun to the perpetrator's ear and ordered her to the ground. One person died from the perpetrator's bullets. How many more would have died had not a brave citizen stopped the perpetrator? The police were not there. A citizen was. "


Where can I learn more about this incident? It sounds like one that should be publicized.


Also, to all:

Someone needs to inform this chick (Shawn) about where the second amendment came from. Maybe some quotes from the Forefathers on what they felt about gun ownership.
I would do it myself, but I already emailed her and it would confuse the issue if I emailed her about something else.

Ps- People like us, taking issue with newspeople like we are doing here, is what it is going to take to make our point. I am very proud of everyone here for taking time out to set this woman straight. I don't think that many appreciate the POWER we have here to influence the world, unifying with the internet and individually taking strides to make a change, in a team effort. We need to do this to every anti-gun media person, one at a time. Thanks for taking time out to do this, everyone!
 
Red Bull,

It should.

The incident has had a lot of press coverage here. There is a major TV and radio station in the same building. Someone in the newsroom was the intended target. As you might guess, the TV and radio station has been following the story very closely. It is fortunate that the woman with the gun was a bit unstable. Had she had her wits about her, she could have done a lot more damage than she did. You might find out something by contacting KSL radio or KSL TV. The local Deseret News or Salt Lake Tribune might have something in their archives.

As for the role of the CCW holder, there has been a cover-up in the media. I don't know why that is. It could be media bias. It could be that the case still has not gone to trial, so there are some details that are not being discussed. There is a CCW instructor in this area who is supposed to know about the CCW holder (it was one of his students), but I don't know how much he is talking about it. Obviously, someone is talking about it, otherwise I wouldn't know about it.
 
Give her credit, she's doing a good job of keeping up with replies no matter how indefensible her position. How many personal answers have you gotten to these kind of letters in the past two years? This is my first!

"I apologize if this response is too brief; I write twice a week and have
such stiff deadlines that I can't have the kind of dialogue with readers
that I'd like. "

Believe me, I'm just glad to get a response. You are the first anti-gun writer who has answered my email personally. In writing these kinds of letters one gets used to recieving automated answers meant to placate people--often an automated answer meant to placate anti-gunners because the writer simply sends it to everyone who mentions firearms with no regard for the position he/she claims to be answering. Thank you for responding.

"My column doesn't disparage anyone. It just suggests that society in general would have a safer and more responsible attitude toward guns if they were seen for the
cheap thrill that they are. "

All I can tell you is that I consider it a disparagement when someone compares my ownership of a weapon to be used to save a life with the Penthouse in my drawer or the alcohol in my refrigerator. Obviously I'm not a saint shouting that I have no vices; I'm trying to explain to you that my guns are NOT a vice, and that I should know because I have experienced the pleasures of smoking, drinking, and looking at pornography and judged it to be different. I still get the impression that the sensation of a "cheap thrill" you describe occurs in those who have been taught that guns are a vice and that it is somehow wrong to use them or even touch them--just like the only people who feel a cheap thrill at sneaking peeks at pornography are those who are taught and consider pornography to be a bad thing and have little or no experience with it. I say again, guns are INANIMATE OBJECTS. Your feelings, cheap or otherwise, do not emanate magically from inanimate objects. They come from your MIND, formed by its interaction with your past, your knowledge, etc., and the way you percieve the object in your hand plays a much bigger part than the reality of what it actuallly is. That's why it's so dangerous to trust feelings and emotionalism in dealing with issues like our right to own guns.

"Would that mean gun owners would all disarm themselves? Of course not, nor should it, any more than understanding the motives that make people enjoy cigarettes necessarily means an end to
smoking. "

Perhaps not an end, but let's just say that you have failed to convince me that I would like gun owners to be in the position occupied by smokers in this country today. If you're a smoker, you know what I mean. If not, pay attentiont to the way the smokers around you are despised and advised like 4-year-old children by well-meaning people who don't get it.

"However, your response seems to be, ``Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get me.''

I don't think I said that. I believe I said quite clearly that I did not believe anyone was "out to get me." What I said was that it doesn't matter. No one has to be out to get you. Since the dawn of time people have attacked other people. The difference is that it didn't used to be a vice to defend yourself once attacked.

"But understanding root feelings of weakness and fear helps people know for themselves whether they are arming themselves because they face imminent, actual danger, or whether they're merely nervous."

Again, you are mistaking feelings for facts. I do not feel weak; however, I do know that if I am attacked by a criminal who has a stick, knife, board, bottle, or more skill or strength than I, I will lose if I am unarmed. If I lose, I may well be killed, my wife raped, or perhaps I will only be robbed. How can this be described as a feeling? Do you deny that it is a fact that an armed criminal can defeat an unarmed victim more easily than an armed one? Do you deny that it is a fact that several students at my college have been attacked with various improvised weapons (mostly boards) since this semester started at the beginning of September? If not, then why do you still insist on saying that my gun ownership is rooted in feelings of weakness? As for fear, I will admit fear of armed criminals if you will explain to me how this supports your assertion that my ownership of a gun is a vice! A man who does not fear an armed criminal, especially an unarmed man who does so, is an idiot.

"And I think you know I'm not entirely off base."

Unfortunately, I'm afraid you are. Thank you for replying, however, and I hope you'll continue this dialogue when it's convenient. There's no hurry.

Don M. Gwinn
dgwinn@monm.edu
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top