Why gun control movement drive gun owners crazy

MikeK · April 13, 2000, 03:24 PM

The following article is from the Montgomery (MD) Journal. While I don't agree with everything he says, it is refreshing to see a pro gun editorial in the press. He does get to the heart of some of the issues.

Why the gun control movement drives gun owners crazy

I'm not a gun nut. I don't belong to the NRA, I don't subscribe to gun magazines and I don't attend gun shows. I own a handgun for home protection and a shotgun for waterfowl hunting. (I went once last year.) And if I believed that melting down everyone's guns would end violent crime, I'd gladly hand mine in.

But please excuse me if I don't join the conga line celebrating Maryland's new first-in-the-nation gun-lock bill. I'm not a gun nut, but I'm not a gun-control nut either. To me, one's as bad as the other.

Gun violence in the United States is on the decline. According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the firearms death rate fell 21 percent between 1993 and 1997. And the number of fatal firearm accidents is down 65 percent since 1930 despite the national population doubling and the number of firearms quadrupling. Better policing, changing demographics and increased public awareness are the reasons.

But while real gun violence is on the wane, the violent nature of our national gun-control debate is on the rise. The emotional divide - the inability to even hear the other side - rivals the abortion debate which, at least, has religion as an excuse for the intense feelings.

It's not the gun-control laws themselves that drive gun owners wild; it's the message behind them. Background checks, waiting periods, gun registration and mandatory safety lessons all make sense. Most gun owners even go along with the ban on Saturday Night Specials and military assault weapons.

What so bitterly offends gun owners is the motive behind such legislation - the majority culture's smug insistence that gun control will lead to crime control and that those who disagree are morally flawed, lower beings who must be made to obey.

A hundred years ago most Americans lived in rural areas, and almost everyone owned a gun. Today, most of us live in cities and only one-third of Americans own guns.

This majority culture is terrified by the world around it - the random violence, the sensational high school shootings, the growing callousness and disregard for life. And even more terrifying is the search for answers: Are today's families turning out ``Clockwork Orange'' adolescents? Are we drowning in a mass media-driven celebration of violence and decadence? Have we created a permanent criminal subclass?

The majority culture is afraid to go there. So instead it focuses its fear on guns, something less close to home and, therefore, easier to blame. And as the high-profile shootings pile up, the majority culture media whips the public into a fear-driven hysteria similar to the Salem witch trials, the Red Scare, the Japanese internments and McCarthyism.

Think that's a stretch? Well, just look at today's gun-control totems embraced by a panic-stricken public literally scared out of its wits. Like cave-dwellers terrified by a solar eclipse, we grasp at anything that promises to drive away the evil spirits.

For instance, gun buy-back programs. Who do you think sells their guns? Where do you think the money goes? Yet we pretend these programs work.

How about Montgomery County's ban on gun stores within 100 yards of schools, parks and public spaces? Rational people see no link, whatsoever, between gun violence and a gun store's proximity to schools and parks. Yet, scores of people who ought to know better earnestly lined up behind the bill. Why? Because they wanted to make a "symbolic gesture." Maybe the County Council should build a giant golden calf and sacrifice virgins to make gun violence go away.

Or how about the product-liability lawsuits against gun makers? When criminals misuse a product we blame the manufacturers? And you don't see an anti-gun hysteria at work?

Or how about the four 6-year-olds recently suspended for three days from a Sayerville, N.J., elementary school because, while playing cops and robbers at recess, they pretended shooting with their fingers? Or the Anne Arundel County child suspended because he drew a picture of a handgun during class? And you say we haven't lost all rational perspective on the subject of guns?

Or how about mandatory gun sentences? When guns are involved in certain crimes, a five-year prison term must be served. It's hard to think of an idea more unwise and unfair. Why even have judges? Heck, the courthouse janitor can administer mandatory sentences.

Or how about Maryland's new gun-lock law? Soon all guns must have mechanical locks. Big deal. You can't force people to use them. Gun store owners estimate that, today, 1 gun purchaser in 500 voluntarily buys a trigger lock. Making locks mandatory won't change that. The same people will throw the external locks away and leave the internal locks armed. For this the state Senate compromised its rules? For this the governor bribed legislators with school aid funds? For this President Clinton attended the bill-signing?

"Well," say the proponents, "If just one life is saved, such laws are worth it." This is the typical sanctimonious hypocrisy that makes gun owners crazy.

How about requiring auto passengers to wear football helmets. That might save one life. Or requiring people at pools or the beach to wear life preservers? Of course not - such "life-saving" measures would inconvenience the majority culture. But kicking the hell out of gun owners is OK.

Once the gun-control hysteria subsides, people will see that even an outright gun ban doesn't work. Outlawing an item doesn't make it go away, it just drives up the price.

If you believe a gun ban will rid us of guns, you probably believe we're winning the war on drugs, no illegal betting or prostitution takes place, teen-agers don't smoke and Prohibition worked in the 1930s. And unlike booze and drugs, the 190 million handguns already in circulation don't need replenishing. They can be used over and over and over.

But I know you're not listening - you're too busy being hysterical. You're crusading for the Holy Grail gun control. Fine, when you come to your senses, call me. In the meantime, please try not to hurt anybody.

Blair Lee, Montgomery County's former lobbyist to Annapolis, hosts Cable TV Montgomery's ``21 This Week" and does commentary for WAMU-88.5 FM. His column appears Wednesdays in The Journal.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Skyhawk · April 13, 2000, 04:06 PM

Certainly some interesting points here.

Skyhawk

dZ · April 13, 2000, 04:19 PM

In the Montgomery County Gazette this week is a letter to the Editor from a guy that wrote in:
I never owned a gun, but after the way the Governor forced the issue of gunlocks in MD, I joined the NRA and bought a handgun.

MikeK · April 13, 2000, 06:53 PM

dz;

I belong to a group called Montgomery Citizens for a Safer Maryland(MCSM). At last night's meeting we had a new member who did the same thing, as well as a freind of his.

Maybe the new gun control laws will increase gun ownership?

Don Gwinn · April 13, 2000, 07:37 PM

He disagrees with me on the details, but at least he seems to have a perfect explanation for at least one reason why I'm so pissed all the time.

Donny · April 13, 2000, 09:36 PM

Hey, I'm not crazy. I take my Prozac like my Dr. tells me to.

Best Regards,
Don

------------------
The most foolish mistake we could make would be to allow the subjected people to carry arms; history shows that all conquerers who have allowed their subjected people to carry arms have prepared their own fall.
Adolf Hitler

Mikul · April 14, 2000, 11:11 AM

That was well written, and I liked the life-preservers at the beach analogy. I will use that.

dz, isn't it funny how the illogical push of gun control has driven so many people like you and I to buy guns and join gun rights groups. We didn't have guns and probably didn't want one (at least not in the immediate future), but somehow we sensed that (quite indirectly) our very lives were in danger.

Ledbetter · April 14, 2000, 01:30 PM

This is a great piece of writing, thanks for posting it.

I also joined the NRA after the lawsuits last year and Colt's shutting down production of some really good guns. I've also been buying more handguns (including duplicates of my favorite .380's), including three so far this year, since California laws have limited the number of handguns a person can buy to one per month.

If all new guns become "smart," old guns will be better; it's undeniable. Buy a bunch of them now, and support your local gunshop and smith.

woodit · April 16, 2000, 05:58 PM

It's already happening. That darned law of unintended consequences.

Two weeks ago, Massachusetts Attorney General Tom Reilly, with a knowing smirk, unilaterally ended the sale of all new handguns in Massachusetts. How? He declared them "defective products" because -- get ready -- a gun can actually hurt someone, and ipso facto, is an unsafe product.

Leaving his shrill idiocy aside, guess what? Sale of handguns has jumped 500%. Now, people who were happy with one are buying half a dozen "before they are gone." Others who never had one are also buying them.

So Mr. Liberal has, all by himself, added thousands more "defective products" to the hands of state consumers.

General Reilly, I salute you and all fellow braindead Liberals! Perhaps you will next outlaw the sale of all new ATVs?

April 13, 2000, 03:24 PM	#1
MikeK Senior Member Join Date: February 13, 2000 Location: MD Posts: 566	The following article is from the Montgomery (MD) Journal. While I don't agree with everything he says, it is refreshing to see a pro gun editorial in the press. He does get to the heart of some of the issues. Why the gun control movement drives gun owners crazy I'm not a gun nut. I don't belong to the NRA, I don't subscribe to gun magazines and I don't attend gun shows. I own a handgun for home protection and a shotgun for waterfowl hunting. (I went once last year.) And if I believed that melting down everyone's guns would end violent crime, I'd gladly hand mine in. But please excuse me if I don't join the conga line celebrating Maryland's new first-in-the-nation gun-lock bill. I'm not a gun nut, but I'm not a gun-control nut either. To me, one's as bad as the other. Gun violence in the United States is on the decline. According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the firearms death rate fell 21 percent between 1993 and 1997. And the number of fatal firearm accidents is down 65 percent since 1930 despite the national population doubling and the number of firearms quadrupling. Better policing, changing demographics and increased public awareness are the reasons. But while real gun violence is on the wane, the violent nature of our national gun-control debate is on the rise. The emotional divide - the inability to even hear the other side - rivals the abortion debate which, at least, has religion as an excuse for the intense feelings. It's not the gun-control laws themselves that drive gun owners wild; it's the message behind them. Background checks, waiting periods, gun registration and mandatory safety lessons all make sense. Most gun owners even go along with the ban on Saturday Night Specials and military assault weapons. What so bitterly offends gun owners is the motive behind such legislation - the majority culture's smug insistence that gun control will lead to crime control and that those who disagree are morally flawed, lower beings who must be made to obey. A hundred years ago most Americans lived in rural areas, and almost everyone owned a gun. Today, most of us live in cities and only one-third of Americans own guns. This majority culture is terrified by the world around it - the random violence, the sensational high school shootings, the growing callousness and disregard for life. And even more terrifying is the search for answers: Are today's families turning out ``Clockwork Orange'' adolescents? Are we drowning in a mass media-driven celebration of violence and decadence? Have we created a permanent criminal subclass? The majority culture is afraid to go there. So instead it focuses its fear on guns, something less close to home and, therefore, easier to blame. And as the high-profile shootings pile up, the majority culture media whips the public into a fear-driven hysteria similar to the Salem witch trials, the Red Scare, the Japanese internments and McCarthyism. Think that's a stretch? Well, just look at today's gun-control totems embraced by a panic-stricken public literally scared out of its wits. Like cave-dwellers terrified by a solar eclipse, we grasp at anything that promises to drive away the evil spirits. For instance, gun buy-back programs. Who do you think sells their guns? Where do you think the money goes? Yet we pretend these programs work. How about Montgomery County's ban on gun stores within 100 yards of schools, parks and public spaces? Rational people see no link, whatsoever, between gun violence and a gun store's proximity to schools and parks. Yet, scores of people who ought to know better earnestly lined up behind the bill. Why? Because they wanted to make a "symbolic gesture." Maybe the County Council should build a giant golden calf and sacrifice virgins to make gun violence go away. Or how about the product-liability lawsuits against gun makers? When criminals misuse a product we blame the manufacturers? And you don't see an anti-gun hysteria at work? Or how about the four 6-year-olds recently suspended for three days from a Sayerville, N.J., elementary school because, while playing cops and robbers at recess, they pretended shooting with their fingers? Or the Anne Arundel County child suspended because he drew a picture of a handgun during class? And you say we haven't lost all rational perspective on the subject of guns? Or how about mandatory gun sentences? When guns are involved in certain crimes, a five-year prison term must be served. It's hard to think of an idea more unwise and unfair. Why even have judges? Heck, the courthouse janitor can administer mandatory sentences. Or how about Maryland's new gun-lock law? Soon all guns must have mechanical locks. Big deal. You can't force people to use them. Gun store owners estimate that, today, 1 gun purchaser in 500 voluntarily buys a trigger lock. Making locks mandatory won't change that. The same people will throw the external locks away and leave the internal locks armed. For this the state Senate compromised its rules? For this the governor bribed legislators with school aid funds? For this President Clinton attended the bill-signing? "Well," say the proponents, "If just one life is saved, such laws are worth it." This is the typical sanctimonious hypocrisy that makes gun owners crazy. How about requiring auto passengers to wear football helmets. That might save one life. Or requiring people at pools or the beach to wear life preservers? Of course not - such "life-saving" measures would inconvenience the majority culture. But kicking the hell out of gun owners is OK. Once the gun-control hysteria subsides, people will see that even an outright gun ban doesn't work. Outlawing an item doesn't make it go away, it just drives up the price. If you believe a gun ban will rid us of guns, you probably believe we're winning the war on drugs, no illegal betting or prostitution takes place, teen-agers don't smoke and Prohibition worked in the 1930s. And unlike booze and drugs, the 190 million handguns already in circulation don't need replenishing. They can be used over and over and over. But I know you're not listening - you're too busy being hysterical. You're crusading for the Holy Grail gun control. Fine, when you come to your senses, call me. In the meantime, please try not to hurt anybody. Blair Lee, Montgomery County's former lobbyist to Annapolis, hosts Cable TV Montgomery's ``21 This Week" and does commentary for WAMU-88.5 FM. His column appears Wednesdays in The Journal. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

April 13, 2000, 04:06 PM	#2
Skyhawk Senior Member Join Date: January 20, 2000 Posts: 616	Certainly some interesting points here. Skyhawk

April 13, 2000, 04:19 PM	#3
dZ Senior Member Join Date: May 31, 1999 Location: Exiled, Fetid Swamp, DC Posts: 7,548	In the Montgomery County Gazette this week is a letter to the Editor from a guy that wrote in: I never owned a gun, but after the way the Governor forced the issue of gunlocks in MD, I joined the NRA and bought a handgun.

April 13, 2000, 06:53 PM	#4
MikeK Senior Member Join Date: February 13, 2000 Location: MD Posts: 566	dz; I belong to a group called Montgomery Citizens for a Safer Maryland(MCSM). At last night's meeting we had a new member who did the same thing, as well as a freind of his. Maybe the new gun control laws will increase gun ownership?

April 13, 2000, 07:37 PM	#5
Don Gwinn Staff Emeritus Join Date: March 9, 2000 Location: Virden, IL Posts: 5,917	He disagrees with me on the details, but at least he seems to have a perfect explanation for at least one reason why I'm so pissed all the time.

April 13, 2000, 09:36 PM	#6
Donny Senior Member Join Date: December 11, 1999 Posts: 755	Hey, I'm not crazy. I take my Prozac like my Dr. tells me to. Best Regards, Don ------------------ The most foolish mistake we could make would be to allow the subjected people to carry arms; history shows that all conquerers who have allowed their subjected people to carry arms have prepared their own fall. Adolf Hitler

April 14, 2000, 11:11 AM	#7
Mikul Senior Member Join Date: March 21, 2000 Posts: 1,396	That was well written, and I liked the life-preservers at the beach analogy. I will use that. dz, isn't it funny how the illogical push of gun control has driven so many people like you and I to buy guns and join gun rights groups. We didn't have guns and probably didn't want one (at least not in the immediate future), but somehow we sensed that (quite indirectly) our very lives were in danger.

April 14, 2000, 01:30 PM	#8
Ledbetter Senior Member Join Date: February 23, 2000 Location: California USA Posts: 4,533	This is a great piece of writing, thanks for posting it. I also joined the NRA after the lawsuits last year and Colt's shutting down production of some really good guns. I've also been buying more handguns (including duplicates of my favorite .380's), including three so far this year, since California laws have limited the number of handguns a person can buy to one per month. If all new guns become "smart," old guns will be better; it's undeniable. Buy a bunch of them now, and support your local gunshop and smith.

April 16, 2000, 05:58 PM	#9
woodit Senior Member Join Date: April 6, 2000 Posts: 289	It's already happening. That darned law of unintended consequences. Two weeks ago, Massachusetts Attorney General Tom Reilly, with a knowing smirk, unilaterally ended the sale of all new handguns in Massachusetts. How? He declared them "defective products" because -- get ready -- a gun can actually hurt someone, and ipso facto, is an unsafe product. Leaving his shrill idiocy aside, guess what? Sale of handguns has jumped 500%. Now, people who were happy with one are buying half a dozen "before they are gone." Others who never had one are also buying them. So Mr. Liberal has, all by himself, added thousands more "defective products" to the hands of state consumers. General Reilly, I salute you and all fellow braindead Liberals! Perhaps you will next outlaw the sale of all new ATVs?