At the Gun Show

Avatar

Mike Dwyer

Mike Dwyer is a former writer and contributor at Ordinary Times.

Related Post Roulette

112 Responses

  1. Avatar Rufus F.
    Ignored
    says:

    Seriously, Mike’s been around here long enough that we can safely assume he’s not worried about Kenyan negro socialists; that’s Bob.Report

    • Avatar Stillwater in reply to Rufus F.
      Ignored
      says:

      I think Kenneth was referring more to the general ‘buy guns NOW before the Neeegro takes your rights away!’ hysteria.

      There was lots of fear. Irrational, racist, ignorant, self-serving, delusional, paranoid, etc.Report

      • Avatar Stillwater in reply to Stillwater
        Ignored
        says:

        Whoops. This was a response to Rufus.Report

      • Avatar Rufus F. in reply to Stillwater
        Ignored
        says:

        Yeah, and I can see that there definitely was irrational hysteria in some quarters. I’m just saying that I can see Mike being somewhat concerned about Obama’s record as a state legislator, as he says, a lot quicker than see him being swept up in any of that hysteria.Report

        • Avatar Patrick Cahalan in reply to Rufus F.
          Ignored
          says:

          Oh, true ‘dat. (this to Rufus, if the threading is still busted, re: “I’m just saying that I can see Mike being somewhat concerned about Obama’s record as a state legislator, as he says, a lot quicker than see him being swept up in any of that hysteria.”)

          Obama is certainly no Russ Feingold when it comes to his record on gun control.Report

          • Avatar Stillwater in reply to Patrick Cahalan
            Ignored
            says:

            Patrick and Rufus: I agree about Mike. But I would bet that the majority of people who engaged in that hysteria – which emptied Walmart shelves of guns and ammo – would say that they were being entirely rational in feeding into that frenzy. Better safe than sorry, right?

            Part of my worry and wonder about it is what constituted the motivation to buy more guns at the slightest indication that restrictions were on the way? To defend themselves from oppressive Kenyan Socialism? To go on the offensive against incipient KS? To just get their hands on a preferred gun before it would no longer be legally available? And the ammo frenzy?!  I just don’t get motivation in any event. Or at least, if I do understand it, then I still don’t understand it.Report

            • Avatar BSK in reply to Stillwater
              Ignored
              says:

              This is a great point.  If someone told you that tomorrow, all guns and ammo would be illegal, how would you react?  I mean, if you planned on buying one or two more guns over the course of your lifetime, why would you suddenly rush out and buy 10?  Especially knowing that whatever Obama did would be undoable if there was enough motivation to do so.Report

              • Avatar James Hanley in reply to BSK
                Ignored
                says:

                if you planned on buying one or two more guns over the course of your lifetime, why would you suddenly rush out and buy 10?

                So you can make enough different caches that the feds can’t find them all.Report

              • Avatar Mike Dwyer in reply to James Hanley
                Ignored
                says:

                “So you can make enough different caches that the feds can’t find them all.”

                Bingo!

                And really, who plans on only buying one or two more guns over the course of their lifetime? That’s just plain lazy.Report

              • Avatar Stillwater in reply to James Hanley
                Ignored
                says:

                And then what? What follows?

                So make enough different caches that the feds can’t find them all, so that you can … still hunt for Ruffed Grouse?Report

              • Avatar Mike Dwyer in reply to Stillwater
                Ignored
                says:

                Stillwater,

                Haven’t you seen Red Dawn? If so, then picture UN troops instead of the Reds and the Cubans. And then picture Nancy Pelosi dressed like the Baroness from GI Joe and lighting Ban Ki-moon’s cigars with a copy of the Constitution. Then picture America’s youths waging a guerilla campaign in the Rocky Mountains with Charlie Sheen and the ghost of Patrick Swayze.

                Now you know why we need all those guns.Report

              • Avatar Rufus F. in reply to Mike Dwyer
                Ignored
                says:

                Now you know why we need all those guns.

                Well, or at least why I have to stop eating mushrooms.Report

              • Avatar BSK in reply to Mike Dwyer
                Ignored
                says:

                Second “Red Dawn” reference at the LoOG today!!!Report

              • Avatar Patrick Cahalan in reply to Mike Dwyer
                Ignored
                says:

                I would pay to see that version.Report

              • Avatar BSK in reply to James Hanley
                Ignored
                says:

                My situation was sloppy.  Or sloppily expressed.  It is not that all guns/ammo become illegal, but that it is illegal to buy/sell them.  What you have remains your own.  I assume this would be the case with any new gun restrictions passed, no?  Would you have to turn in a gun that you acquired legally but became illegal to buy or sell?Report

              • Avatar Kimmi in reply to BSK
                Ignored
                says:

                Bsk,

                re: illegal guns.

                It’s my impression that many guns are illegal to own.

                Quoth a friend of mine (da one who got shot at down south, fer what it’s worth), “Granpa, why is there an AK47 in your basement?” Pa’s response: “Huntin’ deer”)Report

              • Avatar Mike Dwyer in reply to Kimmi
                Ignored
                says:

                Actually there are very few guns there are ILLEGAL to own. There are some that are DIFFICULT to own. That’s mostly just the full-auto stuff.Report

              • Avatar Patrick Cahalan in reply to Mike Dwyer
                Ignored
                says:

                Getting one of those things is… cost-prohibitive.  But yeah, aside from nuclear weapons and surface-to-air missiles, there are very few things that you can’t get some degree of permission to own.

                You might have the ATF visiting your shop every 6 months to make sure that your arms-smithing hobby isn’t producing grenades for the Mexican mafia.Report

              • Avatar Robert Cheeks in reply to Patrick Cahalan
                Ignored
                says:

                I’m pretty sure the Attorney General approves of ‘walking’ grenades to Mexico!Report

              • Avatar BSK in reply to Kimmi
                Ignored
                says:

                But were those guns ever legal?

                Could a gun that is currently legal to buy, sell, and own become illegal to buy, sell, or own?  If so, what would be the obligations on people currently in possession of them, private citizens (as opposed to licensed sellers) in particular?Report

              • Avatar Mike Dwyer in reply to BSK
                Ignored
                says:

                The only way I could see a legal gun becoming illegal would be if it was used in the commission of a crime.

                Lots of hypotheticals from BSK. I feel like I am in law school.Report

              • Avatar BSK in reply to Mike Dwyer
                Ignored
                says:

                Just trying to understand!  As I said up above, guns are a topic I am not particularly familiar with or well versed in.  I appreciate your patience.

                If I had to guess, I would have assumed that guns have become increasingly harder to possess, on the whole.  Based on my gun-to-the-head opinion stated above, I suppose that is generally a good thing.  Still, I’m shocked about the “gun show loophole”.  That does indeed seem like something that should be illegal.Report

              • Avatar Kimmi in reply to BSK
                Ignored
                says:

                this generally falls under the “don’t create rules it would be Stupid to enforce”… aka enough gun nuts might shoot the police officer.Report

              • Avatar Jaybird in reply to Kimmi
                Ignored
                says:

                The new fun answer is “Zombie Apocalypse”.Report

              • Avatar wardsmith in reply to Kimmi
                Ignored
                says:

                @Kimmi, your grandpa may have been hunting this buck. And by buck I don’t mean black person, ever.

                While you’re there in the land of Pitt, you could look up this gun maker. Maybe they’ll give you a test shoot because you’ll tell them you’re going to write a front page piece for the famous LoOG. 🙂

                I’ve done plenty of competition handgun shoots. I can get off an accurate shot in a quarter of a second from my holster (a bit longer if concealed). I’ve lost count of the times I’ve done the Lethal Weapon happy face at the gun range. It all comes down to practice practice practice (and it helps to have a decent accurate weapon).Report

              • Avatar Kimmi in reply to wardsmith
                Ignored
                says:

                all of which will do you jack-all good against an ambush.

                Yeah, sure, some criminals are stupid. They aren’t all stupid.

                And it’s not the accuracy on a range that’s at issue. It’s the “will you freeze under fire” and “how accurate are you under fire.”

                The guy I know who’s fired a gun at a person (not at war) can’t aim worth a tuppence. They thought he was doing trick shots, and ran off… (aimed for the heart — clipped the guy’s shoulder)Report

              • Avatar Patrick Cahalan in reply to Kimmi
                Ignored
                says:

                Generally speaking, if someone pulls a gun on you and you are in a public space within reasonable ambulance response range and you can get yourself 10 feet away before they pull the trigger, running and screaming your head off is very likely to be the strategy that is least likely to result in you lying on a slab in the meat wagon.Report

              • Avatar Kimmi in reply to Patrick Cahalan
                Ignored
                says:

                And if you can’t get ten feet away? Dive for cover. Then run.Report

              • Avatar Kimmi in reply to wardsmith
                Ignored
                says:

                *snort* Were that a horse, he’d be half dead by now.Report

              • Avatar Robert Cheeks in reply to wardsmith
                Ignored
                says:

                WS, you’re absolutely correct.

                I’m willing to bet any confrontation with a bad guy will be direct, quick, and close in. In any situation like that it may very well be over before you can react. If not, you have a chance to “stop the violence.” That’s all a hand gun gives the citizen a chance to survive, an opportunity to allow the good guy or gal to ‘stop the violence’ and as a cop told me, ‘to fight to get to the shotgun.’

                Interestingly, my cc instructor, who worked several decades for the State of Ohio with gangs in Cleveland, Cincinnati, and Columbus told me that in recent years urban utes intent on robbery and/or mayhem of any sort will walk into a place and if they see an old dude with his shirt out, they shoot him immediately. Fortunately these actors rarely, if ever, practice, have a tendency to ‘freeze’ when they see a gun, and literally shit their pants when confronted with the ‘gauge.’ Who knows, maybe the old guys can win one…gotta try, cops can’t make it fast enough.Report

              • Avatar Kimmi in reply to James Hanley
                Ignored
                says:

                won’t help you much if the Geocachers find ’em.

                “You found a gun. Inna Box. And you put a NIRVANA Cd in there, and Took The Damn Gun??!?”

                [Morals of this story: 1) city parks are probably not the best place to cache weapons. 2) geocachers can’t find shit, and can’t distinguish between “probably a geocache” and “probably something I shouldn’t touch”]

                 Report

            • Avatar Patrick Cahalan in reply to Stillwater
              Ignored
              says:

              People buy ammo like people buy earthquake preparedness supplies: because it makes them feel better.

              Not to say that there aren’t actual good rational reasons to buy either ammo or earthquake preparedness supplies, but when the frenzy-buying activity occurs, it’s largely a security blanket response.  Psychologically speaking, anyway.Report

      • Avatar Patrick Cahalan in reply to Stillwater
        Ignored
        says:

        FUD is political seed corn.Report

    • Avatar Robert Cheeks in reply to Rufus F.
      Ignored
      says:

      …and?

      btw, it’s Hawaiian-Kenyan Marxist!

      btw, for first time gun owners, you can pick up a decent commie-pistol, a Tokarov 7.62X25, for about $200. I just shot my buddy’s at my gun range, and it’s very powerful, and accurate. Nice gun to carry in the car to protect you from ‘road rage’!Report

  2. Avatar Dan Miller
    Ignored
    says:

    The OP just sold a gun, for cash, to a person he didn’t know from Adam, legally.  In what sense are gun owners highly regulated?Report

    • Avatar Dan Miller in reply to Dan Miller
      Ignored
      says:

      Wow, that’s strange.  There was another comment from Rufus here, which included a statement along the lines of “my sense is that gun owners are highly regulated”, which I was replying to.  It seems to have vanished.Report

  3. Avatar Rufus F.
    Ignored
    says:

    Sorry! I wanted to go back and reread the post before commenting because I wasn’t sure at all that I’d read Mike the right way in my original comment. What I meant by that particular part of it was that I’ve got family members and friends who are legal gun carriers and I was surprised to hear them talk about being pulled over by the police on the highway somewhat often in order to check that they were following the laws to do with carrying the right way, because they’re registered gun owners. Maybe Mike can explain more, and maybe it’s just a Virginia thing, but my understanding is that, if you’re a registered gun owner, there are a number of rules you have to be in line with. He’s talking about closing a loophole, but that doesn’t mean they’re unregulated.Report

    • Avatar Dan Miller in reply to Rufus F.
      Ignored
      says:

      Interesting (and heartening!).  Thanks for the clarification.Report

    • Avatar Mike Dwyer in reply to Rufus F.
      Ignored
      says:

      Rufus,

      The kind of stuff you are talking about, pull-overs and other items, is unfamiliar to me. But KY is a state that tolerates quite a bit from gun owners.Report

      • Avatar wardsmith in reply to Mike Dwyer
        Ignored
        says:

        I went to a 4 day gun training thing at Frontsight and the laws in Nevada are pretty strange. If you have a concealed carry permit, the gun must be /concealed/ at all times. If you’re wearing a jacket that doesn’t conceal properly you could get in trouble. Also you can’t have a gun in a casino so you have to plan your routes accordingly.

        Gun laws in this country are like liquor laws in Kentucky, they vary insanely from invisible border to invisible border. A Utah concealed carry permit is fairly restrictive and has good reciprocity. You have to show proof of having attended and passed a rigorous handgun training program.

        As an experiment in “an armed society is a polite society” at Frontsight I purposely placed a fifty dollar bill under a rock but in plain sight where hundreds of people walked daily. No one ever touched it. The newcomers locked their cars, but after the first afternoon everyone left their cars open. Admittedly Frontsight does a criminal background check on every customer, but when everyone is armed to the teeth and have hundreds of rounds of ammo, a person would be fairly stupid to go digging through someone else’s car without permission. IMHO.Report

  4. Avatar BSK
    Ignored
    says:

    Mike-
    Given your concern about the “gun show loophole” and the potential for guns sold in this manner ending up being used in crimes, why were you so comfortable engaging in such a deal?Report

    • Avatar Mike Dwyer in reply to BSK
      Ignored
      says:

      BSK – good question! Two reasons:

      1) The problem with the loophole is more with buyers coming to shows and loading up on guns. The dealers are less of a concern.

      2) I sold a cowboy-style pistol chambered in .22LR. My gut tells me that it’s not going to be in-demand among the gang community.Report

      • Avatar BSK in reply to Mike Dwyer
        Ignored
        says:

        I suppose the first issue is only relevant because of the second, no? If you were selling a more common gun, was there anything to indicate that the buyer was not there to buy more than just the one?

        This is all very foreign to me, so pardon my ignorance. Theoretically, the only thing that stops a gang banger from buying 500 Glocks at the Kentucky gun show is the seller? Does he break any laws in transporting and distributing (free of charge) those guns to his buddies back in Big City, Kentucky? What if he sells them? What about both scenarios in a city outside the state?Report

        • Avatar Mike Dwyer in reply to BSK
          Ignored
          says:

          The problem with US trafficking on the east coast is guns going from southern states with liberal gun laws up to northern cities with very strict laws. In those places you cannot legally sell a gun without some serious documentation. I’ve heard stories of folks going to gun shows in GA, loading up on easy-to-purchase guns and then selling out of their trunk on a street in Philadelphia.

          If you will re-read my quote above from Democracy Journal it says in part:

          “Nine out of 10 crime guns changed hands between the first purchase (which was likely legal) to the last purchase (which was certainly illegal).”

           Report

          • Avatar BSK in reply to Mike Dwyer
            Ignored
            says:

            I gathered that, which is why I asked about the difference between sales and simply distributing them free of charge.  Are there any laws about crossing state lines?  Do any laws stop you from buying a gun in GA, driving it to New York, and giving it away?Report

            • Avatar Mike Dwyer in reply to BSK
              Ignored
              says:

              BSK,

              Gun law for NJ:

              “It is unlawful to sell, give, transfer, assign, or otherwise dispose of, or receive, purchase, or otherwise acquire a handgun unless the purchaser, assignee, donee, receiver, or holder is licensed as a dealer under New Jersey law or has first secured a Permit to Purchase a handgun.

              The permit must be in the form prescribed by the Superintendent of State Police and shall be issued to the applicant in quadruplicate.

              The applicant prior to the time he receives the handgun from the seller shall deliver to the seller the permit in quadruplicate and the seller shall complete all of the information required on the form.

              Only one handgun shall be purchased or delivered for each permit.

              A permit is required for private or dealer purchases.”

              Report

              • Avatar BSK in reply to Mike Dwyer
                Ignored
                says:

                Thank you.  I assume, then, that such gun show deals are illegal in NJ?

                I’m pretty liberal with some libertarian tendencies (or maybe I’m libertarian with some liberal tendencies?)…. whatever.

                I’m not a big gun person.  Didn’t grow up with them, didn’t fire one until last year, never hunted… just not part of my personal context.  I’ve generally been somewhat agnostic about gun control laws… there were simply issues I cared more about than guns.  Forced to take a stand, I suppose I would say that some basic regulation was a good thing, including licenses for both buyers and sellers that were predicated on demonstrating some basic safety standards (for buyers, some basic handling requirements; for sellers, record keeping and such), but otherwise, folks should be able to do what they will.  The “gun show loophole” and other unregulated sales seem a bad idea, and restrictions on such practices hardly seem different from the regulation of liquor sales, automobiles, and lemonade.Report

            • Avatar Kimmi in reply to BSK
              Ignored
              says:

              distributing anything free of charge is generally tax evasion. Gotta pay the guvmint their sales tax, or ELSE.

              That said, a friend of mine helped the secret service go after some gunrunners (they were running guns south of the border). Because it was quite simply easier to convict them under the Department of Treasury regs on money.Report

  5. Avatar James Hanley
    Ignored
    says:

    Without taking a stand either way on the issue of gun regulation, I find myself surprised at how things have changed.  Had I made a wager 20 years ago, I would have bet that there would be more restrictions on gun ownership today, not less, despite the significant political influence of the NRA.  At best I would have bet on something nearer the status quo, not more and more states moving to allow concealed carry, and 20 years ago who would have bet on the Supreme Court taking up an issue it had carefully avoided for so long?

    It might be worth noting that 20 years ago I was a self-defined progressive who felt that movement in the progressive direction was certain, if slow and uneven.  Today I’m a self-defined libertarian who feels that movement in the authoritarian direction is certain, if slow and uneven.Report

    • Avatar Kimmi in reply to James Hanley
      Ignored
      says:

      Why are we regulating guns again? 20 years ago, there were significantly more dangerous problems in our cities. Guns or no guns.Report

    • Avatar Mad Rocket Scientist in reply to James Hanley
      Ignored
      says:

      IMHO, the reason the past 20 years have seen a roll back of restrictions has been due in large part to the gunblogger community.  They have a solid reputation of being relentless in defense of rights, as well as in the promotion of firearms safety & training (& merciless in calling out gun owners who exhibit stupidity with firearms).

      They have also developed a warm, welcoming community that happily accepts anyone of any stripe who just wants to learn about how to use a gun safely.  The number of times I’ve seen a person post on their own blog, or comment on a gun blog, that they want to learn how to use a gun & they live near (major city), and in short order they are flooded with polite, friendly offers to take them to a local range for free.

      It builds tons of goodwill, and wins converts to the cause everyday.Report

  6. Avatar Mike Dwyer
    Ignored
    says:

    Kenneth,

    If you would like to email me I will be happy to share with you some more detailed info about the President’s gun control policies as a state legislator. That wasn’t the intent of the post though.Report

  7. Avatar Kimmi
    Ignored
    says:

    RIGHTWing?

    Try again.  Money’s money, but those ads about “Obama’s gonna take your guns away — Buy Ammo Now” weren’t about money, nor about selling guns.Report

  8. Avatar greginak
    Ignored
    says:

    So if a liberal type said the exact same things in almost any situation, there would be at least one person to chime in about “gun grabbing” and “losing our rights” and “AHHH they are coming to get us.” Talking about guns seems as hard as discussing abortion even about something like closing the gun show loophole.Report

    • Avatar Mike Dwyer in reply to greginak
      Ignored
      says:

      Greg – you are correct and that is why I would like to see the legislation come from the Right. Fair or not, it would automatically make any proposal more palatable to gun owners. It’s also why I wanted to write the post, because I think conservatives have a responsibility to tackle the flaws in those institutions we are most associated with.Report

      • Avatar Uncular 1 in reply to Mike Dwyer
        Ignored
        says:

        But Mike, certainly you understand that no such legislation will ever come from the Right, right? You are watching the primaries aren’t you? The Republicans do not have the independent streak to fight the NRA. The legislation will only come from the Democratic party, they believe in gun control, the Republican party doesn’t, and that’s OK. You might get some Rs crossing the aisle and voting with the Ds on closing that loophole, but with Snowe out I don’t really see that happening either.Report

      • Avatar Mad Rocket Scientist in reply to Mike Dwyer
        Ignored
        says:

        The fear is that forcing all gun purchases to go through NCIS would lead to a defacto gun registry, which could then be used in an effort to confiscate firearms (& gun registries have been used by at least CA to do exactly that).  The fact that guns can be legally transferred without the governments knowledge ensures that the government could never hope to find them all.

        There is also the aspect that a person should not have to get permission from the government to exercise a right.

         Report

        • Avatar Kimmi in reply to Mad Rocket Scientist
          Ignored
          says:

          so steal brin’s idea, and leave a Big Giant Hole in plain sight. Just register all handguns. The big ones are reasonably hard to hide, anyhow.

          (I’ve got far less problem with a meth lab using longguns for defense…)Report

        • Avatar Dan Miller in reply to Mad Rocket Scientist
          Ignored
          says:

          This kind of thinking wouldn’t fly for any other right.  Requirements for full disclosure of campaign donations is pretty non-controversial, for instance; so is the need to get a permit to hold a large rally.  Gun owners, in my opinion, are the most coddled group in American politics.  Guns are intended to kill things.  The idea that you should be able to buy one without registering it–when you can’t legally do the same for a car–is flatly absurd, but it’s treated as a serious position.Report

          • Avatar Mad Rocket Scientist in reply to Dan Miller
            Ignored
            says:

            You can own a car without registering it, as long as it never leaves your property.  It’s only when you drive it on the road that the rules apply.

            Same with rallies.  You’re free to hold a rally on your property.  If you want to hold it in the public square, you need a permit first (which is generally a shall issue permit).

            Ergo, I should be able to own as money guns as I want on my property & it’s nobodies business but mine.  If I want to carry my gun off my property, then the public has an interest in my activities (which is why I support carry permits & hunting licenses).

            IMHO, a federal (shall issue) carry permit system would be good.  If you are caught carrying a gun without a valid carry permit, you have violated a federal law.Report

  9. Avatar Kimmi
    Ignored
    says:

    Close the loophole. At least for handguns. Leave buying and selling BigLongSlowGuns as free as needed. (if you have to load each cartridge individually…makes it hard to rampage).

    Speaking of rampages:

    Some kid cut up a pair of police officers pretty bad with a butter knife… Then they shot him dead.Report

  10. Avatar BlaiseP
    Ignored
    says:

    Our problem as a society goes deeper than guns or ammo.   Something about the level of tension and angst we endure causes some of us to detonate, seemingly at random.   There’s more regulation of automobiles than guns and for all the fearmongering about how those Libruls are Just Schemin’ to Take Our Guns Away, the fact remains, our guns and ammo are only a symptom of a malaise which goes to the core of America’s fear and anguish.Report

    • Avatar b-psycho in reply to BlaiseP
      Ignored
      says:

      I wouldn’t go as far as calling firearms a symptom of malaise.  But as far as the real issue being beyond the guns, I agree. Asking why we take to killing each other so well is a much more useful question, pity it rarely ever is considered.Report

      • Avatar BlaiseP in reply to b-psycho
        Ignored
        says:

        Look, guns and ammo are just tools, insensate, engineered to one task, putting rounds downrange into someone or something.   A purpose-built tool.  Nobody’s going out hunting with a Glock 45.   That’s meant to shoot human beings at relatively short distances.

        So who needs such a tool?   And why do so many people feel they need one?   “Personal protection” ?   Sure, I won’t argue with that rationale.  

        Now, tell me, protection from whom or what?Report

        • Avatar Kimmi in reply to BlaiseP
          Ignored
          says:

          Only idiots think that a gun is good protection. A gal’s gotta sleep, after all. And anyone competent is gonna use some sleeping gas (or carbon monoxide, which is probably easier to come by)Report

          • Avatar Mad Rocket Scientist in reply to Kimmi
            Ignored
            says:

            Luckily, 99% of bad guys are anything but competent.Report

          • Avatar BlaiseP in reply to Kimmi
            Ignored
            says:

            A gun is excellent protection.   I’ve hunted people and they’ve hunted me.  No substitute will do.

            The question I ask is slightly different:   these folks have bought a tool, with the perfect right to do so, no different than a lawnmower or a washing machine, spent good money on it with the expectation they will need it to defend themselves.

            Guns aren’t exactly cheap, the better ones, anyway.   People don’t collect washing machines or lawnmowers, well, not many, anyway.   But they do collect guns.   Most people who own guns have more than one and about half of all gun owners own more than four.   That’s a whole lotta protection.   Good ammunition isn’t exactly cheap either and after a while it must be replaced and there’s all the attendant need to store and secure the weapons and ammunition and most gun owners are highly responsible people.

            While I was hunting people, I had two guns.   We had a guy whose whole job was to deal with them, an armorer, a really good man to know.    When you need to use a gun, it’s got to work.   Serious business.

            It’s more than a personal protection issue.  It’s something emotional.   It’s primal, going right back to what every warrior and hunter understands about the power of weapons.   Weapons were once given names.   Peasants weren’t allowed to own swords and suchlike.

            America’s obsession with firearms is deeply embedded into its psyche.  There’s a mythic need to believe there are malevolent forces out there, intent upon bursting into our homes, powers beyond the ability of law enforcement to deal with, threats only we can overcome.

            Seamus Heaney’s translation of the gifting of Hrunting, Beowulf’s sword:

            And another item lent by Unferth
            at that moment of need was of no small importance:
            the brehon handed him a hilted weapon,
            a rare and ancient sword named Hrunting.
            The iron blade with its ill-boding patterns
            had been tempered in blood. It had never failed
            the hand of anyone who hefted it in battle,
            anyone who had fought and faced the worst
            in the gap of danger. This was not the first time
            it had been called to perform heroic feats.

            Unferth, who should have gone to fight Grendel’s Mother gave Beowulf a dud weapon.   At the moment Beowulf most needed it, Hrunting failed.

            That’s how it goes with most people when real danger comes bursting into their lives.   They don’t have the training to use their weapons.   Often enough, the weapon itself is unsafe and like as not to jam.   Weapons don’t make you any safer, only effective training can save your life when it’s needed.    Maybe it’s Hollywood’s effect on America:  the guy who gets shot falls out of the frame and dies a nice sanitary death in the movies.    In real life, almost nobody dies from a gunshot wound immediately.   They do a lot of screaming.   They shoot back, yes they do, tell you that from personal experience.

            America is just nuts for its guns.   Somewhere between Walter Mitty and Rambo, most of ’em.Report

            • Avatar Kimmi in reply to BlaiseP
              Ignored
              says:

              Tell you something. A friend makes far better protection than a gun does. And most gun nuts have well forgotten that fact. A friend will watch your back.

              As for being hunted? well, it depends on how and why… definitely plenty of times and people where shooting back just ups the danger (lets them know where you are, precisely, for one thing). And it really depends on how long.Report

        • Avatar b-psycho in reply to BlaiseP
          Ignored
          says:

          Now, tell me, protection from whom or what?

          Muggers, car-jackers, rapists, crazed exes, violent homophobes, hate groups…there’s a few.

           Report

          • Avatar Kimmi in reply to b-psycho
            Ignored
            says:

            Unless you have the gun inyour hand, how do you expect to be faster on the draw than the other guy?

            guns lead to mexican standoffs. This is a GOOD thing.

            Knives lead to far worse problems.Report

            • Avatar b-psycho in reply to Kimmi
              Ignored
              says:

              People would rather have a chance, y’know?Report

              • Avatar Kimmi in reply to b-psycho
                Ignored
                says:

                There are far more efficient and effective ways of taking out people without using a flippin’ gun. Less lethal too. (paradoxically, more illegal… but taking out everyone in a 10ft radius is a good thing if more than one person is after you)Report

              • Avatar BlaiseP in reply to b-psycho
                Ignored
                says:

                — a chance at what, precisely?   Are you going to walk through your life with your weapon at port arms?   Do you have any idea how fast such a situation develops?Report

              • Avatar b-psycho in reply to BlaiseP
                Ignored
                says:

                Faster than the cops can get there.

                (assuming you’re not part of a group the cops tend to not care about except as targets, in which case you might as well not call at all. No sense being murdered by trigger-happy police after you’ve already fended off the threat)Report

              • Avatar BlaiseP in reply to b-psycho
                Ignored
                says:

                See, this is the mentality I’m talking about.   I’m not going to argue with it, you’re perfectly entitled to your guns and your opinions, both.

                I grew up with guns in the house, out on the desert.   There was no law enforcement.   Rational decision to have them out there on the part of my father.

                I left the service, sold my personal weapons, never felt the need for them in the States.   I don’t go looking for trouble.   I was robbed at gunpoint while driving a cab while I was a student, broad daylight in the middle of Rush Street in Chicago.   Gave the robber all the money in my pocket, fifty bucks, the rest was in the trunk, he left.   Knew the guy was serious, didn’t freak out, got out of that situation alive.

                Down in Guatemala, I did have a weapon.   Shot a burglar in my restaurant, dead to rights with a sack full of my silverware.   Dragged him out into the street, paid the first cop I saw to make the problem go away.  It did.  I was never robbed again.

                I still believe handguns aren’t worth the trouble unless there’s no law enforcement.   Here in the States, there’s plenty of law enforcement.   Ergo, I don’t need a weapon.Report

              • Avatar b-psycho in reply to BlaiseP
                Ignored
                says:

                I still believe handguns aren’t worth the trouble unless there’s no law enforcement. Here in the States, there’s plenty of law enforcement.

                Yes, there’s plenty of law enforcers here. Arguably way too many.  Many of them think the badge puts them above the rest of the population, especially people that look like I do.

                You see the police and feel safer.  I don’t. Call it what you will.Report

              • Avatar BlaiseP in reply to BlaiseP
                Ignored
                says:

                Ecch, suit yourself.   Weighing the issue in the balances of experience, in a civilized country, a gun is just too much trouble for any perceived benefit derived from its possession.

                I grimly smile, thinking about America’s instinctive need for that Dark Forest.  Strutting around with their guns like so many Third Worlders brandishing their AKs, they simply can’t conceive of someone they love turning that weapon on them.   That sort of incident happens a whole lot more than some Big Bad Burglar coming in the door.Report

              • Avatar b-psycho in reply to BlaiseP
                Ignored
                says:

                I grimly smile, thinking about America’s instinctive need for that Dark Forest. Strutting around with their guns like so many Third Worlders brandishing their AKs, they simply can’t conceive of someone they love turning that weapon on them. That sort of incident happens a whole lot more than some Big Bad Burglar coming in the door.

                I can conceive of it just fine. It’s just that I think the proper concern is why people get to that point, rather than the weapon of choice when they do.Report

              • Avatar Kimmi in reply to b-psycho
                Ignored
                says:

                I dunno about you, but most gun-owners are pretty polite. you go walking around the bad part of town (even if you’re white as a ghost), people politely point their gun at you and tell you to keep walking. You keep your head down, and everything’s just fine. Even after midnight.Report

    • Avatar Robert Cheeks in reply to BlaiseP
      Ignored
      says:

      Something about the level of tension and angst we endure causes some of us to detonate, seemingly at random.”

      Best and most honest analysis of the thread!Report

  11. Avatar trizzlor
    Ignored
    says:

    As with most issues, I’d like to see a liberal gun-rights realignment that pushes for safety and liberty in equal measure. Here in New England the gun owners seem to fall into three broad categories: 2nd amendment survivalists, hunters/conservationists, collectors/historians. I’m friends with many of the latter two and they’re all liberals on other issues: the hunters tend to be staunchly pro-environment and concerned with shrinking populations, sustainability of nature preserves, pollution, etc; and the collectors tend to be stuffy intellectuals. Of course, they’re all NRA members but they absolutely can’t stand LaPierre and pass around ridiculous “Armed Citizen” articles as a joke. I don’t know how substantial this group of owners is nationally, but it seems like the kind of alliance one would want to make for deregulation in blue states. Get a bunch of history buffs and organic farmers to promote sensible gun rights and who would challenge them?Report

    • Avatar Kimmi in reply to trizzlor
      Ignored
      says:

      Dude. Yes. And then have them show up next door. Folks from out near Pittsburgh showing up in West Virginia get a lot different reception than some foolz from New England.

      Gotta love them hunters (even the poachers nearby me tend to be pretty decent folk).

      [TSA routinely arrests hunters around where I’m at. Seems the guvmint doesn’t take too kind to “lost hunters” gettin on airport land. You ever been to Pittsburgh’s airport, you’ll understand.]Report

  12. Avatar wardsmith
    Ignored
    says:

    Trust me Kimsie, no one wants to be on the receiving end of my weapon. Yes people who haven’t been trained extensively freeze all the time, even some who have. I’ve been trained extensively, the Frontsight gig was with 2 spooks and a TSA agent, we were evaluating whether their training would be useful. I was the token civilian. They have a reasonable product but also teach some bad habits. Great for home defense experience. For some law enforcement it would be a huge improvement. They even have a practice house-clearing with live fire and static life-sized picture targets.

    Nothing gets the blood pumping like doing a /real/ house-clearing exercise with marker rounds and bad guys happy to “mark you up”. Getting shot at certainly effects your aim and you’ll tend to lose all ammo discipline. If you’re worth a damn you’ll get through it, muscle memory does the rest.Report

  13. Avatar Mad Rocket Scientist
    Ignored
    says:

    Kimmi seems to be of the opinion that because owning a gun might be a useless thing if the bad guy is determined enough, there is no point in owning one.  To which I say, then why do cops carry them?

    Also, Cato just did a study that looked at how often guns are used by civilians to protect themselves or others successfully, and it’s quite often.Report

  14. Avatar Mark Thompson
    Ignored
    says:

    Mike: I’m just now finally getting a chance to read this post, but wanted to say that I quite enjoyed it.  I’ve gone back and forth on the gun show “loophole” (IIRC, “loophole” is a bit of a misnomer) issue several times, though for the better part of the last decade I’ve been pretty strongly in favor of keeping it open.  It’s been awhile since I thought about it seriously, though, and I’ve forgotten far more about the issue than I remember; your post gives me a bit of pause.Report

  15. Avatar Damon
    Ignored
    says:

    Mike,

    (Generally ignoring all the commentary–tl/dr)

    I’m against nearly all firearms regulations for a variety of reasons, but what I have a hard time understanding is why people thing more regulations will do any good.  Two examples:  We’ve seen massive increases in laws regarding illegal drugs & we went through alcohol prohibition.  The only thing those laws accomplished is funding the criminal class, political class (wait…that’s redundant), and the imposition of massive restrictions on people’s freedom.  Hell, I can’t buy a Sudafed anymore without going behind the counter and putting my name on a log!  So why do you think “closing the gun show loophole”, really a misnomer, is going to work?  Clever crooks find ways around laws.  Is making it nominally harder for crooks to achieve their goals worth the expense and additional restrictions of the rest of us law abiding folks?  I don’t think so.Report

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *