Be A Better Man In 30 Days | Day 26: Know Your Firearms (and How to Use Them)
(13)
Disclaimer: GP is well aware that the subject of firearms and their use can be sensitive or controversial for some. It’s important to note that articles, like this, are opinions and experiences of our crew members and reader submissions. Whether your personal beliefs reside in one camp or another, we’re firm supporters of being educated in anything. After all, what value is an opinion without it being an informed one.
I learned to shoot firearms shortly after I learned to walk, and they’ve been a part of my life ever since. I’ve built them, fixed them, and shot a large variety of them ranging from small caliber pistols to military grade, fully-automatic assault weapons. Continuing with Gear Patrol’s series of being a better man, I offer some thoughts on upgrading and improving your firearms, gear, and skills.
We recognize that firearms are not for everyone. Then again, not all of the upgrades in this series will resonate with everyone. That being said, if it is something you’re into, then hit the jump for the goods.
Get Trained
No matter what your level of firearms experience consists of, there is always room for additional training. Safety first, bar none. If you keep firearms with the intention of self or home defense, then tactical training is a must. If someone breaks into your house in the middle of the night, they won’t be standing still like the paper targets at the range. Good tactical training will teach you how to shoot while moving and how to use proper cover and concealment.
Some of the higher-end facilities will often incorporate a “kill house,” which is a mock-up of a home where you can learn how to assess and clear a room of threats. Many will see this training as (pardon the pun) overkill, but having the correct training and tools might just save your life and protect your family.
Upgrade Your Gear
The old adage “you get what you pay for” rings true for firearms. If you spend a good amount of money on a nice handgun, there’s really no point in housing your weapon in a cheaply-made, knock-off holster. Do some research and find the holster that meets your needs and fits your specific gun. I highly recommend SafariLand, maker of products used by both Police Departments and private contractors. Alternately, if you prefer rifles, look into a good sling; one can greatly aid your hunting exploits.
Reloading
Ammunition is becoming harder to find and more expensive to purchase, so now is a good time to learn how to reload your own brass. Reloading will provide more “bang for your buck” (pun intended), and offers an opportunity to make custom loads to meet your specific needs. Reloading will present an initial expense, but in the long run, there’s a good amount of money to be saved.
Conclusion
Owning a firearm is your right as an American. Our founding fathers thought it was so important that it was written into our Bill of Rights. If you choose to exercise that right, it is of ultimate importance that you do so responsibly and the right info on your side.
Let’s continue the conversation. If you’ve got something to add (or detract), drop it into the comments below.
Nice write up Dan.
The only thing I would add; is that in addition to safety (always first and foremost) and tactical training, all firearms owners should be familiar with all relevant legislation at Federal, State, and local levels.
Ask my friend who lives in CT and tried to fly out of JFK with a firearm. He is lucky that his unfamiliarity with NYC firearm legislation only cost several thousand dollars and a criminal conviction, and not also his freedom.
If you ever even consider that the firearm could be used to protect your life or that of someone else, spend some money and take Massad Ayoob's Level I LFI course.
I'm glad Gear Patrol is covering this topic. All too many men's magazines and blogs shoot down (pun intended) any mention of carrying a firearm as being wholly ungentlemanly. I would love to see more articles written on the topic of carrying concealed as it relates to our fashion choices.
Great job and thanks again.
Great article! I can't think of too many "GEAR" topics and NOT have thoughts of firearms and related equipment come to mind. I totally agree on spending good money on a good safety course, especially one that involves the concept of using the firearm in self-defense. (A basic safety course will NOT teach self defense skills, but a GOOD self-defense firearms course WILL teach firearms safety) (My personal faves are Gunsite Academy, and Yavapai)
Two big thumbs up on buying a QUALITY holster AND using it on the range when possible. One of the greatest "martial art forms" is the safe and effective drawing of a loaded pistol and on target, ready to fight. The best use minimal movement, sans the head rolling and other acrobatics seen in the movies or sometimes at the range.
Just an added 2+2 cents is that if you do wisely spend money on a good holster, please do yourself a favor and buy a belt meant to support a loaded pistol. My personal faves are my The Beltman and Milt Sparks Holsters. I go with SHARKSKIN, for durability like /good looks as a bonus. I love it that responsible individuals go through the hoops to be legally armed. It is then our next responsibility to keep that weapon truly concealed, and as gear heads, to try and remain fashionable as well! (As in NOOOOOO giant fanny bags with the gun in it) Cmon now, I think even grandma has that carry mode figured out! Be safe fellow samaritan protectors of polite society!
DVC
Rick
Nice photos, Finklestein.
One more note I would add, on reloading your ammo. If you may EVER use your gun in self defense do not use reloads. Only use the reloaded ammo for practice. Massad Ayoob did an article a few years ago in American Handgunner, I think it was that one. Since he is often called upon as an expert witness for the defense I think he would be very credible. He stated that it is much easier to beat the blood thirsty stereotypes gun owners get when you carry what the local police carry. Brand, type, etc.
Great article & photos!
A real man doesn't need a gun.
This was a decent feature until now.
Contrary to your personal opinion, what determines a real man had nothing to do with "needing" or appreciating any type of tool or weapon.
I can appreciate and respect that you do not like or approve of firearms. Can you appreciate and respect that many other people do not hold the same opinion?
Roan,
Excellent response to LSC. You echoed the same sentiments that I was going to say. No one is saying liking/owning/using guns makes you a real man. Gun ownership is a right we have in this country, as such it's something you can partake in if you so choose. Judging someone either because they do or do not exercise that right is unfortunate and clearly close minded. There are many law abiding citizens who own firearms who are not "gun nuts" just as there are many people who like alcoholic beverages who aren't drunks.
-Jon
I own firearms. May you be dismayed to learn that I think no less of your masculinity for doing otherwise. I live in one of the most violent cities in America. I have loved ones who depend upon me for their safety. I owe them both my preparedness and my vigilance. Pardon me if these values betray any lack of manly conviction.
Awkward judgments intending to codify the qualities of so-called "real" men are pretentious to begin with. Indulge me, buddy, and rephrase your glib remark as something more palatable to a logical mind.
The entire premise of the series is that these tips make you "a better man" so yes I do think it is completely relevant to suggest that knowing how to use a gun is not something a "better man" needs to know.
Survival skills are important, but guns simply beget unnecessary violence and a real man only uses force in self-defense.
Of course now you are all going to tell me how you live in the 'hood and need to protect yourself. Sure, whatever, I'm sure the M-60 you own is just for hunting and self defense right?
Knowledge, of almost any kind, will make you a better man. Depending of course how you choose to apply said knowledge.
Your initial comment presented your opinion that "real men do not need firearms"; now you appear to believe that "a real man only uses force in self-defense."
Which is it friend? Is a man that uses a firearm to defend the life of his family not a real man in your opinion? If not, then you have just contradicted your initial comment. If so, I would love to hear your explanation how defending your family emasculates you?
If your claim that "guns simply beget unnecessary violence" has any basis in reality, then there must have been no unnecessary violence before the advent of firearms. Since we know that not to be the case, it can safely be concluded that your claim is false.
In the spirit of my initial comment regarding respect; no one is asking that you enjoy or even approve of the article. All I would ask is that you afford those of us who do own and appreciate firearms that same respect and understanding that we afford you and those like you who do not like firearms.
One of the great things about GearPatrol is the variety of topics they cover. There are articles that I have zero interest in and even occasionally disagree with vehemently. I however respect that there are other men who do not share my opinion, and as such I am content to simply ignore them and move on to the articles that I can relate to in a positive manner.
LSC,
First thanks for commenting and reading. I see what you're getting at with the premise of our Upgrade series being about making you "a better man". I can tell you that this post was not posted without some thought to how polarizing an issue it is to people. In spite of that we make an effort to encompass and address a myriad of guys interests, realizing that not all will apply to everyone.
Survival skills are certainly important, but I think you'd be hard pressed to find a survival expert to say that guns are not a welcome addition to any survival situation. In saying that though they'd probably prefer a hunting rifle before an M4 carbine. I am also totally in agreement with you that a real man only uses force in self defense, actually I don't think Dan or any of the other commenters suggested otherwise. Enjoying or knowing how to use firearms doesn't mean you live your life waiting for the second OK Corral.
Personally I own a few firearms and I live a long shot (pun intended) from "the hood". Though they could be used for self defense I have them for target shooting which I enjoy as a hobby, no different that someone who likes to go to the drag strip on the weekend.
Regarding that M-60 I doubt anyone here owns one for anything other than a collectors item and weekend toy. To possess that you'd need a Class III Federal Firearms License, costing $200.00 a year, and an ititial 9 months worth of background checks by the FBI to get…
Cheers,
Jon
That was my initial point, perhaps my wording was overly aggressive. (ironic I suppose)
The premise of the series is that these tips make you a "better man" so by that token it is assumed that those who do not care to associate with firearms are somehow "less of a man". It is that premise that I found difficult to accept.
I should also state (perhaps at my own peril) that I am not American, and therefore don't subscribe to the idea that guns are somehow a God-given right (personally I think the Second Amendment is grossly misinterpreted and outdated for 2009 but that is your fight not mine).
So to clarify, I am not intending to suggest that a "real man" doesn't use guns, I'm sure most of you are responsible, law-abiding gun owners, but rather that using guns doesn't make one any better of a man than choosing not to (which is what your article implies).
Cheers.
Perhaps a "real man" might not "need" a gun….but many good people CHOOSE to learn firearms safety, legal lssues of defense, and take courses to effectively use firearms to prevent harm or loss of life. I carry a gun every day, and you'd never know it. Not only am I no harm to you, but I commit to risk my own safety to protect you - or any other decent/ innocent person should the critical need arise. Now I COULD jump to your aid with my bare hands, or by swinging a loaf of bread. I choose to quietly and lawfully carry a firearm instead. So you see, it is the mindset and will to "do something" that makes the difference. Firearms are in our world, like it or not. You would do much to empower yourself to at least know how to handle one safely - even if all you want to do is unload it.
Real man?
Ooops, there it is. But a real man better know how to use one. I saw my fair share of those comments right up until the LA riots and the Northridge Earthquake. Get real, at some point life gets real. Good news you haven't had to know yet.
As explained by the great Jeff Cooper, "One is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully."
Visiting to see Jason's article on my gear, I was very pleased to see this article as well! Great job Dan, let's see some more articles!
Be Safe, Grill Tactical.
-Nick
TacticalGrilling.com
wow guys, thanks so much for checking out the article and for leaving comments. it encourages me to see fellow firearms owners who are proud of their rights as Americans and love good gear!
Whether you own a dozen firearms loaded and ready to go for home defense or you think all firearms should be outlawed, I think basic safety is something everyone should take the opportunity to learn.
Know what a safety is, how it works, and how to tell if it's on or off. Learn how to check if most weapons are loaded, and how to unload them. Most importantly, how to simply hold and carry a weapon without being a danger to yourself or others.
Even if you never plan to own a gun of your own, you never know what you might find in Grandpa's attic after he passes away.
Particularly if your Grandpa is Walt Kowalski.
True dat. Someone's gotta protect the tool shed.
Chris,
I completely agree with you. Knowing how to safely handle and unload a gun is a great skill to have. Educating kids is probably even more important, as the tragedies that occur every year with them are horrible.
-Jon
this is the worst post i have seen on gear patrol. thumbs down. knowing and learning how to use firearms does not make you a better man. period.
I think the important aspect of this series is learning about areas of life you were less aware of before. I don't plan on cutting down a tree or playing high stakes poker, but I'm glad I know how should I need to. Just as I don't own a gun but I think it's important to know how to properly operate one should the situation arise.
The best part about it is not everyone will agree that all of our ideas are right for them. And that's great. People should be free to pick and choose what they think is right to make them a better man. And at the end of the day being your own man is what counts.
Lack of knowledge makes you less of a human period. It has nothing to do with what type of knowledge although it is pertinent as to how you apply knowledge you acquire. Any individual who feels that they must not learn has failed to progress themselves and ultimately has failed to progress society. If you learn about physics, writing, running, driving, higher mathematics, using a screw driver or a wrench you are developing yourself as a person. Learning and understanding firearms, their uses, mechanics, capabilities, etc… is just learning to use one more tool that humans have developed. If you determine that knowing and being capable of using a tool is something that does not make you a better man, then you most likely should stop using spoons, forks, chopsticks, knives, screw drivers, wrenches and all inclusively every other tool that has ever been developed by man.
By that measure, not a single one of the articles in the set is pertinent. Do you disagree with all of the articles?
By the measure you have brought forth, one can only be a better man in deed, action and mind (this is most likely true, however the articles are not meant to be evaluated in this manner). Basically, either you should be having this same argument on every single one of the articles, or you are projecting a personal distaste for an inanimate object into your posts for this one article.
I must say that I'm encouraged by the banter that this topic is generating. My personal hope is that we at Gear Patrol can continue to approach topics that call for solid discussion amongst community members. Frankly, I love to hear other men's ideas and see what they are passionate about.
In pursuit of this goal, however, I would hope that comments would be well-considered and open-minded. I'm glad to see that most on this thread are. Anonymous comments or those that flame others' perspectives without offering a substantial, alternate perspective will not be banned here; rather, they simply won't receive much respect or credence from your fellow man (see the lower-left corner of this page).
For instance, I have a pretty strong conviction about this topic. Which way that conviction leans is not nearly as important to espouse as it is to provide an open forum for discussion and communal betterment. I've really enjoyed reading this Upgrade series much as Roan describes; not because each article has aligned perfectly with my opinions or values, but because, as men, we're all striving for personal improvement. Come GP to learn and to share your knowledge with others; if you're not about doing that, you'll find plenty of message boards to sate your need to be right. Remember, the interwebs are full of crazy.
I must say that I'm encouraged by the banter that this topic is generating. My personal hope is that we at Gear Patrol can continue to approach topics that call for solid discussion amongst community members. Frankly, I love to hear other men's ideas and see what they are passionate about.
In pursuit of this goal, however, I would hope that comments would be well-considered and open-minded. I'm glad to see that most on this thread are. Anonymous comments or those that flame others' perspectives without offering a substantial, alternate perspective will not be banned here; rather, they simply won't receive much respect or credence from your fellow man (see the lower-left corner of this page).
For instance, I have a pretty strong conviction about this topic. Which way that conviction leans is not nearly as important to espouse as it is to provide an open forum for discussion and communal betterment. I've really enjoyed reading this Upgrade series much as Roan describes; not because each article has aligned perfectly with my opinions or values, but because, as men, we're all striving for personal improvement. Come to GP to learn and to share your knowledge with others; if you're not about doing that, you'll find plenty of message boards to sate your need to be right. Remember, the interwebs are full of crazy.
re: this is the worst post i have seen on gear patrol. thumbs down. knowing and learning how to use firearms does not make you a better man. period.
Any increase in knowledge makes you a better person. Knowing more allows you to handle more situations on your own. How this knowledge is used is what makes you good or bad. I do not understand how knowing about firearms along with its proper use could be a detriment unless you are already a bad person and plan to use this knowledge for illicit purposes.
I like this article and agree with the idea that, "anything worth doing is worth doing well". However, as has been said, this is a subject that is very sensitive; people have polar opposite opinions and feel strongly on each side. That doesn't make either opinion right or wrong.
That being said, it is unnecessary to try and bolster the necessity of this article by claiming it is "our right" to bear arms as guaranteed by our forefathers. This is a completely incorrect understanding of the declaration. If you ever actually read it, it states:
Article the fourth [Amendment II][4]
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
See what it says there? To form militias. Does anyone really think a militia could overthrow our government should they become despotic? Does anyone really trust militias these days? I say "no" to both questions. Also, the Founding Fathers ADDED this as an amendment (Amendment II). They made mistakes and then tried to fix them. We have fixed more since then. This one was clearly a mistake, but hindsight is always 20/20.
That should lead to some discussion.
The debate shall be on.
Take the statement as it's whole from the 2nd amendment. By any accordance to the overall text, you end up with two possibilities (if you haven't read the federalist papers which very closely defines the intent to one which is personal ownership). The two possibilities you would see are that either both militia formed by the people and personal ownership are protected to a near complete if not a complete extent (shall not be infringed). The second you see (which was an argument for some time but again, people eventually realized that our founders wrote down much of their intent in the federalist papers) is that the people have a right to form militias (as long as they organize them well) and those militias shall be allowed to keep and bear arms without infringment.
Your opinion about what is a mistake and what isn't a mistake isn't really a question for this forum. If I were you I would have phrased your statement as "This one, in my personal view, was a mistake." My personal view on that matter would differ, however, opinions are like..********…everyone has one.
Jason,
It does not say to form militias.
The phrase "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" is a prefatory clause, and not a precondition.
The right to be protected is "the right to keep and bear arms."
It does not say, "the right of the people to form select militias shall not be infringed." It protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
The clear meaning of the 2nd Amendment has always been that the right of individual citizens to keep and bear firearms is not to be infringed by the government, and the clear reason they put into the Amendment for protecting this individual right is the hope to retain a body of the population possessing and well-trained in the use of firearms. Not a standing army (which is prohibited by the Constitution) and not a select-militia (basically an army fielded by a state), but individual citizens in the populace, who would be capable of resisting tyranny imposed from without or from within the borders of the country.
To interpret the Amendment otherwise, you're going to have to present compelling arguments which overcome the numerous examples and the clear reasoning used by the majority in <a target="_blank" href="http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/07-2901.pdf">Heller. (PDF format)
Jason,
It does not say to form militias.
The phrase "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" is a prefatory clause, and not a precondition.
The right to be protected is "the right to keep and bear arms."
It does not say, "the right of the people to form select militias shall not be infringed." It protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
The clear meaning of the 2nd Amendment has always been that the right of individual citizens to keep and bear firearms is not to be infringed by the government, and the clear reason they put into the Amendment for protecting this individual right is the hope to retain a body of the population possessing and well-trained in the use of firearms. Not a standing army (which is prohibited by the Constitution) and not a select-militia (basically an army fielded by a state), but individual citizens in the populace, who would be capable of resisting tyranny imposed from without or from within the borders of the country.
To interpret the Amendment otherwise, you're going to have to present compelling arguments which overcome the numerous examples and the clear reasoning used by the majority in Heller.
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2... (PDF format)
District of Columbia vs. Heller is the Unites States Supreme court case that put this argument to rest. I would suggest you read this Jason, its good knowledge.
Dan Finkelstein,
This is an outstanding article bro. I enjoyed the way you put this in an appropriate format in which people who do not like weapons, find our affinity in this hobby. Looking forward to enjoying some range time soon.
Semper Fidelis
First of all, if "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" is a preface to the rest of the statement, then yes, it is a sort of precondition. If militias are not necessary, then neither is the necessity of gun ownership. But let's face it, the forefathers could NEVER have imagined the world we live in, that's why the ability to amend the constitution was written into our laws. If we were ever attacked on our own soil, the forming of militias would not be the way to defend our country. If you want to defend us, join the military where there is unified leadership. Otherwise we end up with what happened during Katrina where people were shooting at civilians who were trying to cross bridges into the non-flooded neighborhoods. Basically, they were trying to keep the poor blacks out of their pristine neighborhoods. By shooting at them. Not rioters or looters, but people just trying to survive. I don't think that's what the forefathers had in mind.
Second, I don't think it is a legitimate argument to use D.C. V Heller as your precedent. If you had used an opinion of the court that wasn't evenly split between democrats and republicans, I might agree with you. But let's face it, legislating from the bench happens, and conservatives pander to the NRA, while liberals pander to the progressives. However, the case is about the DC ban on possessing handguns, not "arms". It is specific and HARDLY puts the case to rest, as many of you would like to believe. It is a very isolated case, at best, and leaves much to be decided upon.
Let us remember, countries with strict gun laws have less gun violence. Mexican drug gangs are using our guns and ammo to kill our border police. Militias in other countries are using our weapons to kill our soldiers in the field. We simply produce way too many guns for whatever need there may be. But, that is beyond the scope of this article.
So, as I said, anything worth doing is worth doing well. I have used guns and I do enjoy. My primitive/lizard part of my brain gets a big charge when I shoot. Just as it does when I downshift a sports car, or make it to the top of a summit when I climb. But none of those things are necessary.
Read the federalist papers. The 2nd amendment was never meant as a way to defend our shores and our country from outside attackers. It was very clearly meant as a method by which the people could retain their rights through force.
I visited family right after Katrina. Law abiding civilians were disarmed by a corrupt local gov. through the use of violently overzealous police acting like Gestapo. Gang members were armed and robbing people who had their ability to defend themselves removed. Get some valid first person information on the situation that occurred there before spouting off about it.
In DC v. Heller even with the split in the court, that case was decided wrongly. The constitution is supported by the federalist papers which were written the founders of our country whom wrote the constitution. The federalist papers are clear and were they evaluated, DC would have lost that case completely.
Continued:
As for countries with fewer guns having less gun violence, in some cases this is true. In some cases it's not. Gun violence numbers are less pertinent than whether they have less overall violent crime per capita. I've spent time in Mexico; you’d have to be an idiot to buy guns brought in from America. Why pay $1200 for a semi-auto gun when you can buy a full auto gun that comes into Mexico through their southern border for around $300? Go to Mexico, you can buy weapons which are illegal or heavily regulated in the US.
This debate is genius! A collision of idea(l)s!
The Federalist Papers are a series of essays written by three (possible more) men, Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay. To say that they represent the entire group of authors who penned the Constitution would be a mistake. It was the attempt of a few to get the people to agree to adopt the constitution. But it is still just the ideas of three men.
I am not denying that there was looting and lawlessness. I had expected that that would be brought up in response to my statement, and so I should have headed that off at the pass. My mistake. But I do have family and friends in NoLa. I know how scared people were and just how dire the situation was. People needed protection and to protect themselves. A personal firearm would no doubt have helped people to feel safer. But that is not what I am talking about. I am referring to the defense of white neighborhoods from poor blacks. See the references here:
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20090105/thompson
http://blog.nola.com/notesonneworleans/2008/12/wh...
(with video)
OK, so some "bad apples" spoil it for the rest of us upstanding citizens that just want to enjoy the feel of shooting powerful weapons at harmless animals and target practice. But I say, it is the rotten apples that spoil the barrel. Unless the rest are willing to stand up to the rotten apples, and denounce their behavior, we have no choice but to create laws that happen to ruin it for everybody. The NRA refuses to give up anything or to approve laws that are only meant to keep us all safe.
The Federalist Papers are a series of essays written by three (possible more) men, Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay. To say that they represent the entire group of authors who penned the Constitution would be a mistake. It was the attempt of a few to get the people to agree to adopt the constitution. But it is still just the ideas of three men.
I am not denying that there was looting and lawlessness. I had expected that that would be brought up in response to my statement, and so I should have headed that off at the pass. My mistake. But I do have family and friends in NoLa. I know how scared people were and just how dire the situation was. People needed protection and to protect themselves. A personal firearm would no doubt have helped people to feel safer. But that is not what I am talking about. I am referring to the defense of white neighborhoods from poor blacks. See the references here:
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20090105/thompson
http://blog.nola.com/notesonneworleans/2008/12/wh...
(with video)
OK, so some "bad apples" spoil it for the rest of us upstanding citizens that just want to enjoy the feel of shooting powerful weapons at harmless animals and target practice. But I say, it is the rotten apples that spoil the barrel. Unless the rest are willing to stand up to the rotten apples, and denounce their behavior, we have no choice but to create laws that happen to ruin it for everybody. The NRA refuses to give up anything or to approve laws that are only meant to keep us all safe.
Yes they were written by three of the "framers" and not all of them, however, they are still considered the primary source by which to evaluate the intent of the constitution. Since the 2nd amendment was written by James Maddison, I would figure that his evaluation of it's intent should be pretty accurate.
One story from two very clearly biased news sources does not constitute a first person account. That isn't to say that it isn't accurate, however, as I had seen, the criminals still had their guns and the law abiding people didn't. It always seems to be so odd that criminals don't obey the law or the representatives of the law doesn't it?
The Federalist Papers are a series of essays written by three (possible more) men, Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay. To say that they represent the entire group of authors who penned the Constitution would be a mistake. It was the attempt of a few to get the people to agree to adopt the constitution. But it is still just the ideas of three men.
I am not denying that there was looting and lawlessness. I had expected that that would be brought up in response to my statement, and so I should have headed that off at the pass. My mistake. But I do have family and friends in NoLa. I know how scared people were and just how dire the situation was. People needed protection and to protect themselves. A personal firearm would no doubt have helped people to feel safer. But that is not what I am talking about. I am referring to the defense of white neighborhoods from poor blacks. See the references here:
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20090105/thompson
http://blog.nola.com/notesonneworleans/2008/12/wh...
(with video)
OK, so some "bad apples" spoil it for the rest of us upstanding citizens that just want to enjoy the feel of shooting powerful weapons at harmless animals and target practice. But I say, it is the rotten apples that spoil the barrel. Unless the rest are willing to stand up to the rotten apples, and denounce their behavior, we have no choice but to create laws that happen to ruin it for everybody. The NRA refuses to give up anything or to approve laws that are only meant to keep us all safe.
The Federalist Papers are a series of essays written by three (possible more) men, Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay. To say that they represent the entire group of authors who penned the Constitution would be a mistake. It was the attempt of a few to get the people to agree to adopt the constitution. But it is still just the ideas of three men.
I am not denying that there was looting and lawlessness. I had expected that that would be brought up in response to my statement, and so I should have headed that off at the pass. My mistake. But I do have family and friends in NoLa. I know how scared people were and just how dire the situation was. People needed protection and to protect themselves. A personal firearm would no doubt have helped people to feel safer. But that is not what I am talking about. I am referring to the defense of white neighborhoods from poor blacks. See the references here:
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20090105/thompson
http://blog.nola.com/notesonneworleans/2008/12/wh...
(with video)
OK, so some "bad apples" spoil it for the rest of us upstanding citizens that just want to enjoy the feel of shooting powerful weapons at harmless animals and target practice. But I say, it is the rotten apples that spoil the barrel. Unless the rest are willing to stand up to the rotten apples, and denounce their behavior, we have no choice but to create laws that happen to ruin it for everybody. The NRA refuses to give up anything or to approve laws that are only meant to keep us all safe.
Continued:
As for some bad apples spoiling the bunch, criminals are criminals. They are criminals as defined by the fact that they disobey the law. Add in more laws that they can disobey and you have done nothing but affect those who abide by the law. Any exportation of a weapon across a boarder is illegal unless it's done through proper channels. That means that any weapon that didn't end up in Mexico through legal channels was transported in through the commission of a felony. If they are already breaking one federal law, why would another stop them? Why would someone buy an expensive semi-auto US weapon when they could buy an inexpensive full-auto south american one? On top of that, quite a high percentage of the small overall percentage of weapons that have been traced back to origin in the US were actually arms sold to the Mexican military, not arms sold to civilians in the US. Mexico needs to sort out their own problems, not foist them off on us in an attempt to gain political standing.
What the heck is so controversial about an article about guns?
Every man should shoot a gun once, preferably at an animal that he will gut and eat.
Half of them would become vegetarians, the other half would have a better appreciation and respect for their food.
As for the gun control debate: If you're from a big city, don't presume to know what rural American culture is like. Conversely, if you're from in the country, don't presume to know what city culture is like.
I grew up in a town with a population of 132, and later in life, lived in NY and San Francisco. I can't imagine my small town without guns, and I cant imagine a big city with guns.
I agree with you that it shouldn't be controversial. I've spent time living in both small towns and the big city. Honestly, I can't imagine either without being armed for self defense in any country.
The title of the feature is "Be A Better Man In 30 Days", I think is where the confusion lies.
Do you not see the issue? The title clearly implies these things are what makes a "better man", I disagree, which was all I have been trying to say.
Indeed, the irony was not lost on me. I appreciate your response here, but I must dispute the claim that there was any implication or explicit statement that guns make for a real man. Neither their advocacy nor their avoidance says anything about anyone's manliness. Forgive me, but I do not like misconstruence. Both the disclaimer and the article itself state that the content of this post may not appeal to or apply to everyone.
I do appreciate that this may be a particularly American subject, however. I'd say that makes now as good a time as any to discuss it.
Nothing perilous about not being an American, as I am also not an American.
Knowledge, not use, has the potential to make you a better man.
I do not understand how you believe that the article is implying what you are claiming. I have little interest in watches, yet I do not believe that the article on watches somehow implies that I am a lesser man for my own personal preferences.
You appear to be mistakenly viewing the articles as requirements to being a better man, whereas I believe that are all optional.