“For the majority of gun owners, being told that their harmless hobby is somehow responsible for the deaths of other people must be deeply unpleasant. Worse still is when they are told it by metropolitan types with more money than them. Michael Bloomberg, for example, New York’s billionaire ex-mayor. Or possibly me. And it makes me wonder whether one of the problems—certainly not the main problem, but one of them—with attempts to control guns is precisely that the people making the loudest case for reform are people like Mr Bloomberg and me.” – Anonymous author in Shooting guns: It’s rather fun, actually [at economist.com]
[h/t DrVino]
Exactly. We don’t like the hypocrisy of those with armed guards telling us we can’t protect ourselves in a similar fashion.
Don’t ignore the most basic objection [to chikensh_t “Anonymous” at The Economist, or any of that ilk ] of
“FU STUPID, NOBODY ASKED YOUR DUMB A_ _”
If you can overcome that objection [AND YOU FING CAN’T] then you might have a conversation (with yourself).
That conversation should include mention of your (self-aggrandized) ‘smarter than thou’ attitude, that if you live in a ball-o-snakes sh_t pile called a “blue” ‘city’ then you need to get out more, see more of America, wake-up, breath a little (we out here worry that you’re sharing your air too much), or just get the F out period.
Most Economist magazine articles are published without an author attribution. It’s an editorial decision and style, probably not the choice of the author him/herself.
And virtually all of them Leftist/Statist/anti-gun. The one thing you can count on from the Economist is that they are against freedom and for big government in almost every case. The economist that they love is John Maynard Keynes and the one they hate is Adam Smith, or any of the members of the Austrian School of economic theory.
. . . AND PROBABLY NOT FROM HERE, IN WHICH CASE, IF WE WANTED THEIR OPINION ON ANYTHING, WE WOULD PICK ANOTHER ONE OF THEM UP AND USE THEM TO BEAT IT OUT OF THEM.
The U.S. doesn’t need any F’d up sh_t from anywhere else.
FU THE ECONOMIST
We don’t aspire to be any other nation in the world, we don’t aspire to be any other people in the world, we don’t need anyone to come to our country who doesn’t aspire to be American.
If one of US wants to chuck a little piece of our Constitution, we can chuck the rest. The rest of you F’s weigh-in at your peril.
Joe, you clearly underplayed it…
Ya, man, I got that.
My harmless hobby is responsible for the deaths of others?
If someone dies because of me, in the author’s eyes, then I invite the author to call the police and provide all necessary evidence of my crimes.
In the meantime, f*** right off good sir.
That’s my take on it, too. I’m no fan of either Bloomie or “The Economist”, but that’s immaterial. It’s the message, not the messenger, which I reject. I am not responsible for anyone else’s, outside of my care, criminal or incompetent use of firearms.
I also can’t stand the misnomer ‘gun violence.’ When the lady in Vegas plowed into a group of people, did anybody call it car violence? Whenever somebody is stabbed, I don’t see hysterical headlines proclaiming it as knife violence. We don’t blame cars or knives, we focus on the people. But if a gun is in the picture, that’s the first thing that gets blamed, thus implying that we should not be able (or allowed) to own such things.
Our side really needs to make a point of focusing in on this “gun violence” thing. Like somebody’s more dead if he’s killed by a gun? Like violence with something other than a gun is okay? The tendentious focus on “gun violence” should really draw a lot of flak from our side.
It’s a way to make apples to oranges comparisons: “In Happyland, where guns are banned, gun violence is nil.” “Well, whoopity-do, so now they’re killing each other with knives, bully for them.”
“White Americans’ level of violent crime is barely different from white western Europeans’ level of violent crime, regardless of gun laws.” We need to get used to repeating this. And when the libs respond with “dass raciss” or “are you saying blacks are violent criminals” or whatever they’ll inevitably say, we should just drop the mike and walk out; let them stew over whether it’s racist or not. That’s their problem, not ours.
Great comment- violence is violence is violence. There is no such thing as gun violence or any other “type” of violence, only violence. Shooting someone is as aggressive as cracking them over the head with rebar, no more and no less.
“Centre” instead of center… If it weren’t for the second amendment, we might still be spelling wrongly and driving on the wrong side of the road. Like the author.
And be subjects, not free men and women.
I don’t feel very free right now…
Reminds me of old dried up church ladies trying to outlaw sex. Good luck with either you bozos.
That and the whole ‘shoulder thing that goes up’ thing.
Frickin’ socialists can’t see past money. No, it is not the fact that some rich people are pro gun control, it is the fact that they have no right to deny my God given (or natural right, whatever your flavor) right to freedom, and my guns help me retain my freedom.
Actually, socialist have an issue seeing money all together. Ask any socialist whom is to pay for all the .gov sponsored programs and “entitlement” and all you get is tax the rich. Which is arbitrary, at best, and lacking realism and economic understanding, at worst.
Rich people own this country and they aren’t going to pay for anything.
Don’t belive it, ask yourself, what tax bracket do you think the queen of England, or the Rothschild family pay in the socialist Meca known as the UK … The 0% tax bracket probably, right, because the rules don’t apply to people with the money.
Too often, we confuse socialism/socialists, liberalism/liberals, and progressivism/progressives…the three are not interchangeable.
They do overlap a lot, though.
I disagree. If one looks at communism as the mother of all monsters; then think of socialism, marxism, progressivism and facism as all of her spawn..
Think of it as the spectrum of varied levels of government control on the left and minimal government with maximum personal liberty on the right..
So the only essential difference of these spectrums of Communism is just what level of control the government has and the level of how much business drives government or government controls business.
But the overriding imperative of these varied levels of Communism is, as always, the people are the sheep that will be the shorn, sometimes more and sometimes less, but always made powerless, helpless and dependant by the Powers That Be.
You find me a Liberal, Soicalist, or a Progressive who can answer the question “whom will pay for all this” without parroting “tax the rich” or “fair share” and maybe I’ll buy that, economically speaking, they’re different. Until then, not so much.
Modern definitions by the Left have morphed the meanings. Socialism and Communism are now Liberal and Progressive.
Pretty spot on until the very end, where he has to bolster his bona fides by calling the NRA “nasty” and unrepresentative of most gun owners. If D.K. crossed the Potomac and visited the NRA range, he would find no more a temples to death than what he experienced.
Two ultraliberal journalist friends of mine recently shot guns for research and thoroughly enjoyed it. They might rethink their position, but the left has a powerful tool you may remember from high school — peer pressure. They caught a lot of flak posting pictures on social media, so like “D.K.”, they will probably straddle the fence. (And liberals do seem to spend an awful lot of time on social media. Where are all the conservatives? Oh that’s right — we’re working.) But it’s an incremental win. Now D.K. and my two friends see why shooters shoot and why we find gun control so unreasonable.
Is that The Economist or a letter to the editor? My subscription has lapsed for some time, but I’ve always enjoyed the unattributed stories and pseudonymed columns. Additionally, this reads far more like a letter than anything they would allow to be written by the staff – too personal, too casual.
Also, it appears that the writer then transitions to assailing the NRA as only representing mfrs and not owners, including suggesting that the magazines are built around cultivating fear. While I do think that AR spends too much volume on ads and chicken little editorials and not enough on substantial stories, they have a fair share of meaningful write ups.
I also didn’t care for the suggestion that guns should only be used at small ranges. The handgun he used could also dump 30 rounds in 20 second, just as easily as a Bushmaster. He compared gun ranges to golf driving ranges, but decries the long range shot (1000 yards from a .50 cal). That’s just as absurd as limiting people to pitch and putts and saying that trying to get to 300 yards is a bridge too far.
It doesn’t take a rocket surgeon to see Bloomy strolling about with armed security whilst telling us lowly commoners we have no need to be armed.
I can at least half a$$ respect someone who touts gun control and has enough courage in their own convicts to NOT be surrounded by guns, or people with guns.
As far as being the main issue, no, it’s not the main issue, freedom is the main issue. And as far as my “hobby”, no, it’s my hobby. All my gun serve a purpose, if I want a hobby I’ll take up golf.
But once again, hobbies and elitist aren’t the issue, freedom is the issue, or the lack there of, as it were.
” freedom is the issue, or the lack there of, as it were.”
Another way to state the issue is Control.
Not only do they want control, but they are stamping-feet mad that they can’t control “us.” (“Us” being anyone that does not bend to their whim on any given issue, be it guns, Climate Change, eating fatty cheeseburgers, driving SUVs, voting Republican, etc).
How DARE us lowly peons not bend to their will and greater judgment.
Well said fellow North Carolinian. My hobbies include hunting (where some of my guns are utilized) and fishing. Either though could also be said to be my right as a citizen to harvest the bounty of the land. We are also Americans, who have never stood for being controlled, and when we are told we can’t have or do something with no good reason ever being given, we will want it more and hold fast. Especially when the controllers insist on speaking to us as though we were tempestuous children who will “understand” someday.
Hobby? Guns? How about way of life, natural, civil and Constitutional right. So according to author, gays wanting get married must be their hobby also?
>“For the majority of gun owners, being told that their harmless hobby is somehow responsible for the deaths of >other people must be deeply unpleasant
No, it’s deeply false.
Deeply offensive would have worked too.
“Don’t you understand? Nobody needs guns! Why don’t you people live in a high rise with armed security, key card access, security doors, rapid response plans, and alarm systems?”
/SomeIvoryTowerShitbag
The author writes a fairly balanced and relatively unbiased article, coming from an elitist, progressive perspective, until he gets to the NRA, describing it as a “nasty” organization that is primarily funded by the gun maker’s and not representing the majority of gun owners. Right.
Just another elitist that knows nothing about what he writes, knowing what is “true”, despite massive evidence to the contrary.
But he did come close to one truth when he said one of the reasons for the resistance to the imposition of more gun control laws is because they are proposed by effete, ivory tower intellectual elitists out of touch with reality that are only interested in total and absolute control of the “useless eaters and breeders” by disarming us, while those that have almost impossible to get CCL’s, or while they keep their private armed security and armed gate guards.
Yea – same old crap. Portraying the NRA is a select few funded by gun manufacturers – being “Nasty.” Nevermind the millions of members from all paths in life funding them for a cause they believe in.
So it is a plus that this press piece says pro-gun folk have a point.
Rather than rip on what is left out, pocket the win and build on it. This is a time for “yes, and.”
So, “Yes, fun, safe and challenging. And there is more. Both other range shooring and other reasons. It aint just that Bloomy is rich for example. Its that he has guards n wants to take my similar protection away. And outside the city, a gun is also a tool.”
“As for a conversation, maube syart with less name-calling.”
No, Jim, the article is a hit piece. It lays some ground initially as being somewhat reasonable by saying that shooting is fun, “Hey, I even shot a gun at a gun range, and all the shooters weren’t all racists white guys”, then he goes for the throat, saying how one of the premier defenders of the second amendment, is a “nasty” organization funded by the gun makers. Really?
The guy, with a few minutes of research would have found out that this common meme by the gun grabbers is completely false. So I propose he is lying in his teeth. He knows the truth that it is the members that drive the NRA, not the reverse.
So like all progressives, “the ends justify the means”, lying, cheating and mass murder is acceptable if it moves the agenda forward. He is trying to drive a wedge between gun owners and the NRA so that they won’t be so effective in organizing gun owners to fight more gun control.
He also wants to try to keep this meme about the NRA alive in the old media so the NRA won’t be as effective when they lobby the congress.
That’s a very old article (the econimist article) – from about this time last year. Gun owners were better liked back then compared to today and the mainstream media has removed any editors/writers sympathetic to gun ownership by now. You won’t find articles like that today.
The mainstream media and gun owner hating crowd were always fully aware of the “problem” with gun control. The thing is – they just don’t care what you think about your guns. They know what is best for you. You need to STFU and eat whatever they serve you to eat.
Didn’t we already deconstruct this column, when it was originally published in February last year?
Yep, we sure did. Even used this same quote as QOTD:
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2015/02/daniel-zimmerman/quote-of-the-day-yep-thats-one-reason/
Nicely caught by you and anonymous. Shame on me as a reader for missing that (I then excuse myself since I wasn’t reading TTAG at the time).
Maybe TTAG made a new year’s resolution to be more “green”, and this is just part of a new recycling program…
How many carbon credits do you get for that?
Reduce, reuse, republish.
Rubbish.
If the only thing at steak was a “harmless hobby,” we wouldn’t have five million plus people donating money to organizations dedicated to preserving the hobby.
What’s at steak is the freedom and liberty the patriots fought to secure. The libtards don’t get it, and they never will.
Oh, they get it clear as day. Libtards don’t want freedom and liberty and they know that our firearms are a significant factor in securing freedom and liberty. That is why libtards want government to disarm us.
I can attest that shooting is not, in fact, “fun”. Waking up O dark thirty, getting it to a range, pulling your weapons from the armory, getting ammo, and easing up to a firing line just as the sun breaks horizon is the start of a long day. Rifle in the morning, pistols in the afternoon followed by cleaning. Staying on your mental game for a week…gets old quick.
As for the European scribbling scribe’s opinion of our RTKBA, well it’s none of your dam business. If you like Europe you can keep it. Enjoy the thugs and Muslims raping your women, changing your culture into a third world hell hole. Your VAT is being used to sell your family’s future and all of it stationed by your elected representatives.
Our guns and the continued use of them, at a range or in lawful self protection, is the only thing stopping politicians from taking what we earned. Not through the force of arms but the ballot box. They know crossing our firing line is end of their political career. Also note we chuck long time gun writers under the bus when they attempt to positive comment on more regulation owning arms.
Finally give wide berth and walk softly in the presence of gun owners. We are the foundation of the Republic and if called upon we’ll preserve it.
From the source article in The Economist
The murder rate in the U.S. is higher than Western Europe simply because violence, drug, and gang cultures in U.S. urban cores glorify murder and have absolutely no respect for human life.
But don’t take my word for it. Look at the data available from the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Uniform Crime Reports. FACT: violent criminals in the United States use alternate weapons (non-firearms) for about 1/3 of all murders … which means the murder rate in the United States without firearms is still higher than the murder rate in Western Europe.
And while you are looking at the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reports, look at the murder rates in states like Maine and Vermont. Their murder rates are about the same as the murder rates of Western Europe. And yet you can carry firearms in both states without any licensing or background check. And you only need a background check to purchase a firearm from a licensed dealer. You can purchase a firearm from a private individual without any background check. If guns make it easy to murder people and cause high murder rates, how can the murder rates in Maine and Vermont be the same as Western Europe when guns are so easy to acquire and possess in public in those two states?
Anyone with an account there (economist.com) care to copy and paste my article in their comments section?
Ahh yes. The Urban “gangsta” culture of a significant percentage of inner city blacks. The progressives say that this culture of the glorifying of violence, criminality and the demonizing of fellow blacks that try to get a good education as being “like whitey” has nothing to do with the fact the black population that comprises 15% of the US population commit more the 50% of all murders and that some urban areas have 75% conviction rate of young black males.
No, it is because of “White privilege” and “white racism” that causes this disparity. Riiight.
It’s is because if those things though. The privilege and racism of white progressive elites, who think they are the ones who need to *make* minorities equal.
Isn’t that the interesting thing. The very process of progressives excusing the unacceptable behavior of the gangster culture, blaming it on “white privilege” and telling the minorities that “white privilege” keeps them poor, and uneducated, takes away the very incentive for many of the minorities to even make the attempt to better their lives.
Everything a progressive does, regardless of stated intent to “better” people’s lives, is to create powerless, helpless and dependant subjects,; succling at the breast of the,state.
“Everything a progressive does, regardless of stated intent to “better” people’s lives, is to create powerless, helpless and dependant subjects,; succling at the breast of the,state.”
Was it Lenin or Stalin that took a live chicken, had it plucked, then dropped it at his boot on a brutally cold winter day.
The chicken desperately tried to keep warm by pressing itself against his boot.
“This is how you rule people.” Lenin or Stalin reputedly said.
Let’s be frank, at least among ourselves. It’s not “gang cultures” or “urban cores.” It’s black and brown people, AKA, African-Americans and Latinos. These are two of the world’s most violent demographics, routinely putting up epic murder statistics wherever on the planet they are found. Sub-Saharan Africa and Latin America are quite violent. White Americans exhibit dramatically lower levels of violent crime than either group (as do yellow Americans), comparable to those found in white western European populations.
We should not let the left checkmate us on this issue. They think their taboo on frank talk about race checkmates us into letting them trot out this “Americans are soooo violent compared to Europeans” think. We should routinely prove them wrong. If we stand fast and speak frankly on this issue, consistently, they will eventually drop it. They absolutely do not want the shameful levels of violence among the aforementioned groups to be dragged out in front of the public every time they mention their “Americans are so violent” canard. If we stick to our guns, as it were, this meme will become fixed in the public’s consciousness, and eventually we’ll be able to say “well, some Americans are, anyway,” and everyone will know what we’re talking about. But until that saturation point has been achieved, I think we should be very explicit in our answer.
Haha. Does he still not realize the flaw in his anti-gun stance?
Speaking of Bloomberg, if you plan to donate to the NRA, please be sure to buy Bloomberg a gift membership instead.
#enrollbloomberg, as originally suggested by TheYankeeMarshall.
Michael Bloomberg
17 East 79th St.
New York, NY 10075
“For the majority of gun owners, being told that their harmless hobby is somehow responsible for the deaths of other people must be deeply unpleasant.”
Yeah, unpleasant when its not true. Kind of like being told that me owning a car is somehow responsible for someone else crashing theirs.
Courtesy of Uber and Lyft, it will be coming to that. I read in a German e-magazine that the average age of a new car buyer in Germany is 53; and that the urban young hipster/metrosexual has no interest in buying a car. This is like when I was young, growing up in NYC and surrounding areas. The people who were die-hard NYC believers did not have driver’s licenses and had no interest in learning to move themselves independently. The urban elite mentality that is against guns is also against personal transportation (except for their own armored limousines) and for the same reason. They want to control, and they want us, the peons, to “like” being controlled, and “like” being forced to interact with questionable social elements on public transportation, with no means to defend yourself, so that you will clamor for more police and cameras. So they come up with advertising (propaganda) schemes to make it all seem cool.
My involvement with firearms is not a mere hobby. It’s one means of my protecting myself, my family, and my community. No, I don’t sit around waiting for the Bat Signal to light up, summoning my armed response. I just live my life in peace, which includes preparation should someone else shatter that peace with criminal violence.
As for the NRA, my involvement with them helps fund efforts too numerous to list here. Does the “Economist” writer even know that the NRA Foundation exists? Any familiarity with Eddie the Eagle? Check it out!
“For the majority of gun owners, being told that their harmless hobby is somehow responsible for the deaths of other people must be deeply unpleasant.”
Try blatantly false. And again with the focus on feelings instead of truth.
Oh well, at least he seems to be trying to understand. Baby steps.
If my “hobby” makes me responsible for firearms related deaths in America, then any person who owns a vehicle and uses alcohol is responsible for all highway fatalities. See how that works? Your logic is completely flawed. the only party responsible for a murder is the person committing the murder. Reform starts with teaching firearm safety at a young enough age to make an impact. Something your inner city programs, where let’s face it, the real problem with guns can be found, will never do. Drugs, Banned, still readily available and getting worse despite billions of dollars thrown at the problem. Alcohol, banned from 1920 to 1933, readily available almost everywhere and led to the rise of organized crime. Bans don’t work. Get it through your thick skull.
My take away? This article is actually a great argument for taking newbies to the range. Just as travel is cure for prejudice (M. Twain), a trip to the range is good cure (or at least the beginning of one) for uninformed anti-gunism.
The Economist……thanks but no thanks.
No, my problem with gun control is that it’s unconstitutional and an infringement on free people’s rights. I don’t care who’s saying it.
Not that hard.
I have no idea what the author is driving at. Personally, I love being told what to do by an undersized New York City billionaire and his household servant in Washington.
Ummm yeah…retread and I think I remarked “when did the Economist go full left retard?” or similar last year…c’mon guys.
Yikes– lots of venom here from people who obviously don’t read the Economist. Yes, they are anti-gun. But pro freedom, not Big Brother, and definitely pro-free market.
And it’s not written for 6th graders like most American “news” magazines.
In other news, all car related deaths are blood on my hands because of the fact that I drive one.
Because I socially drink, all drunk driving fatalities are attributable to aiding in criminal activity.
Did anybody ask the author how he feels about contributing to the death of thousands of people a year?
Well, at least this person is starting to wake up. Starting, mind you. They’re not fully awake. Hopefully, they’ll eventually awaken completely. Sadly, however, they’ll probably just use this epiphany to switch tactics.
Comments are closed.