WSJ: Why Our Gun Debate is Off Target

B

BarryLee

New member
The Weekend WSJ carried an article by Dan Baum titled, “Why Our Gun Debate is Off Target”. Mr. Baum has written a book based on his travels around the country meeting with average gun owners. The book titled, “Gun Guys: A Road Trip” is due out in March. He makes the point of being a liberal democrat, a gun owner, permit holder and makes no secret of his disdain for the NRA and accuses them of extremism. However, I find it sort of ironic that the statements that were considered “extreme” a few months ago are now coming true, but I digress.

In the article he states that the voice missing from the current debate on guns is that of the 100 million gun owners. He makes the point that the NRA only represents four million of them and does not speak for the majority. He also points out the anti-gun crowd often engages in insults and mischaracterizations of gun owners.

The author then points out some very positive things about gun owners and shooting sports. He also calls for gun owners to enter the debate and call for more gun safety involving gun owners themselves. He states that gun owners need to take more responsibility as a group for guns used in accidental shootings, teen suicides and the use of stolen guns in crimes. He suggests that the NRA opposes calling for an increase in gun owner safety because it would then reveal that not just criminals are responsible for gun violence.

Anyway, while I think he engages in some hyperbole the article is an interesting read.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324162304578304000178156938.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_LEFTTopStories
 
I was interviewed by Mr Baum several years ago and I am featured in his book.

While the man will readily admit he is a blue dog Democrat, he is pro gun. We went shooting together, and he even brought along his suppressor to shoot.

I think he makes some very good and very real points that would be unwise to ignore.
 
I was interviewed by Mr Baum several years ago and I am featured in his book.
Click to expand...

Ok, that’s actually kind of neat that some folks from this forum are in the book. Have you read an advance copy?
 
Good article. I differ with him in defining 'gun violence' to include suicides. If fact, the very term 'gun violence' connotes a gun that can commit violent acts all by itself, like a killer SUV or other demonized objects.

He seems to get from an Ebay pistol safe at his bedside to mandatory storage including trigger locks for all guns in the home. I don't necessarily disagree with the concept, but as law, it's not viable. What's the penalty for leaving one out one day? Felon for life? Accessory to murder?
 
Overall, a decent article. I disagree with his notion that someone other than criminals is to blame for "gun violence." Does "gun violence" include accidental or negligent shootings? Does it include DGUs? That seems to use an awfully broad brush for the term. Frankly, I disagree with the use of the term "gun violence" altogether, but that's beside the point for discussions of this article.

And while I must admit that the article is fairly well-balanced, I cannot escape the feeling that it is intended to subtly shame gun owners into accepting more "reasonable, common sense gun measures." I say this because of the use of the term "gun violence," for starters.

Another example from the article:
Neither do they want to be ordered to report a stolen gun to the police. Lots of gun guys consider it tyranny to have to tell the police anything about their guns, and they have kept most jurisdictions from passing stolen-gun laws. Only seven states and the District of Columbia make reporting a stolen gun mandatory.

But if we gun guys are the paragons of civic virtue that we claim to be, why do we have to be ordered to lock up our guns or report a gun theft? Wouldn't a responsible citizen do that anyway?
Click to expand...
So, umm, if we don't want it legally mandated that we report stolen guns, we're are not responsible citizens?
 
Spats McGee said:
Overall, a decent article. I disagree with his notion that someone other than criminals is to blame for "gun violence." Does "gun violence" include accidental or negligent shootings? Does it include DGUs? That seems to use an awfully broad brush for the term. Frankly, I disagree with the use of the term "gun violence" altogether, but that's beside the point for discussions of this article.
Click to expand...
But the term "gun violence" applied with a broad brush fits right in with the effort to classify "gun violence" as an epidemiological problem and funnel money to the CDC to study it.

The fact is, any time a person dies or is seriously injured due to external physical impact, a "violence" is perpetrated on that person's body. So, in that vein, a batter who is struck by a knock-down pitch is a victim of "baseball violence," a pedestrian who is struck by a automobile or a person injured in a car accident is a victim of "car violence," and a person who slips while showering is a victim of "bathtub violence." But there's no political capital to be gained by declaring that cars and bathtubs are dangerous weapons and need to be further studied and heavily regulated, so the politicians don't go there.

The latest furor is to renew (and expand) the AWB. They're after the AR-15s again. Yet FBI statistics over a recent five year period show that more people were killed with hammers than were killed with rifles (of all types). So there's a bunch of people out there who were clearly victims of "hammer violence," yet there's no move to have the CDC study violence by hammers, or to enact a sweeping Federal AHB.

He who controls the terminology controls the debate.
 
Spats McGee said:
Another example from the article:

So, umm, if we don't want it legally mandated that we report stolen guns, we're are not responsible citizens?
Click to expand...

Umm, no. If we don't want it legally mandated that we report stolen guns somehow we've got to come up as better citizens in the societal model. And the reason there's not much government regulation in a very dangerous industry like the diving industry is because it is self regulating.

Like it or not, we don't have the votes. Period, end of game. And as I have been pointing out and getting shouted down on gun boards for some time now, the NRA ain't PADI.

Before anyone gets their knickers in a knot let me admit that analogy falls apart pretty badly, so let me say that right up front. As a diver I have a hard time drowning more than myself, and maybe my dive buddy. While John Q. Public is "acutely aware" that a madman can steal a "dangerous gun" and "go on a murderous rampage" every day of the week and twice on Sunday whether it's true or not.

But we've done a perfectly abysmal job by offending rather than engaging the majority of the impressionable masses out there. And if you don't believe me look at where we are now. Trust me; I couldn't have gotten us here by myself.

If you don't want something externally mandated, then we better start looking more responsible.
 
Aguila Blanca said:
But the term "gun violence" applied with a broad brush fits right in with the effort to classify "gun violence" as an epidemiological problem and funnel money to the CDC to study it.

[...]

He who controls the terminology controls the debate.
Click to expand...

And this is exactly why I've been ranting that LaPierre needs to be at the desks of various directors offering to secure funding. Federal agencies live and die by funding, and that's a job he does phenomenally well.

He's not helping us in front of the cameras. We need someone more facile in front of the camera.
 
no secret of his disdain for the NRA and accuses them of extremism
Click to expand...

I find it a little worrisome that a seemingly pro-RKBA person would view the NRA defending a constitutional right as a form of extremism......but I have another question:

Putting aside for a moment whether someone regards themselves as a D, R, or I.....I am very intrigued at how some otherwise very pro-RKBA people have also stated their dislike of the NRA.

Even if very pro-2nd people find fault in the NRA, it cannot be denied that of the pro-2nd organizations out there, the NRA is by far the largest. So....I'm very curious to know if by writing very pro-RKBA, yet distancing oneself from the NRA, if this is an attempt to give some kind of legitimacy to their argument, by tapping into perceived popular sentiment.

Perhaps it is just me, but I do find it a bit contradictory, if not counterproductive. Am I to believe, that a sizable number of gun owners view the NRA is the same vein that animal rights groups view PETA and ALF as sharing the same goals but being unacceptably extreme in their methods from their standpoint?

Am I missing something, or looking too hard at it? I'm a bit confused.
 
mrbatchelor said:
Spats McGee said:
Another example from the article:
So, umm, if we don't want it legally mandated that we report stolen guns, we're are not responsible citizens?
Click to expand...
Umm, no. If we don't want it legally mandated that we report stolen guns somehow we've got to come up as better citizens in the societal model. And the reason there's not much government regulation in a very dangerous industry like the diving industry is because it is self regulating.
Click to expand...
Yet, that is exactly how the article is phrased: Wouldn't a responsible citizen (as opposed to a gun owner) report a stolen gun anyway?

mrbatchelor said:
Like it or not, we don't have the votes.
Click to expand...
The votes for what? To fend of legally mandating reporting of stolen guns?

I would agree that it is a good idea to report stolen guns. It is the responsible thing to do. Whether I would legally mandate it is a different question, though. If someone steals a car and drives through a playground of kids, would you have it legally mandated that all car thefts be reported?
 
While the man will readily admit he is a blue dog Democrat, he is pro gun.
Click to expand...

I have a difficult time believing someone who thinks the NRA is "too extreme" is pro gun. The more common complaint I hear among gun owners is the NRA isn't extreme enough. This guy strikes me as another "I support the Second Amendment BUT..." guys like our President and Vice-President who believe that the Second Amendment is somehow about shooting ducks and deer.
 
Spats McGee said:
Yet, that is exactly how the article is phrased: Wouldn't a responsible citizen (as opposed to a gun owner) report a stolen gun anyway?
Click to expand...

One would hope. It's certainly easier to get an insurance claim that way.

Spats McGee said:
The votes for what? To fend of legally mandating reporting of stolen guns?

I would agree that it is a good idea to report stolen guns. It is the responsible thing to do. Whether I would legally mandate it is a different question, though. If someone steals a car and drives through a playground of kids, would you have it legally mandated that all car thefts be reported?
Click to expand...

Frankly if you look at NY we don't have the votes to decide what flavor ice cream we want on our own plate if they took us out to dinner.

I agree that it should not be legally mandated. I do not agree that it isn't going to be legally mandated if we don't begin changing the national direction of the conversation.

The fact that we both agree we shouldn't drive over the cliff does not mean - assuming neither of us is in the driver's seat - that we aren't going over the cliff. We need to get back in the driver's seat.

This is a lot of why I keep saying we need to engage places like the National Institute of Mental Health. That's a federal agency in Washington full of bureaucratic MDs looking for research funding. But they control a lot of the conversation. The National Institute of Health is another. (My wife has worked on grants from these places.) LaPierre needs to be a conduit to congress for them, but it needs to be through the gun owners.

We want these people to see us as funding sources. Trust me, they work just like everybody else in Washington. They protect their funding. Game over.

Yes, it's a crass political game.

But we get those agencies changing the language back to positive language, and other parts of our image change becomes easier.

This is a 50 year plan, unfortunately.
 
Last edited:
I have a difficult time believing someone who thinks the NRA is "too extreme" is pro gun.
Click to expand...

While I understand how people could oppose some of the NRA’s tactics I do find it difficult to understand pro 2A folks dismissing them altogether. I always wonder why folks like Mr. Baum don’t join the NRA and seek to influence their tactics and message.

A wise person once told me to, “make decisions based on the way things are and not the way you wish they were”. Like it or not the NRA is the primary voice for gun owners right now and right now is when this battle will be fought.

While Mr. Baum makes some good points and maybe we should consider these things long term. However, I’m not sure how me shaming my friends into buying a safe is going to result in some Senator changing their minds within the next couple of months. No, short term the NRA is our best tool for fighting this battle.
 
I have a difficult time believing someone who thinks the NRA is "too extreme" is pro gun. The more common complaint I hear among gun owners is the NRA isn't extreme enough. This guy strikes me as another "I support the Second Amendment BUT..." guys like our President and Vice-President who believe that the Second Amendment is somehow about shooting ducks and deer.
Click to expand...

I dislike the NRA. I dislike that they will support a Republican, even if a Democrat has a better track record when it comes to guns. I dislike that my magazine about the history of firearms is packed to the brim with unsubstantiated claims that Obama is going to take our guns. I dislike that LaPierre blames another hobby of mine, video games, for violence. I was playing FPS games long before I was shooting guns. Playing those games is what got me into guns. I play those games to relieve stress by shooting virtual people in the face after a long day at work.

I am in favor of gun rights, but I do not approve of the NRA or it's methods.
 
I dislike that they will support a Republican, even if a Democrat has a better track record when it comes to guns.
Click to expand...

I don't recall that in recent years. In fact, supporting a D for office, based on support of the 2nd alone causes them no end of grief from some of the membership.
 
I don't recall that in recent years. In fact, supporting a D for office, based on support of the 2nd alone causes them no end of grief from some of the membership.
Click to expand...

I could be mistaken, but didn’t the NRA endorse Harry Reid and help him win reelection in a close race?
 
Yes, that's true. Sir Harry has always talked out of both sides of his mouth. Being a career politician in NV means catering to EVERYBODY. I don't now, nor have I ever thought he gave one rats *** about the 2nd except as it related to his re-election. My opinion, YMMV.
 
BarryLee said:
...I’m not sure how me shaming my friends into buying a safe is going to result in some Senator changing their minds within the next couple of months.
Click to expand...

True!

BarryLee said:
. No, short term the NRA is our best tool for fighting this battle.
Click to expand...

And true!

The unfortunate circumstance we find ousrelves in is a two phase battle. But nearly everyone wants it to be a one stage battle.

We're like the guy with a CCw permit who left his gun home today, and now we're looking for a blunt object.

I don't even dislike the NRA. I'm an Endowment member. My wife is a life member. And I signed up three people during the current discount life member drive - one with my own money.

I think the NRA is a necessary, but insufficient, strategy for protecting the future of 2A. I seriously doubt 2A can survive without the NRA. But I'm confident 2A cannot survive with only the NRA.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top