Happiness is a Worn Gun
- Thread starter gadinort
- Start date
- Status
Please don't link to questionable sites.
Link broken, thread closed.
Link broken, thread closed.
This is going to be a pretty frequent topic of conversation so we might as well get a dependable source for the discussion. Please everyone remember that we can't post the entire article because of copyright and fair use issues, but you're welcome to go read it and we're welcome to link to reliable secondary sources. Here's the link to the WHYY interview with the author of "Happiness is a Worn Gun". http://whyy.org/cms/radiotimes/2010/07/27/happiness-is-a-worn-gun-with-writer-dan-baum/
What I get out of it is that the article shows the complex attitudes that people that aren't antis, but aren't 24/7 no-restriction proponents, have that we often fail to acknowledge. It also gives us, the 2A advocates, a good bit to think about in how we present ourselves and how we create the public's impressions of us. How we want to be seen very much impacts how we are seen.
[QUOTE="Happiness is a Worn Gun" Baum]...
I got hooked on guns forty-nine years ago as a fat kid at summer camp—the one thing I could do was lie on my belly and shoot a .22 rifle—and I've collected, shot, and hunted with guns my entire adult life. But I also grew up into a fairly typical liberal Democrat, with a circle of friends politely appalled at my fixation on firearms. For as long as I've been voting, I've reflexively supported waiting periods, background checks, the assault-rifle ban, and other gun-control measures. None interfered with my enjoyment of firearms, and none seemed to me the first step toward tyranny. As the concealed-carry laws changed across the land, I naturally sided with those who argued that arming the populace would turn fender benders into gunfights. The prospect of millions more gun-carrying Americans left me reliably horrified.
...
To the unfamiliar, guns are noisy and intimidating. They represent the supremacy of force over reason, of ferocity over refinement, and probably a whole set of principles that rub some people the wrong way. But a free society doesn't make people give a reason for doing the things they want to do; the burden of proof falls on those who would forbid. I started out thinking widespread concealed-carry was a bad idea. But in the absence of evidence that allowing law-abiding citizens to carry guns is harmful, I come down on the side of letting people do what they want.
Why shouldn't being prepared to defend oneself be on the list of skills we expect of modern citizens? I've encountered five reasons not to wear a gun: you think it so unlikely you'll be attacked it's not worth the trouble or the sacrifice of Condition White; you expect the police to come to your aid in the event of trouble; wearing a gun makes you feel less safe instead of more; you've decided you couldn't take a life under any circumstance; or you don't want to contribute to a coarsening of society by preparing to kill at a moment's notice.
It's true that crime is down, but it's certainly not nonexistent; hideous things happen to good people every day. We carry fire insurance even though fire is uncommon; carrying a gun may be no more paranoid. Expecting police protection is delusional; they'll usually do no more than show up later to investigate. Carrying a gun is unsafe for those who haven't been properly trained, but a good class and regular practice can fix that. Only the last two reasons strike me as logically complete arguments not to go armed. Being willing to die rather than kill is an admirable and time-honored philosophical position. I'm not certain, though, how many of us would hold to it when the fatal moment was upon us. I, for one, count myself out. I'm willing.
At least I think so. Those who write about and teach defensive gun use say an incident, if it happens, will go down something like this:
I will draw my gun from its holster if I reason- ably believe myself or another person to be in imminent danger of death or grievous bodily injury. I will fire two bullets into the center of the attacker's chest. My 125-grain hollowpoints will not only carve permanent cavities through his body, they'll also send out pressure waves that might rupture his solid organs—his liver, spleen, and kidneys. If he's going to die, he'll likely die on the spot or within a day. I will be sure to have my hands empty and raised by the time the police show up, because they'll be scared and liable to shoot anyone holding a gun. The only way to win a gunfight, goes the saying, is not to be there when it happens. I can expect the police to arrest, handcuff, and jail me. If I'm not charged, or I'm acquitted, the attacker or his family will probably sue me. I use hollowpoints, I will say on the stand, because they deliver more energy to the target and are therefore more likely to stop the attack—and the shooting—quickly. Also, being more likely to stay in the attacker's body or embed themselves in walls without passing through, hollowpoints are less dangerous to bystanders, which is why police use them. I didn't cock the revolver, yell "Freeze," or shoot to wound, because if I'd had time to think about doing any of that I'd have had time to run away. But the poor guy only had a knife, the plaintiff's lawyer might say, to which I'll respond that a man with a knife can close twenty-one feet in a second and a half—less time than it takes to draw and fire. Then it will be up to the jury to decide my fate. The gun carrier's ethic holds that it's better to be tried by twelve than carried by six.
That said, I will probably stop carrying my gun. It's uncomfortable, distracting, and freaks out my friends; it's not worth it. I miss Condition White. If I lived in a dangerous place, I might feel different, and I may continue wearing a gun when I travel to such places (at least to the ones that allow it). That some people think going unarmed makes me a traitor to the Second Amendment doesn't bother me at all. And if I'm a burden to society because I cannot jump in and stop a crime, well, I'm not qualified in CPR, advanced first aid, maritime lifesaving, or firefighting either. Social parasite that I am, I'm content to leave emergency response to the pros.
We may all benefit from having a lot of licensed people carrying guns, if only because of the heightened state of awareness in which they live. It's a scandal, though, that people can get a license to carry on the basis of a three- hour "course" given at a gun show. State requirements vary, but some don't even ask students to fire a weapon before getting a carry permit. We should enforce high standards for instruction, including extensive live firing, role playing, and serious examination of the legal issues. Since people can carry guns state to state, standards should be uniform. States should require a refresher course, the way Texas does, before renewing a carry permit. To their credit, most gun carriers I've talked to agree that training should improve, even if some of them get twitchy at the idea of mandates. The Second Amendment confers a right to keep and bear arms. It does not confer a right to instant gratification.
Going armed has connected me with an entire range of values I didn't use to think much about—self-reliance, vigilance, muscular citizenship—and some impulses I'd rather avoid, like social pessimism and irrational fear. It has militarized my life; all that locking and loading and watching over my shoulder makes me feel like a bit player in the perpetual global war in which we find ourselves. There's no denying that carrying a gun has made my days a lot more dramatic. Suddenly, I'm dangerous. I'm an action figure. I bear a lethal secret into every social encounter. I have to remind myself occasionally that my gun is not a prop, a political statement, or a rhetorical device, but an instrument designed to blow a ragged channel through a human being. From a public-safety standpoint it may matter little that lots of people are carrying guns now, but if accessorizing with firearms becomes truly au courant, the United States will feel like a different place. We'll be less dreamy and more secretive. We'll spend more energy watching one another and less on self-obsession. We'll be a little more on-task, more cognizant of violence and prepared to participate therein. We'll also be, in our own minds, a little sexier as we make ourselves more dangerous. We'll be carrying guns for exactly the reason John Garfield did: to shoot people with, sweetheart.[/QUOTE]
What I get out of it is that the article shows the complex attitudes that people that aren't antis, but aren't 24/7 no-restriction proponents, have that we often fail to acknowledge. It also gives us, the 2A advocates, a good bit to think about in how we present ourselves and how we create the public's impressions of us. How we want to be seen very much impacts how we are seen.
[QUOTE="Happiness is a Worn Gun" Baum]...
I got hooked on guns forty-nine years ago as a fat kid at summer camp—the one thing I could do was lie on my belly and shoot a .22 rifle—and I've collected, shot, and hunted with guns my entire adult life. But I also grew up into a fairly typical liberal Democrat, with a circle of friends politely appalled at my fixation on firearms. For as long as I've been voting, I've reflexively supported waiting periods, background checks, the assault-rifle ban, and other gun-control measures. None interfered with my enjoyment of firearms, and none seemed to me the first step toward tyranny. As the concealed-carry laws changed across the land, I naturally sided with those who argued that arming the populace would turn fender benders into gunfights. The prospect of millions more gun-carrying Americans left me reliably horrified.
...
To the unfamiliar, guns are noisy and intimidating. They represent the supremacy of force over reason, of ferocity over refinement, and probably a whole set of principles that rub some people the wrong way. But a free society doesn't make people give a reason for doing the things they want to do; the burden of proof falls on those who would forbid. I started out thinking widespread concealed-carry was a bad idea. But in the absence of evidence that allowing law-abiding citizens to carry guns is harmful, I come down on the side of letting people do what they want.
Why shouldn't being prepared to defend oneself be on the list of skills we expect of modern citizens? I've encountered five reasons not to wear a gun: you think it so unlikely you'll be attacked it's not worth the trouble or the sacrifice of Condition White; you expect the police to come to your aid in the event of trouble; wearing a gun makes you feel less safe instead of more; you've decided you couldn't take a life under any circumstance; or you don't want to contribute to a coarsening of society by preparing to kill at a moment's notice.
It's true that crime is down, but it's certainly not nonexistent; hideous things happen to good people every day. We carry fire insurance even though fire is uncommon; carrying a gun may be no more paranoid. Expecting police protection is delusional; they'll usually do no more than show up later to investigate. Carrying a gun is unsafe for those who haven't been properly trained, but a good class and regular practice can fix that. Only the last two reasons strike me as logically complete arguments not to go armed. Being willing to die rather than kill is an admirable and time-honored philosophical position. I'm not certain, though, how many of us would hold to it when the fatal moment was upon us. I, for one, count myself out. I'm willing.
At least I think so. Those who write about and teach defensive gun use say an incident, if it happens, will go down something like this:
I will draw my gun from its holster if I reason- ably believe myself or another person to be in imminent danger of death or grievous bodily injury. I will fire two bullets into the center of the attacker's chest. My 125-grain hollowpoints will not only carve permanent cavities through his body, they'll also send out pressure waves that might rupture his solid organs—his liver, spleen, and kidneys. If he's going to die, he'll likely die on the spot or within a day. I will be sure to have my hands empty and raised by the time the police show up, because they'll be scared and liable to shoot anyone holding a gun. The only way to win a gunfight, goes the saying, is not to be there when it happens. I can expect the police to arrest, handcuff, and jail me. If I'm not charged, or I'm acquitted, the attacker or his family will probably sue me. I use hollowpoints, I will say on the stand, because they deliver more energy to the target and are therefore more likely to stop the attack—and the shooting—quickly. Also, being more likely to stay in the attacker's body or embed themselves in walls without passing through, hollowpoints are less dangerous to bystanders, which is why police use them. I didn't cock the revolver, yell "Freeze," or shoot to wound, because if I'd had time to think about doing any of that I'd have had time to run away. But the poor guy only had a knife, the plaintiff's lawyer might say, to which I'll respond that a man with a knife can close twenty-one feet in a second and a half—less time than it takes to draw and fire. Then it will be up to the jury to decide my fate. The gun carrier's ethic holds that it's better to be tried by twelve than carried by six.
That said, I will probably stop carrying my gun. It's uncomfortable, distracting, and freaks out my friends; it's not worth it. I miss Condition White. If I lived in a dangerous place, I might feel different, and I may continue wearing a gun when I travel to such places (at least to the ones that allow it). That some people think going unarmed makes me a traitor to the Second Amendment doesn't bother me at all. And if I'm a burden to society because I cannot jump in and stop a crime, well, I'm not qualified in CPR, advanced first aid, maritime lifesaving, or firefighting either. Social parasite that I am, I'm content to leave emergency response to the pros.
We may all benefit from having a lot of licensed people carrying guns, if only because of the heightened state of awareness in which they live. It's a scandal, though, that people can get a license to carry on the basis of a three- hour "course" given at a gun show. State requirements vary, but some don't even ask students to fire a weapon before getting a carry permit. We should enforce high standards for instruction, including extensive live firing, role playing, and serious examination of the legal issues. Since people can carry guns state to state, standards should be uniform. States should require a refresher course, the way Texas does, before renewing a carry permit. To their credit, most gun carriers I've talked to agree that training should improve, even if some of them get twitchy at the idea of mandates. The Second Amendment confers a right to keep and bear arms. It does not confer a right to instant gratification.
Going armed has connected me with an entire range of values I didn't use to think much about—self-reliance, vigilance, muscular citizenship—and some impulses I'd rather avoid, like social pessimism and irrational fear. It has militarized my life; all that locking and loading and watching over my shoulder makes me feel like a bit player in the perpetual global war in which we find ourselves. There's no denying that carrying a gun has made my days a lot more dramatic. Suddenly, I'm dangerous. I'm an action figure. I bear a lethal secret into every social encounter. I have to remind myself occasionally that my gun is not a prop, a political statement, or a rhetorical device, but an instrument designed to blow a ragged channel through a human being. From a public-safety standpoint it may matter little that lots of people are carrying guns now, but if accessorizing with firearms becomes truly au courant, the United States will feel like a different place. We'll be less dreamy and more secretive. We'll spend more energy watching one another and less on self-obsession. We'll be a little more on-task, more cognizant of violence and prepared to participate therein. We'll also be, in our own minds, a little sexier as we make ourselves more dangerous. We'll be carrying guns for exactly the reason John Garfield did: to shoot people with, sweetheart.[/QUOTE]
I read the article recently, like in the last week or so. Then I bid on an inexpensive Detective Special on GB, and learned that the seller was the author of this article!
Made me chase it a little harder; I ended up with the DS, a bunch of holsters for it, and a signed copy of the man's latest book.
Turns out he sold it to get a Glock; figured if he got into a gunfight he'd want the extra capacity.
We both won. He's quite an interesting guy, and he used to live in my current home town. Small planet.
Made me chase it a little harder; I ended up with the DS, a bunch of holsters for it, and a signed copy of the man's latest book.
Turns out he sold it to get a Glock; figured if he got into a gunfight he'd want the extra capacity.
We both won. He's quite an interesting guy, and he used to live in my current home town. Small planet.
Hatterasguy
Member
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2010
- Messages
- 1,604
Interesting article and he touches on some good points. I don't carry for somewhat smiler reasons. Personally I don't feel the world is a dangerous place, and I don't like the change in mentality that one must go through to be constantly armed. Now if I lived in a more dangerous place like Mexico City or South Africa, or heck Baghdad I would go armed. But the US is a safe country, even the rough parts are (relatively safe) like say Camden NJ.
OTOH I don't sleep well at night if my 1911 isn't cocked and locked on my night stand.
OTOH I don't sleep well at night if my 1911 isn't cocked and locked on my night stand.
Amen Brother.
Of course i just read the posted snip-it as i cant listen to it fully yet but i have to say its a very interesting piece of writing.
I know when i was 21 and bought my first handgun i never thought id ever be allowed to legally carry it one day. But after seeing what i did in the local gun store/LEO supply shop im darn glad i can.
An older man who looked nothing like any LEO ive ever seen was at the counter asking for handcuff keys and find out there are several types, But before leaving the counter asked about obtaining a Police Badge. The salesman asked him if he was a LEO and he said no and walked away.
Why that scared me i don't know, But i wished two LEO's would have been outside waiting to talk to him and give him a good checking over.
Not to get the thread off subject im just stating why im so glad i have a better chance of keeping myself and family and possibly others safe if need be. Most likley from that exact same guy.
belercous
Member
I'm a regular reader of Harpers and read the article when it came out. Although I can't legally carry in my home state, I can, and do, when in Missouri. While I'm aware of my surroundings, I'm not hyper-vigilant as I don't believe I'm in all that much danger. C.C. is just something that makes me feel a bit more secure.
What gets me is those who carry 2 guns, extra mags and a knife. I can see the need for a cop to do such, but if I felt the need to do so I'd move, see a therapist or quit the gang. I don't believe that most who practice C.C. are as paranoid as Dan Baum [the author] makes it seem, but then again, like the blind men touching an elephant, he only has a partial view. (no pun intended)
While some declaim Harpers as "liberal propaganda," I've usually found these people never actually read the mag much. Harpers, while it does lean left, does not propagate misinformation. Many articles I've read there anger liberals because both sides get presented, not just theirs.
When both sides of an issue are fully & fairly aired, the line of demarcation between black & white seems to fuzz into grey. Sound bites are black & white; true discourse of a topic shows the fallacy of reducing a complex subject to simplistic and often rhetorically charged terms. Of course, actual thinking is involved in seeing the whole picture, and most people dislike taxing their brain. Most people tend to pick a side based on emotion and let others provide the intellectual rationale.
Overall, a good article, if not a comprehensive one on the subject.
What gets me is those who carry 2 guns, extra mags and a knife. I can see the need for a cop to do such, but if I felt the need to do so I'd move, see a therapist or quit the gang. I don't believe that most who practice C.C. are as paranoid as Dan Baum [the author] makes it seem, but then again, like the blind men touching an elephant, he only has a partial view. (no pun intended)
While some declaim Harpers as "liberal propaganda," I've usually found these people never actually read the mag much. Harpers, while it does lean left, does not propagate misinformation. Many articles I've read there anger liberals because both sides get presented, not just theirs.
When both sides of an issue are fully & fairly aired, the line of demarcation between black & white seems to fuzz into grey. Sound bites are black & white; true discourse of a topic shows the fallacy of reducing a complex subject to simplistic and often rhetorically charged terms. Of course, actual thinking is involved in seeing the whole picture, and most people dislike taxing their brain. Most people tend to pick a side based on emotion and let others provide the intellectual rationale.
Overall, a good article, if not a comprehensive one on the subject.
KevininPa
Member
belercous
"What gets me is those who carry 2 guns, extra mags and a knife"
I don't do the extra mags or guns ( revolver, usually, sometimes a Sig 232 .380, no extra mag or speedloader. ). But I've carried a knife since I was twelve. To me a knife is a tool, heck, I take coupons out of the paper with a knife. When I was in my late teens before I joined the Navy I was a butcher on the kill floor of a local shop. Now I'm a construction electrician and use a knife daily ( not good with those flimsy razor work tools. Only thing I managed to cut with those was myself!
). Heck my wife even carries a knife for her work. So I wouldn't be concerned about seeing a pocket knife with a clip on a person. Everyone seems to have one now. Now if they would have a Kabar strapped to their side for casual wear then maybe I'd give a second glance and thought............
"What gets me is those who carry 2 guns, extra mags and a knife"
I don't do the extra mags or guns ( revolver, usually, sometimes a Sig 232 .380, no extra mag or speedloader. ). But I've carried a knife since I was twelve. To me a knife is a tool, heck, I take coupons out of the paper with a knife. When I was in my late teens before I joined the Navy I was a butcher on the kill floor of a local shop. Now I'm a construction electrician and use a knife daily ( not good with those flimsy razor work tools. Only thing I managed to cut with those was myself!
). Heck my wife even carries a knife for her work. So I wouldn't be concerned about seeing a pocket knife with a clip on a person. Everyone seems to have one now. Now if they would have a Kabar strapped to their side for casual wear then maybe I'd give a second glance and thought............belercous
Member
Well, yes, I carry a knife too. For utility, not defense. My point was 2 guns & extra mags. Sorry to have made people who carry a knife seem paranoid. Knives see way more use than a New York Reload.
I've never read an article that expressed a lot of my feeling on CC as well as this one does! In the area of east Houston I live in , I consider a CC a must. Unfortunitly!!
I would like to thank everyone who takes the time to respond on THR. I enjoy it more every time I log on!
I would like to thank everyone who takes the time to respond on THR. I enjoy it more every time I log on!
There is so many things wrong with that comment i don't even know where to start.
But seeing a therapist or quit the gang is being judgmental and slanderous while the rest is just opinionated closed mindedness.
I don't tell you your wrong for just carrying a gun with no spare mag, Nor mention the hypocrisy of you carrying a knife also for the same reasons most everyone else does.
Imo in ccw there is no right or wrong as long as it stays within the legal limits the state has set.
I carry a knife for cutting stuff, Just like you stated you do. I have no training to fight with a knife and it would most likley be dumb to pull it in a defensive situation unless a last resort.
Secondly i carry a spare mag as my 1911 doesn't hold tons of ammo, 8+1 is not alot and malfunctions do happen.
I have before carried a second gun and will do so in the future, But when i do i eliminate the spare mag as i don't find it necessary in this case. A second gun is faster than a mag swap. And i many times i get a new gun i want to get used to carrying while still relying on my 1911 as my main weapon.
Or my bug can be carried by me as i just really like that gun.
Even tho i gave you my reasons i don't care if you agree or disagree, Nor do i care what you do while exercising your RTBA within the stated laws of the state.
Maybe you should follow your own advice a bit more.
Hatterasguy
Member
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2010
- Messages
- 1,604
Is the world that dangerous that you need two guns? Why the heck not just carry an AR over your shoulder?
People have gone into combat with less firepower.
People have gone into combat with less firepower.
The world can, indeed, be that dangerous. I've never heard of anyone in a gunfight claim afterward that they wish they hadn't brought along extra ammo or firearms. The first rule of a gunfight is to bring a gun, and if you're gun goes out of commission and fails to fire when you need someone stopped then you've by default broken the first rule. It's a contingency. You carry, so you already have one. This one is designed so if your first plan fails you have another. I don't think that's all that crazy, myself.
In any case, that's not the point. The point is the retention of rights. If you concede that people don't "need" anything, then you can claim that for anything else repeatedly until you've made that point for everything. No, I don't need to carry two guns. I don't need an AR. I don't need semiautomatics. But to claim that I don't need something is a long way off from giving a reason why I ought not have it. I don't need freedom of expression, freedom of religion, or freedom from reasonable search and seizure to survive either, but that's not a good reason for me to not have them. OTOH, that rhetoric has certainly been used in governments to ban firearms, among other things, plenty of times before.
In any case, that's not the point. The point is the retention of rights. If you concede that people don't "need" anything, then you can claim that for anything else repeatedly until you've made that point for everything. No, I don't need to carry two guns. I don't need an AR. I don't need semiautomatics. But to claim that I don't need something is a long way off from giving a reason why I ought not have it. I don't need freedom of expression, freedom of religion, or freedom from reasonable search and seizure to survive either, but that's not a good reason for me to not have them. OTOH, that rhetoric has certainly been used in governments to ban firearms, among other things, plenty of times before.
Shopping A Round
Member
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2010
- Messages
- 99
This just isn't something you have to worry about. Nobody has to justify two guns.
Chances are they will both be concealed so you wouldn't have to know about it anyways.
belercous
Member
If I lived someplace where I thought I needed to carry a gun, I'd move. I carry just to feel secure in the event of a freak situation. As for carrying 2 guns or extra mags, that seems like overkill, not to mention unnecessary (unless the person is not a real good shot) as I don't plan for super-extra freaky situations. (If I did, I'd play the lottery and plan how I'd spend the winnings)
Most defensive uses of handguns do not require even a snubbie to be emptied. I can see the need for L.E.O.'s to carry back-up, and I wouldn't think of telling someone they couldn't do it, but they certainly appear paranoid.
Sure, it might be safer to carry 2 guns, but if saftey were truly the issue, people who carry 2 guns would wear a helmet when driving their car. Statistically, the helmet would be used way more often than a second pistol. And such people would not smoke, be obese, ride a motorcycle or engage in water sports. (I omit riding in a car) Really, what are the odds of getting involved in a shoot-out to begin with? And then to need to reload on top of that?
Some people think I'm paranoid by carrying a snubbie. One can carry 2 guns (or as many guns as s/he feels necessary), but be aware that many view such as paranoidal behavior.
Most defensive uses of handguns do not require even a snubbie to be emptied. I can see the need for L.E.O.'s to carry back-up, and I wouldn't think of telling someone they couldn't do it, but they certainly appear paranoid.
Sure, it might be safer to carry 2 guns, but if saftey were truly the issue, people who carry 2 guns would wear a helmet when driving their car. Statistically, the helmet would be used way more often than a second pistol. And such people would not smoke, be obese, ride a motorcycle or engage in water sports. (I omit riding in a car) Really, what are the odds of getting involved in a shoot-out to begin with? And then to need to reload on top of that?
Some people think I'm paranoid by carrying a snubbie. One can carry 2 guns (or as many guns as s/he feels necessary), but be aware that many view such as paranoidal behavior.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
