Washington Post journalist buys a gun in DC.

[Lynne]

There's a few spots in the story where he sounds like he's almost getting it, then we have a slip. The one thing I noticed was that he said he grew up in an anti-gun culture, so I'll cut him some slack for that. If that was the case, then he did make some strides forward - not far, but a bit forward.

His wife, OTOH, needs to be slapped. <shaking head>

He needs to become good friends with a true gun owner who'll help to change his mind about having a gun in the house, or, have someone try to break in and steal all his (and her) valuables.

She still needs to be slapped.

ah well...

 

[Monty]

Seriously, for a dude who sounds like he's never shot before, has a predisposition to moonbattiness, is married to Sarah Brady, I'd say the guy did pretty well. With the right people encouraging him, he could turn into a decent gun owner. I don't think you'll ever see him posting his collection of evil black rifles, but he could turn into a someone who shoots as a hobby.

Sadly, though, it will probably take him or his family being a victim or near victim to truly push him into believing that his gun is more than just a hobby.

 

[Fixxah]

I am just trying to imagine how many readers have seen the write-up. No matter what he does there are definately people who who may wake up and get their permits in D.C.

One can only hope, as previous replies have suggested, that it at least becomes a hobby until he leaves his wife. Then he can let his unit hang where it is supposed to be.

 

[kevin9]

I don't wish ill on anyone, but it sounds like he's still one up close and personal experience with a criminal away from being a real gun owner. It might take 2 for her. I hope they both survive it.

 

[Bill Nance]

You brought this up once (post #13) and didn't get an immediate rise out of anybody. Sensing that your chances to crap up this thread were rapidly slipping, you went for it again.

Religion bashing threads (like abortion threads) are destined for quick closure. You're not going to change anybody's mind about their religious beliefs (on a gun forum), and they're not going to be able to change yours.

This thread features an interesting article and some good commentary. Rather than continue this 'argument' here and get this thread closed, why don't you start your own thread on the topic. Have some respect for the OP.

If you continue, I'll break it out and give it a catchy title.

You're right, sorry.

 

[jmhorrible]

+1 You're spot on! This was a great article and this guy came a very, very long way in the course of his journalistic assignment. The fact that he didn't come full circle is besides the point. He started at one place, went through all the DC BS to get a gun, did some hard thinking, and ended up in a very different place than when he started.

The fact that he wasn't 'converted' to a hard core, gun-owning, RKBA advocating guy is irrelevant. He - and probably many of his readers - have become part of the soft middle ground that appreciates and respects gun ownership even if they chose not to participate in it themselves. Not everyone wants to be or is going to be a gun owner. What's important is that the people see owning a gun as 'normal'. This article moves that ball forward.

+1 I think it's a great article.

It wasn't written for the gun owning audience. We already know what he has discovered (and more). His article targets the liberal, 20 - 40 year old yuppies who don't often think of guns. If they do, they need a bunch of asides and wishy-washy clauses so as not to scare their hard-core anti-gun friends.

These people will read this and it will get the idea in their heads that, maybe, guns aren't all that bad and that all the hurdles necessary to get one in DC is wrong. Think of the 'slippery slope' affect, but in our favor.

This article won't convert the anti's and is kind of lame for enthusiasts, but it will hit those who are in between or indifferent.

 

[Titan]

The author doesn't mention his political affiliation, but I think I know what it is.

.

 

[RI_John]

These people will read this and it will get the idea in their heads that, maybe, guns aren't all that bad and that all the hurdles necessary to get one in DC is wrong. Think of the 'slippery slope' affect, but in our favor.

I guess I got something different from the article. I tried to read it from an objective point of view, pretending I didn't have a side, and only got my information about guns from this article.

The summary I would take away from it is-

"Guns are really, really dangerous. You are much more likely to kill yourself or your child with one than kill some home invader. If you DO have one in your house, it is scary. My wife was the sensible one and made me take this scary thing out of the house. I guess she's right considering how dangerous they are to have in your home. However, boy, they sure are fun to shoot, but only if you rent them and leave them at the range."

 

[hminsky]

I guess I got something different from the article. I tried to read it from an objective point of view, pretending I didn't have a side, and only got my information about guns from this article.

The summary I would take away from it is-

"Guns are really, really dangerous. You are much more likely to kill yourself or your child with one than kill some home invader. If you DO have one in your house, it is scary. My wife was the sensible one and made me take this scary thing out of the house. I guess she's right considering how dangerous they are to have in your home. However, boy, they sure are fun to shoot, but only if you rent them and leave them at the range."

Yeah unfortunately that is what I got from it also. It flashed through my mind that the guy might actually be seriously worried that if he kept the gun, he'd lose his job or be discriminated against at work though.

 

[Speedway]

The summary I would take away from it is-

"Guns are really, really dangerous. You are much more likely to kill yourself or your child with one than kill some home invader. If you DO have one in your house, it is scary. My wife was the sensible one and made me take this scary thing out of the house. I guess she's right considering how dangerous they are to have in your home. However, boy, they sure are fun to shoot, but only if you rent them and leave them at the range."

I came away with the same feeling. I will say the author was about as open minded with firearms as a liberal could be though......

 

[MaverickNH]

This article is further evidence that we're seeing a certain 'renormalization' of gun ownership [Rob Boudrie's words, not mine] in this country.

Brings to mind a work trip to FL where I was in an OR with a gay surgeon and a staff who were all pro-gun shooters. Discussion went toward ARs and carry pistols, and the fellow (who wasn't flaming, just an "outed" homosexual) said he was shopping a revolver for self-defense. Everyone took on a very respectable attitude to encourage him, completely separated from his role as the "alpha doc" in the room. I hear he bought a revolver from one of the staff, who gave him a range lesson, but that he never really took part in the OR "gun talk" much.

I was very impressed how a group of pro-gun folks could "dumb-down" their RKBA and love for big guns to make him comfortable with just buying a 38 revolver to carry in his briefcase and keep on the bedstand (a childless couple, as you might guess).

I'm no bible scholar, but I recall something about saving the lost sheep as being the primary goal. Ya gotta walk before you can run...

We've got "Fudd", which is a mite derogatory. What's the term for the average Joe/Jane who just keeps a revolver for self-defense? It should be something a tad "nice".

 

[jmhorrible]

I guess I got something different from the article. I tried to read it from an objective point of view, pretending I didn't have a side, and only got my information about guns from this article.

You have to keep going left in your thought process. (slam you head into a wall for a few minutes to prime the brain damage). I'd wager that all the writer's friends thoughts about guns are along these lines:

1. If I even think about a gun, my friends will shun me.
2. My wife is the only sane reasonable one, since I'm a useless,goofy, yuppie. Maybe I'll hold on to the gun to be passive aggressive.
3. If there is a gun in the room, we are all in imminent danger of all dying in a 'boys in the hood' slaughter.
4. If I touch a gun it will spray bullets into the hearts of all the cute toddlers on my block and then it will automatically reload and explode, killing me, my wife, the cleaning lady, and her cute kid who translates for her.


He just proved to all of them that a gun isn't possessed/evil/pure death

 

[Blitz1]

Gee for a place where it is next to impossible for a law abiding citizen to get, never mind carry, a handgun there sure does seem to be a lot of gun violence.

 

[Mark from MA]

Obviously this guy is a yuppie weenie that needs to grow a pair, he and/or his wife will probably be victims of violence soon.

If you look beyond that the article is OK and is probably a good viewpoint of what the libs see guns as, it was an interesting read for me to look at his point of view.

 

[Lynne]

There was one good point about the article - he didn't make it sound like getting a gun was a breeze by any stretch. That should shut a couple libs up anyway.

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

Sadly, I think the significance of this article is lost on many. I sense that a shared interest in firearms is no longer the common denominator for most of the dialog here. Rather it's important that individuals tow the line in a number of areas that go well beyond the common thread of firearms.

This guy did a good thing. Sure he vividly illustrated the tedious and obstructionist process that must be navigated in order to even own a handgun in DC - swell. But, he also put a fairly positive spin on gun ownership. This started out as an assignment and ended up with him having a good time, illustrating that 'normal' people can own guns, and actually considering keeping a gun himself. The fact that he ultimately didn't is irrelevant. When I see a reporter go skydiving for a story, I have no expectation that they're going to pursue the sport in a meaningful way. I'm just happy that they have a good experience and do a good story.

This guy did a good, positive story, and all I see is people jumping on him because he didn't come fully around and rehash the 'injustice' that DC does to would be gun owners. If any NES member ran into this guy in bar a year ago, you'd probalby have nothing to talk about. Run into him tomorrow and once he finds out you're a gun owner that's all he'll want to talk about.

Not everyone is going to want to own a gun anymore than everyone is going to want to take up golf. What's important is that people - i.e. the general population see gun ownership as 'normal'. This story did that and helped to counter the idea that gun ownership is strange and suspicious.

Winning court cases and asserting 2A rights is just dandy, but it cannot be the only avenue from which we make progress. Gay couple are not content with the 'right' to marry, they want general acceptance from and the ability to participate as families in society. And we shouldn't be content with just having our rights recognized. If that's all we have in our corner, gun owners will be marginalized as a fringe group exercising a quaint and outdated provision in the bill of rights.

Owning guns is normal. Be happy when your neighbors think it's normal. Don't expect them to carry the banner, just be content that they don't oppose it.

 

[RI_John]

Sadly, I think the significance of this article is lost on many.
....
What's important is that people - i.e. the general population see gun ownership as 'normal'. This story did that and helped to counter the idea that gun ownership is strange and suspicious.
...
Owning guns is normal. Be happy when your neighbors think it's normal.

I guess the significance of the article IS lost on me, that's for sure. You state multiple times that the important thing that this guy did was show that owning guns is normal and we should be happy that our neighbors think it's normal too.

I would agree, except that's not the impression the article leaves! The article leaves the impression that owning guns is FAR from normal. In fact, the CONCLUSION of his article was:

... I'm convinced that the range is where the gun belongs. Not here at home, where it feels out of place, an intruder that shakes our sense of peace...

So, after all that, he believes that:
a) guns don't belong in the home
b) guns are intruders that shake ones sense of peace

That's not thinking owning a gun is normal to me. That's just more of the same liberal brainwashing that we always hear. I don't care that the guy didn't yell about the injustice of the RKBA in D.C. I don't care that he didn't become a fanatic. I would have been super happy if he had just ended his article with something like:

So I guess I'm a gun owner now. It's just an inexpensive .38, but it's mine. Who would have thought?

 

[2 Bear Arms]

All in all it's a fair article. Obviously it's from the position of a pacifist, a position which I find morally despicable. (Then anyone who calls themselves Christian and ISN'T a pacifist misses Christ's teachings entirely, ...but I digress)
But given the obvious preconception of the writer I think it's a fair piece. It's not the piece I would have written, but then again it's far from the anti-gun raving lunatic articles I've come to expect from the Post.

For me, I count this as yet another very small vicotry for gun rights.

We win the political fight with small steps, not big ones. sure, some will read this article and say "see? I told you so." But a lot more will think: "Hmm, crime infested neighborhood, he had to go thru all those hoops? Maybe these aren't as bad as he thinks."

This is the long fight. We've beeen in it since at least 1968. We've gained more ground since 1994 than we did from 68-94 and it's getting bigger, not smaller. Let's take our victories, even the little ones as they come. Next time hopefully the guy will write something even more positive since he's become aware that gun phobia is HIS issue not the TRUTH.

Luke 22:35-36

 

[ASHDUMP]

Sadly, I think the significance of this article is lost on many. I sense that a shared interest in firearms is no longer the common denominator for most of the dialog here. Rather it's important that individuals tow the line in a number of areas that go well beyond the common thread of firearms.

This guy did a good thing. Sure he vividly illustrated the tedious and obstructionist process that must be navigated in order to even own a handgun in DC - swell. But, he also put a fairly positive spin on gun ownership. This started out as an assignment and ended up with him having a good time, illustrating that 'normal' people can own guns, and actually considering keeping a gun himself. The fact that he ultimately didn't is irrelevant. When I see a reporter go skydiving for a story, I have no expectation that they're going to pursue the sport in a meaningful way. I'm just happy that they have a good experience and do a good story.

This guy did a good, positive story, and all I see is people jumping on him because he didn't come fully around and rehash the 'injustice' that DC does to would be gun owners. If any NES member ran into this guy in bar a year ago, you'd probalby have nothing to talk about. Run into him tomorrow and once he finds out you're a gun owner that's all he'll want to talk about.

Not everyone is going to want to own a gun anymore than everyone is going to want to take up golf. What's important is that people - i.e. the general population see gun ownership as 'normal'. This story did that and helped to counter the idea that gun ownership is strange and suspicious.

Winning court cases and asserting 2A rights is just dandy, but it cannot be the only avenue from which we make progress. Gay couple are not content with the 'right' to marry, they want general acceptance from and the ability to participate as families in society. And we shouldn't be content with just having our rights recognized. If that's all we have in our corner, gun owners will be marginalized as a fringe group exercising a quaint and outdated provision in the bill of rights.

Owning guns is normal. Be happy when your neighbors think it's normal. Don't expect them to carry the banner, just be content that they don't oppose it.

I agree. After reading the article and watching the video I felt as though someone who put a stereotype on gun holders has now come full circle and understands were all not crazy. He might not feel comfortable in his own home with a firearm, but at least he enjoys shooting at the range and understands how we all feel.

America has been conditioned so much lately that guns are bad that seeing people accept that they can be fun is a step in the right direction. Especially this guy...

 

[PaulD]

Sadly, I think the significance of this article is lost on many. I sense that a shared interest in firearms is no longer the common denominator for most of the dialog here. Rather it's important that individuals tow the line in a number of areas that go well beyond the common thread of firearms.

This guy did a good thing. Sure he vividly illustrated the tedious and obstructionist process that must be navigated in order to even own a handgun in DC - swell. But, he also put a fairly positive spin on gun ownership. This started out as an assignment and ended up with him having a good time, illustrating that 'normal' people can own guns, and actually considering keeping a gun himself. The fact that he ultimately didn't is irrelevant. When I see a reporter go skydiving for a story, I have no expectation that they're going to pursue the sport in a meaningful way. I'm just happy that they have a good experience and do a good story.

This guy did a good, positive story, and all I see is people jumping on him because he didn't come fully around and rehash the 'injustice' that DC does to would be gun owners. If any NES member ran into this guy in bar a year ago, you'd probalby have nothing to talk about. Run into him tomorrow and once he finds out you're a gun owner that's all he'll want to talk about.

Not everyone is going to want to own a gun anymore than everyone is going to want to take up golf. What's important is that people - i.e. the general population see gun ownership as 'normal'. This story did that and helped to counter the idea that gun ownership is strange and suspicious.

Winning court cases and asserting 2A rights is just dandy, but it cannot be the only avenue from which we make progress. Gay couple are not content with the 'right' to marry, they want general acceptance from and the ability to participate as families in society. And we shouldn't be content with just having our rights recognized. If that's all we have in our corner, gun owners will be marginalized as a fringe group exercising a quaint and outdated provision in the bill of rights.

Owning guns is normal. Be happy when your neighbors think it's normal. Don't expect them to carry the banner, just be content that they don't oppose it.

Also, it needs to be emphasized that this was published in the Washington Post. No, I don't think they are changing their ways but the audience it reaches is significant. If we want liberals to come around to our way of thinking, articles like this will go a lot further than the usual "liberals are stupid" message.

 

[cekim]

articles like this will go a lot further than the usual "liberals are stupid" message.

Very true - they won't listen to us, reason, logic, history, etc... but they will follow the tail in front of them if it turns...

 

[Titan]

I guess the significance of the article IS lost on me, that's for sure. You state multiple times that the important thing that this guy did was show that owning guns is normal and we should be happy that our neighbors think it's normal too.

I would agree, except that's not the impression the article leaves! The article leaves the impression that owning guns is FAR from normal. In fact, the CONCLUSION of his article was:



So, after all that, he believes that:
a) guns don't belong in the home
b) guns are intruders that shake ones sense of peace

That's not thinking owning a gun is normal to me. That's just more of the same liberal brainwashing that we always hear. I don't care that the guy didn't yell about the injustice of the RKBA in D.C. I don't care that he didn't become a fanatic. I would have been super happy if he had just ended his article with something like:

I couldn't agree more.

Though I do knock the guy for not emphasizing the injustice in D.C., and for yielding to a wife who essentially says..."over my dead body".

It's just classic liberal crap. Guns are fun, and at least at some level, he had to get drawn in, if only by the excitement.

I certainly didn't come away from the article believing the guy had 'evolved'!

Journalism on topics like this, used to be about thoughtfully exploring both sides of an issue...not just preaching your 'sensibilities' and deluded ideology.
.

.

 

[WILDCATT]

gun owner ship

none of you are old enuf to have lived before WW2.all kinds of people had guns for self defence.BUT THEY BOUGHT A GUN PUT IT IN A DRAWER LOADED "IN CASE"AND NEVER LOOKED AT IT AGAIN.there were very few reloading tools,and one would buy a box of shells and load the gun and that was it.a box of shells would last a hunter 3/4 yrs.very few collected guns and to buy like is done now was unheard of.
I have had loaded guns you could not remove the shells they were so corroded.the gun culture only took off since the 70s.I have been collecting
since 1937.and Mass was not bad till 1968.when liberilism took hold.like on poster said small bits at a time and we will win.the one doing the fighting for us are the NRA and SAF.