Editore"s Note
Tilting at Windmills

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

June 18, 2006
By: Christina Larson

BAYOU DISPATCH: Pro Gun, Anti-NRA ... A lifelong Republican, Korea vet, and former world-record holder in trap shooting (he broke 730 consecutive clay pigeons in 1967), Austin Dorr has nothing good to say about the NRA: They want to take me for granted, but don't speak for me.

Criticism of the NRA from within the hook-and-bullet community has lately been getting louder. Prominent hunting columnist Pat Wray recently blasted the organization for "hoodwinking hunters into thinking they are working on our behalf, while they use our money on politicians and legislative efforts which will degrade hunting, now and in the future."

The NRA has between 3 and 4 million members. But there are between 77 and 90 million total gun-owners in the United States, according to varying industry estimates.

Of that total, 30 percent of gun-owners said they would support an alternative organization -- if there was a viable group that would advocate gun rights and do more to support conservation and improved relations with law enforcement, according to a detailed poll of gun owners conducted in 2005 by KRC Research.

Now stepping into that space is the American Hunters and Shooters Association. The new group is "pro-gun, pro-conservation, pro-safety," as executive director Robert Ricker explains. Ricker, a former NRA counsel and gun-industry advocate for two decades, became a whistleblower in 2003 when he gave testimony linking negligent industry behavior and gun sales to criminals.

The organization kicks off Sunday with its first press conference in Lake Charles, Louisiana, at the annual conference of the Outdoor Writers Association of America.

The NRAs attack dogs are already out. John Lott is on the case. The stakes are high. For nearly three decades, conservatives have been able to use the issue of gun rights to drive a stake through potential alliances between hunters and greens, tilting American politics and undermining resource protections. Stay tuned.

UPDATE: I'm blogging from Lake Charles & willl have more later on controversy here, John Lott's allegations ... maybe cajun recipes, if I'm lucky.


Christina Larson 1:27 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (70)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

Bring It On!!!!

Posted by: R.L. on June 18, 2006 at 1:44 AM | PERMALINK

The failures of the NRA are visibile to anyone who takes hunting seriously. I do not, but, living in the deep south, I have many family members who are active hunters.

You may not think Mississippians care about preserving the environment, but when their "sport"-of-choice/way-of-life is threatened, they certainly stand up & take notice.

A strong stance for the the 2nd Amendment is necessary for the future of the Democratic (and democratic)Party.

Posted by: Jeremy on June 18, 2006 at 1:45 AM | PERMALINK

Hoo-fucking-ray.

Posted by: craigie on June 18, 2006 at 1:59 AM | PERMALINK

NRA's comments on this organization

Nobody's really fooling anyone here. Got a link to that KRC poll?

Posted by: NRAmember on June 18, 2006 at 2:04 AM | PERMALINK

you can take my NRA when you pry it from my cold dead republican party..

Posted by: bowling for columbine on June 18, 2006 at 2:17 AM | PERMALINK

This promises to create a wedge in the democrat party. For every hunter that votes for your candidate, it's likely that you'll lose two who object to hunting on moral grounds and-- in classic democrat fashion-- don't want anybody else to hunt either. The only think that's okay to kill is unborn children, apparently.

Posted by: American Hawk on June 18, 2006 at 2:18 AM | PERMALINK

Personally, I'd be happier with more gun control than we now have. I mean, if a 3-day waiting period is considered fair for getting an abortion (even if it means travelling miles and/or staying at a hotel near the clinic, making the whole thing expensive, if not impossible), why should buying a gun be any easier (any WalMart has them)?

Nor do I "buy" the explanation offered by the local advocates of free access to guns ("if weapons access had been restricted then, we'd still be under the Brit rule"); do we really want another revolution?

Several members of my family hunt and I concede that it can be a sport like any other -- requiring skill and stamina. But... Does one really need a rocket-launch to bag a rabbit or even a deer?

I'm glad to see that common-sense folk (hunters and greens) are finally forging an alliance, even if it rubs the NRA the wrong way.

Posted by: libra on June 18, 2006 at 2:24 AM | PERMALINK

Several members of my family hunt and I concede that it can be a sport like any other -- requiring skill and stamina. But... Does one really need a rocket-launch to bag a rabbit or even a deer?

You can't legally buy a rocket-launch, except in Texas.


I mean, if a 3-day waiting period is considered fair for getting an abortion (even if it means travelling miles and/or staying at a hotel near the clinic, making the whole thing expensive, if not impossible), why should buying a gun be any easier (any WalMart has them)?

Two points:

-- Abortion end lives, guns usually save lives.
-- Guns are an actual constitutional right, not one made up by liberal supreme court justices.

Posted by: American Hawk on June 18, 2006 at 2:29 AM | PERMALINK

"guns usually save lives."

Maybe in your universe, pal, but not in mine.

Posted by: Linkmeister on June 18, 2006 at 2:36 AM | PERMALINK

The NRA has been totally taken over by the Republicans in national elections. It serves no other purpose.

There is currently no movement within the Democratic Party to do anything with respect to gun control. Yet the NRA bombards its members with constant, hysterical messages that the Democrats are going to take their guns away. Why tell that lie?

Posted by: James E. Powell on June 18, 2006 at 2:47 AM | PERMALINK

The NRA has been a joke for at least two decades. Probably going on three now. It has nothing to do with protecting the rights of gun owners and sportsmen, but everything to do with being a wedge interest group for the GOP's benefit. With a bunch of favoritism for gun corporations, who keep the GOP and NRA's coffers filled.

And most honest American gun owners know this. Thats why the NRA has so few gun owners as members, in spite of the little perks they try to bribe members with.

I've felt for a long time that a sensible organization could pull the carpet right out from under the NRA, and I'm glad someone finally has done. As a shooter, I'm definitely going to see if its for real, and they'll definitely get my money if they are.

Posted by: Mysticdog on June 18, 2006 at 2:58 AM | PERMALINK

I always get a kick out of the right-wing refrain that they'll defeat us liberals because only they have guns. Actually I find almost anything they say about liberals funny, because they clearly have never met one. Poor, poor, pitiful them. Ignorance is bliss.

Got guns. Got blades: knives and axes. In the event I expect I'll attempt to blow their minds with facts instead.

Posted by: bad Jim on June 18, 2006 at 4:05 AM | PERMALINK

Please somebody tell how their gun saved any lives......AH?

Posted by: bowling for columbine on June 18, 2006 at 4:29 AM | PERMALINK

This post doesn't link to "attack dog" John Lott. Presumably Christina is referring to:

http://johnrlott.tripod.com/2005/08/democrats-set-up-fake-organizations-to.html

where John Lott claims the new organization is "fake" and asserts:

"By creating this made up group called The American Hunters and Shooters Association (AHSA), who will inevitably be used in future Democrat led anti gun campaigns in the near future as so called 'expert' witnesses or a 'sane' voice of sportsmen. just so the anti gun democrats can grandstand for gun control non-issues via their willing accomplishes in the press. I'd imagine the closer we get to the '08' presidential election the more (AHSA) will be in the news."

Even if thte AHSA is fake, IMHO it's smart politics by the Dems to try to have their own gun-related organization. Furthermore fake organizations can become real in time. E.g., the AARP was established as a kind of marketing arm for Colonial Penn Insurance Company in Philadelphia; over the years, AARP became a legitimate representative of the elderley.

Posted by: ex-liberal on June 18, 2006 at 5:37 AM | PERMALINK


AH: "Guns are an actual constitutional right, not one made up by liberal supreme court justices."

I'm not sure how you pull such a broad right out of the actual second amendment language: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Posted by: KevinB on June 18, 2006 at 6:45 AM | PERMALINK

" . . . guns usually save lives."

Pure fabrication.

"Guns are an actual constitutional right . . ."

The word *gun* does not appear anywhere in the US Constitution.

Posted by: Joel on June 18, 2006 at 7:16 AM | PERMALINK

Lake Charles????

On purpose?

Why? Fond of refineries and petrochem plants? Disaster tourism to the place formerly known as Cameron Parish?


cfs - unwillingly resident in Lake Charles 1963-1974 (rec'd degree Aug 1, '74, left for Dallas on August 3)

Posted by: CFShep on June 18, 2006 at 8:32 AM | PERMALINK

Say hello to my Me Maw for me!

Posted by: Clark on June 18, 2006 at 8:52 AM | PERMALINK

This must be a different John Lott than the "unbiased researcher" that just follows where the facts lead him.

Because an "unbiased researcher" wouldn't be so quick to get himself involved in this controversy, would he?

Posted by: doesn't matter on June 18, 2006 at 9:07 AM | PERMALINK

State organizations have tried this -- the Sportsman's Alliance of Maine is the local version.

The centripetal pull of the state Repubican party is stronger than any concern with the state of the woods, however.

Posted by: Davis X. Machina on June 18, 2006 at 9:40 AM | PERMALINK

The word *gun* does not appear anywhere in the US Constitution.

Look for the word 'arms'.

the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed

THAT is where the broad right comes from. The 'militia' is just the armed population. If the Founders had meant a right of the states to have organized state militias, they would have said so. A right "of the people" means the same thing everywhere it appears in the BoR.

Posted by: Scott on June 18, 2006 at 9:41 AM | PERMALINK

The 'militia' is just the armed population. If the Founders had meant a right of the states to have organized state militias, they would have said so.

...by, for example, using the phrase "well-regulated militia." Oh, wait -- they did!

Posted by: Gregory on June 18, 2006 at 10:00 AM | PERMALINK

Anybody who stops to think about it realizes that hunters and greens are pretty much on the same side. Same with sport fishermen. The giant key to conservation, hunting and fishing is habitat preservation. That is the goal of all three groups. On the other side are the representatives of the extractive industries championed by the NRA. The NRA also champions urban violence. Apparently the leadership of the NRA is in favor of urban dwellers killing each other. And why not, the is dominated by gun manufacturers not hunters or users. Manufacturers make money selling guns to innercity dwellers anxious to shoot each other in drug wars.

I was a member of the NRA when it was a real membership organization. I still like hunting and target shooting. Lots of fun. I dropped my membership when I realized it was dominated by corporate shills unwilling to face reality. They started running cherry picked stories about how armed citizens fought off bad guys, stories that had little connection with the overwhelming pain inflicted by people carrying firearms.

Posted by: Ron Byers on June 18, 2006 at 10:02 AM | PERMALINK

"guns usually save lives."

Wanna bet? I've got a gun myself, and I think I'll check out this new group because the NRA makes me retch...but back to your nonsense. I'll bet that guns kill more innocent lives than people killing bad guys in self defense. I'll bet that the spray of bullets from drive-bys, accidental shots by kids finding their daddie's or mommie's gun, or other accidents kills way more than the supposed lives saved according to your fantasy.

I don't hunt. I don't like to kill anything. I don't have my gun to kill wildlife nor is it really needed to protect me from roving back-country hordes of "evil-doers". I have my gun specifically for the reason the 2nd Amendment exists: to act as the final determinant of people owning government rather than the reverse. I'll keep it until I'm too old to wield it but I harbor no fantasies about guns, in general, being some major protector from crime. They kill far more innocents by accident or in heat of anger than they stop crime.

The NRA is full of whacko shit. Top to bottom.

Posted by: Praedor Atrebates on June 18, 2006 at 10:07 AM | PERMALINK

Yeh, Cheney and if the parents of the shooters at Columbine had exercised any control of their kids' ownership of firearms by denying them access to assault rifles and by keeping their hunting rifles under lock and key, nobody would have been killed that morning.

Posted by: Ron Byers on June 18, 2006 at 10:10 AM | PERMALINK

Columbine notwithstanding, the rate of violent crime against school children has been cut by about 50 percent since 1992. This wasn't accomplished by arming school teachers.

Posted by: Doctor Jay on June 18, 2006 at 10:11 AM | PERMALINK

Ron: if the parents of the shooters at Columbine had exercised any control of their kids' ownership of firearms by denying them access to assault rifles and by keeping their hunting rifles under lock and key, nobody would have been killed that morning.

Mo-ron: Not true - Harris and Klebold used explosives in the cafeteria and their cars as well.

How many people were killed by bombs at Columbine?

None.

Posted by: oy on June 18, 2006 at 10:29 AM | PERMALINK

Now, who is the moron?

Still you.

Ron's point stands; they were terrible bombmakers, the guns did all the killing. Had they no access to guns the slaughter likely would not have happened. But you seem too nutty to argue with so I'll leave it at that.

Posted by: oy on June 18, 2006 at 10:41 AM | PERMALINK

I am trying to remember how may people died from explosives at Columbine.

None. Thank you oy.

I am forever reading about people accidently killed with firearms. The last two shooting deaths in my suburban home town involved a teenager and a 20 year old killed horsing around with loaded guns. Apparent accidents. No, not apparent, by all accounts, accidents.

The 20 year old is reported to have said to his friend just before it went off, "be careful, it's loaded." BTW the gun belonged to the 20 year old. He was showing it to his buds. Why anybody would hand anyone a loaded gun under those circumstances is beyond me.

The teenager was showing off with a loaded "assault rifle."

Those two deaths could have been spared if their parents had insisted on a little gun safety training. The kind of stuff the new group will probably do and the NRA used to do before it embraced pimping urban violence for profit. (In fairness the NRA might still be involved with gun safety, but I doubt they spend much on it.)

Posted by: Ron Byers on June 18, 2006 at 10:43 AM | PERMALINK
However, teachers are armed - so, assuming the bombs are not placed any better, how many INNOCENT lives are taken? None. That's my entire point. Now, who is the moron?

You are. Lets return to YOUR original hypothetical. Namely:

Had any of the teachers at Columbine been armed that morning, that could have saved many innocent lives - get it, Joel?

Your hypo accepts the actual fact that Harris and Klebold were armed with firearms. It seeks to add the fantasy of teachers also armed.

Fair enough. What you now have is a fire fight. Guns blazing on both sides. But under your fantasy no stray bullets kill or harm any other student or teacher a/k/a innocent bystanders. No one caught in a deadly crossfire. Magic bullets must be involved. The teacher's bullets never miss the intended target; Harris and Klebold's bullets always fall harmlessly away.

You must be a Republican, you obviously have no real experience with real gun battles and live in a fantasy world.

Posted by: molly bloom on June 18, 2006 at 11:01 AM | PERMALINK

Which is why said teachers would be TRAINED - do you think that Harris and Klebold would at least have thought twice about the attack had they known teachers were armed?

[...sometime in the near future in Cheneyworld....]

Hi guys, my name's Maria. I'm twenty-three years old and have just completed my student teaching after graduating from the University of Wisconsin with a degree in English (which I love) and a certificate to teach secondary education.

I can't get a job yet, though, because I haven't completed my S.W.A.T. training. I'm only five foot tall and one hundred pounds or so, so I'm having a little trouble getting from the blackboard to the biometric gun safe and shooting a student target in a cripple zone in the required time.

Until I can show at least a 90% proficiency in marksmanship I won't be able to introduce juniors and seniors to the beautiful works of Shakespeare and Milton, or teach them the joy of good writing.

But I love literature so much I'm gonna keep trying.

Peace out!

Posted by: oy on June 18, 2006 at 11:27 AM | PERMALINK

Happy Father's Day, everybody!

Cheney, I have to assume you are pulling our collective chain here. Nobody could seriously advocate that we have armed teachers in every classroom across America.

Do they keep them in their desk or do they wear them at all times? Is this training compulsary to anybody who wants a teaching job? Is this to become the #1 requirement in hiring teachers--not their love of Shakespeare or knowledge of higher division, or even ability to connect with young people--but whether or not they've had advanced firearms training?

BTW, hoo-ray for Mr. Ricker! Sounds like a great idea! Yes, you can be a hunter, love guns, love the environment AND be an advocate for gun safety!

Posted by: LAS on June 18, 2006 at 11:32 AM | PERMALINK

The NRA is and for many years has been nothing more than a Republican lobbying organization that using its members dues money to promote the GOP. When you have a core membership that somehow equates gun ownership with a macho self sufficient image they will believe anything. Tell them the Democrats want to take their guns and nullify their 'God given constitutional right' and they flock to the polls and vote for the party that will someday move to take away their guns along with every other constitutional right they possess. I own guns, I like to hunt (only game I like to eat), and the NRA has never represented me.

Posted by: sparky on June 18, 2006 at 11:38 AM | PERMALINK

I checked out their site. It seems pretty solid to me. Protect 2nd Amendment rights, teach gun safety, preserve open lands and wildlife for hunting, and work with cops to get guns out of the hands of criminals.

Since the NRA has sold its soul to the worst elements in the Republican party, particularly in the way they fight against measures to make our police safer, I think AHSA is going to do well with moderate Americans. We will finally have a choice besides the shills of the NRA and the PETA-freaks on the left.

Gun ownership is a right. Responsible gun ownership is a duty.

fercryinoutloud

Posted by: fercryinoutloud on June 18, 2006 at 11:40 AM | PERMALINK

By Cheney/Charlie logic, if the other students at Columbine had been armed, they also "could have saved many innocent lives." So I assume Cheney/Charlie supports students, faculty and administrators all bringing handguns, rifles, mortars and hand grenades ("arms" all protected the the 2nd amendment according to idiot-boy Scott) to school.

Moron.

Posted by: Joel on June 18, 2006 at 11:44 AM | PERMALINK

"by the 2nd amendment"

Posted by: Joel on June 18, 2006 at 11:46 AM | PERMALINK

The AHSA needs to be sounded out about women's rights.

We could use a pro-gun lobby organization which understands that a pro-gun stance and a pro-choice stance stem from *exactly* the same ethical/political perspective: the acceptance of personal responsibility.

One of the worst things that ever happened to the nature of political discourse in this country has been how pro-choice and pro-gun attitudes have been co-opted by the two parties and used to divide us rather than unite us. THEY ARE THE SAME ISSUE, and if people would get their heads out of their asses and realize it, the progressive agenda would be a shoo-in.

JF

Posted by: Jaime Frontero on June 18, 2006 at 11:57 AM | PERMALINK

If armed citizens are all that stand between us and a repressive government, the NRA is about five years too late in starting the rebellion.

And if armed citizens promote democracy, well then, Afghanistan and Iraq are far more democratic than we are. They sure don't take no shit from their governments. [Double negative for style purposes only -- ed.]

Posted by: Repack Rider on June 18, 2006 at 12:21 PM | PERMALINK

Cuba has a well-regulated militia where the people keep and bear arms. The NRA calls it a dictatorship.

Chavez is passing out 100,000 new Russian rifles to the Venezuelan well-regulated militia. Bush calls it a dictatorship.

In fact, around the world, the U.S. hates well-regulated milita who keep and bear arms. Except in Colombia- if the militia can be trusted to kill journalists and labor leaders and teachers, Bush loves that.

But don't talk too loud about a well-regulated milita here in the U.S.- the Black Panthers tried that and they were murdered by the police.

Guns- the Black Hole of American political discourse- no information ever emerges from this talk.

Posted by: serial catowner on June 18, 2006 at 12:55 PM | PERMALINK

cheney: Had any of the teachers at Columbine been armed that morning, that could have saved many innocent lives - get it, Joel?


had kleebold and harris's parents...

oh never mind...

Posted by: thisspaceavailable on June 18, 2006 at 1:29 PM | PERMALINK

serial catowner: Cuba has a well-regulated militia where the people keep and bear arms. The NRA calls it a dictatorship.

Chavez is passing out 100,000 new Russian rifles to the Venezuelan well-regulated militia. Bush calls it a dictatorship.

meanwhile, guns are being confiscated from citizens in iraq...

that's even upset the n.r.a.


Posted by: thisspaceavailable on June 18, 2006 at 1:32 PM | PERMALINK

Cheny/Charlie- the Black Hole of political discourse- no information ever emerges from his posts.

Posted by: Joel on June 18, 2006 at 1:33 PM | PERMALINK

John Lott is a well known nut who is guilty of every researching sin including fabricating data and creating sock-puppets to trumpet his fake research.

See Time Lambert's blog Deltoid for more details.

Posted by: Disputo on June 18, 2006 at 1:53 PM | PERMALINK

Is the NRA behind the appointments on the Supreme Court? Is the NRA pushing for everyone to buy guns for home protection now that the 4th Amendment is non-functional?

Posted by: Post-Toll on June 18, 2006 at 2:54 PM | PERMALINK

do we really want another revolution?
Posted by: libra on June 18, 2006 at 2:24 AM
ABSOLUTELY!!!

Posted by: blood at the root on June 18, 2006 at 3:11 PM | PERMALINK

Trophy hunting is an abomination, but there's nothing "evil" about hunting when you're going to eat what you kill. I'm not particularly anti-gun, either.

So I think it's fantastic that gun-owners and sportspeople are making common cause with greens. Anything that leads to more respect for, and protection of, wild open places is fine with me. If hunters are awakening to the fact that the NRA sold its soul to the GOP, and deserting the NRA as a result, that's also A-OK with me: the GOP, like trophy hunting, is an abomination, and for much the same reasons.

Posted by: CaseyL on June 18, 2006 at 3:21 PM | PERMALINK

As a liberal gun owner (a 9mm semi-auto, a couple of rifles) who doesn't hunt (but doesn't care that others do) I'm all for any organization that will widen the intellectual market, as it were, on gun rights and diminish the NRA's power.

I'll echo Praedor's "to act as the final determinant of people owning government rather than the reverse" sentiment. Dems and progressives need to change the general hard-liner stanse of being anti-gun. There are a lot of us gun lefties out there who know this issue is a thorn and a loser.

Posted by: Aus on June 18, 2006 at 3:43 PM | PERMALINK

I just recently turned 60, and in all my years I have NEVER ONCE been in a situation where I needed to use a gun. Sure, it can happen, but how likely is it?

Moreover, I don't hunt myself and have never understood the attraction of hunting because I don't want to kill creatures who have done nothing to me, and I don't need to hunt to eat, as is true of all of us in the United States. (People going hungry because they have no jobs or are underpaid is a separate issue.)

But even though I don't hunt or fish, I don't object to those who do, although I really wonder about people who hunt with huge rifles, game which has been raised to be hunted.

I welcome the news of a new organization to represent hunters. The NRA has jumped the track and its positions are frankly nuts. If the AHSA also wants to protect the environment, great! Protecting our environment is the most important thing we can do, and let's make common cause with all people who have this as a priority, whatever their underlying motives.

Also, gun ownership should be licensed, and it sounds like this new organization is open to that idea. If you buy a gun, you should show that you have a license which certifies that you have taken an approved gun-safety course. This would not get rid of all "accidental" shootings but it would certainly cut them down.

And if police were able to monitor gunsellers to make sure that they are requiring licenses from their purchasers, this might help to cut down crime a LITTLE, probably not a lot. I also agree with those who have advocated making penalties more severe for crimes committed with firearms.

Licensed gun owners would be in a database, of course. But to those of you who froth at the mouth about this, if you are an NRA member, you are in a database. If I were an invading power, I'd hack into the NRA membership database first thing and visit those folks to confiscate their weapons.

So more power to the AHSA!

Posted by: Wolfdaughter on June 18, 2006 at 4:21 PM | PERMALINK

Why, it's almost as bad as the teacher's unions (or unions in general) who act as political actors more than advocates for members.

I'll wait here for your outrage at those organizations.

Posted by: Birkel on June 18, 2006 at 5:10 PM | PERMALINK

I've only recently become a handgun owner... maybe 3 months ago. But if someone were to break into my home, I'd be going for the 9 iron, not the 9 millimeter. I keep and use my arms for target practice only.

A fellow liberal friend of mine has put me under "punitive protest" (his terminology) over my actions. He has told me that he will not visit my home while I own the handgun. He has no problem with the two rifles I've owned for years, though. This kind of knee-jerk and childish mentality is confusing and insulting and it does the progressive community no benefit. As a fellow lefty I didn't know how to react. I didn't believe him. He's held good to his word though and I just find it sad.

The left needs to soften up on the gun ownership issue. There are millions of us gun-owning liberals out there and nothing is achieved in demonizing us.

Posted by: Aus on June 18, 2006 at 5:11 PM | PERMALINK

Birkel: As a young high school teacher (just finished my first year) I have to admit that my experience with the teachers' union has been largely negative. They're not focused on protecting me from contractual violations from the higher-ups. Instead, they seem to define their role as one of perpetual persecution... they're too blinded by their mistrust of administration. They believe that every proposal of administration is just another way to screw us somehow, and that doesn't seem to be the case at all. So I am not sure what you were fishing for with that post, but I thought I'd share.

I completely believe in the spirit and purpose of my union, just not their piss poor leadership in my district. They've lost the spirit and have gone astray from their purpose in my neck of the woods.

Posted by: Aus on June 18, 2006 at 5:21 PM | PERMALINK

But if someone were to break into my home, I'd be going for the 9 iron, not the 9 millimeter.

That is the dumest thing I have ever heard. I mean really the 7 iron is a much better choice, less loft makes for a better striking area and the shaft is not much longer.

Posted by: Rick DeMent on June 18, 2006 at 8:47 PM | PERMALINK

A comment on hunting. I'm a vegetarian, and a non-hunter, but not in favor of laws which make these behaviors compulsory - I have a personal-freedom libertarian streak a mile wide.

But do I think people who are opposed to hunting yet eat meat are on indefensible moral ground. I have a very hard time respecting someone who thinks it's bad to kill animals yourself, but is okay so long as other people doing it on your own behalf where you can't see it. The implicit justification that an action is acceptable so long as it is sterilized and removed from view rankles me. I have far more respect for hunters than for carnivores who oppose hunting. If you think an action is justified, you should be willing to do it yourself.

This applies in a lot of ways. Where would capital punishment be if the judge and jury had to administer it themselves? Where would wars be if senators and presidents had to commit their own kids the the front line with everone else's?

I'm in the view that firearms possession should be legal, but that some protections and oversight for safety are acceptable. The founders were right in many ways, but at the same time they didn't live in and couldn't envision the 21st century.

I expect to own firearms in the not too distant future, both for target-practice sporting and as personal protection in case the Big One(tm) knocks out power and water in Los Angeles for ten days, resulting in water riots. I don't buy into the midnight-thief-breaks-a-back-window fantasy, however.

I like the sound of this new group, the AHSA. I will check them out.

Says Jaime Fontero:
We could use a pro-gun lobby organization which understands that a pro-gun stance and a pro-choice stance stem from *exactly* the same ethical/political perspective: the acceptance of personal responsibility.

Hear hear.

Posted by: IdahoEv on June 18, 2006 at 9:36 PM | PERMALINK

We need to enlist hunters in the population control movement - the more development there is, the harder it is to hunt. (Also, conservatives and libertarians - you cannot support the $1,000/year child tax credit, which is welfare for families making up to about 100k.)

Posted by: Neil' on June 18, 2006 at 9:43 PM | PERMALINK

This dude killed seven hundred thirty clay birds in a row , because not one returned fire ; thank you .

Posted by: BEN T. DUNDAT on June 18, 2006 at 9:45 PM | PERMALINK

I've shot and killed 2 people in my lifetime. In the first case, i used a 12 gauge shotgun, and i knew, with utmost certainty, that the perp was dead after the first blast hit him. Square in the chest. Both times, it was.
In the second showdown, i used a .38 caliber pistol, and that took 3 shots to finish the job. True, he would have croaked after the first or second shot, but i like to end a confrontation on the double-quick once it starts. Just like that old saying "fuck, fight, or go for your gun", i move as fast as possible to the third option.

Posted by: JJ on June 18, 2006 at 10:06 PM | PERMALINK

Uhh... JJ unless you were fighting in a war, I'd say you play too many video games. Resident Evil 4 perhaps.

Weird.

Posted by: aus on June 18, 2006 at 11:28 PM | PERMALINK

Thanks for the really good humor, and the even better discussion of and on common ground. This is definitely doable despite the laugh I got from AH's circular firing squad scenario.

Posted by: NeoLotus on June 19, 2006 at 1:05 AM | PERMALINK

歌曲,图片
herehereherehere
歌曲,图片
漂亮美眉
漂亮美眉

Posted by: 45454 on June 19, 2006 at 5:20 AM | PERMALINK

I'm amazed that so many of you have a hard time accepting that guns save lives. Everyone who's looked at the issue (including the formerly anti-gun criminologist Gary Kleck) has found that there's more defensive gun use than criminal gun use. You'll be hard pressed to find any study that suggests otherwise.

Remember--most defensive gun use doesn't even involve a shot being fired. The mere presentation of the weapon deters the assailant.

Taking guns away from criminals--a good idea. Doing it by depriving the 99% of gun owners who don't use theirs to break the law--not a good way to get there.

There's no other issue that costs us more votes to the GOP than our sad continuance of the gun control lobby's bidding.

Posted by: Sebastian on June 19, 2006 at 6:33 AM | PERMALINK

"You must be a Republican, you obviously have no real experience with real gun battles and live in a fantasy world. "

I wonder how much you have. Any law enforcement officer and any military or self defence tactician will confirm for you--if you're faced with an armed assailant, your best hope for survival is a firearm. They allow you to project force from a distance.

In an event where some madman is squeezing off random rounds, schoolground or not, your best hope is an armed, properly trained citizen putting down the bad guy with aimed fire. Denying this is denying reality.

Posted by: Sebastian on June 19, 2006 at 6:43 AM | PERMALINK

I wonder how much you have. Any law enforcement officer and any military or self defence tactician will confirm for you--if you're faced with an armed assailant, your best hope for survival is a firearm. They allow you to project force from a distance.

That's true they do, but it would be more accurate to say that they allow trained people to project deadly force from a distance, because they know how to implement that force when necessary.

I can't remember where it happened but I'm thinking of that church shooting where someone started shooting, someone else with a concealed weapons permit returned fire, missed the shooter and hit (may have killed) a bystander.

I'm not at all convinced that having a heavily armed citizenry walking around like they're at the OK corral makes me much safer. Hell, most people can't even use their turn signals when they're driving, I'd hate to see what happens when they're trying to make a kill shot during the complete pandemonium of a shooting.

Posted by: cyntax on June 19, 2006 at 3:39 PM | PERMALINK

Ok, so we'll uphold the training reqs most states have. Cases of CCW permit holders shooting innocent bystanders are exceedingly rare. Most states have training requirements, which no doubt helps. CCW permit holders tend to be people like me--self defense enthusiasts who train regularly. They're certainly on par no worse than the miserably trained, lightly qualified folks populating most police forces. Having a brother in the LEO community, one thing that I've realized is that the idea that cops are "highly trained" and know black voodoo mystical firearms secrets that the general public doesn't know is specious bullshit of the most succulent variety. Anyone who believes that simply watches too much TV. Period. End of discussion. Even here in violence ridden Baltimore, where the cops have to draw their guns weekly on the job, my cop buddies admit that they only have to send about 100 rounds down range a year. I do more than that every month!

Your OK corral analogy is one the anti gunners love to fall back on, but it doesn't hold water. Over 40 states now allow private citizens who aren't felons or mentally unstable to carry, yet CCW permit holders shooting the wrong people isn't a problem and blood doesn't run in the streets on account of us. The people you need to worry about recreating the OK corral are gonna pack heat and wreak havoc no matter what you do. Stopping me from lawfully protecting myself is A) bad public policy that won't change that, as getting a gun outta my hand doesn't get it out of the crook's hand, and B) a surefire bad move for Democrats these days. We have a chance to win back important seats, the last thing we need to do is stir up the gun control hornet's nest again. It killed us in 1994, I hope it doesn't have a chance to again.

Posted by: Sebastian on June 19, 2006 at 4:53 PM | PERMALINK

Actually I'm not an "anti-gunner". I'm more of an agnostic. But I'm an agnostic who sent thousands of rounds down range in the course of serving in an Army combat unit. And as a result of my training and my experiences applying deadly force, I'm skeptical of the efficacy of concealed weapons.

But my post didn't say that you shouldn't be able to defend yourself; I was only citing an instance where a concealed weapon did more harm than good, or to put it more accurately a concealed weapon user did more harm than good. I think it will be very helpful to have a gun advocacy group not so closely associated with GOP election strategies so that we can have a more open and honest public discourse about effective gun legislation without polarizing the participants.

Posted by: cyntax on June 19, 2006 at 5:13 PM | PERMALINK

I agree on that last point. I'm pretty skeptical about the NRA; while I commend them for not being a 100% partisan organization anymore and reaching out to us progun Dems, here in MD they've really screwed the pooch on some local issues. Fuckem.

As for the efficacy, we'll you're entitled to that opinion, but armed citizens defend themselves with them every day. Have you seen Clayton Cramer's blog? He collects instances of this like it's going outta style--DGU outnumbers criminal gun use by even the most stringent, conservative counts of DGU. I don't doubt that examples of what you cited exist, I'm simply pointing out that it's the exception and not the rule.

If the fit hits the shan, your best bet statistically and tactically is a trained law abiding citizen who knows how to lawfully and safely use his weapon to neutralize the threat. I mean no disrespect to cops, I'm related to one, but they're historians for the most part, taking a report of what happened and tracking down the guys who did it. At the moment of truth, the only person you can count on is YOU. Anyway, cyntax you sound like my kind of guy, check out my site and make some comments over there.

Posted by: Sebastian on June 19, 2006 at 5:22 PM | PERMALINK

Sebastian,

Thanks I will check it out. Sounds like the website might do a lot to educate me about CCW training. I think much of the debate about guns and gun legislation is coming around much later than it should have (there are already so many guns in criminals' hands). So now it's hard to come up with legislation that doesn't punish law-abiding citizens while leaving criminals' methodology unchanged, but with a new gun advocacy group it does seem possible to move debate forward at a national level, which is where meaningful and fair change seems possible.

Posted by: cyntax on June 19, 2006 at 6:57 PM | PERMALINK

Aus, let me explain to you why your friend made a distinction between the rifles and the handgun. A friend of mine wanted to get a gun. I thought this might be a bad idea and I researched the statistics for a bit.

Turns out that the best way to get you of someone in your family killed by a gun is to keep a handgun in the house, whether by accident, suicide, murder, etc. Rifles kept for sport are far safer, and homes with sporting rifles have no higher rate of accidental killing of other people at home than in houses without guns. (Suicide rates are the same, murder rates are between those of houses with handguns and those without. Rifle accidents happen out on the range.)

Your friend doesn't expect you to kill him and he doesn't expect to kill himself in your house, but he's aware that when mistakes happen, they're far more likely to happen with a handgun.

I was mugged at gunpoint once, by a stupid fool who seemed to be nearly as scared of his gun as I was (he was waving it all over the place). I talked to him and then tricked him into being arrested by the police -- I told him I had no money on me, but that I'd get him money from a nearby cash machine, and that he shouldn't come too close too near the bank because the bank cameras would photograph his face. So he obligingly waited on the sidewalk some thirty feet away while I went in and called the bank on the bank phone and told them to get the cops, and the cops came and arrested him.

Would that situation really have worked out better if I'd had a handgun?

Posted by: Diana on June 19, 2006 at 7:12 PM | PERMALINK

Interesting anecdote, but like all anecdotes provided in argument, it is situation specific. In your situation it sounds like it turned out the best it could. You're smart and lucky. However, for every foolish criminal who doesn't know how to handle their weapon, much less how to handle such an obvious baiting, there are 10 that *do* know how to handle their weapons and would have never let you go into that bank. Some would have even shot you right there, or worse. (Yes there are worse things that being shot... think about it.)

I'm a Darwinist to the core. Those accidental shootings in households with probably occured because basic safety precautions were not being followed. Unload it before cleaning it, don't store it loaded, keep the ammo separate, don't mix dummy and real ammo, don't pull a gun towards you by the muzzle, you know, common sense. There is great responsibility that comes with owning. A great majority are responsible. Those who are not, unfortunately, do not survive. One less irresponsible gun owner around.

Posted by: Aus on June 19, 2006 at 8:32 PM | PERMALINK

Hey, don't be so hard on the poor NRA. Not everyone is blessed with the combination of brains and testicles that it takes to walk around unarmed.

Posted by: right to bare arms on June 20, 2006 at 12:45 AM | PERMALINK

In an effort to pump himself up by belittling cops Sebastian says:
Even here in violence ridden Baltimore, where the cops have to draw their guns weekly on the job, my cop buddies admit that they only have to send about 100 rounds down range a year. I do more than that every month!

This is exactly why I don't trust gun nuts like Sebastian. They ridiculously think that the number of rounds fired per month equates with being trained to use your weapon in the real world. They're are in so much denial regarding their addiction that they think a successful weapons confrontation is all about point-n-click.

The experience that cops (or soldiers, for that matter) get every hour of every day while on the job when they do *not* draw their weapon is much more valuable in terms of an eventual confrontation with an armed perp than the experience gun nuts like Bastie acquire at the anticeptic shooting range.

Posted by: Disputo on June 20, 2006 at 4:54 PM | PERMALINK




 

 

Read Jonathan Rowe remembrance and articles
Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

Advertise in WM



buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly