Sen. John McCain speaks during the National Rifle Association's annual meeting in Phoenix on Friday.
(Matt York/AP)Photos (1 of 1)
A rifle in one hand, a laptop in the other. Behind the scene with pro-gun bloggers
"Cowboy Blob" and other online commentators fill the press box at the National Rifle Association convention.
By Patrik Jonsson | Staff writer/ May 16, 2009 edition
Phoenix
While many old-school beat reporters stayed in New York or Washington this weekend to write about conventional political and social events, the pseudonymous “Sebastian” live-blogged GOP head Michael Steele’s fiery speech from the press box at the National Rifle Association convention in Phoenix.
“01:26: Steele is done and the crowd erupts in thunderous applause,” he tapped. “Make that a standing ovation. He deserves it. It was a good speech. I was skeptical. I even argued with ILA over the choice privately, someone there told me ‘He’ll get it right. Trust me on this.’ I will admit, I was wrong
“01:27: Saxby Chambliss is up, but he’s phoning it in.”
With some 55,000 readers a month, Sebastian, an “IT guy” from Pennsylvania who writes the snowflakesinhell.com blog, is part of a contrarian gang of gun bloggers attending the 2nd Annual Second Amendment Blog Bash here.
But here’s the real news: In the press box, bloggers outnumbered national reporters by a good margin. And officially, nearly 50 bloggers — compared to 100 mainstream print journalists — were accredited by the NRA press office to attend the 138th annual convention.
Experts say that ratio at a major national news event featuring a panoply of GOP stars — including John McCain and Mitt Romney — presents a stunning affirmation of the rise of a mix of both partisan and fiercely independent and sometimes downright cranky “New Media,” marking its growing power to not only cover breaking news, but set the tone for political policy — and, in the case of Second Amendment rights, even the direction of the NRA itself.
“Mass media has an audience where news goes in one ear and out the other,” says Brian Anse Patrick, professor of communications at the University of Toledo in Ohio, and author of the upcoming book, “Rise of the Anti-Media.” For gun-bloggers, “this is an identity issue, a behavioral thing, instead of mere attitude and a piece of news,” he says. “You have these communities all over the places that’s essentially gun culture: autonomous, but coordinated, very powerful and very effective.”
No matter where you look on the Internet these days, bloggers are mucking it up, taking on the big bad “mainstream media” with a mad mix of polarization, cheerleading, and snark. But just as lefty bloggers got the word out about the promise of Barack Obama during last year’s election, the rightosphere is pulling out its big guns, too. And in few places is the keyboard jockey scene as fast-growing or as influential as the world of firearms and Second Amendment rights.
While their standard battle stance is from an underdog position, the pro-gun forces are, for now at least, winning the battle for hearts and minds, even gun control advocates concede.
“If you compare the pro-gun activity in the blogosphere versus the pro-gun-control activity, the scales have just tipped tremendously in their favor,” says Josh Sugarmann, founder of the Violence Policy Center in Washington, which advocates for more gun control in the US. “There’s much more engagement, more involvement, and they clearly have more free time than people on our side of the issue do.”
In the process, gun bloggers are taking on issues like gun control preemption laws in Philadelphia and putting pressure on firearms firms for their choice of spokesmen. And while their reach can be argued, their rise appears to mirror polling data showing that Americans, sometimes by double-digit gains, increasingly favor more gun freedoms, not gun control.
Gun control groups have roughly 150,000 members in the US while gun rights advocates number closer to 12 million, with perhaps as many as 80 million Americans owning some 200 million firearms.
The Internet presence of gun rights advocates actually began in the early 1990s, making them early adopters of the Web as a social and information tool. They took the lead on issues like concealed carry laws which have now spread to nearly 40 states, says Mr. Patrick, the University of Toledo professor.
“If you’d asked a policy expert in 1987, ‘Twenty-five years from now, are we going to have liberation of concealed carry laws or more control?’ they would have said that we’d have more restrictions — and they’d be wrong,” says Patrick. “The question is: How did they succeed? How do you succeed in the face of conventional wisdom, common sense and elite opinion?”
The answer, Patrick says, lies partly in the “horizontal interpretive communities” otherwise known as blogs. Largely ignored, criticized, and even ridiculed by mainstream media, gun owners started their own listservs and bulletin boards, often putting out releases with titles like “Gun news the media didn’t report today.”
Passion, bloggers say, has replaced pay as incentive to inform the masses.
Looking at names like “Bitter,” “Gunnuts,” and “The Smallest Minority,” followers of the growing gun-blogging scene could well imagine some pretty rough-and-tumble characters behind the Internet handles. But at a meet-and-greet with industry reps at Majerle’s restaurant after Friday’s convention, the “blog bash” attendants looked more like attendees at an insurance industry convention, with some Hawaiian shirts thrown in for good measure.
Bob Flyzik at “Cowboy Blob” is retired Air Force from Tucson who specializes in political caricature and photo-editorializing with Photo Shop. He describes his blog as “gun fun and gun fun not.” His profile lists him as “professional hermit.”
“I’m a hopeful skeptic,” he says.
Mike W. at “Another Gun Blog” is a baseball-capped 23-year-old law clerk whose dad is a big-time anti-gun prosecutor out East.
Some came late to guns. Growing up, Daniel Pehrson’s mom wouldn’t even let him have a BB gun until he was 16. He began shooting real ammo at a range in his early 20s, and realized that many states “were trying to make it so difficult to be a law-abiding gun owner that they’d simple give up.” His site, Pennsylvania Firearms Owners Association, has become one of the biggest social networks in the gun world, drawing nearly 4 million visitors a month and featuring thousands of discussion threads.
“If I can help make gun owners safer and more informed, I feel like I’ve done my job and contributed something to society,” says the 20-something Philadelphia computer programmer.
Critics are troubled. They say the NRA is pushing to supplant traditional media with their own Internet TV network and industry blogs, fueling what they say is an increasingly under-informed and misinformed public that reacts within an echo chamber. Some pro-gun blogging networks, like the online-only Examiner, are even getting traction on Google News, which has increasingly become the nation’s digital Page One.
Mr. Sugarmann points to the NRA’s efforts at anti-media, such as NRAtv, an Internet station.
“This is one of the craziest things I’ve ever seen,” he says. “It claims that it’s replacing mainstream media and that this is all the news you need. I think it’s a very clear recognition on the part of the NRA that this works with their supporters, they want to be told what they want to hear. You wouldn’t think it would work, but I think it does.”
NRA board of directors member Tim Pawol says the NRA appreciates the role of the gun-bloggers, saying they can tackle especially local issues that the NRA doesn’t have the resources to focus on. But some say the bloggers are even more influential than that, often pulling the NRA into fights or stances — not the other way around.
“It’s an interesting phenomenon in a political science sense,” says Dave Kopel, research director at the conservative Independence Institute in Golden, Colo. “You wouldn’t know it from reading the New York Times, but the communicative message of the pro-gun side is not nearly as much something that is under NRA control as it used to be.”
The NRA’s early hands-off stance on the Supreme Court’s Heller case, which last year affirmed the right of citizens to protect themselves with firearms, infuriated Kevin Baker, the proprietor of “The Smallest Minority blog”, a story he has detailed at length.
“They wanted to derail it because they were scared it would fail,” says Mr. Baker.
Mr. Flyzik has criticized the NRA for its stance against a partial concealed carry law in a Midwestern state. “Better to get the camel’s nose under the tent flap,” he says. “Yes, I want to show the NRA in the best light I can, but I’m not swallowing the hook.”
The Phoenix blog bash may be all about the Second Amendment, but the First Amendment figures just as much into their growing firepower, says Gene Policinski, executive director of the First Amendment Center in Nashville.
“We’re beginning to see bloggers gain credentials to cover federal trials, and we’re beginning to see bloggers seated in media areas so they can cover public meetings and hearings,” says Mr. Policinski. “Of course, many of the blogs are coming from a specific point of view rather than a mantle of objectivity … but there’s no requirement in the First Amendment to be objective. [In essence], we’ve gone from the village green to the village screen, and I think you’re seeing that phenomenon at the NRA.”
Comments
2. mostlygenius | 05.16.09
“Mr. Sugarmann points to the NRA’s efforts at anti-media, such as NRAtv, an Internet station.”
Perhaps if the main stream media was to publish the press releases and statements of NRA as news or fact (as it consistently does with VPC and Brady Center) the NRA and the gun bloggers wouldn’t have a reason to exist.
In general, if it comes from Brady/VPC it is published as fact, and any rebuttal from the other side of the issue is treated as propaganda.
3. robert | 05.16.09
If we had a rigourously fair, impartial and implacable press….then blogging would just be a sideshow. But that press is long gone and now cranks out lies, propaganda and half truths.
Thank God for the internet and bloggers.
And Susan?????? Kids with guns? Shooting each other? Isn’t that already against the law? Why aren’t police out arresting and jailing these kids? Instead, you want innocent law abiding folks to disarm? To what end…exactly?
I would love to see a source for folks shooting each other with machine guns. I think that is an exaggeration at best.
4. Davidwhitewolf | 05.16.09
Nicely reported — much of importance is happening on the gun rights front that rarely makes it into the Monitor or other mainstream press. Glad to see it written of here.
5. geekWithA.45 | 05.16.09
>>“There’s much more engagement, more involvement, and they clearly have more free time than people on our side of the issue do.” –Josh Sugarmann
Ya know, I have to call absolute baloney on this canard. The gun bloggers that I know are all working men and women who carve hours out of their lunch or after work family time to promote individual human freedom and dignity, on their own dime and time, while the statist agenda of the anti gunners is well supported by the tens of millions of dollars that flow out of places like the Joyce Foundation and their ilk, who bankroll sad folks who would otherwise be harmless anti gun cranks. This enables them to become full time, paid activists who are able to obtain audience and favor with politicians sympathetic to their cause. If you ever want to know who those people are, find file photos of governors signing anti gun bills, and they’ll be the men and women applauding in the background.
Look, I’m one of the ’sphere’s founding gunbloggers, and I’ve also been a founding member of an independent state level gun rights group. Everyone thinks they know that the NRA funds all of these sorts of activities, and the simple fact is, they don’t, and they won’t, and the most you’ll get out of them is a smile, a nod, and an invitation to help them sign up new NRA members.
As an independent civil rights worker, I am consistently bemused to be misidentified as “an NRA guy” simply because I am working for the human right of arms.
6. hillbilly | 05.16.09
Oh sure.
Let’s be “more harmonious” with each other.
Let’s invite the Bloods and the Crips and MS-13 and Los Surenos and the hillbilly white trash meth-makers and the Aryan Brotherhood (along with the Muslim Brotherhood) and let’s all sit down and hold hands and sing “Kumbyah” (with lyrics altered to be more multiculturally sensitive and inclusive, of course) and think really happy, rainbow-colored thoughts, and try really, really hard to be more “harmonious” and get in touch with our inner children, and maybe it’ll all work out.
Or maybe, what we’ll get is an American version of what happened in Rwanda a few years back? And you know what? Those Hutus and Tutsis didn’t have many guns….mostly machetes and garden hoes and big sticks and knives. Lack of technology didn’t slow down their killing one bit.
Of course you can’t imagine “shooting an animal” either. I’ll bet you claim to be a vegan, and you prefer to pay anonymous corporate types to kill your cows for you, and slaughter your pigs for you, and electrocute your chickens for you, and club your salmon to death for you instead, right?
Yes, if we’d only try to be more “harmonious” with each other, including those who would like to rape, kill, rob, and burn for the sheer hell of it, we’d all be just fine.
And don’t forget to pass the bong, either.
7. Sandcut | 05.16.09
I believe that the statement that NRA supporters “just want to be told what they want to hear” couldn’t be further from the truth and shows just how ensnared Mr. Sugarmann is in rote, anti-gun dogma.
As a member of the NRA, I firmly believe that the organization plays a vital role in maintaining the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. With that said, as a thinking human being, I also know that anything that I read that originates from the NRA must acknowledge their particular bias.
As a member of the aforementioned Pennsylvania Firearm Owner’s Association, I would state that, internet sites like this exemplify why the internet was developed, to exchange information and ideas. PAFOA is to the “gun culture” what gray-literature peer review would be to the scientific community. A place to exchange ideas, explore avenues of thought and refute fallacies. And therein lies its strength. The free exchange of ideas with little more than common interest to guide you. Visit the site sometime and you’ll find that it is light years away from the regurgitation of pro-gun rhetoric. Kudos to Mr. Pehrson for his work.
And to Ms. Gill, I find it lamentable that, although many of us “gun nuts” would gladly use our rights under the Second Amendment to protect your rights under the First(including your right to claim that you personally don’t like guns,) it appears that you would not use your rights under the First Amendment to protect our rights under the Second.
8. RaisedByWolves | 05.16.09
Susan, your argument is ridiculous and full of falsehoods. Seattle while generally nice is not the center of the world and to suggest that nationwide Gun policy should be shaped around your LOCAL problems is just silly. You are correct that “Kids” should not have guns, but it took a failure of laws already on the books for them to get into their hands. The general problem with your way of thinking is that you dont seem to recognize that only Law abiding gun owners will be affected by more laws. How many laws do you pass till the criminals stop? NONE, Criminals dont obey laws, thats the problem.
And I have to ask you, who are you to decide what the “Appropriate Parties” Are? If these Appropriate parties were able to stop crime then why does it continue? The founding fathers recognized the need for people to protect themselves and to be able to maintain the ability to fend off attacks from outside forces. The Japanese contemplated an attack on the US mainland during WWII but gave up the idea when they realized they would be outgunned by the Civilian gun owners, let alone the military.
Bet you a steak dinner you didn’t know that.
9. Buss | 05.16.09
just like a computer a firearm is a tool that is used for either good or bad. A computer can be ued to hack into another persons personal information to steal their identity just as a firearm can be used to rob a bank but there is no movement to ban computers.
10. Unix-Jedi | 05.16.09
Ms. Gill, thank you.
I’m a frequent commenter at Kevin Baker’s “The Smallest Minority”, and it’s via his link I visited. A large portion of our writings are to illustrate that some of the most common statements are factually devoid and in fact, often self-contradictory. Ms. Gill demonstrates this, claiming that teenagers are shooting people. Thus we need more gun laws.
But we’ve got lots of laws against murder, attempted murder, assault and battery, discharge of weapons, and most especially, laws forbidding teenagers to be carrying weapons when not under adult supervision. But none of those laws she finds lacking.
The NRA doesn’t really do the job of pointing out people like Ms. Gill, or “fisking” them to use a new-media term, where you go point by point where someone has written something incorrect, easily refuted, or at least arguable and *demonstrate* the logical fallacies.
As to Sugarmann’s views, I expect he is disheartened. For years, he was able to get his views published, and claim to be speaking from the “little man”. Now that we have a easy way for the “little men” (and women) to say their mind, his illusion is shown to be false.
11. RAH | 05.16.09
Very nicley written and shows a side that most do not see. Sugerman knows it well since that is his buiness as a guncontrol activists. I siuggest to the writer that he checks out The Examiner and the gun rights examiners in various cities that is a very good group that often have thought provoking articles.
As to Ms Gill the reason we don’t push for harmony is that is the exception with humans. We are not harmonius but greedy, envious and competitive creatures and there have always been humans who rather steal and harm for bad reasons. Humans are the most sucessful predator and there are a lot in Seattle because they have been taught that most residents will hide from them and allow them to suceed so their evil deeds are getting rewarded.
I doubt that if a male invades Ms. Gill’s home with bad intent that saying lets be more harmonius will only mean that you have surrendered your will and permit yourself to be raped and abused.
Defend against them and the inevitable deaths of these predators and they will evaluate their risks differntly.
12. B Woodman | 05.16.09
Dear Ms Gill,
My goodness, it’s hard to know where to begin with a rebuttal to your whining. I cannot respond to all of it, the reply would take way too much space and time.
RE: “Kids should not have guns”. Well, in this I agree with you. If any child under the age of 21 is caught with a gun while doing a criminal act, that child should be prosecuted under the full weight of the law. Unfortunately, most are not. These children are given a slap on the wrist and let go, never having learned the hard lesson of life, and sent out to commit more crimes. One answer to children having guns, is to have more adults carry guns, if for nothing else then self-defence against these feral packs of minor-aged miscreants.
RE: “larger police force.” Well, at the risk of sounding smarmy, here’s a quote that sums it up nicely. “When seconds count, the police are only minutes away.” There is not enough money to provide a police officer for every home, for every individual. You are your own best first line of defence.
RE: “more regulated laws that oversee gun sales.” Maybe you haven’t studied up on the legal sitution, but there are already too many gun laws on the books. Some are quite effective, many are ineffective. The effective laws would be even more effective if they were consistantly and uniformly enforced, instead of the spotty enforcement that is the current situation.
RE: “limit gun sales to the appropriate parties, those who are professionals in the service of protecting our cities and country?” See comment above under “larger police force”. Same applies here.
RE: “I simply cannot believe our Founding Fathers’ intent with the 2nd Amendment was to indiscriminately pass out guns to anyone who wants one.”
Yes, that was EXACTLY the intent of our Founding Fathers. They had just had a Revolution (I repeat, Revolution) and won against one of the most powerful political forces on Earth at that time, Great Britain. And to ensure that We, The People of the United States did not become slaves to any other political power, including our own, they had the wisdom and foresight to make sure that We the People of the United States had the means to fight back against tyranny, no matter the source, weather it be from government, or the burglar and rapist who has broken into your home. “When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. When the government fear the people, there is freedom.”
13. JD | 05.16.09
To Susan Gill:
In North Dakota we have almost no gun control and 54% of our states population own firearms. Thousands of these firearms are semi-auto AR-15 and AK47 type weapons, yes we do use these firearms to hunt as well as target shoot and home defense. In 2008 ND had exactly ZERO firearms homicides. The rest of America should be so fortunate to have our lack of gun control and extremely low crime rate. Gun control doesn’t work Susan, deal with reality.
14. Kirk | 05.17.09
Susan, You seem to see Guns as the fault. A lot more of us see Guns and Gangs as a parental failing, and even more of a societal failure. As I was born in the late 60s and raised in the 70s my parents were very involved in my upbringing. I was in the house by seven PM in my pre teen years, and by my mid teen years I was able to stay out till 9 nine PM. My parents knew who my friends were and approximately where I was at all times, if they did not find me at the first friends home they called they rarely had to place a third call to locate me. To the point, they were involved in my life, they cared.
Today society has the mind set that we just send the kids to school and by george when they “graduate” high school they will be ready to be good citizens, no discipline needed, everyone is a winner…
The kinder gentler nanny state that has formed in the age of Political Correctness is directly responsible for taking the parents out of the raising of todays youth and allowing them to run amuck. When you have no rules, limitations, or boundaries as a youth why should you have any as an adult.
The Nanny State and poor parenting has brought us to todays reality. Since you have no rules or limitations why not join a gang all the cool kids are in them, why not get a gun as all the cool kids have one, why not “bust a cap” in someone as the police are not going to stop you.
As far as more gun laws? Why bother with them as the Police are not enforcing the 20,000 plus gun laws on the books today. More laws are not the solution to a societal problem, changing society is the solution but no one wants to look in the mirror and say that they are the problem. When you get someone that does look in the mirror, and says out loud what no one else will say they are immediately pulled down and decried as a wicked and evil person. My example is the community outrage against Bill Cosby when he stated that the “culture” was a problem and they needed to fix things.
As far as the Second Amendment is concerned the founding fathers came from a country where there was governmental oppression. Arms for the people were a means of overthrowing that oppression when it was revisited in the Colonies. Arms for the people were not just for hunting, the were the tools used to throw off the yoke of an oppressive government. The Second Amendment is there to ensure that these tools are not lost in the future.
These words are as true today as they were two hundred years ago.
“Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”
Beat not your swords into plowshares as you may find that the brigands are upon you and you have no defense against them.
15. BillH | 05.17.09
The Founding Fathers’ intent with the 2nd Amendment was EXACTLY that every citizen could be, should be, and would be armed. Please learn the real history of your country and read what the men who founded it actually did and said.
I would also suggest that NRA lobbying is not the all-powerful, ever growing monolith you seem to think it is. The NRA doesn’t pressure my Congressmen, >Ius<; they don’t believe they are smarter than we are, or that more laws regulating THINGS and law abiding citizens will make a whit of difference to a criminal or the punk gangbangers.
Which brings me to a question another serious pro-gun blogger asks those who, like you, seem to think more laws are the answer:
Can you demonstrate one time or place, throughout all history, where the average person was made safer by restricting access to handheld weapons?
16. Sailorcurt | 05.17.09
Mr. Sugarmann simply doesn’t like the fact that he and his friends and co-conspirators in the mainstream media don’t control the narrative any more.
Alternative media is not providing the echo chamber…it’s providing an escape from it.
The primary difference between the “mainstream media” and alternative media is that we bloggers generally don’t pretend to be objective. The MSM is fooling no one, but they insist upon living in their fantasy world of faux objectivity.
When one of the most basic premises upon which you build your business model is an obvious lie, is it really that surprising that your intended customers flat out don’t trust you?
I also liked Josh’s attempted insult: “…they clearly have more free time than people on our side of the issue do.”
That’s funny right there. Ever attended a gun control event put on by VPC or the Brady’s or “Protest Easy Guns”? It’s full of college and high school students playing hooky from class, unemployed hippies, and genteel ladies who’ve probably never held a paying job in their lives…may of whom are bussed in at the expense of the organizers.
Ever go to an event organized by a state level gun rights organization? It’s full of military vets, working age men and women and families: Doctors, Lawyers, Cops, IT guys, Firemen, Factory Workers, Farmers…the backbone of society. Not bussed in, but there of their own volition, on their own dime and having had to take vacation time from their paying jobs to get there.
I’m a gun blogger. I have a full time job, a wife, a house, two kids and three grandkids and also do volunteer work with my Church. I’m involved not because I have too much spare time on my hands as Josh would have you believe (that’s just laughable). I’m involved because this is one issue (among many) about which I feel very strongly and I consider it my responsibility to be involved.
This isn’t a lark that gets me out of my classroom for a day. This is about a basic, fundamental human right.
Keeping up with Josh and his ilk and countering the lies and propaganda that they try to spread every day is hard work. But I and many like me do it gladly because, in the immortal words of JFK: “the price of liberty is eternal vigilance”.
17. Kevin Baker | 05.17.09
“I simply cannot believe our Founding Fathers’ intent with the 2nd Amendment was to indiscriminately pass out guns to anyone who wants one.” - Susan Gill
Not “pass out guns,” Ms. Gill, just not prohibit citizens from possessing them. There have been three “meta-studies” of the gun control laws and current research done over the last few decades. The first was performed in the UK by then Inspector Colin Greenwood of the West Yorkshire Constabulary, published in 1972 under the title “Firearms Control: A Study of Armed Crime and Firearms Control in England and Wales.” The second was commissioned by the Carter administration and was performed by a team of three sociologists and was published in 1983 under the title “Under the Gun: Weapons, Crime and Violence in America.” The third was commissioned by the Clinton administration, was conducted by the National Academies of Science, and was published in 2004 under the title “Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review.”
The conclusion Inspector Greenwood reached in 1972 was expressed succinctly:
“No matter how one approaches the figures, one is forced to the rather startling conclusion that the use of firearms in crime was very much less when there were no controls of any sort and when anyone, convicted criminal or lunatic, could buy any type of firearm without restriction. (p. 243)
–
“Careful examination of all the evidence available suggests, therefore, that legislation has failed to bring under control substantial numbers of firearms, and it certainly cannot be claimed that strict controls have reduced the use of firearms in crime. On the basis of these facts is(sic) might be argued that firearms controls have had little effect and do not justify the amount of police time involved.” (p. 245)
The conclusions of both the 1983 and the 2004 reports performed here in America did not contradict Inspector Greenwood’s conclusion. Three different studies performed over a period in excess of thirty years all concluded that there is NO EVIDENCE that ANY gun control law can be proven to have decreased gun crime. And it’s not like they haven’t been looking. I invite you to read all three. The last study examined the explosion in “shall-issue” concealed weapon laws in this country. Thirty-seven states now have such laws, and two more (Alaska and Vermont) don’t require permits for concealed-carry. The worst thing that report could say about “Right to Carry” laws (”More guns on the streets!”) with any confidence is that such laws might NOT be responsible for the reduction in homicide and other violent crime that often coincide with the passage of such laws.
“Gun control” laws affect only the people you LEAST need to worry about.
18. MicroBalrog | 05.17.09
>My goodness, it’s hard to know where to begin…
Let’s start with murders and violence in the US being on an overall decline.
19. RAH | 05.17.09
Very nice article. My hat is off to the author and the CSM for sending their reporter there.
20. karrde | 05.17.09
Susan, I invite you to investigate American law about Prohibited Persons.
See this Link:
http://www.statemaster.com/graph/gov_gun_law_pro_per-government-gun-laws-prohibited-persons
We have laws that make firearm ownership by felons illegal. How well-enforced are these laws? Are they easier to enforce than the laws prohibiting possession of cocaine?
21. 1911aficionado | 05.17.09
Susan Gill’s comment above is so chock-full of liberal-pinko-claptrap and distortions, it’s hard for me to know where to begin! She basically could have summarized her entire rant by saying, “I hate all guns. I think they are evil and I just wish that they would all go away. Whenever I see a murderer, gang member, or rapist on the TV news, I want to give him or her a hug.”
However, Susan Gill’s opinion on guns might suddenly change if her home were to be violently invaded by a ruthless gang of criminals late one night while she’s upstairs in bed, that is, she’ll then wish she had a gun once she discovers her phone lines have been cut, and her cell phone isn’t working for some reason.
22. Sevesteen | 05.17.09
Susan:
In almost all cases, the guns in gang shootings are already illegally possessed–there’s a felony even before the trigger is pulled. Adding more restrictions to people already obeying the law won’t make a difference here, nor will increasing the number of felonies a gang member can be charged with.
There have been only 2 illegal shootings with legally owned machine guns since the 1930’s–I would say that indicates we don’t need more regulation in that particular area. Most of the “machine gun” shootings that get reported are actually with guns that only look like machine guns, but work like ordinary guns. The media often leaves people with misleading information whether through deliberate sensationalism or oversimplification. Correcting this sort of misinformation is one of the motives of gun bloggers.
I completely agree with your ideas on your ideas of how to protect yourself–I follow them. I also (legally) carry a gun–Since I got my license, I’m more observant of avoiding trouble spots, locking my doors when I’m in an unfamiliar neighborhood and similar defensive precautions. I really, really want to avoid shooting someone.
Decent people who can effectively defend is one of the best ways of reducing crime. Being totally dependent on the government is not a good thing. Look up the “Deacons for Defense”–A group of armed black civil rights activists who defended against the *** and other racist hate groups when corrupt law enforcement refused.
23. Unix-Jedi | 05.17.09
Ms. Gill, thank you.
I’m a frequent commenter at Kevin Baker’s “The Smallest Minority”, and it’s via his link I visited. A large portion of our writings are to illustrate that some of the most common statements are factually devoid and in fact, often self-contradictory. Ms. Gill demonstrates this, claiming that teenagers are shooting people. Thus we need more gun laws.
But we’ve got lots of laws against murder, attempted murder, assault and battery, discharge of weapons, and most especially, laws forbidding teenagers to be carrying weapons when not under adult supervision. But none of those laws she finds lacking.
The NRA doesn’t really do the job of pointing out people like Ms. Gill, or “fisking” them to use a new-media term, where you go point by point where someone has written something incorrect, easily refuted, or at least arguable and *demonstrate* the logical fallacies.
As to Sugarmann’s views, I expect he is disheartened. For years, he was able to get his views published, and claim to be speaking from the “little man”. Now that we have a easy way for the “little men” (and women) to say their mind, his illusion is shown to be false.
24. The Freeholder | 05.17.09
I hardly know where to start in rebutting Ms. Gill’s comments. Let’s go in reverse order.
“…more intelligent scrutiny and stricter laws…”? There are over 20,000 gun laws in the US already, and they haven’t solved the problem. Be intellectually honest–will yet more laws get you where you want to go? Criminals break the law–that’s their job. They don’t care if it’s a law against robbery, rape or possessing a gun.
The Second Amendment was not meant to pass out guns to anyone. You have to buy them for yourself. (Note to the uninitiated–that comment is what the CSM called “snark”.) If you look at the history of the Second, our new little country had just fought a long and expensive war to gain it’s independence. The widespread ownership of firearms by private citizens and the attempted confiscation of them was one of the events that pushed the colonies from merely being angry and into outright rebellion. When the Constitution was being written, those who did the writing made %$@^ sure that just in case it had to happen again, it could. Uncomfortable as that seems to make a lot of folks these days, that’s what the historical record shows. (And yes, I understand that there was also the issue of self-defense in a time when nearly the entire country was “frontier” and people were subject to attack by hostile wildlife and unhappy native inhabitants. But that part seemed to just be “understood” as being such a common need that it wasn’t even necessary to discuss it.)
As to wise lifestyle, larger police forces and the like, we concealed carriers live that. We understand that a gun is not some sort of magic talisman that makes evil “go away”. We understand that just because we carry it still isn’t wise to venture into those “certain neighborhoods” we all know about. We also understand that there is no way to have a police presence of the size necessary to provide each of us with 24×7 security. We have simply chosen to provide as much of our own security as we can. As a group, we are statistically some of the most law-abiding citizens in the country. As a reward for that good behavior, you would like to make us less safe. Thank you, but no.
“People go off the deep end and shoot fellow workers or students with machine guns they should NEVER have access to.” No, they don’t. If I recall correctly, there hasn’t been a single instance of a legally owned automatic weapon ever being used in a crime in the last several decades. In those rare instances where automatic weapons have been used in commission of a crime (the North Hollywood bank shootout comes to mind), those guns were illegal and owned illegally. (Something that supports my first point.) Now that we’ve disposed of that, let’s actually look at mass shootings in the Land of Reality. Nearly always, the shooter is deeply disturbed for some reason. Nearly always, the shooting takes place in a “gun free zone”–an area where having guns is banned. (Oops, back to point one again.) Nearly always, the mass shooting ends when a Good Guy, be he a police officer or she an armed private citizen (Jeanne Assam, http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/14817480/detail.html), steps in with their gun.
It would be wonderful if we could all live in that Utopian world where everyone followed the Golden Rule. Unfortunately, we don’t. We live in this world, and this world has dangerous people who would do us harm. The police can’t be everywhere all the time. Each of us must accept the burden of providing for our own safety and well-being. I have done so. Ms. Gill apparently hasn’t.
25. Rich Paul | 05.17.09
Ms. Gill I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of gun owners. All of us who legally keep firearm want to live a life of peace, to do our best to stay out of harms way and do the best we can for our families. The trouble is even with that attitude sometimes trouble finds you, and you’re are going to have to be prepared for it or suffer the consequences.
Darfur is a perfect example of this. Here you have a government that has banned private ownership of weapons who then turns around and decides that it is going to commit genocide based on ethnicity of its own population. Something like that cannot happen here America because people like me will not allow that to happen.
26. Pete Allen | 05.17.09
The facts are very simple. Gun control advocates cannot point to a successful gun control law. There are currently 22,309 restrictive gun laws in force. Of those, not even one has EVER succeeded in reducing violent crime. Instead, violent crime has increased sharply after each and every gun control law. And the failure of one restrictive law has only led to to the next failure and the next.
When anyone with five pounds in pocket could buy a “life preserver,” England had the lowest violent crime rate of any industrialized society. After almost 90 years of increasingly severe gun controls it has the highest. Australia once had a violent crime rate that was “average.” After gun controls it rivals England for the number of violent crimes per capita.
The United States ranks 19th on that list, but much of the US has controls that make even Australia’s draconian laws look mild; and violent crime rates that are commensurate with those controls. The average for the areas where guns are not restricted would put us in 51st place on the violent crime list.
I could go on, but the utter failure of existing gun laws speaks volumes. Every conceivable scheme has been tried, and every conceivable scheme has failed. Gun controls have exactly the same effect on violent crime as pouring on a can of gasoline has on a fire. And that makes gun controls the very last thing any sane and informed human should want.
Pete Allen
27. Fiftycal | 05.17.09
Some bad people have guns. Some people get drunk and beat or kill their spouses. We tried prohibition so people couldn’t get drunk. That didn’t work. We continue to try to ban drugs so people won’t get high. That hasn’t worked. Trying to ban guns won’t work. I have a gun. I carry it to protect myself. One viewpoint is that we should all sit around and sing kumbaya and we’ll all be one big happy family and only “professionals” should have guns. Well, I have a RIGHT to have a gun. Pacifists don’t have to have guns if they don’t want. Let the police protect you. I’ll protect myself.
28. Billll | 05.17.09
In Seattle, gang members are shooting each other with guns, and the solution is to ban guns?
How about we ban the gangs? Oh wait, the gang-bangers are part of the party demographic in Seattle, and King county, where vote fraud elected the Governor.
Can’t be cutting in to the constituency, now can we?
29. m lubeck | 05.17.09
Hi: I live in an area with many guns and kids do get their hand on them but it would be worse if they were taken away. If guns were taken away our state would have a loss in hunting revenue for example and kids and criminals would still find an avenue to guns. People need instruction and education and jobs and without them it’s take what you need… not earn what you need in many cities.
30. serfer62 | 05.17.09
Susan you are the reason there is now a strong move to make the 2nd ammendment legal. First its kids shooting other kids as a means of gun control (its illegal to murder, did you know that?) then its states that make qualification, taxation, registration, confiscation.
.
The article mentions 80 million guns in the USA. About 20 years ago I estimated America had over a Billion guns then and probably double that now.
.
If any law makes sense about guns it would make gun ownership manditory…
31. JD | 05.17.09
Susan, I can be harmonious and live well and practice my zen meditation techniques. In fact, I do. But I do it with a rifle in one hand and a laptop in the other.
Perhaps you should go read the words of the Founding Fathers before stating what you can’t “believe” - it may be an enlightening experience.
32. Nick | 05.17.09
You stated “My goodness, it’s hard to know where to begin. In Seattle, there is an increase of gang shootings, often by teenagers, right out in the open on the University of Washington Ave”
You are conceeding that criminals do exist and operate with impunity. No where in your above statement do you even begin to discuss when normal, law abiding citizens carry firearms like the police. If you think that the police are the only ones entitled to self protection. Your reasoning is both flawed and distorted. Unfortunately, the same people that think that the problem of crime can be legislated out of exisitance. Fail to see that only people willing to take the fight to the criminal is about the only thing that actually works……..
Drugs are outlawed, but guess what Mr. Naive Politician?
33. Charles P. | 05.17.09
“People go off the deep end and shoot fellow workers or students with machine guns they should NEVER have access to.”
A classic example of downright lies propagated by the Violence Policy Center and the Brady Campaign. Machine guns and other fully automatic weapons are NOT easily purchasable-you can’t just go into a gun shop and buy automatic weapons-it doesn’t work that way. Less than .1% of firearms crimes in the USA are committed with machine guns.
I won’t even go into the view you have of Law enforcement officers as the only “Appropriate parties” that should have access to firearms.
34. SageThrasher | 05.17.09
Two unfortunate things about the article:
1) All the mainstream media seem to have Josh Sugarmann on speed dial. Mr. Sugarmann is an extremist–why keep calling him except for the predictable hyperbolic overreaction? Interview other voices, please.
2) Mainstream media still sees “pro-gun advocacy” and “NRA” as synonymous. The article focuses on “bloggers” who ***** for the NRA, no mention of other grass roots efforts, especially independent, centrist or left-wing.
Gun rights is NOT a conservative cause. It is a mainstream civil rights issue. 37% of those who voted for OBAMA in 2008 were gun owners. Does that sound like a right-wing crowd? There are many left-wing pro-gun advocacy groups out there. When Democratic politicians vote for gun rights, they are NOT pandering to the “right-wing gun lobby,” they are supporting the views of their centrist and even left-wing constituents. I know–I’m a liberal and a gun owner; there are many more like me, including just a few links on my group’s blog, Blue Steel Democrats.
35. DCDC | 05.17.09
First, I take exception that these are all “right wing” bloggers. Check out the gun section of the Democratic Underground.
Second, it is interesting to note that I cannot find ONE pro-gun control blog that allows comments. That is because most of their arguments cannot hold up to scrutiny.
36. Letalis Maximus, Esq. | 05.17.09
Susan, have you ever tried to buy a gun? Do you own a gun? How many people who own guns do you know?
With all due respect, you really have no idea what you are talking about, do you?
Gun owners have rights. The NRA helps protect those rights. I don’t have the time or the money to go to Washington, D.C. myself and lobby my congressional representatives. So the NRA does it for me. What’s the problem with that? And I’ll bet you dollars to dog turds that those teenagers in Seattle who are shooting each other are not NRA members.
37. Hank Archer | 05.17.09
Mr. Patrick, the University of Toledo professor — “The question is: How did they succeed [in liberalizing CCW]? How do you succeed in the face of conventional wisdom, common sense and elite opinion?”
Is the notion that disarming the law-abiding will result in less crime and violence “Common sense?”
38. Telemakos | 05.17.09
To Susan Gill,
When the government fears the people, it is liberty. When the people fear the government, it is tyranny. – Thomas Paine
Susan, how do you make the government fear you? In answer, I submit to you that this is the reason the founders/framers blessed us with the Second Amendment and why it was so necessary for the Bill of Rights to bulwark up the Constitution.
39. RKV | 05.17.09
Ms Gill, You are VERY confused so it’s hard to know where to start. Let’s get a couple of facts on the table…
1) “I simply cannot believe our Founding Fathers’ intent with the 2nd Amendment was to indiscriminately pass out guns to anyone who wants one.”
The Militia Act of 1792 required every able bodied white male aged 17-45 to own a military rifle and ammunition. http://www.constitution.org/mil/mil_act_1792.htm
Blacks and native Americans rights to keep and bear arms were limited and got more so as time went on. Maybe that’s what you want now - more racist gun laws?
2) “People go off the deep end and shoot fellow workers or students with machine guns.”
Please site a specific instance. Privately owned machine guns are quite rare (and expensive) in the US. Their use in crime is quite newsworthy.
3)”trying to be harmonious with all, listening to your intuitions, staying out of trouble spots”
Did you listen to yourself there? Staying out of trouble spots? Some poor Americans LIVE in those places. Don’t they deserve the opportunity to defend themselves from the predators that live there? Or are the lives of poor people of color worth less than yours? And the police cannot be everywhere, nor would we want to live in a country where they were everywhere.
4)’I won’t even try to talk about the “hunting” aspect. I cannot in a million years imagine shooting an animal!”
If your eat meat you are a hypocrite. Are you a vegan?
Bottom line, you don’t know history, you have the facts wrong, and your whole position is morally questionable.
40. Jonno | 05.17.09
“I simply cannot believe our Founding Fathers’ intent with the 2nd Amendment was to indiscriminately pass out guns to anyone who wants one.”
First of all no one is advocating passing out guns. Secondly, not everyone can buy them. People with a criminal conviction or mentally unsound cannot purchase a gun. Each gun purchase requires a background check done by the BATFE.
41. William Sweeney | 05.17.09
Ms Gill,
Teens are not legally allowed to possess handguns, criminals and the mentally ill are not allowed to legally buy guns, machine guns require a special license and individual investigation by the local and Federal governments already and LEGAL machine guns have NEVER been used in a crime by someone other than a police officer.
Everything you want is already law. And still, crime persists and your recommendation is to hide from it and to walk the other way.
Yet you continue to want to trample on the rights of your honest neighbors in the unfounded hope that maybe, just maybe, it might constrain the predators who don’t obey the law.
Perhaps you should consider that the NRA may be correct to oppose wrongheaded policies supported by people like you.
42. Peter | 05.17.09
Ms. Gill:
Your post pretty much encapsulates why you and your fellow gun controllers are losing this debate.
And so long as you try to change the subject from an enumerated Human right to one of crime and/or social control, you will continue to lose. Firearms do not suddenly jump up and start firing; it takes a person to do that. If you want me, or any other pro-gun person to support you, you need to stop demonizing an inanimate object and start holding the people who choose to use a gun illegally accountable for their actions.
Mr. Johnsson:
I cannot believe you printed that quote in the final paragraph without challenge: “Of course, many of the blogs are coming from a specific point of view rather than a mantle of objectivity … but there’s no requirement in the First Amendment to be objective.” You don’t really mean to suggest that the New York Times (for example) has anything close to a “mantle of objectivity”, do you? If so, please show us where the NYT has printed an editorial in support of gun rights.
43. Bob Owens | 05.17.09
Ms. Gill,
I’d like to direct you to The Federalist Papers and other documents written by our Founding Fathers. They did indeed mean for ever law-abiding reasonable man be armed with small arms suitable for military use. They created the Second Amendment not to sanctify pheasant hunting or target shooting, but to make sure American civilians always had access to small arms for the defense of their communities and states against tyrannies foreign and domestic.
They recognized the militia as the citizen, not the National Guard, and the contemporary use of the phrase “well-regulated” in their time meant well-trained.
The Founders wanted America to be a nation where the citizenry itself was a well-trained deterrent to tyrants abroad and would-be tyrants at home, recognizing that blood needed to be shed from time to time for liberty to remain, and free men to remain free.
What the media glibly calls “assault weapons” today are the very arms that most closely mirror what the founders would have regarded at the proper armament for a free American citizenry. Our Founding Fathers, Ms. Gill, were what you would regard as right-wing extremists.
They wanted us armed and well-trained with those arms, knowing that any security force sufficiently large and powerful enough to protect us from any crime is large and powerful enough to strip us of our freedoms. There is, after all, a reason why totalitarian nations are known as “police states.”
Our Founders were men of action, and require action from us. They do not expect us to shirk our duties and responsibilities, and would be ashamed of those of you who think so much of your own self-worth that you would put another person’s life on the line to assure you safety.
If you truly love your nation and your God, procure a weapon, and learn how to use it to defend the one sacred life that your Father gave you to lead, and freedoms that our Founding Fathers hoped to enshrine on parchment three centuries ago.
Thank you for your time.
Bob Owens
44. TMLutas | 05.17.09
Susan Gill - How many of those shootings were by licensed permit holders? It happens but is incredibly rare. How many of them were done with guns that were already illegal under current law? That, unfortunately, is the common case.
In gun control areas, illegal firearms owners are worried the police might catch them and shoot at them as they commit their terrible violence. In gun rights areas, illegal firearms owners are worried that the police *or armed civilians* (who are more numerous) might do the same. We’ve run the experiment on concealed carry. We’ve had a massive increase in legal gun ownership. The gun control people predicted a blood bath. It did not happen.
45. totalrecoil | 05.17.09
Susan Gill leave no question as to where she stands. She thinks that gang violence can be stopped by restricting ownership for law-abiding citizens. She would like to see firearm ownership restricted to police and military and she obviously would be happy to see hunting and hunters gone from the landscape. On top of all that she seems to believe that the country is rife with people running around with “machine guns”. And she wonders why gun owners are strongly motivated to protect their rights.
46. ExurbanKevin | 05.17.09
Susan, the NRA does not advocate handing out guns to children. Far from it.
I attended the Blogger Bash along with Sebastian, Bitter and host of other normal everyday people, and one of the items handed out in the press kit was a DVD of the NRA’s “Eddie The Eagle” program, an informative, well-made video that teaches gun safety to children (http://www.nrahq.org/safety/eddie/). The NRA has taken the lead in promoting safe, fact-based gun ownership to families all over the U.S., and I salute them for their efforts.
Gun safety has always been a cornerstone of the NRA, and an essential part of every NRA training is learning (or reviewing) the Three Rules of Firearms Safety:
- Always keep a firearm pointed in a safe direction
- Always keep your finger off the trigger until ready to shoot
- Always keep firearms unloaded until you are ready to use it
I have two small boys, ages 5 and 3, and it would break my heart to see them hurt because of an accidental discharge. It would also break my heart if I had to defend their lives and was unable to because I lacked the means to do so. Safety is paramount with me: I refuse to have my family be a statistic. I keep all my guns safe from my kids at all times, not just on a high shelf, but locked away in an appropriate safe. My wife and I accept the fact that having firearms in the house raises the chance of a gun-related accident, but just as we have a fence around the pool and make the boys wear their helmets when riding a bicycle, we lesson the risk of owning firearms by taking appropriate safety measures.
If you don’t believe that owning a firearm is the proper way to defend your life or the lives of your loved ones, you have that right. The Second Amendment, though, says that I myself and millions of people just like me have the right to keep and bear arms not just for hunting and sporting purposes, but for the protection of our lives, our liberty and our pursuit of happiness.
47. Brent G. | 05.17.09
Oh how I wish I was out west with the rest of my colleagues! They have done a fantastic job or chronicling the events of the 2009 NRA meetings and exhibition. I had t chuckle at Mr. Sugarmann’s characterization of bloggers having lots of free time. Most of us work full time and do this in our spare time at our own expense. Unlike Mr. Sugarmann, we are not funded nor salaried by deep pocketed foundations possessing questionable goals. The American public is learning. Far from being under informed or misinformed, the American public is becoming enlightened.
48. doc Russia | 05.17.09
Mrs. Gill:
The intention of the founders was certainly not to pass out guns indiscriminately. It also has nothing to do with hunting, so I will not subject you to such discussion. It was, however, the intent of the framers to make sure that the average citizen was not at the mercy of the government for protection, and had the average citizen had the means at hand to resist tyranny.
Frankly, your admonitions to “pressure” people into harmony or conformmity smacks of fascism. “pressuring” people to get a larger police force can only be done by deliberately subjecting citizens to criminal violence in order that they may acquiesce to a larger, and by necessity, more invasive police force.
I strongly recommend that you read the arguments for upholding the civil rights of the second ammendment. They are out there, and have been stated numerous times in response to every qualm you have.
First, though, you *must* gain control of your emotions, and listen to reason without the phobia of an inanimate chunk of plastic and steel hijacking your thought processes.
Mostlygenius, I believe, is also correct. The reason that we have started heralding our own news is because we got so tired of listening to the mainstream media distorting the facts to such a point as to make the truth unrecognizable. Had they been evenhanded, and not been trying to advance an agenda, then perhaps there would have been no drive for gunbloggers to take up their keyboards and resist an army of professionals.
49. Robert | 05.17.09
Susan Gill, I find it preposterous that you think gangbangers are going to obey gun control laws.
Gun control is obsolete, period. With the existence of fablabs today and the rise of nanofactories in the future, the gun control movement will be finished. Even with ordinary home tools, one can build a homemade submachinegun: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vPhbdW9SxEM
50. M.L.Johnson | 05.17.09
“It claims that it’s replacing mainstream media and that this is all the news you need. I think it’s a very clear recognition on the part of the NRA that this works with their supporters, they want to be told what they want to hear. You wouldn’t think it would work, but I think it does.” Mr. Sugarmann says.
I think this accusation of bias by the NRA could apply more accurately to the mainstream media itself. The NYT definitely tells their readers what they want to hear. The difference is that the Times audience is rapidly shrinking.
And I must agree with commenter Susan Gill above, she certainly doesn’t know where to start. A good point would be to identify ‘Kids’ using guns illegally as precisely what they are; Young criminals. And if you think making guns illegal will stop them, think for a moment about how effective that’s been with drugs. There’s an epigram that pretty well sums this up, you might’ve heard it. It starts “When guns are outlawed…
51. Scott | 05.17.09
Susan Gill is one example of why new outreach is needed, and the blogs are an important part of that. Ms. Gill is terrified of those icky, noisy guns and all the terrible things that guns do like crawling into the hands of innocents and compelling them to join gangs. Ms. Gill will vote for anybody promising to protect her from those awful, dangerous things, and the second amendment be damned. We need to talk to people and explain how guns are important to them, to their communities and to our nation. Unfortunately, the NRA can’t reach Ms. Gill except through the mainstream media, which refuses to carry the NRA’s message. Somebody like Oleg Volk at a-human-right.com might connect with her. Kudos to the bloggers, there are still a lot of minds to change out there.
52. Dale | 05.17.09
I applaude the sincerity of Ms. Gill in calling for more emphasis on societal harmony. As a younger person, I once shared her dislike for firearms - a revulsion that came from having been held at gunpoint. My conversion to a gun rights supporter was gradual but based on the realization that we live in an imperfect world and need the capacity to defend ourselves against those who would threaten our lives. This especially includes citizens who are poor and can’t “stay out of trouble spots” as Ms. Gill suggests. We all deserve the right to have firearms. They are used to protect thousands of lives from criminal attack each year but somehow these incidents are not deemed newsworthy. Guns in the hands of responsible citizens do in fact provide the best deterrence against crime. I urge that Ms. Gill and others who think that guns are detrimental to society take a basic firearms safety course and other steps to learn the positive side of the story.
53. Jason Steiner | 05.17.09
My goodness, it certainly is hard to know where to begin.
First, a concealed carry license in the vast majority of states (including wild west Arizona, where I live) requires a federal background check, training, and fingerprinting. You must be 21 to buy a handgun. The gangsters you’re concerned with aren’t following the laws, period. If they’re willing to ignore laws about murder, breaking a few more is not a heavy weight on their conscience.
Second, people are not going mad with machineguns. Machineguns are already heavily taxed and regulated. No new machineguns have been made for civilian consumption since 1985, so the ones that are legal to buy are 25-year-old leftovers that sell to wealthy collectors. They are not on the streets, they are in safes, appreciating in value. (They’ve performed better as investments than most 401ks…) Of course, drug smugglers have no problem shipping in cheap, new machineguns from China and elsewhere right alongside their drugs. But that’s already illegal.
Third, if you eat meat, there’s simply no better way to get it than hunting. No factory farming, no antibiotics or hormones. It’s lean, it’s healthy, and the animal lives a good life that ends before it can be taken by starvation, disease, or collision with a car. Having pushed out other natural predators like wolves, it is our responsibility to assume their role in the ecosystem. For these reasons, I have two largely vegetarian friends who make exceptions for wild game.
If you want to promote more laws to control guns, it would be a good idea to become aware of the laws that already exist, and the effect they have or don’t have. Hopefully that’s a discussion that gun bloggers (like myself) can facilitate.
54. Ariah | 05.17.09
I think Bob Owens’s response to commenter Susan Gill is thoughtful, respectful and worth reading: http://confederateyankee.mu.nu/archives/287395.php
55. Dan_P from AZ | 05.17.09
I’m sure Susan Gill is a very well-meaning person.
But, she is a textbook example of anti-gun people who
would deny all citizens the right to defend themselves.
She is a sheeple. And, willing to be prey to the wolves.
We are the sheepdogs. She would put us out of existance.
I never expect to have to use a gun to defend myself, at
home or away. But, I have a CCW. I was a Boy Scout. Their
motto is “Be Prepared”. I still believe in that.
56. Guav | 05.17.09
Susan, are you under the impression that the gang members shooting each other are doing so with legally purchased firearms? And the machine guns that you don’t think people should have access to? They DON’T have access to them—machine guns have been tightly regulated since 1934—these are normal semi-automatic handguns and rifles that people use in these rampages.
It’s telling that the first thing you think of when you hear “gun owner” is gang bangers and rampage shooters. You don’t even think about the 80 million gun owners in this country—normal people who never commit a drive-by shooting or a rampage. So it’s no wonder that you don’t think about their rights either.
The rest of your comment makes it sound like you don’t really understand the difference between “self-defense” and “social change”—although they can compliment one another, they have not a single thing to do with each other. Why not more pressure for a harmonious society? I have no idea what that even means. It’s a totally abstract concept that you toss about that SOUNDS really nice but has absolutely no real-world application in the here and now.
I lead a “good purposed meaningful life” and stay out of “trouble spots” whenever possible and have pretty good street smarts, but that hasn’t stopped me from being a victim of violent crime a few times in my life. And when that happens, nothing you’ve talked about does a shred of good as self-defense. “Living harmoniously” isn’t self-defense when you’re getting mugged. “Providing opportunities for others” to “live harmoniously” won’t do anything to protect your home when three masked men burst into it in the middle of the night. Your suggestions are completely meaningless.
57. Henry | 05.17.09
Susan #1 mentions gang shootings and totally ignores that the pro-rkba community is talking about lawful uses of guns! Is this ignorance or intentional distortion?
58. Who is Good Will? | 05.17.09
@Susan:
“In Seattle, there is an increase of gang shootings, often by teenagers, right out in the open on the University of Washington Ave., Alki Beach, Golden Gardens, the South end at bus stops, etc. Kids should NOT have guns.”
All of these shootings are *illegal.* The gangs are coming into possessions of the guns *illegally.* In other words, gun control has failed to work.
What *new* gun laws would prevent criminal gangs from acquiring guns?
I’m sorry the world is not more harmonious, really. But even a moderate skimming of history will show you the world has always been violent and dangerous. The only thing most gun control laws have done is to make populations of ordinary citizens more vulnerable to criminals such as the ones you mention.
59. Thomas Casey | 05.17.09
It comes down to logic and trust. You can’t have a meaningful discussion when emotions trump rationality (see the first post), and when the MSM declines to even attempt fair coverage of issues–it’s nice to have somewhere else to go.
It’s not particularly about guns–it’s about freedom of speech and thought. (Some of us still care about those quaint things.)
60. bridgeport | 05.17.09
So conflict came into being with the invention of the Gun? Me thinks Not Ms. Gill. That which lurks in the hearts of men, will find a tool whether it be a sword, or a stone, just ask the romans. The advantage of the gun belongs to
those who not having the physical gifts to wield a sword, may defend themselves against those who would do them harm, regardless of the tool. Harmonious utopia, notwithstanding.
61. B | 05.17.09
To Susan Gill:
“People go off the deep end and shoot fellow workers or students with machine guns they should NEVER have access to.”
Only 2 legally owned machine guns have been used for murder since 1934. Semi-auto does not equal machine gun. Do some reading.
“Why not more pressure for a harmonious society?”
That’s called utopianism. It leads to bad things. Google ‘Great Leap Forward’
“Why not more pressure to provide for larger police forces?”
Where I live, the Sheriff dept might be getting 30 officers cut.
“I simply cannot believe our Founding Fathers’ intent with the 2nd Amendment was to indiscriminately pass out guns to anyone who wants one.”
Indiscriminately? Have you ever tried to buy a gun? Specifically a handgun? It’s tons of paperwork, registration, background checks, permits and limitations on how much ammo you can buy, etc. And that’s Michigan, most states are stricter.
62. Gerald | 05.18.09
“People go off the deep end and shoot fellow workers or students with machine guns they should NEVER have access to.”
No they don’t. Machine guns have been all but completely banned since 1934. They are only available to those willing to subject themselves to an onerous and expensive purchasing process that includes a 3 month federal background check and being finger printed, among many things.
The last time a machine gun was used in a crime was in 1983 and it was used by a crooked cop. So much for limiting their purchase to those “in the service of protecting our cities and country”.
63. B | 05.18.09
Dear Ms. Gill,
I’m a vegetarian living in the Seattle area who would also not kill animals. However, I must disagree.
The Founding fathers did not presume to have the right to take away anyone’s right to own any kind of firearm, unless they were mentally incompetent or found guilty of having committed a crime. Although it’s possible for a tiny percentage of people to misuse their rights, that is no reason to deprive the rest of the people of our rights.
What you don’t realize is that defending your life is a basic human right and should be treated as such by the governments of the world, as well as by Amnesty International and the ACLU. Why don’t they? Good question.
64. H Tuttle | 05.18.09
Ms. Gill wring her hands in overwrought dismay that “kids should NOT have guns. Nationally, we have people in the same families shooting one another.” Guess what… it’s illegal in most states for “kids” to possess pistols, and in a good number of states for them to have long arms too - depending on circumstances. As for “People go off the deep end and shoot fellow workers or students with machine guns they should NEVER have access to.” Excuse me, “machine guns”? Madam you beclown yourself with your ignorance. Yes, a number of people snap each year and do horrible things… and that’s a rationale for what exactly? For depriving everyone else of their 2nd Amendment right to self defense? Shame yourself, Madam.
65. alisandre | 05.18.09
I take a different stance- one that I don’t understand why more people don’t get. When the Second Amendment was written, children were taught from an early age to use and respect a gun, like any other tool. It was as much a neccesary tool as a hammer or an axe. The problem today is that children are no longer educated about gun safety in a responsible manner. They are taught about many seemingly more pressing issues such as fire, strangers with candy, and the like, but gun safety is avoided. I am nineteen- and I grew up in a home with literally dozens of guns. We never had a gun safe. But I knew from the time that I could walk that they were untouchable- without an adult present. First rule of thumb- ALL guns are loaded. It doesn’t matter- you treat it as if it is loaded with the safety off. If children were taught this in the same way they are taught not to play with matches, there would be a change in gun violence. Not overnight mind you, but slowly. And slowly but surely, responsibilty would return. Oh and for the record- I hate to shoot- even at cans.
66. jesse | 05.18.09
I think the reason Mr. Sugarmann isn’t happy about the NRAtv effort is because he’s not used to people pointing out his lies and misrepresentations. If he’d stop lying and get a real job, there’d be less need for people to combat the propaganda he’s been putting out for years.
67. Peter | 05.18.09
Ms. Gill, if you are interested enough to comment on gang shootings you should also be interested enough to know that it is not legal for anyone under the age of twenty one to buy a handgun nationally. The legal age for a rifle is 18 nationally but many states also call for an age of 21.
Oddly, I was on my high school rifle team. Our rural high school had an extra large closet in the school’s office, during hunting season we’d ride the bus to school and hunt our way home, that closet was crammed with shotguns during bird seadon, rifles during rabbit season and fish poles during fishing season. There were no school shootings.
Today when guns and ammo are much harder to get, kids are killing each other. Perhaps you look at the wrong things.
68. penitentman | 05.18.09
The Founding Fathers intent with regard to the Second Amendment was, in fact, to pretty much make sure anyone who wanted a gun could have one. Much as the First Amendment allows anyone who wants to speak (or post) their opinion is allowed to do so as well.
As for wanting a police force large enough to protect us all- it would take a huge number of officers to provide the level of security that some seek. Even a police force of that size could still not guarantee the safety and security of all citizens. Even police states have violent crime.
Rather than rely on someone else to look after me, I prefer to do most of it myself. I trust ‘me’ much more anyway.
I also know that no matter how I live my life, there are those out there who do not try to “live harmoniously” with others, who do prey on the weak and defenseless. I will not be one of those who are weak or defenseless.
If the idea that The Constitution allows us to defend ourselves is so unsettling to you, perhaps you should look into aromatherapy or search for some crystal jewelery that may bring you into a more “harmonious” state with your environment.
Or move.
Strangely, the long list of violent gun crimes almost never happens in the parts of the country where a large number of people own and carry guns.
69. mikeb302000 | 05.18.09
Thanks for that wonderful article. I can attest to the fact that the pro-gun bloggers far outnumber the anti-gun bloggers. I am a member of the latter group. I think both camps contain folks who go too far in defending their argument. I also believe both sides contain reasonable people who respectfully try to put forth their position. That’s what I try to do.
70. A simple gunower | 05.18.09
Susan Gill: “There MUST be more intelligent scrutiny and stricter laws on who may carry a fire arm.”
I guess her lack of understanding of the gun rights issues, in spite of the ample information available on the many gun blogs, should disqualify her from owning guns. Obviously, the poor, simple country folk that the media and urban professionals despise have a much better grasp of reality. I wish Susan would educate herself with the facts and stop the emotional driven response presented by the media.
71. Firehand | 05.18.09
Miss Gill, may I point out a couple of things?
It IS illegal for teenagers to run around with guns; gangbangers are getting them and using them illegally.
Yes, you can buy a machine gun; it’s a process that takes at least two months(if you’re lucky, that’s all) for the background investigation, etc. Problem is, the media tends to call things ‘machine guns’ that aren’t. If you know of actual homicides of family members involving the real thing, I’d like to know about it.
The ‘increased pressure’ from the NRA and other such groups has been in response to people like you deciding that a part of the Constitution that you don’t like, the 2nd Amendment recognizing the right to arms, should be cut out and thrown away. You don’t like the pressure from them? NRA members and millions of gun owners who don’t belong to the group don’t like the pressure from people like you to restrict the ownership of arms to ‘appropriate parties’, which seems to mean ‘only people who work for the government can possess firearms’.
Whether for self-defense, collecting, target shooting or hunting, we have the right to arms; destroying that has, in every nation that’s done it, led to far worse problems. A blogger named Joe Huffman(http://blog.joehuffman.org) has his One Question:
“Can you demonstrate one time or place, throughout all history, where the average person was made safer by restricting access to handheld weapons?”
To my knowledge, he has never received a ‘yes’ answer that could be proven.
By the way, your suggestions for ’self-protection’ are fine; but when trouble comes to you, it doesn’t matter that you’ve been a fine person or followed all the rules. Thinking “I live the right way, so nothing will happen to me” doesn’t mean it won’t; it just means you refuse to recognize that it can, and have decided to be unarmed and hope the police get there in time. If you have time to call them.
72. teke175 | 05.18.09
Mr Jonsson Very Enjoyable, well written, and honest piece. Thank You for writing it.
Mrs. Gill your comment is the exactly flawed logic that has brought the confrontation about.
Place you are wrong Mrs. Gill:
1) Machine Guns. Machine guns are heavily restricted. You cannot buy one without large scale involvement from the ATF. Not the type of person going to use one in a crime. “Assault Weapons” are NOT full automatic. The fire one shot per pull of the trigger. Just like every other firearm.
2) We do not need new laws. We need to enforce the current ones 90% of violent crimes are plea bargained down to a slap on the wrist.
3) Law Enforcement is not there to protect you. They are there to enforce Laws after they are broken. This has been proven in several cases that made it to the Supreme Court. Criminals by title do not care about laws. Therefore new laws don’t stop them.
4) You want to live in Harmony? Then why do you want to start a fight with me? I assume you would claim to be a pacifist. Well if you really want to just stand there on you glass pedestal while someone tries to harm you who am I to tell you otherwise. For myself that is unacceptable. My children are far too valuable to me and so is my life. Yours is valuable to me too. I value all life as every living creature has a role in this world. Another persons life is no more or less valuable too me than my own. That is until they try to take mine. At that point their value has depreciated and I will prevent them from taking the remaining value in mine from me.
5) Hunting - Hunting is how we get food. Animals are food. Yes so are vegetables, however protein is a key component for healthy living and I choose to get mine from meat.
Sometimes you have to choose Freedom or Peace. I choose freedom because without it Peace wont last!
74. Billy Jackson | 05.18.09
I agree,The media is controled by,politics and disinformation.We as a nation should never allow or firearms to be taken away.For theres a verry real agenda going on to scrap our constitution and to remove what fue rites,we do have.And at any moment,our own government could and would if we we not armed.turn this country into a dictatorship.Look a Bush,A perfect example.Our poloticians will lie cheat and steal to get there way.Fathers rights (Mens Rights) need to be addressed,The lack of that is.Our government is more into getting every dime they can out of us.And give it to eligal aliens,crooked politicians,And Big corperations.And would rether seem politically corect in than do what is right and just.Our constitution states this country is a republic not democratic nation,Our govenment has it all backwards.They say everything is a privaledg not a right.The fact is Our govenment works under a priveledge granted by the people.To govern us.They are trying to make it the other way around.They would love to burn our constitution.And turn us all into slaves.The day we let them take our rights,espacially The Right to bair arms.Willmore than likly be the last day we are a free society.They allready take our children.and use them to extort money out of the father.And who is to say I dont trust any polotician especally sence The bushes were in power.
75. John Hardin | 05.18.09
Susan Gill wrote:
“Why not … limit gun sales to the appropriate parties, those who are professionals in the service of protecting our cities and country?”
There’s a pithy aphorism that says “When only the police have guns, you have a police state”. Surely you’re not advocating for a police state?
I direct your attention to David Codrea’s “Only Ones” collection, which may dilute your feeling that the police are the only “appropriate … professionals” who should be armed in our society.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=%22only+ones%22+site%3Awaronguns.blogspot.com
Law enforcement officers are not some special group of flawless angels, immune to human vices and failings. They are drawn from the same population of human beings as everyone else. Unfortunately the job involves using force against others, so it will attract those who wish to use force against others for their own aggrandizement. Do you truly wish those “bad apples” to be the only ones in society who are armed and able to effectively defend themselves?
“I simply cannot believe our Founding Fathers’ intent with the 2nd Amendment was to indiscriminately pass out guns to anyone who wants one.”
If they had some other intent, would they not have placed some test for firearms ownership in the Constitution? The right to keep and bear arms, like the right to speak your mind freely and the right to worship your deity freely, is not subject to prior restraint by the government.
76. stacy curry | 05.18.09
Susan, I cannot in a million years imagine leaving the defense of my family and myself entirely to someone else. Just remember that when seconds count the police are only minutes away. The police, for the most part, can only reactively investigate and prosecute, not proactively protect. I agree with Susan Gill that teens should not have guns. Any teen found with firearms should be prosecuted (prosecution would not require the use of the firearm) and anyone who provides the firearms should be prosecuted. Legal machine guns are so highly regulated that the possiblity of a legal one being used in a drive by shooting is extremly rare. I am a Chrisitan and do try to live in harmony with others and stay out of trouble spots, but my job requires that I go into some less that desirable areas. Most of the people in the less desirable areas simply want to live unmolested. It is the occasionally dis-harmonious people (Adolf Hitler, Idi Amin or the kid next door) that concern me. Susan, if you read the Founding Fathers you will find that they were more concerned about an abusive government taking away our liberities that they were worried about the neighbors and you want to allow that same government to disarm us. Only the law abiding would turn in the firearms and the cost of forceably disarming (and keeping disarmed) the criminals would come at such a high monetary and social cost that I do not believe that you, Susan, would appreciate or want it.
77. FullAuto | 05.18.09
Susan Gill,
Please point to one verified, credible news source that shows “students with machine guns.” I’ll save you some trouble- there isn’t one, unless you’re talking about the kid who shot himself with one at a range in MA last year; and he was with his father.
Machine gun are legal to own. You have to be at least 21 years of age, have no criminal record that would normally keep you from buying a regular gun, you have to submit paperwork to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tabacco, Firearms, and Explosives to apply for a permit to have one. And this application has to be signed off by your chief law enforcement officer in your community if you are buying one in your name. Then you have to wait at least six week for the paper work to clear the BATFE and be sent to a licensed gun dealer that specializes in the sale of machineguns for you to pick it up. Oh, I almost forgot: these guns are very expensive - at least $3,000 and up. It is not likely for a student to have one of these weapons.
If you are going to voice your opinion on the 2A or guns in general, please take the time to do your research.
For the rest of your rant, I find it to be fatuous and full of naivete.
78. Heckler | 05.18.09
Susan Gill sounds like a well meaning but ill-informed individual. Why do I say ill-informed? It’s not meant as a criticism, it’s just that she obviously knows little of the “People of The Gun” and the NRA.
Time for a lesson Susan.
“The logic is we all have the right to protect ourselves. But, maybe we need to be thinking through the best way TO protect ourselves. Some good ways are living a wise lifestyle, trying to be harmonious with all, listening to your intuitions, staying out of trouble spots”
Susan any self defense trainer worth their salt will tell you that the steps you just outlined are Numero Uno on the list of things to do to keep safe. The knees, elbows and guns are only for when the above steps don’t keep you safe. And if you knew anything about the NRA you would know that several of their monthly publications and many of their self-defense programs speak ad nauseum about exactly those steps.
79. Lee McGee | 05.18.09
Ms. Susan Gill, I’m certain that your “why can’t we all just get along?” attitude will be praised by the Kumbaya crowd. In the rest of the world however, criminals, predators, and real-life wackos actually exist. One can only hope that you will not fall prey to a couple of armed, drugged-out, 250 lb., 16 yr. old predators, who have chosen you and your family as their entertainment for the evening. If (i.e. when?) such should happen, call a cop, call a lawyer, or call pizza delivery - let’s see who arrives first. When seconds counts, the police are only minutes away. Additionally, SCOTUS has consistently ruled the police have neither the duty nor the responsibility for your personal safety.
80. Brian Anse Patrick | 05.18.09
Hank Archer:
Hi. In the context of that quote, “commonsense” means what would have been a commonsense perception of the times (25 years ago) that gun rights on the part of by citizens were being legislated into oblivion.
My opinion is that current American Gun Culture represents a triumph of an informed citizenry.
Thanks!
81. David K. McClurkin | 05.18.09
“The gun has become the symbol of the conservative vision of freedom.”
This quote from this NRA news story today gives me great concern.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0518/p02s04-ussc.html
Perusing the dozens of posts here shows the heavy weight of that statement. There is a clear pattern of Westerners doing most of the posting. Those of us in and near large urban areas have a whole different perspective and some higher degree of empathy and understanding is required of both camps. It seems that communities should be permitted to decide for themselves just what is best for their areas.
Meanwhile, it is curious that 40% of the posts here thus far take specific note and challenge directly the first post by Susan Gill. Can it be that Ms. Gill is too close to the truth for comfort of so many here who promote less rationality and reasonableness in the matter?
82. Susan Gill | 05.18.09
Well, I knew I’d bring everyone out of the woodworks with my comments, and my post did just what I wanted it to. What reactions!
83. AdamG | 05.18.09
This is quite the educated crowd. I’d like to see the NRA and gun enthusiasts work on a way to prevent firearms falling so easily into the hands of criminals rather than worrying about their own rights. The government hasn’t revoked our right to bear arms since the law was written, why all of the sudden would it happen now?
I hear about the need to be able to protect ourselves against criminals, but it is loose legislation, profiteering and corruption that allows felons to arm themselves. These loopholes can at least be attributed a little to the efforts of the NRA. If the NRA were focused more on promoting the right kind of gun owner rather than a gun owner’s rights, I’d be more sympathetic to their cause.
Another argument I’ve seen is about the government fearing it’s own citizens. There are a number of countries in the world that have very strict gun laws, and have yet to turn into dictatorships. Actually, the countries in the most turmoil generally have a high concentration of guns.
I’m not looking for a debate, because I’m all for the right to bear arms, but there are a few glaring holes in the pro-lobbyists’ arguments. To me, it’s like having a child. When you decide to get a gun, you become responsible for more than just your own life. You are responsible to the lives of those who might also come into contact with that gun, and hopefully, it will be used as a tool for saving lives rather than ending them.
84. Richard L Johnson | 05.18.09
Suzan. If violent crime could be stoped by passing laws, violent crime would have ceased to exist thousands of years ago.
85. Guav | 05.18.09
Susan, hopefully you’ve learned something as well, since much of what you said was simply false to start with.
That being said, much of the overwhelming reaction is due to the fact that comments were in moderation all night—only two comments were visible—one of which was yours—so most people probably thought they were the first to respond to you, hence the redundancy in many of the comments.
86. JB | 05.18.09
The MSM is ridiculously biased. Just look at this article.
Susan Gill, the right for you to open your stupid mouth should be restricted.
87. Susan Gill | 05.18.09
Well, I think a very STRONG point has been proven by all the reactionary writers. If they all had a gun I’d probably have several holes in me by now.
88. Peter | 05.18.09
#87:
Ms. Gill,
Do you really think that the appropriate response to the layer cake of stupid you started with is to project your ’stuff’ all over us?
About half the commenters here have names/handles that I recognize from various pro-freedom blogs and sites. Even though I have never met a single one face to face, I can, without any doubt, tell you (not suggest) that you would be completely safe in our presence.
And Yes, we all have guns. Most of us have several. We don’t shoot people who disagree with us. We, unlike you, don’t even fantasize about shooting people.
You’re already in a deep hole. Please stop digging.
89. David K. McClurkin | 05.18.09
Nicely put, Susan!
It seems like your 1st Amendment rights provide some cover for you, just as most here keep cloaked in that 2nd Amendment thingy.
90. Bobby Guns | 05.18.09
Wow. The liberal press whining that people are not sitting in place to accept their continuously-flowing, highly-slanted views of the world! I love it. Get out the popcorn and sit back to enjoy it. The best thing is that, over time, the liberal press kings will be brought down by fewer people needing to read their nonsense, as the little people find accurate information via the Internet and elsewhere. Nothing better than hitting them in the pocketbook, I say. Watch the inevitable crumbling of the major newspapers, all liberal in tenor. Good riddance.
91. Scotty McScott | 05.18.09
Lads, Lassies,
I don’t own a gun. I don’t see a need for one (in my situation) but I feel strongly that should I want one I should have the right to acquire one.
Who are we to give away the rights of future generations?
Scotty
92. Ralph | 05.18.09
The gun-lovers have quickly made a mess of this comment section with their oft-repeated, cliched responses that fall appart under close scrutiny.
As for the 2nd ammendment - no one knows for sure what the original intent was, even the experts, our Supreme Court, are divided on its meaning. One thing’s for sure it includes a reference to militias, which casts doubt on the NRA’s definition.
Here are questions we must all answer - why are there so many guns on the streets and why is the U.S. one of the highest in worldwide gun violence with its very limited gun control? I posit that we can explain some of this with our lack of regulation and paranoia from gun advocates who continue to buy more and more guns, making them vulnerable to theft and access by criminals.
93. Audeamus | 05.18.09
I’m a gun owner, standard-issue white person, middle-class, etc.
The NRA skillfully uses florid, hysterical, and jingoistic language and imagery to defend and expand the economic position of major gun and “sporting goods” manufacturers (e.g., all the **** hunters and gun nuts buy). They are fanning the flames of extremism to the temperature of fascism and armed revolution, and they are gunning for an independent press. There’s no point in arguing with these people–they have turned off their minds and eyes to the savagery of a society flooded with guns.
I fear greatly for our country because of them.
94. Alphawolf in Wyoming | 05.18.09
Oh where to begin, heh, Ver y accurate and asstute reponses in the feed back here, but im reminded , and confirmed by Ms Gills only rebuttal statement , that she merely wished to “stir the pot”though her initial post ,as inflamatory as it could have been , was basically devoid of any facts,or truth, which would be the basic anti gunners modus operandi, say anything , prove nothing , and do it for the”children. Never mind the instances she states already break numerous laws. her attempt to rewrite history about what the Founders had Intended, is definitely laughable, almost as much as it is innaccurate.as for harmonious living ,the old saying dont start nuthin, there wont be nuthin is very good,i chose many yrs ago , after my military obligation, to be somewhere , where freedom and the constituion were the rule , not the acception, here , the law enforcement is not just mins away , but sometimes an hr away, and as a former LEO, i will attest that law enforcement(misnomer really) is actually deterance, and something to think about, to respond after the fact , investigate whatever crime may have been commited, and call someone else to clean up the mess. with me that hopefully means they get to clean up someone not bright enough to know not to poke a wolverine with a sharp stick, leaving me to answer some questions.
now , ms gill has every right to speak her mind and her beliefs , that i do not begrudge, just as its been pointed out by almost ALL her responders , using their 1st amendment rights , and now my 2 cents worth , that her staetments were infact woefully inaccurate and something i would expect from someone entirely sheltered and naive enough to not realize bad things happen to good people all the time. for those that attempted to “educate” ms gill i commend you , but its a lost cause there , until her rights get trampled on. as for the NRA, i have been alife member fo close to 30 yrs now , and im 1 of those , that dont put anymore stock in what goes on in the D.C. area , or with lobbyists.so , as for bloggers doing the nra job , theres alot to sift through , like it or not , there is always more than 1 side to any story.and that story always gets out
95. Audeamus | 05.18.09
Gentlemen,
If you spent less time attacking Ms. Gill, a citizen of the Republic who merely expressed her opinion, and more time making your arguments w/o all the hysteria, faux patriotism, and mean-spirited snark, you wouldn’t have to send your dues to an organization that is playing most of you like cheap fiddles. You might also try proofing your copy. Many of you come across as uneducated rubes. And stop blaming Obama for everything. He’s hardly been in office for less than half a year, and I haven’t seen him do anything worthy of armed revolution yet. Or is the acquisition of guns a reflection of the level of blind fear across our nation?
96. Sailorcurt | 05.18.09
@Ralph: Our arguments “fall apart under close scrutiny”? But why, then, would any self-respecting anti-gun bigot like yourself fail to point out exactly which parts “fall apart”?
I realize that it’s easier to make unsupported claims as if they were self-evident, but if you can’t support your claim with specifics and facts, the claim is nothing more than hot air.
Perhaps you would be so kind as to apply some “close scrutiny” and point out specifically what “oft-repeated cliched responses” fail to hold together under that scrutiny.
@Audeamus: You contend that the NRA’s purpose is to support the gun industry? It would be pretty silly of them to support the right to keep and bear arms while opposing the industry that enables it. But I would contend that supporting the industry isn’t the NRA’s main focus. I would contend that the NRA’s main focus is supporting the aforementioned right, and the shooting sports enjoyed by its 4 million plus members.
They are “gunning for an independent press”? Sounds like a good idea to me. Considering that, as has been pointed out by other commenters (with links) that the main stream press regularly reprints Brady Campaign press releases as if they were actual news, regularly vilifies the NRA and the millions of Americans that it represents, and regularly refuses to give gun owners an equal opportunity to share their views, I’d say the NRA wouldn’t be doing the job that its members are paying for if it DIDN’T try to establish an avenue to disseminate the information that major media outlets would so very much like to suppress.
“these people” who have “turned off their minds and eyes”? Sounds like a little projection going on to me.
97. Dale | 05.18.09
Ms. Gill,
If gun rights advocates are “reactionaries” then you, madam, are an elitist. I’ll stack my educational acheivements and life experiences next to yours anyday but I was raised to respect others.
This nation was founded on the belief that citizens can be trusted to do the right thing. That includes posessing firearms and using them to defend one’s life. The citizen is sovereign and not the government or the “enlightened.”
98. Albert | 05.18.09
Wow!
I have tended to stay out of the NRA’s info loop. I am smart enough to find all the gun issues on my own. I’m not a member of any Pro-Gun organization. But I am a great advocate of The Right to Keep an Bear Arms. I write my government representatives regularly and I comment on the subject occasionally. In other words, I am an informed and active Citizen of the United States of America.
I do take exception to the comments (1: Ms Susan, 92:Ralph, 83: Adam for example) that imply that somehow, in their view, I am not responsible enough to judge for myself whether I should or should not arm myself, whether my children (19 and 14) have the judgment to know right from wrong, whether I am capable of determining if a law is well crafted or not, and that somehow I am a threat because I may or may not have an arsenal at my disposal.
By what right do you ascribe these descriptions to me? Better said, how dare you.
And by the way 92:Ralph, most legal scholars have in fact asserted that the intent of the 2nd Amendment was an individual right. That it is politically contested does not make it in and of itself, disputable. It is what it is.
Best Regards to All!
Albert
99. Guav | 05.18.09
Oh Susan, you’re being ridiculous. Most of the commenters here probably do own a gun, yet stunningly, they have not hunted you down and slain you. Wow, imagine that: the ability to strongly disagree with someone, even vehemently, and not resort to cold-blooded murder. Most adults, gun owner or not, possess this trait.
You left a comment hand-waving about teenage gangsters and said only the police should have guns and assured us that the solution to violent crime—and a replacement for self-defense—was to “live harmoniously”, which you still haven’t defined in real terms and to me sounds like unicorn ****.
People responded. Most disagreed with you. A few people were jerks. People argue. Nobody gets murdered. Welcome to the internet.
Nobody has threatened your life, stop being dramatic.
100. Guav | 05.18.09
The reason we are winning the gun debate and the gun control advocates are losing is very simple. And it has nothing to do with lobbies.
It’s because gun owners really care about this issue, and those favoring gun control simply just don’t care as much about banning guns as we care about keeping them.
They’re not interested in debates, they’re not interested in the facts, and with extremely rare exceptions, they’re not willing to run blogs about it or pay to join anti-gun groups.
Gun control just isn’t really a motivating, hot-button issue for most people.
101. Thirdpower | 05.18.09
“If they all had a gun I’d probably have several holes in me by now.”
That’s right Susan. It just happens all over the place doesn’t it? That was the standard argument used by the VPC and Brady Campaign to oppose concealed carry laws.
102. robert | 05.18.09
Susan Gill: No law abiding gun owner would ever threaten or injure your PERSON…..it’s your ideas that are being shot full of holes.
103. Scott | 05.19.09
87. Susan Gill | 05.18.09
Well, I think a very STRONG point has been proven by all the reactionary writers. If they all had a gun I’d probably have several holes in me by now.
Wow! I read every single reply to your post and the article and nowhere did I read anyone threaten you. I think this comment is way out of line. You would be safer in a room with all of these people (armed) than you would be on the streets of Seattle (I know I would be). The only holes that I see are the ones put into your arguments. I personally wouldn’t pull out a straw man when my argument was proven as fallacious as yours but to each his/her own.
104. johnnyreb™ | 05.19.09
Lets try and post this again :
To steal a line from Cowboy Blob,(used in a different context) now that we have “the camel’s nose under the tent flap” we can start holding the NRA’s feet to the fire. As a long time follower of the GunBlogger movement, I fully agree with GeekWithA.45’s assesment and I would gather that sailorcurt does too. Unfortunately, a lot of good gun rights-bloggers were, for some reason, excluded from participation. Maybe next year.Doubt it.
Tsk, tsk … Susan, for steering this thread with the obvious trolling …
I am the NRA … and I vote
105. Sarah | 05.19.09
Well, I think a very STRONG point has been proven by all the reactionary writers. If they all had a gun I’d probably have several holes in me by now. - Susan Gill
Projection, deflection, or overreaction?
Most of the responses here have been civil. But to respond in any way to your emotional and factually-challenged initial comment is apparently reactionary and cause for you to fear.
I know many of these commenters, and most of them DO have guns — I, myself, own multiple guns — and to insinuate that any of us would resort to violence over a difference of opinion speaks volumes about YOU. Anyway, aren’t there already laws in place to prevent that sort of thing? Where’s that infinite faith you place in the law to protect you?
106. Mike W. | 05.19.09
“Susan, I cannot in a million years imagine leaving the defense of my family and myself entirely to someone else.”
Yup. My life, and the lives of my friends and family ARE worth defending. The responsibility to defend both myself and my loved ones falls on my shoulders, not on some nameless 3rd party. I respect the police and the job they do, but as a practical matter I understand that they are reactionary.
Susan, when you call a cop to come to your aid what are you saying? You are asking a man with a gun to come save you. You’re asking a stranger to potentially put his life on the line to save your own, to use deadly force in defense of your life, and yes, to use a GUN to protect you.
What does that say about how you value your own life?
107. mike w. | 05.19.09
“It seems that communities should be permitted to decide for themselves just what is best for their areas.”
- David McClurkin
Let me remind you that we did exactly that with regards to blacks in this country. To do so is bigotry, pure and simple. I’ll also remind you that communities are not permitted to decide whether the Constitution (or parts of it) are valid. What if certain communities could just ignore the 13th Amendment and bring back slavery because it’s “what is best for their areas?” Would that be acceptable? Of course not.
108. Sevesteen | 05.19.09
Susan
You remind me a bit of my mother. She is afraid to have a gun, afraid she might get mad at someone and shoot them. We agree that guns should not be used to impose our will on other people. If you believe you would be tempted to use a gun improperly, I applaud your decision to avoid them.
109. mike w. | 05.19.09
Third - Using Susan’s logic I don’t see how any of us made it out of Phoenix alive. There were thousands of folks carrying guns and not one incident. Inconceivable!
110. AFIraqVet | 05.19.09
Audeamus said: “If you spent less time attacking Ms. Gill, a citizen of the Republic who merely expressed her opinion, and more time making your arguments w/o all the hysteria, faux patriotism, and mean-spirited snark, you wouldn’t have to send your dues to an organization that is playing most of you like cheap fiddles.”
@ Audeamus: Most of the pro-2nd Amendment commenters here have made a well-articulated case without personally attacking Ms. Gill. In contrast, the attacks seem to come from those who want to call them rubes for having a different position. So far, most of the hysteria in these comments originates with Ms. Gill and her use of the “OMG, you’re going to shoot me because you own guns and we disagree” sidestep in response to well-reasoned and historically based arguments against her position (which sounds a whole lot like “blind fear” to me).
Audeamus said: “Many of you come across as uneducated rubes. And stop blaming Obama for everything. He’s hardly been in office for less than half a year, and I haven’t seen him do anything worthy of armed revolution yet.”
@ Audeamus: I’ve seen few (if any) of these comments referring to either Obama or armed revolution outside the general principle that the 2nd Amendment is meant to be a safeguard against governmental tyranny. It seems like you are carrying a stereotype of gun owners into this discussion and projecting it onto the people who have commented thus far. This could also explain your baseless “uneducated rubes” comment. Apparently the standard for being an uneducated rube is anyone that disagrees with you. I was out of the country for a few years during my military service, so if you were appointed the national arbiter for who is and is not educated during that time, I apologize in advance. As far as proofing errors go, I’ll make a deal with you; I’ll brush up on proper sentence structure if you’ll agree to spend equal time learning about the Constitution.
Somehow, I don’t think you’ll take that deal. It is certainly much easier to claim that the other side’s argument is “easily” disproven without offering anything to disprove it. If that fails, then just claim that the other person wants to murder you….
111. frank A. | 05.20.09
i am surprised so many pro-gun people on this page, but so many gun-control supporters on other local news website. Then I realize this is “Christian Science Monitor”, a high-profile national news place. NRA media targeting is certainly well done.
I fully support Susan Gill. We need to have sensible gun laws, as we have laws for cars. A right does not preclude regulation. To claim unlimited “freedom” is absurd. Gun is not a private issue, but also a public safety issue. if we need license for car, why can’t we have a license for gun?
112. Susan~Roxanne | 05.20.09
The part I found amusing was when Mr. Sugarmann tried to ridicule those of use who support the Second Amendment, by implying that we are not REALLY in the majority, but we just have more TIME to blog about these things than the busy people who support trashing our Second Amendment … lol … that was a bad put down attempt …
I never owned a gun, probably never will … but I certainly support our Second Amendment; without we the people owning guns, those who have the nerve to steal trillions from us would certainly bulldoze right over us if the citizens did not have firearms … heck I’m watching their every move as it is!
113. mike w. | 05.20.09
Frank A. - We have FAR more regulation of guns than we do of cars. Also, you do not need a license to own a car. Hell, you don’t even need one to drive a car so long as you do so on private property.
Also, one is a Constitutional right, the other is not, so your feeble attempt to compare the two is moot. Furthermore, no one is pushing for unlimited freedom. (BTW, why put the word Freedom in quotes?)
You say you want “sensible gun laws.” Do you have even a basic understanding of the gun laws already on the books?
114. Will | 05.20.09
Currently , I am living in a city that have very restrictive gun laws but have one of the highest gun related deaths in the nation . Heck , the only people who have guns and can legally carry them are from law enforcement , security services ( with severe limitations attached ) and oh yes , criminals . So explain to me Susan and Audeamus on how can you prevent criminals on obtaining guns by just passing more restrictive gun laws that only affects law abiding citizens . Explain to me that . Oh , btw , guns and bullets can be designed , build and mass produce at home or at a small hidden gun workshop whose quality at times match or exceed those that came from companies like Colt , Beretta and Mossberg from materials that are easily available at your hardware store , the internet and auction houses or second hand stores . Let me see how those precious gun laws will affect them .
Frank A
Chicago have a list of overly restrictive gun laws that openly defies the Second Amendment , but it didn’t make a dent on drive by shootings , gun related murders and other gun related crimes . Pray tell , what more gun laws do you want if criminals don’t want to follow them ?
115. Thomas Murphy | 05.20.09
I want to respond not so much to the article, I think no one should be surprised that at a ground floor level new media has opened a great forum for opinions and reporting that isn’t purely driven by dollars. More I want to respond to Susan Gill a bit since I am apparently in the same neck of the woods here in Seattle.
“In Seattle, there is an increase of gang shootings, often by teenagers, right out in the open on the University of Washington Ave., Alki Beach, Golden Gardens, the South end at bus stops, etc. Kids should NOT have guns. Nationally, we have people in the same families shooting one another. People go off the deep end and shoot fellow workers or students with machine guns they should NEVER have access to.”
1) machine guns - a fully automatic weapon is something that very few can legally own in the US and you are correct, “kids” should not have unsupervised access to firearms. But it is people’s behaviors that are bad and many of these activities are with guns which were not legally purchased. Unfortunately continuing to layer on more legal control only affects the access to guns by normally well behaved citizens. Someone who is actually going to go out and kill someone really isn’t worried about the law per se.
“This pressure and lobbying from the NRA has been escalating for years. I don’t like it at all. I’m to the point I’m more opposed to the pressure than the availability of guns.”
I believe that pressure is just rising in level to the rise in pressure aroudn the regulation of gun use by law abiding citizens. When you think of Harmonious life it means there is Harmony not Unison so some people will sing different notes but they all fit in a rich melody.
“Why not more pressure to provide for larger police forces?”
I think we have a balance of do we live in a police state or are we personally responsible? What would a larger force provide? Faster response, yes but it is response after an incident or do you want to live in precognitive police protected state? Harmony?
“Why not more regulated laws that oversee gun sales, and limit gun sales to the appropriate parties, those who are professionals in the service of protecting our cities and country? (I won’t even try to talk about the “hunting” aspect. I cannot in a million years imagine shooting an animal!)”
But can you imagine picking a dead animal carcas at your local QFC? I myself am not a hunter though I am in that I fish. That “harmony” thing.
Again laws regulate the law abiding. I hate playing the statistics card since they are easily manipulated but over 40 thousand people per year die in car accidents and it is the leading cause of death for people between the ages of 6 and 27. The CDC says that 440K people die every year from smoking. Smoking we generally thing of killing ourselves and often that is true with cars but is it regulation that fixes the problem? Motorcycles are really dangerous…so are atvs, skydiving etc. so is the measure as long as you only harm yourself it is ok? Where you are right though is we should be more consistent in education on firearms safety.
“I simply cannot believe our Founding Fathers’ intent with the 2nd Amendment was to indiscriminately pass out guns to anyone who wants one. There MUST be more intelligent scrutiny and stricter laws on who may carry a fire arm”
I think you should spend some time reading their writings then. Remember they are not indscriminately passed out to anyone who wants one. But take time to read their writings and the recent supreme court Heller decision. Here is a key portion:
—”the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”—is controlling and refers to a pre-existing right of individuals to possess and carry personal weapons for self-defense and intrinsically for defense against tyranny, based on the bare meaning of the words, the usage of “the people” elsewhere in the Constitution, and historical materials on the clause’s original public meaning;
116. Flogger23m | 05.22.09
Susan Gill, the reason you and many pro-gun control people feel like there is something wrong is because the lack of knowledge about the subject you are talking about. For example, I will quote this from your previous comment:
“People go off the deep end and shoot fellow workers or students with machine guns they should NEVER have access to.”
Ever since 1934, there have only been four (4) people killed with legally owned machine guns. One actually being a police officer killing another officer.
The link below if a little dated and does not mention two of the recent deaths (one being an accident):
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcfullau.html
It is very hard and expensive to get a machine gun. A lot of states do not even allow for the sale of machine guns. You average MG costs at least $8,000, plus strict and through background checks ect. It is far easier to get the smuggled into the country and buy them for $200 a piece (real full auto AK-47s go for $80-120 in most poor South American or African countries). Putting more restirctions on law abiding citizens who get their guns from legal gun stores will not stop people from bringing in illegal weapons from the black market.
Mind you, over twice as many people die each year from alcohol than from gun violence (this counts self defense and police officers). Alcohol is not a right, nor can it protect you. So, by your logic, we should ban or severely limit alcohol.
If you really want to reduce gun violence, then put an end to gangs, make punishment for possession of illegal drugs much tougher (this is what most gangs exist for), and secure our southern border.
117. Joel | 05.23.09
I have little to add to all of the civil, historically-based, well-articulated arguments for gun rights made here. I did wince at a few instances of bad spelling and grammar, name-calling, elitism, and accusations of conspiracy, but all in all, a comments section on the Internet could be much, much worse.
Like most of the people who commented here, I am a peaceful gun owner who opposes any further restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms, which is pretty clearly acknowledged by the Second Amendment as a preexisting right of the people (individuals) that the government must not infringe.
Robert’s comment on people being able to make their own guns was interesting. Furthermore, he confined his discussion of weapons of reasonable quality; other weapons can be manufactured even more easily. Gun control and other attempts by government to legislate various crimes without victims will become increasingly obsolete over time, and I look forward to progress in that area. Most people are not very passionate about creating such restrictions on others, so proponents of such restrictions must lose eventually.
118. Anthony Winfield | 05.27.09
It’s easy to gauge when someone is unfamiliar with the wealth of pro-gun information available in our libraries about the original intent of the 2nd Amendnment as well as crime and accident data never mentioned by the biased mainstream media. My observation since 1980 is that we pro-gunners have absolutely won the intellectual argument. As a minister I can tell you that
the crime problem is actually a moral issue and not a gun issue. Are you listenning Susan?
Trackbacks/Pingbacks
Leave a Comment
We do not publish all comments, and we do not publish comments immediately. The comments feature is a forum to discuss the ideas in our stories. Constructive debate - even pointed disagreement - is welcome, but personal attacks on other commenters are not, and will not be published.
Tip: Do not write a novel. Keep it short. We will not publish lengthy comments. Come up with your own statements. This is not a place to cut and paste an email you received. If we recognize it as such, we won't post it.
Please do not post any comments that are commercial in nature or that violate copyrights.
Finally, we will not publish any comments that we regard as obscene, defamatory, or intended to incite violence.
1. Susan Gill | 05.16.09
My goodness, it’s hard to know where to begin. In Seattle, there is an increase of gang shootings, often by teenagers, right out in the open on the University of Washington Ave., Alki Beach, Golden Gardens, the South end at bus stops, etc. Kids should NOT have guns. Nationally, we have people in the same families shooting one another. People go off the deep end and shoot fellow workers or students with machine guns they should NEVER have access to.
The logic is we all have the right to protect ourselves. But, maybe we need to be thinking through the best way TO protect ourselves. Some good ways are living a wise lifestyle, trying to be harmonious with all, listening to your intuitions, staying out of trouble spots, leading a good purposed meaningful life and providing opportunities for others to do the same.
This pressure and lobbying from the NRA has been escalating for years. I don’t like it at all. I’m to the point I’m more opposed to the pressure than the availability of guns. Why not more pressure for a harmonious society? Why not more pressure to provide for larger police forces? Why not more regulated laws that oversee gun sales, and limit gun sales to the appropriate parties, those who are professionals in the service of protecting our cities and country? (I won’t even try to talk about the “hunting” aspect. I cannot in a million years imagine shooting an animal!)
I simply cannot believe our Founding Fathers’ intent with the 2nd Amendment was to indiscriminately pass out guns to anyone who wants one. There MUST be more intelligent scrutiny and stricter laws on who may carry a fire arm.