How does this make you feel: Dan Baum, "Gun Guy?"

L2R

New member
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/07/o...at-gun-lovers-think.html?pagewanted=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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
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.
 
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? :rolleyes:

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.
 
Excerpt from the article:
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.
 
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."
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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 . :confused: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 :eek:.

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 :rolleyes:
.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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.
 
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"...
 
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!
 
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.
 
44AMP said:
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.
 
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-America...=1-1&keywords=glock+the+rise+of+america's+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 a moderator:
Back
Top