« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Gun Control is OUR Responsibility. It is also MY Responsiblity. E Pluribus Unum.

As promised, this is what I’ve already written.

[As a preface, I would also like to say to Charles Schumer: yes it is true that I criticize the National Rifle Association and its leaders, particularly when I think they've made statements or comported themselves in a way that I found embarrassing. That doesn't mean I don't support them otherwise, though. We're often toughest on the people we care about the most, as they say in France. Also, I decided to reverse the order of the title of this post, but that's just because I see it both ways.]

Gun control imposed by legislators is a horrible thing and we already know that. It’s like anything else imposed on us by committee and by the government: it’s painful, it’s usually ineffective in terms of its stated motives, it has a large number of unintended consequences, and it tends not just to reduce our freedom but to create a sense of greater dependency on the government as the only people who can “take charge” of a situation and set things right.

We have a lot of things to talk about in the aftermath of Newtown, but one of the most important things we can do, and should do, is to redouble our efforts to make sure our own people are “doing it right.”

Make *sure* your guns are secured and accessible by only the people who need access to them. We need to enforce among ourselves a higher level of attention when it comes to keeping those weapons stored in a safe condition. We need to shift what really amounts to a bit more attention to the security side of keeping and owning the weapons, and only we can do it: at gun shows, at dealerships, at every place someone buys a gun – including in private sales. And in the home.

In the home is important, because we’re not just talking about putting armed police officers in schools, we’re talking about also allowing people to continue to have the guns they already do – in their homes. And that’s where the guns used in the Newtown shooting were stolen from – by a member of the household. We need to think very carefully about it.

This has to become a topic of conversation and self-enforced etiquette among gun owners. It has to become as much a part of the culture as admiring the latest firearm that is beautifully made, or talking about collectors’ pieces, or taking your gun out to the field. We have to reinforce that message. Safety is a tip-to-tail phenomenon. Eddie Eagle is great, and he works with children. What we need also is a redoubling of the effort to help guarantee that the parents are as committed to gun safety as their children, and that all of us really understand that message.

We’ll sell more gun safes, and that’s a positive thing. We’ll be training more people about how to keep guns where they need them but also with less risk they can be purloined and misused and abused. Nobody who owns a gun ever wants to confront the horror of having their weapons used in the way they were in Newtown, CT, and that’s a thing we all need to make imperative. I’m *positive* Nancy Lanza would have done everything she could to stop her son, had she been able to. She didn’t want to die. She certainly didn’t want the children at Sandy Hook Elementary School to die. Adam Lanza’s father didn’t want them to die. I’m sure none of them wanted anything associated with what has occurred. However, she might have not done enough prevention and preparation given the realitites of who she was living with. It seems pretty evident that she didn’t.

If we don’t take those steps ourselves, they are going to be forced upon us – in much more draconian form – and it will be a great deal more painful and distasteful and insulting and destructive.

Anyone who goes to a shooting range knows the rules – or you don’t stay long. Most people who shoot in their own back yards know the rules. They’re enforced while you’re on the firing line, in your booth, in competition. And among friends and fellow gun owners and among instructors, people need to make safety a more important part of the conversation. People do the same when they take their rifles out to shoot for sport or in competition. There is more to be done and we can take positive steps to make it a part of the culture – to keep the weapons secured more carefully and more thoughtfully.

The range culture **is** a safety culture. I know, because I spent three years in high school shooting rifles in competition – doing my homework between relays, talking with my friends, having fun, watching TV, and at the same time doing everything we needed to do to make sure we were safe in what we were doing. We shot at ranges throughout the Garden State including ranges at colleges, and places just a few blocks from school buildings, in bucolic towns not very different than Newtown, and in towns that were a little rougher, too. Literally two dozen kids with competition rifles and hundreds of rounds of ammunition per week. And not a single serious injury among our young men and women – or anyone else. In fact we helped the local economy by buying late lunches and dinners.

Why? It wasn’t an accident.

We were a group of high school kids, yeah. But we had also created and maintained a culture among ourselves – one that valued an acute sense of responsibility for each other’s – and everyone else’s – safety. Well, in a nation that has more gun owners than ever, we need to make sure that culture of safety is instilled everywhere someone owns a gun. I know that it can be done, because the enjoyment of what you’re doing all begins and ends with the desire to keep yourself and your loved ones safe, to keep your friends safe, and to wake up tomorrow and go back to school, to work, to your leisure pursuits, to your hobbies, and to anything else you want to do. You have to be safe in order to get there from here. To see your children again, to live your life in freedom, and to know that you’re respecting the machines you have the right to own and enjoy owning.

All of that depends on how seriously and with how much respect we treat safety.

If you’re going to have the weapons, and you want to have the weapons relatively unimpeded, and it is your right to have the weapons, it is UP TO YOU to do a bit more to make sure you secure them. That means YOU to people who are not just selling guns but also to those who own them.

That is the overarching principle, and we need to redouble our efforts. We have to do it in complement with our other efforts, and we have to come through on it. If we can’t get the random mass shooting trendline moving in the other direction, everyone who believes in the 2nd Amendment in this country as the individual right to own firearms of all different types and capacities is looking at a losing proposition.

We have to take the steps to help create the conditions where fewer of these kinds of crimes can be committed, in addition to the steps we already have. Responsible gun owners need to step up, here, and make it into a priority. This is a cultural moment for the “gun culture.” We have to stand and deliver.

Think about it carefully and make it your primary thought for the next month: what do I have to do to make sure I can use my guns if I need them, but they’re also better secured than they are now? From theft, from “mentally unstable” people, and from people who shouldn’t have access to them. Beacuse they are MY responsibility.

If we cannot do that, the Government is going to increase the level of ITS responsibility and everyone’s individual freedom is going to decline in lockstep.

If you want to bring the rate of “Adam Lanza” type crimes down, you can’t just try to stop people like Adam Lanza – once they have the guns. You also have to do everything you can to prevent them from having easy access to the weapons, and we can all do that in a way that doesn’t detract from our ability to use them when we need to, or just want to.

We have to be smarter about it. It is OUR responsibility. The answer to irresponsibility and chaos is more responsibility. But WE have to take that responsibility and lead, and show the way.

We have an epiphenomenon going on right now between gun ownership, the ability of people to defend themselves, freedom in general, and random mass shootings, which are in an inverse relationship to overall gun crime. It’s a problem that is mixed up with our culture and many other factors. Desensitization to violence might contribute; more mentally ill people on the street and not in care probably does contribute; video games and ultraviolent graphic movies sure don’t help much, but it’s hard to say if they contribute, and who they contribute to. Not having fathers around is probably not a good idea. But that’s the culture we’re living in.

Despite that, we have to be sure that we’re taking responsibility for our factors – the things we can control – in the nonlinear differential equation nauseous rollercoaster ride here, by demonstrating our commitment to safety – not just in words but in action.

As I’ve said, I don’t know whether Nancy Lanza had a gun safe in her house. Does anyone know?

I know where I’m buying my next one, and I know that I am going to take more careful stewardship of the guns I have than I already do. Each of us who owns guns can probably think of several things they can do right now.

Complacency is not going to suffice. Betting on political winds blowing one way or the other is not a strategy. All of us need to have an idea of what we will each do better.

We don’t have a Bill of Needs and thank God we don’t. However, there are occasionally some times when we need to take some steps to help sustain and strengthen the Rights we have. Right now is one of those times.

No affiliation – they just make good gun safes.

Get Alerts

COMMENTS

  • Viet71

    Agree.

    One thing’s clear: Adam Lanza had access to Nancy’s guns. I’m sure she knew he had access; he was, after all, a very intelligent person. She also knew toward the end, according to at least one report, that he needed to be committed to a psychiatric institution.

    Nancy Lanza didn’t need a gun safe. She needed to get her guns out of her house.

    Moms and dads who own guns and who have troubled children need to do this.

  • westcoastpatriette

    Did you see this piece, kowalski?: http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2012/12/24/Lohud-New-York-gun-permits The audacity of the Journal News in upstate New York printing the names and addresses of gun permit holders in a couple of counties to try to intimidate them. I guess — taking advantage of the Newtown tragedy, the left is ready to play real hard ball to move the ball toward more gun control. I would be furious if I were one of these permit holders in New York.

    • kowalski

      Yes I did see it and I’m not sure whether it’s illegal. Certainly it’s an Alinsky tactic it’s also absolutely an intimidation tactic, in my view it is also hoping to create a reaction, and my advice to all those people is to really think about the governance of the state they live in.

      The newspaper is being “responsibly irresponsible” in their view, for the purposes of intimidation and I expect that to continue to a greater or lesser degree in the Northeast. I’ve already put myself at risk by telling people what I’ve told them, but I’ve done it in the interest of hopefully helping people. It’s reprehensible what happened there.

      It actually began with the New York Times saying that anyone at a school district who wanted to have a gun at a school should be fired.

      “We cannot imagine trying to turn the principals and teachers who care
      for our children every day into an armed mob. And let’s be clear,
      civilians bristling with guns to prevent the “next Newtown” are an armed
      mob even with training offered up by Mr. LaPierre. Any town officials
      or school principals who take up the N.R.A. on that offer should be
      fired.”

      Never mind that none of that is true, and they sound like a bunch of fascists.

      I advise everyone to pursue legal means and keep their powder dry. It’s infuriating and it places you in danger, but take it one step at a time and make sure it never happens again. New York is turning itself into a nightmare zone faster than anyone anticipated.

      • westcoastpatriette

        The left are just tyrannical fanatics. They would rather everyone be stripped of their ability to defend themselves and paint all responsible gun owners as madmen. Their overreach and ridiculous verbiage will back fire when people hear how extreme their rhetoric is. Let ‘em hang themselves.

        • kowalski

          You’re wrong: they’d rather paint *any* responsible gun owners as madmen. Make sure you keep the facts straight. ;)

          After all this time, you’re more angry than I am. The funny thing is that it is all pretty predictable to me. The anger over it took place so long ago that I’ve just transcended anger; I’ve realized that it doesn’t help. The leftists have been screaming for vengeance since DC versus Heller. This country reelected this President. Bill Clinton made fun of him for not going after the gun lobby. All the liberals and leftists have been seething and boiling and roiling and fulminating for years now. Before he was even inaugurated I knew what the first priority was going to be. It’s not the budget. It’s not spending or taxes…it’s not foreign policy or domestic policy or even energy policy. We knew what the first thing on the plate was going to be and right now it’s not just the plate, it’s the whole Breakfast and most of Brunch.

          Keep your powder dry, join the NRA, and fight with us.

          • westcoastpatriette

            This is why we lose as many elections as we do, though. Generally speaking, conservatives are respectful of differing opinions and rarely feel the need to corral everyone who disagrees with us and force them to conform “or else!” We are just too laid back in that regard and don’t really fight until we are backed into a corner. Exposing the names and addresses of permit holders is definitely backing us into a corner. Time to push back big time.

          • kowalski

            There was also a big boost for this kind of intimidation tactic called for by Slate Magazine and it has expanded to the New York Times and this new adventure by the Journal News. It’s supposed to be the combination of an intimidation tactic and to cause social distress. It’s intended to alienate them and make them suffer – embarrassment and possibly a lot worse.

            The culture wars have been escalated and I hope it doesn’t become a real shooting war. Jeopardizing people’s safety and privacy like this is really getting close to the kind of thing that causes people, to paraphrase Woody Allen, you know, to really fight, to really go down there and show ‘em. Whoever did this is really trying to reap the whirlwind.

            Let’s hope not. I happen to think 99% of the people in question are a lot more level-headed than that, even after they’ve been hurt this way.

    • kowalski

      There are people who have said that what should be done in response is to publish the private records of everyone who works for that newspaper, but I do not believe in that. In fact I think that’s what they want. They’re trying to generate a reaction.

      I don’t believe two wrongs make a right. Doing what they’ve done is clearly immoral and it might be illegal and if it’s not illegal it should be, but retribution isn’t the appropriate response.

      • westcoastpatriette

        Somebody’s attorney needs to get on this. It would seem to me to violate federal privacy laws re: federal records which are supposed to remain confidential.

        • kowalski

          I’m sure a lot of the people in question are pretty upset and are pursuing legal remedies. Governor Cuomo should really weigh in on this kind of thing, too. It’s really bad form, even for newspapers in New York State.

        • Dave_A

          They get the names from the states of NJ and NY, not from the federal 4473s… NJ & NY apparently consider those records publicly accessible info…

          • westcoastpatriette

            I was thinking maybe the state and federal laws overlap in such a way that there would be a privacy violation. You know, the supremacy clause, and all.

          • Dave_A

            That is one area where they don’t.
            There is very, very little federal privacy legislation outside of the financial/insurance and medical industries.

            So it becomes a state-by-state thing. Plus there’s the whole freedom-of-the-press thing…

            Publishing lists of CCW holders in newly-CCW states was a very common tactic of left-wing papers, as we advanced that law forward… Each time a state would pass CCW & fail to enclude privacy protections, the local big-city paper would use freedom-of-information requests to get the list of permit-holders and print it at the end of the first year….

          • westcoastpatriette

            That’s interesting. I didn’t know that. Just what are they trying to accomplish by letting the public know who has permits? Giving crooks a heads-up?

          • Dave_A

            The papers generally took the attitude that ‘If we let everyone know we’re going to publish the names of everyone with a permit, less people will get them’, or ‘CCW people are dangerous like child molesters, so we need to let everyone know if a ‘gun nut’ lives on their block’…

            It did not work too well (since what the editors & other ivory-tower academics don’t get, is that shooters aren’t embarrassed of the fact that they own guns, and if you know a gun-person they have probably told you long before their name showed up in the paper), and most papers quit doing it after a year or two with no repeal of the CCW law in question (especially now that they are law in 49 states, and IL has been given a few months to write one by the court of appeals)….

          • westcoastpatriette

            Well, thanks for filling me in on the history of 2nd Amendment battles. I am better informed now. The left never ceases to amaze me, that’s for sure. Master manipulators and control freaks. Creepy. It shows the stark differences between us and them and like you said, gun owners are proud of the fact so it’s almost comical that the papers would think they could shame or intimidate them. Hahaha.

          • kowalski

            On December 22, the New York Times published its op-ed about the “Scourge of Concealed Weapons.” The article mainly serves to rail against “shall issue” concealed carry permit laws.

            http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/23/opinion/sunday/the-scourge-of-concealed-weapons.html

            Two days later, the names and addresses of everyone with a pistol permit in Westchester and Rockland counties was published by the Journal News. The New York Times has decided what is “rational” and what is not, and now the Journal News has decided which people deserve to have their homes and property placed at risk because they have lawfully acquired permits to own pistols.

            People should note that pistol permits in Westchester County, NY are issued by a judge – not willy nilly by some functionary who rubber-stamps an application in the basement of a building somewhere. Also, the basic pistol permit does NOT allow concealed carry in New York State – anywhere. That takes a separate level of permitting demonstrating need. Carry permits in New York State are already “May Issue.”

            Here’s the page for Westchester County:

            http://www.westchesterclerk.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=55&Itemid=47

            “In Westchester County, our County judges determine whether a pistol
            permit will be issued. The Westchester County Department of Public
            Safety Pistol License Unit conducts the investigation necessary to
            assist the court in determining whether a pistol permit should be
            issued. The Office of the Westchester County Clerk supports both the
            court and the Department of Public Safety by providing pistol permit
            applications and maintaining records of issued pistol permits.”

  • eltuba

    I can’t agree more. In my family we had an in house gun theft caused by a combination of drug abuse and unsecured guns. It was a long time ago and no one talks about it, but we all know that those guns didn’t end up in the hands of local hunters. My brother in law and I were just talking about what kind of safe to get now that his grandsons are in the looking for trouble stage. I’ll pass along the link.

    • kowalski

      You should talk about it, and I hope you do. One of my points here is that we have to start taking more proactive approaches to securing firearms – whatever variety they are – and that requires a lot of candor and some planning, and creating a culture of safety in addition to a culture of preparedness.

      Most gun safes will do an OK job under most circumstances, but up against someone really determined….not so much. Some of them are not worth the price you’ll pay to ship them.

      The company I link to makes vaults – police department quality vaults – that are a little more expensive than the ones you commonly see at retail, particularly for their size. You’ll notice that they’re not very “flashy” (although you can dress them up, they give plenty of options in addition to the gray enamel finish). That’s because gun vaults don’t necessarily need to be pretty and integrate pleasantly with the décor – the most important thing is that they are strong.

      I think Sturdy Safe’s vaults are made to higher standards. I have no affiliation with them, and there are some other companies who make them to similar standards, but I picked them. As always, do your own research. Full seam hot welding, fully recessed and pry-resistant doors that don’t flex easily, unibody construction, intermal mechanisms that are difficult to subvert, thicker steel, options for even more/stainless steel, you can read all about it at their website.

      People need to think of them as an investment, particularly when they decide to go on vacation – and now that newspapers like the Journal News are doing what they’ve done. You’ll spend a few thousand dollars on the guns, the ammunition, the permitting and courses you take, etc., etc. and you should be prepared to spend a non-negligible amount of money securing them.

      I read the other day that Nancy Lanza’s guns were secured in a “lockbox” but I haven’t written that until now – because who knows what a “lockbox” is? Here’s the article at the Washington Post, which was the first (and to my knowledge only) reference in the news to how Nancy Lanza’s guns were stored:

      “One of those rooms was in the basement, not far from the lockbox where Nancy kept her firearms — at least five of them, all purchased legally, all obtained after her divorce.”

      http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/a-frustrating-search-for-motive-in-the-madness/2012/12/22/1cbe1cbc-4956-11e2-820e-17eefac2f939_story_4.html