What Gun Lovers Think By Joe Nocera | nytimes | Published: April 6, 2013 Excerpts: Dan Baum is a political liberal. But he has always had a thing for guns and has just written a book, Gun Guys: A Road Trip; Baum, who lives in Colorado, agreed to come to New York, where he grew up, to debate the issue with me. JOE: Lets start here: Connecticut just passed what may be the toughest gun law in the country, which includes restrictions on magazine capacity and an assault rifle ban. Sounds good to me. DAN: Im not one of those gun owners who says, You cant ever infringe my rights. My orientation is safety. How are we going to live more safely? There are 300 million guns in the country. JOE: In your book, though, you make a very different argument for not banning assault weapons. You argue that very few people are killed with them. DAN: That is true. Theyve been used in these big high-profile mass killings, no doubt about it. But there were no assault rifles at Virginia Tech or Fort Hood. JOE: But assault rifles were used in Aurora and Newtown. And here is my larger point. When I talk to gun absolutists, they claim that we shouldnt make such a big deal out of mass shootings because they are statistically insignificant. But so what? We have turned this society upside down because 3,000 people died on 9/11. Besides, we enact regulations all the time designed to keep people safe, even when the number of people who have been harmed is small. Why are guns different? DAN: The answer is because we already have so many of them. You need gun owners - the gun guys as I call them. They are the custodians of the guns. I also think, though, that gun guys need to take their responsibility as gun owners seriously. A lot of gun owners are perfectly fine, for instance, with universal background checks. I know I am. They are fine with it so long as it doesnt lead to a database and de facto registration. Gun guys need to lock em up; gun guys need to take our responsibility to us much more seriously. JOE: Why do gun owners get to have this level of respect that no other segment of society has? I could say, Im a responsible driver. Why does the government get to tell me that I have to wear a seat belt? DAN: Its not a question of fairness. I am not making a rights argument, or a fairness argument. Im interested in what will make the country safer. JOE: If a child finds a loaded gun in his house and accidentally shoots himself or someone else, should his parents be prosecuted? DAN: Perhaps they should be. But let me ask you this. Do you favor having a course in school for children, What to do if you find a gun? To educate children on how to handle a gun - would you favor that? Because most liberal parents would not. JOE: ..I would like to see a cultural protocol, for instance, that would make it O.K. for parents to ask other parents if there is a loaded gun in the house prior to allowing a play date. DAN: Thats fine. But then you should also ask, Do you have a backyard swimming pool? since young kids are more likely to die from a swimming pool accident. JOE: Here we go! The classic gun guys argument. DAN: Im not trying to make an ideological point. Im talking about being safer. And we get there, I think, by being respectful to the people who own the guns. JOE: When there is a mass shooting, and youve limited the number of rounds in a magazine, fewer people might get killed. That seems obvious to me. DAN: Once you have made a consumer decision for 100 million gun owners that they cant have these magazines because they are too irresponsible, you have now driven them out of the conversation. continued:
conclusion: JOE: After Newtown, Wayne LaPierre said, “The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.” Do you believe that? DAN: As much as I dislike the N.R.A., there’s a cold logic to it. It’s the reason we have armed guards in airports and shopping malls. When you see an armed guard someplace, what you’re hoping is, if somebody pulls out a gun and does something bad, that the guard will use his gun to protect you. JOE: Actually, what the N.R.A. means by that statement is that if somebody attempts a mass shooting in a movie theater, someone else in the theater will have a gun and shoot the shooter. Which seems crazy to me. DAN: I can’t imagine anything worse than one guy with a gun bent on mass murder in a room full of unarmed people. Anything is better than that. JOE: The idea that some heroic figure is going to be able to get up and actually be able to shoot them... DAN: Then why do cops carry guns? Disarm the police. JOE: That’s an absurd, extremist argument. DAN: Why? I carried a concealed weapon... JOE [interrupts]: I find it astonishing that you say we’re deepening the divide but the N.R.A.... DAN: Oh, they are, too! A pox on both their houses. Absolutely. The N.R.A. is a hideous organization. Every day I get e-mails from people who say, “I’m a gun guy, and I can’t stand the N.R.A.” We need to speak with a different voice. It’s really important. “ read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/07/opinion/sunday/nocera-what-gun-lovers-think.html?hp ......... IMO: A very revealing interview with a gun lover in which he is not fully cognizant of the rights of the majority of the nation that wants a safer place to live, not an armed guard of NRAers that are out searching for a deranged assault weapons holder bent on shooting up a theatre, or a school, or campus! Dan seems comfortable with a hostile atmosphere with every gun owner carrying around a concealed weapon because HE is carrying a gun to protect himself. This amounts to the average American non gun owning citizen being right in the crossfire of a barrage...just like he is today. Dan has no real answers but plenty of subterfuge in his replies, and I suggest he is just another gun freak that needs a gun to feel safer when he is in public...and leaves the citizen in precisely the same position as he is today...a hapless victim of lax gun laws, and a Congressional lassitude in wanting to do anything about the lives of Americans that continue to be in danger. If all Dan is worried about is safety of the American people, he has offered nothing to corroborate the rights of any other citizen than himself and his idea that it is ok for any gun freak in America to wander around in public carrying a concealed weapon.
..... 1) I cannot think of anything more 'current' than the carnage in America concerning guns. Why don't you want people to read it? If it saves one life, this article is worth the time I spent bringing it to this forum. Surely you know this if you are such an accomplished debater... 2) Then why are members required to give their 'opinions' in each article? 3) Why would you even think that an article that states 'what gun lovers think' could be a conspiracy?...
It's an opinion piece not a current event . But to be quite honest I read the whole thing and did find it to be a good read . We give our opinions on a current event , we don't start with an opinion peice and move forward . That's the opinion section .
"...some heroic figure is going to be able to get up and actually be able to shoot them..." Taxcutter says: It happens scores of times a year - usually in restaurant robberies. We've had threads started with links documenting such incidents.
1) The "carnage" is down by 1/2 over the last two decades while most States have passed carry laws and loosened gun laws in general. The recent "carnage" is a perception of carnage driven by ratings hungry media. You never hear them editorialize gun use where it protected someone for self defense because it is not as sexy as "carnage".
Here is where you inject your opinion of Americans that exercise their rights as they have for hundreds of years. The progressive push is to isolate gun owners as "freaks" so they can attack their inalienable rights.
I am wondering why a Gun owner is a "Gun Freak" Does that mean non gun owners are "Normal"? What is normal? He (dan) did make some points and I agree was an intresting read. But I have a quesiton..why not a class for younger children informing them that if they find a gun what they should properly do about it? When has teaching children to be responsible become bad today? I talked ot my sister and was jokeing with her about buying my neice a pink daisy bbgun because its a cutesy gun for her since she's 5, My sister says no because its a gun. I fully agree its a weapon and a BB Gun can cause harm just like some of its larger forms However, Responsibility and teaching has always been key. Why is it so wronge when it comes to firearms of any type? Had to add sorry: Why does it seem like most non americans (or people from other countries) want to take gun rights from people in the states?
