My month with a gun complete edition

C

Closing The Gap

New member
Well Heidi Yewman finally published all of the parts of her "my month with a gun" piece originally in Ms. magazine. I haven't read through the entire article and am not really sure I want to. However I thought some of you may be interested in finishing what she started in controversial fashion quite some time ago.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/07/22/stupid-immoral-dangerous-coward-my-month-with-a-gun.html

I hope this isnt considered a drive-by. If it is I apologize in advance. I will comment when I take the time to read it myself.

Edit: I am hoping to hear your thoughts on the piece as well. :eek:
 
There are plenty of reasonable and tactful responses to her from our side, which is good. But of course this was a biased piece with a predetermined outcome. She even went so far as to highlight all the 'mean things' that were said to her and further paint us in a negative light....and of course didn't mention prior comments that challenged her in a professional and polite way.
 
I'm barely even into it and I already caught her what is either a massive contradiction, or just a lie:

Heidi Yewman said:
I was appalled at how easy it was for me to get a gun without a single second of training, and I wrote four articles about it. Over 30 days, I followed four rules: carry it with me at all times; follow the laws of my state; only do what is minimally required for permits, licensing, purchasing, and carrying; and finally be prepared to use it for protecting myself at home or in public.
Click to expand...
To put it as succinctly as possible, one cannot do what is "minimally required for permits" and then say one is "prepared to use it for protecting myself." It's a contradiction in terms ... one cannot prepare by refusing to prepare.

However, I'm sure I'm preaching to the choir here.
 
Well, any article that trots out Kellerman's claim about a gun in the home being 43 times more likely to harm the occupants loses credibility fast. Add to that the questionable statistic she cites in which a gun is 22 times more likely to be used against its owner (which is it, 22 or 43?), and I'm not too enthusiastic.

As for the claims of nasty, uncivil responses from gun owners...why doesn't she print them? She wants to paint us as drooling, knuckle-dragging cavemen. If those responses really existed, where are they? Answer: they're made up.

So, Yewman's had her 15 minutes in the spotlight. I really doubt she changed anyone's mind one way or another.

ETA: the responses are somewhat illuminating. The pro-gun folks are reasonable and composed, while her supporters are the ones casting ad hominems. The winner is this one:

Since when does an "experiment" consist of manipulating a set of circumstances to produce a predetermined outcome?

I think thats called a storyboard, not an experiment.
Click to expand...

ETA (again): I just realized that the link she uses to prove Kellerman's 43:1 rationale is a GunCite page refuting Kellerman's conclusions. Brillaint.
 
I'm shocked to see that there were additional parts to the 'experiment'. Huffington doesn't have it though so I wonder if they were tired of us 'gun nuts' calling Ms. Yewman out. :). I still see so many major contradictions with her experiment. I also see even more unsafe practices, such as leaving a loaded gun unlocked in her home with small children. In Illinois, a gun must be inaccessible if there are children under 14 in the house. That may not be the case in Washington. However, she said she did not tell her 15 year old that she had a gun. Another fail!!! Perhaps sharing this with all members of your family instead of continuing the fear mongerinf would have been a good idea. But that's not what she's after. She said she was afraid to hug a friend because of her gun? Give me a break! I'm guessing her friend is also an anti-gun radical, so I guess that makes sense. Finally, she said a gun was bulky and hard to conceal. Interesting as a lady in the Personal Protection in the Home class I took Saturday had a Ruger LCP which is easy to conceal and not bulky at all. Perhaps choosing the right gun for the right situation would have been the proper course of action. That however was not her agenda, as at the end of the article she spouts off statics to support her anti-gun agenda.

I'm glad this experiment is done. Ms. Yewman and her family are in fact now safer. She no longer has a gun in her possession. She can no longer physically harm someone with her ineptitude. She can return to her daily life, feeling that she knows better than the millions of responsible law-abiding gun owners what it means to own a gun. You don't jut buy a gun with no knowledge at all of how it operates or knowledge of the laws. She failed in both aspects, in my opinion.
 
Somewhere in that mess she also commented on having had several home repair people come to the house, and wondering how she would have defended herself if one of them had attacked her while the gun was locked in a safe. So her idea of "being prepared" to defend herself is to lock the gun up where it can't be accessed if needed.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
That is a stunning story. I'm not sure where to go with the psychological issues. Glenn! Dr. Meyer! Where art thou?! It's fascinating to me that the gun makes her aware of danger and that makes her nervous. She is literally happy to be able to live in a "safe", fantasy world rather than the real world that she became aware of when she got the gun. Her description of the man in the stairwell is stunning. Somehow the gun makes her "paranoid" and she'd be happy without it because he wasn't after her. Yet, she knows from Oprah that some people ARE after her... but she feels better to not be "paranoid" because of the gun.

She is intentionally illogical in her "fears" and "thought"-processes when she describes workmen and her son knocking late at night. Her complete refusal to accept readiness as anything other than literally pointing the gun at someone is blatantly intentional and obviously illogical.

She also seems to intentionally carry the gun in whichever method she believes will make it seem most useless and most dangerous. Sometimes on her hip, sometimes in her bag, which ever way seems a "worse" way to describe the danger the gun supposedly creates.

Her descriptions about avoiding people because she can't hug them are equally illogical and either intentional or a sign of limited intellect. Most anyone who carries a gun on their hip learns after the first hug that it's best to keep the arm on that side low so the other persons arm goes over the top of that arm. It's obvious, logical and natural, yet she seemed unable to reach that revelation even after extended consideration.

The problems in this piece are obvious to anyone with an open mind. She is illogical and intentionally biased. Spinning every event for the worst possible light.
 
I guess that the main reasoning that I would have laid out to the author would be:
If you were so scared by your doubt in your untrained self-defense capabilities in that stairwell, how would you have felt if you had had no method of self defense? Apparently, you are aware that having no tools didn't work out well for the lady on Oprah. So why is having a gun in a potentially dangerous scenario (and no idea how to use) it a worse feeling than having pepper spray and suddenly realizing at the moment of crisis that you have no idea how to use the spray? The obvious logical deduction is: it is your ignorance (self-inflicted though it is) that is causing your fear.

It would be easy, brief, and accurate to write an article that articulates the logic that:
1. it's easy for an untrained citizen to get a firearm.
2. More accidents occur with ANY tool when the user is untrained.

I can't argue against the above two-step logic logic. But to write ad nauseaum that you're continually afraid of your tools of self-defense when the cause of your fears and dread has a very easy and obtainable solution (training).... That's high school drama. I'm not sure if your readers deserve better, but you don't seem to think so.
 
Last edited:
I was scared of guns until recently. I pursued training by qualified NRA instructors and feel much better about guns and my ability to safely operate them. Ms. Yewman is definitely biased and not one to seek out alternative opinions. I don't consider a representative of me, that's for sure.
 
She wanted to create the moral panic. She failed.

Let's not forget this person sits on the board of the Brady Campaign. She had an agenda from the start, and this was never really about learning anything. It was a hit piece that failed and backfired on her.

In the end, she chose to give the gun over to an artist for smelting into a metal sculpture. I think we're all safer for that, especially considering her closing thought.

I didn’t have to worry that one day I would get a diagnosis or have a personal crisis and have a gun on hand to turn on myself.
Click to expand...

I hope she's not that emotionally unstable. The alternative is that she's really that intellectually dishonest.
 
I tried to read her "diary". It's just a very boring diary written by someone who thinks she is writing some important piece of literature. Garbage. I had to skim over much of the middle portions because it was so non-eventful and boring. It's like reading the diary of a housewife, without any sex, danger excitement or plot whatsoever. - total blah.

Here, let me provide you with the cliff notes version: "Blah blah blah, gun in purse near son playing blah blah video games blah blah workers in my house. Blah 22 times less safe, blah accidents, blah someone could shoot me, blah blah, but nothing happened. Blah blah, gave gun to artist, blah melted it. Blah End."
 
You know, as much grief as LaPierre or certain NRA Board members get here, I am still always heartened whenever I see their opposite numbers at Brady talking or writing. Yewman makes Ted Nugent look like a Rhodes scholar with her reasoning and writing. That reads like something written by a teenager who is about 10 years away from being self-aware.
 
One quick note before I am off to a meeting. I'm hardly an expert in psychology, but:

. . . . the gun in my house causes me an anxiousness and fear . . . .
Click to expand...
. . . . it made me suspicious of everyone . . . .
Click to expand...
"The Gun" made her anxious, suspicious and fearful. Without it, she wouldn't have to make a choice about taking another life. Because, apparently, leaving your family totally unprotected is so much easier.
 
She does say on more than one occasion how fearful she was WITH the gun. Thank god she got rid of it. I feel she has some issues with anxiety or possibly depression. A gun doesn't make you anxious. Not understanding how to use a gun safely makes you anxious (at least that's how I felt). The gun isn't just going to go off.

I've said this before but I will repeat it. I tend to wonder if the who 'experiment' was fabricated for readership. Is anyone, even someone so anti-gun, really that ignorant about guns? It is possible, I suppose. There is just too much that doesn't add up Ms. Yewman's story though. If in fact she did purchase a gun and try to carry it (since it seems she didn't do so for the full month due to her 'fear and anxiety'), I, and I'm guessing the residents of King County Washington, are very happy that she has disposed of it. She is no longer a danger to others with her possible misuse of a gun.
 
The most disgusting and particularly sadistic slant to the whole piece isnt that she was anxious, nervous, and fearful while carrying the firearm.

The worst part is that since she mentally could not deal with the metaphysical implications of an inanimate object in a rational and mature fashion, she believes no one else can or should be able to. She views all people as emotionally-driven, illogical savages who cannot control themselves or the inventions they create.

It is an inherently disturbing worldview that seems incurable.
 
So, none of you caught the "Big Lie" in Ms. Yewman's article plastered on the first page of US News!

The gun shown in the picture (x-ray of purse with gun in it) is a S&W 659. The gun Ms. Yewman CLAIMS to have purchased is a "Glock 9mm" (no reference to model number). These two guns couldn't be more different, one being made of all stainless steel with a DA/SA trigger; and the other being a striker fired polymer and steel gun.

I don't believe Ms. Yewman ever purchased any gun. I don't think she ever carried a gun in her purse. I certainly don't believe she carried a loaded Glock in her purse. The article is a lie on its face - there is no denying it.

Here's another Yewman lie: "More than 2,000 commenters responded to that article—most of them angry gun-rights advocates saying how stupid I was; one even suggested that I put the gun in my mouth." But, Ms. Yewman never saw any of these alleged comments. Why? Because: "The Ms. Magazine blog moderator withheld most of the threatening comments...". Yewman's own words. Her own unsubstantiated words. And, I think, just more lies.

And, one more thing. Was the polymer glock really melted down and turned into art? Yeah, I'd like to see that! Not possible. So, Yewman lied when she said: "So what do you do when you no longer want a gun in your home? There are hundreds of turn-in programs, but some take a more creative approach. One artist melts down seized guns and turns them into jewelry; there’s a sculptor who turns melted-down guns into public art; and one local government office turns guns into plaques that include inscriptions from school kids about ending gun violence. My gun is now a piece of art."

If the gun in the picture was actually the gun Yewman purchased, maybe we can believe it was melted down and turned into art. Completely melting a Glock would only produce a mess and a lot of very toxic gas.
 
Last edited:
The gun shown in the picture (x-ray of purse with gun in it) is a S&W 659. The gun Ms. Yewman CLAIMS to have purchased is a "Glock 9mm" (no reference to model number). These two guns couldn't be more different, one being made of all stainless steel with a DA/SA trigger; and the other being a striker fired polymer and steel gun.
Click to expand...

I saw the picture. There's no claim or reference directly to it. I assumed it was generic and see no reason to believe it's supposed to be her gun in her purse, particularly considering that the purse is otherwise completely empty.
 
I saw the picture. There's no claim or reference directly to it. I assumed it was generic and see no reason to believe it's supposed to be her gun in her purse, particularly considering that the purse is otherwise completely empty.
Click to expand...

Sure it is meant for us to believe that is her purse and gun! In the article, she references her gun being in her purse several times. I call BS - Ms. Yewman never carried around a loaded gun in her purse. It never happened.
 
The gun shown in the picture (x-ray of purse with gun in it) is a S&W 659. The gun Ms. Yewman CLAIMS to have purchased is a "Glock 9mm" (no reference to model number). These two guns couldn't be more different, one being made of all stainless steel with a DA/SA trigger; and the other being a striker fired polymer and steel gun.
Click to expand...
That was probably just a stock photo. A copy editor for a paper that doesn't do anything with guns just ran a Google image search for "scary 9mm Glock," and that's what came up.

Then again, Ms. Yewman could have purchased something that wasn't a Glock. By her own admission, she's willfully and blissfully ignorant about guns. If it's a small scary gun, it's a Glock. If it's a big scary gun, it's a Bushmaster AR-15.

Like others, I would not be entirely surprised if some aspects of Ms. Yewman's article are exaggerated, if not completely fabricated.

At the end of the day, however, what does it really matter? The folks who agree with her already did. The folks who don't already didn't. I doubt her little missive will have any effect outside of a temporary boost to her readership.

The only reason people like her (or say, Bellesiles) still have any relevance is that we give it to them.
 
In fact, if you Google "gun purse x-ray" and switch to Images, it is the third picture that shows up.

It really has nothing to do with the story. It's just a picture.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top