Happiness is a WORN gun. From Harpers Magazine and NPR. Good read

[depicts]

"Happiness is a worn gun:my concealed weapon and me" is an article by one Dan Baum that appears in the August 2010 edition of Harper's Magazine.

Mr. Baum admits to being a "liberal" (his word), but is also a hunter and has enjoyed shooting since he was a kid. He decided to get a concealed weapon permit to see what it was all about and as a subject to write about. All in all, I think he takes a pretty even approach to the subject of concealed carry and firearms. In the radio interview, he was very good at poking holes in the usual gun control arguments that were presented by callers. Some of you may not like his tone, but still it's not the typical article that you would find in a magazine like Harpers.


http://tiny.cc/0f5bm

This is an article (from an NPR broadcast) about gun ownership and concealed carry from what most of us would call a very left wing source.

I found the article very interesting and surprisingly fair.

While the author doesn't pretend or want to be a high speed, low drag operator, he does point out a clear view of both sides of the current gun issues.

It's ten pages long, but a very good read. If this is the feelings of the left about gun ownership... I think we are making great progress.

Please don't reply by telling me how much NPR sucks if you haven't read the article.

Check it out.... it's pretty good.

 

[atmay]

some of it was good, the last bit about training requirements was a bit much tho

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

I don't know why everyone just assumes that NPR is full of nutty ideologues whose prime directive is to push their agenda on the rest of America. If I had to guess I say "yes, most of them are liberals. So what?" They are not driven by rating and sensationalism the way everyone in the mainstream media is and I believe that they make an honest attempt to present as balanced and unbiased view as they possibly can.

 

[MisterHappy]

Overall, good, and from a non-traditional source.

As to the training, if you've done much shooting with new shooters, (I've done a bit) the need for a certain amount of practical, hands-on training in basic safety is not off base.... If you're not lucky enough to have had the opportunity to absorb safe handling ( at least) by osmosis from dad or mom, you gotta learn it somewhere.

 

[TheRoland]

honest attempt to present as balanced and unbiased view as they possibly can.

I agree, but this doesn't apply to their opinion or call-in shows. On Point is unable to hide its bias on some topics, and the local Boston news shows can be downright offensive.

Still one of my favorite news sources.

 

[RichM]

I can't believe that so many of his casual and training encounters with other gun-owners were as strident as he makes them out to be... I think that he took a little editorial license...

... and in the end, he decided that he would continue his unarmed, Condition White lifestyle...

He's not our friend... but he's not an outright foe, either.

 

[GunGrey]

They know where your
bedroom is, and they’re there to kill you.” (Eightyseven
Americans were murdered during burglaries
in 2008; statistically, you had a better chance of
being killed by bees.)

I cant stand this line, "you had a better chance of being killed by bees"

 

[cekim]

I don't know why everyone just assumes that NPR is full of nutty ideologues whose prime directive is to push their agenda on the rest of America. If I had to guess I say "yes, most of them are liberals. So what?" They are not driven by rating and sensationalism the way everyone in the mainstream media is and I believe that they make an honest attempt to present as balanced and unbiased view as they possibly can.

There are worse outlets, that's for sure, but however "honest" their attempt may be, they still inevitably end up presenting a view and guests slanted pretty heavily to the left.

Not noticing the smell of the Monkey Cage is what I call it. They don't even recognize it half the time from what I can tell. They call it "fair and balanced" if they spend 15 minutes praising the Democrats and 15 minutes deriding the Republicans because both got 15 minutes.

Particularly listening MA, you get a very "Boston" view of the world in which even the Conservatives sound progressive to people who haven't become completely numb to the culture around here.

Their editorial staff is particularly bad about it... It's a pretty soft peddling of ignoring the bad from the left and emphasizing the bad from the right, but its definitely there.

 

[daveyburt]

From a middle of the road perspective, I thought it to be a pretty realistic look at things. -Depending on where you live of course. If the probability of violence was more prevalent in his area, it seems like he may have favored being more frequently armed. -Written by someone more on the anti side of life... it's refreshing.

-Good read! -thx!

 

[theGringo]

There are worse outlets, that's for sure ...

Can you name two, that have the same coverage area, name recognition and prestige? MSNBC might be one ...

 

[cekim]

Can you name two, that have the same coverage area, name recognition and prestige? MSNBC might be one ...

CNN and MSNBC

 

[cekim]

I can't believe that so many of his casual and training encounters with other gun-owners were as strident as he makes them out to be... I think that he took a little editorial license...

... and in the end, he decided that he would continue his unarmed, Condition White lifestyle...

He's not our friend... but he's not an outright foe, either.

Eh, I have heard plenty of venting from frustrated gun owners dealing with the constant attacks from the left...

On the whole, there was plenty of BS in there, but I was glad to see some enlightenment seeping in:

One number that jumps out from the FBI’s
2008 data is how many alleged criminals were
shot dead by civilians: 245, not many fewer
than were shot by cops. I found that statistic
amazing until I reflected on how seldom police
are present when a crime is occurring.

Ah hah! Glad he is catching on...

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

I agree, but this doesn't apply to their opinion or call-in shows. On Point is unable to hide its bias on some topics, and the local Boston news shows can be downright offensive.

Still one of my favorite news sources.

Any show with a call in component sucks, regardless of media outlet. They are virtually un-listenable / un-watchable. Most make me want to drink bleach.

 

[cekim]

Any show with a call in component sucks, regardless of media outlet. They are virtually un-listenable / un-watchable. Most make me want to drink bleach.

Well, if you exclude call-in, that takes out a huge chunk of their day...

 

[drgrant]

I don't know why everyone just assumes that NPR is full of nutty ideologues whose prime directive is to push their agenda on the rest of America. If I had to guess I say "yes, most of them are liberals. So what?" They are not driven by rating and sensationalism the way everyone in the mainstream media is and I believe that they make an honest attempt to present as balanced and unbiased view as they possibly can.

NPR is typically moonbat central. Almost all news sources have a fair amount of inherent bias, pretending one doesn't is dangerous.

Just because NPR doesn't take the Keith Olberfurher approach doesn't mean the slant is really any less dangerous... hell, it's probably more dangerous because there is an air of reasonableness in some of the reporting.

-Mike

 

[theGringo]

CNN and MSNBC

CNN? Are they still around?

 

[drgrant]

CNN? Are they still around?

The crescent news network is still around because they're still about 30 degrees to the right of MSNBC, yet are still definitely out in left field.

-Mike

 

[cekim]

NPR is typically moonbat central. Almost all news sources have a fair amount of inherent bias, pretending one doesn't is dangerous.

Just because NPR doesn't take the Keith Olberfurher approach doesn't mean the slant is really any less dangerous... hell, it's probably more dangerous because there is an air of reasonableness in some of the reporting.

-Mike

They purport to do more than "tell you the news" and go beyond to "tell you what it means"...

They do this in various ways from the editoral commentary of Daniel Shore and then in the questions they ask political candidates. They jumped in on the attacks of Rand Paul in a very partisan way, but it sounded like they were "just asking questions."

In that example, like so many, they ask the "when did you stop beating your wife?" question designed to be damning no matter how you answer... It's subtle, but effective.

Then they ask many democrats soft-ball questions.

As I said, "can't smell the monkey cage any more." I suspect this is true of many in the media world. They are so immersed in their liberal/progressive agenda with all of the people they work with that they don't even realize it half the time. During the half that they do realize it, they presume themselves of superior intellect and assume we won't notice because we are stupid to do so.

 

[Finalygotabeltfed]

Friends don't let friends listen to or read NPR tripe.

 

[Maxpower]

Where I am, if you are stuck on AM/FM, NPR is probably the best radio on radio.

 

[atmay]

Overall, good, and from a non-traditional source.

As to the training, if you've done much shooting with new shooters, (I've done a bit) the need for a certain amount of practical, hands-on training in basic safety is not off base.... If you're not lucky enough to have had the opportunity to absorb safe handling ( at least) by osmosis from dad or mom, you gotta learn it somewhere.

Oh, I don't disagree that every new shooter, and even veteran shooters should get as much training as possible. We owe it to ourselves and to each other. But, as a requirement for the keeping and bearing of arms? GFTO

 

[lupis42]

Robert Bork tried out that argument in 1971,
in defense of prosecuting such victimless crimes
as drug abuse, writing in the Indiana Law Journal
that “knowledge that an activity is taking place
is a harm to those who i nd it profoundly immor-
al.” It’s as bad an argument now as it was then.
We may not like it that other people are doing
things we revile—smoking pot, enjoying pornog-
raphy, making gay love, or carrying a gun—but if
we aren’t adversely affected by it, the Constitu-
tion and common decency argue for leaving it
alone. My friend may feel less safe because people
are wearing concealed guns, but the
data suggest she isn’t less safe.

The best part of the article.

 

[milktree]

I agree, but this doesn't apply to their opinion or call-in shows. On Point is unable to hide its bias on some topics, and the local Boston news shows can be downright offensive.

Still one of my favorite news sources.

I used to like On-point, like 8-9 years ago when it was still fresh. But Tom Ashbrook has gotten all Christopher-Lydon and he's insufferable. Jack Beatie is worse. I can't listen to it anymore.

 

[TheRoland]

I've said this before too: I don't have to agree with everything someone says or thinks to enjoy their news or commentary.

This American Life is probably one of the best shows ever to hit radio, and I doubt I'd agree with any of their political ideas. On Point has left unchallenged guests who claimed concealed carry would lead to "blood in the streets", but some of their guests on other topics are outstanding.

And while there are exceptions due to the "echo chamber" effect, like their treatment of Rand Paul, their strait-up-news shows usually stay out of partisan politics, and when they don't, they usually have the honesty to call it "commentary".

It's a big dream of mine to get a gun store on one of their "sponsored by" segments.


EDIT: The local Boston shows don't count here. Some of those are....biased as all heck. The phrase "drooling right-winger" was used a few days ago.

 

[theGringo]

It's a big dream of mine to get a gun store on one of their "sponsored by" segments.

I suspect that your request for sponsorship would be declined. I'd like to see any gun-related business try it. The listenership would force the ads off the air, if they were ever allowed on in the first place.

I listen to WAMC regularly. It's the only radio station that comes in reliably out here in the shire. I most enjoy Prof. Alan Chartock's moonbat rants during the fund drives.

Despite these and other efforts, some NPR reporters believe that their organization’s credibility is undermined by inconsistent journalistic standards at the radio stations that broadcast—and routinely edit, alter, and add to—NPR programs.

And according to NPR officials, there’s little, if anything, they can do about it.

“I was driving through upstate New York and listening to the local public radio station, and there was this guy on the air ranting,” says one Washington-based NPR news producer, who didn’t want to be identified. “He was talking about the war in Iraq and how wrong it was and how we’re being held hostage as a country by this right-wing administration.”

The NPR producer assumed he had tuned into a Pacifica radio station, one of a small network of community stations that broadcast left-of-center advocacy-journalism programs. “It was actually sort of entertaining,” the producer recalls. “But then I nearly couldn’t believe it when this guy said, ‘In just a few moments we’ll be returning to NPR’s All Things Considered.’”

What the NPR producer was hearing was a pledge drive hosted by Alan Chartock, president of WAMC/Northeast Public Radio, a regional network of seven NPR member stations that is a primary source of NPR news in upstate New York and the Berkshires. Chartock’s outspoken political commentary—as well as that of opposing voices—is regularly heard on the stations he manages. He also publishes a blog on WAMC’s web site that has recently featured sharp attacks on the Republican Party, the Bush administration, and “neocons” in general.

“If you took a photo of me in the car,” says the NPR producer, “my jaw would have been on the floor. It really freaked me out. As a producer, I want NPR to be viewed as middle-of-the-road. I want people to think that NPR is fair. But when someone like Chartock gets on the air, it makes us look like a left-of-center organization, just as we believe Fox [cable news] is a right-wing organization because they mix commentary with news. And I guarantee you that Joe Listener out there is not making a distinction between the crazy local guy and the reasonable national organization.”

http://www.citypaper.com/news/story.asp?id=10286

 

[TheRoland]

I listen to WAMC regularly. It's the only radio station that comes in reliably out here in the shire. I most enjoy Prof. Alan Chartock's moonbat rants during the fund drives.

What the heck? That's not an NPR I've ever heard.... that's nuts. I'd be seriously upset if I were the national organization.

 

[wacky_doug]

I don't know why everyone just assumes that NPR is full of nutty ideologues whose prime directive is to push their agenda on the rest of America. If I had to guess I say "yes, most of them are liberals. So what?" They are not driven by rating and sensationalism the way everyone in the mainstream media is and I believe that they make an honest attempt to present as balanced and unbiased view as they possibly can.

I agree. If you want sound bites, go to the major sources. If you want analysis and sometimes bizarre "story behind the story" stuff, go to NPR. It's the same reason I prefer reading political analysis magazines.

 

[wacky_doug]

"Happiness is a worn gun:my concealed weapon and me" is an article by one Dan Baum that appears in the August 2010 edition of Harper's Magazine.

I found the article very interesting and surprisingly fair.

While the author doesn't pretend or want to be a high speed, low drag operator, he does point out a clear view of both sides of the current gun issues.

It's ten pages long, but a very good read. If this is the feelings of the left about gun ownership... I think we are making great progress.

I finished reading the Article. While it's obviously hard to agree with everything he says, he does a nice job of laying out both sides in a human way and describing his experiences carrying.

I was disappointed with the ending, though. I wanted him to say "I'm going to continue carrying my gun." First of all, I don't think he gave it a long enough try. His experience about being at Condition Yellow and not liking it is typical when you first start carrying. Not that people revert to condition White after carrying for a while, but as you know, it eventually starts to feel like another tool you carry with you. He never got past the "honeymoon phase"...if you can call it that.

Second, for the benefit of the movement, we need more liberals carrying guns. (No, not all them. Think Vermont types.) We need more liberals involved in the shooting sports. Especially in MA, we need to put an end to the "guns are icky" ethos that permeates this state. That more than anything would help us get rid of the draconian and ineffective laws and regulations we have here. It would also change the nature of the conversation. Maybe I'm an idealist here, but as I'm starting to train new shooters from all political leanings, and I'm seeing a growing number of moderates and liberals that want to learn. That's progress.

 

[pipmaster1971]

When I got about fifteen feetaway, one of them yelled, “Faggot!”

I’ve never been one to throw down because someone called me a name. But it’s possible that in the old days I’d have yelled something back. At the very least, I’d have felt my blood pressure spike.

This time, I didn’t become angry or even annoyed. A Zen-like calm overtook me. I felt no need to restrain myself; my body didn’t even gesture in
the direction of anger. Pace Claudio, my hand meant nothing to my sword. Rage wasn’t an option, because I had no way of knowing where it would end, and somehow my brain and body sensed that. I began to understand why we don’t I’M MORE ALERT AND ACUTE WHEN I’M CARRYING MY GUN. IF I’M IN A RESTAURANT OR STORE, I FIND MYSELF IN MY OWN LITTLE MOVIE 34 HARPER’S MAGAZINE / AUGUST 2010 hear a lot of stories about legal gun carriers killing one another in road-rage incidents. Carrying a gun gives you a sense of guardianship, even a kind of moral superiority. You are the vigilant one, the sheepdog watching the flock, the coiled wrath of God. To snatch out your gun and wave it around would not only invite catastrophe but also sacrifice that righteous high ground and embarrass you in the worst possible way. I don’t know how many gun carriers have read Robert Heinlein, but all of them can quote him: “An armed society is a polite society.”

Yes, yes and yes. Far from turning a person into a raving lunatic I too find that carrying has completely the opposite effect. You don't want to provoke a situation that could cause you to draw your firearm. Not only the fact you might end up (needlessly) taking a life, that if you observed some discretion you wouldn't have got into that situation. But also because of the world of legal pain that would surely be brought upon you.

I found it disappointing he didn't want to continue to carry. Seems like he might want to consider a smaller gun.

 

[pdm]

I found it disappointing he didn't want to continue to carry. Seems like he might want to consider a smaller gun.

He didn't want to continue because he's afraid his friends will desert him. He's probably right.