Mikeb302000 [not shown] doesn’t like gun owners much. No surprise there. He doesn’t like guns. Or, more specifically, what people with guns do with them. Some people? I’m not sure Mikeb’s capable of—or interested in—making that distinction. Nor am I sure if Mikeb’s gun control agenda would lead to total civilian disarmament. But his critics assume so. Which displeases them no end. The result: gun control debate that generates a great deal of heat and very little light. Yesterday, Mikeb opened a new front in his campaign to tar all gun owners with the same metaphorical brush . . .
Most of you guys have friends or relatives who you know are not fit to own guns. You do nothing about it for several reasons, you feel it’s none of your business, or you feel it’s their right to own guns in spite of whatever disqualifying problems they may have. Maybe you even have mixed feelings about it but inertia takes over, you do nothing.
That’s where you’re complicit . . .
I’ll change that “most of you guys” to all of you guys. Every one of you knows some gun owner who drinks too much for his own good, or who flies off the handle showing signs of anger problems. You justify not intervening because maybe, let’s hope, it never results in a bad scene. How about the prescription medication guys, the ones who’ve had back problems or depression and got hooked on the medicine. And let’s not forget the accident prone.
Of course some of you go much further, you have friends or relatives with violent criminal pasts who seem to have straightened out. What are you going to do, play cop and criticize their desire to exercise a natural human right like everybody else. Of course not. That’s why you’re all complicit in this.
After yesterday’s shoot/don’t shoot post, where members of TTAG’s armed intelligentsia considered their responsibility to defend innocent strangers, this suggestion strikes a similar chord. My own take: it’s not my job to police fellow gun owners. It’s the police’s job. Put another way, judge not lest ye be a judge.
But the question remains: are there times when a gun owner should perform an intervention on a fellow gun owner? Does the fact that both parties in this recommended interaction are armed make any difference?
I personally do not know any gun owners any of his categories. Perhaps the fact that I’m in medical school and all my gun owning friends are either doctors, nurses, or other med students says a lot about MikeB’s argument.
The only person whom I know who has a drinking problem hates guns anyways.
But of course that breaks MikeB’s stereotype that we’re either all just a bunch of toothless rednecks wearing flannel shirts and suspenders, or shady felons selling our pistols on street corners to drug dealers.
Well I am a flannel and suspender wearing redneck, but was also an honors student from suburban preppieville, so there.
I know only one confirmed (by me) firearms accident where a fellow shot a hole in the wall at the local gunsmith. I think as a whole gun owners are very responsible. Also, according to my readings drownings are 50 something more likely to kill you then a firearm and car accidents are something like 100 times more dangerous.
Also at the range I think that it IS our responsibility to point out unsafe actions and to try and keep everybody safe from stupidity.
All of the gun owners I know are all stable and responsible people. The only time I can really think of when I said anything to a fellow gunner was on the range when a newbie wasn’t following the safety rules.
Maybe Mike needs to find a better class of associates.
By his logic we are also responsible for our friends driving, finances, relationships and what the hell making sure they have a proper breakfast. I mean sure we all know someone who has questionable judgement but it is not our responsibility to be their caretakers. At most we have the responsibility to demonstrate a health respect for firearms through our own actions.
Ol’ Mikey is making the jump that these worst-case gun-owner scenarios will lead to tragedy of some sort. I say they will not. Who’s correct?
Can he see the future? Because if he can then I want him to buy me a lottery ticket.
“And let’s not forget the accident prone.”
Is clumsiness really a qualifier for not owning a gun? I understand that those who fall under the category of “bumbler” have to train themselves more completely, but learned movements kind of supersede ineptitude.
And, who’s to decide that you are too “accident prone” to own a gun, other than yourself?
Mikeb’s point of view reflects his own circumstances, not mine. Of course, it’s easy for him to talk since he doesn’t need a gun. If he’s attacked, all Mikeb needs to do is read his blog to the bad guy, who will pass out from boredom.
I literally have no idea what this guy is talking about. Almost everyone that I know owns at least one gun and none of them can be described in his terms. He should get some new friends, maybe go down to the range and meet some normal people for a change.
We all know people who shouldn’t have guns, and many of them are already prohibited by law from possessing them. My gun-owning acquaintances are conscientious and responsible citizens, every single one of them; I’m not sure who Mikeb302000 hangs out with.
And, in case he’s forgotten, every one of us is already prohibited by law from using firearms as the instruments of crime or reckless behavior.
I am sure the holier than thou Mike knows unsafe drivers, but doesn’t do anything stop them.
I am sure the holier than thou Mike knows people who drink to excess, but doesn’t do anything stop them.
I am sure the holier than thou Mike knows people who drink and drive, but doesn’t do anything stop them.
I am sure the holier than thou Mike knows people who smoke and kill people with their 2nd hand smoke, but doesn’t do anything stop them.
I am sure the holier than thou Mike knows people leave plastic bags and other tools of suffocation around the house, but doesn’t do anything stop them.
I am sure the holier than thou Mike knows people who let their kids cross the street alone, but doesn’t do anything stop them.
I am sure the holier than thou Mike knows people who leave household chemicals and RX prescriptions around the house, but doesn’t do anything stop them.
I am sure the holier than thou Mike is guilty of all of those things himself even though they all kill more kids than accidents with firearms.
Center for Disease Control
20 Leading Causes on Unintentional Injury/Deaths-2001 Ages 1-14
Motor Vehicle 46.2%
Drowning 17.4%
Fire 10.6%
Suffocations 5.5%
Pedestrian 3.2%
Falls 2.2%
Poisoning 1.8%
Natural/Environmental 1.6%
Firearms 1.6%
Struck by/or Against 1.5%
I tried to leave a post on his blog, but apparently, all entries are subject to approval (censorship) before they are posted.
mikey seems to have this NWO thing down. He even had one entry that promoted lying to police to get a law abiding gun owners guns taken away.
There are some scary people out there. Thankfully they (at least they claim) don’t own guns.
Need some entertainment? Cruise that guy’s blog for a few minutes.
*whew* Out there.
I read it from time to time. It’s internet Ambien.
Nor am I sure if Mikeb’s gun control agenda would lead to total civilian disarmament. But his critics assume so. Which displeases them no end.
In the end what difference does it make what his agenda is? He is an internet nobody that has no way of affecting policy. Trying to debate on his site is like trying to have a conversation with the insane man on the street corner while his two homeless buddies fling pooh at you. What is the point?
+1
There are times when gun owners should intervene on another’s behalf. We are all soldiers in this war, we need to take care of ourselves and each other so we may fight the tyrants and the hoplophobes. It is a collectivist mindset, but it is also individualist as well. Perhaps “populist” will do.
Physicians are actually encouraged to intervene on another’s behalf if they think their colleague is impaired – we’re going to be taught this in our Behavioral Sciences class at MCV. And yet somehow, physician errors outrank gun homicides in the US by nearly 70-fold….
maybe I should just join Blackwater instead of being a physician.
I’ll intervene when some jackass at the range forgets his muzzle discipline. That’s the only time I’ve ever needed to intervene with anyone who owns a gun. If a bigger intervention is needed, 911 will summon the police. They can intervene by locking the guy up.
I was thinking of how to response to this MORON while I was reading everyone’s comments. Well the RABBI covered anything I could have written plus some.
A) I can’t believe you posted anything about Sparky… you’ll learn.. very soon as he comes to troll your blog as he has mine, Sean’s, and countless others (he’s banned at Sean’s, mine, and countless others.. LOL)
B) Sparky makes a lot of comments that he can find no proof for. Like saying that all gun owners are responsible for all gun crimes because we… own guns. Oh.. and we allow them to get stolen.. because that is where ALL gun crime starts.. from legally owned, stolen firearms.
C) Yes, he moderates and won’t post it if you make a really really good point that deflates his whole argument.
D)You must have missed the part where Sparky admits to have owned guns illegally but now blames all of us for all the illegal guns. Linoge has that post at Wall of the City….. Enjoy the troll named Mike$%#… err the one who shall not be named…
Patrick, I never posted a single comment on Sean’s blog because he banned me literally before I ever visited it.
Ralph, Thanks for the tip. “If he’s attacked, all Mikeb needs to do is read his blog to the bad guy, who will pass out from boredom.” That’s funny.
Robert, My agenda certainly would not lead to anything like “total civilian disarmament” even if I weren’t an “internet nobody,” as RuffRidr rightly pointed out. My agenda would lead to a much safer situation in the gun world, both legal and illegal. My way would eliminate many of the bad apples among you guys, which despite your denials, are plentiful enough to make the headlines every single day in every single city.
My way would also drastically reduce the flow of guns from you legitimate gun owners to the criminals, something which you guys can’t seem to get a handle on. Every single gun used in a crime started out legally owned by one of you.
Of course it’s unanimous among your commenters. No one knows a single person who meets the problem profile, not a one.
“My way would also drastically reduce the flow of guns from you legitimate gun owners to the criminals, something which you guys can’t seem to get a handle on.”
What you can’t get a handle on is that criminals will always get guns and you can NOT reduce criminal activity by restricting law-abiding citizens.
Sorry to disagree, Rabbi. I thought you were a well respected and smart guy, but repeating that tired old cliche is anything but.
Imagine the unimaginable for a moment. Background checks on every transfer, total licensing of gun owners and registration of every weapon. Imagine further that somehow the government found a way to maintain the databases properly and the information was available instantly at the stroke of a computer key.
You don’t think that could cut down on straw purchasing and sloppy private sales of guns to criminals? These are extreme restrictions aimed at the law abiding which would impact the criminals.
About five years of that and the guns now available in the criminal world would have diminished to the point where major changes are seen in gun violence. And here’s the beauty of it, all you truly honest and lawful gun owners would still have guns just like now.
I know people who shouldn’t have blogs. What should I do?
ROFL +1 +1.
One more thought: Mikeb- you know people who shouldn’t have children, pets and cars. What have you done about it? List them here and I’ll definitely consider following your example.
Comments are closed.