One father's journey into arming himself

[vigil617]

It's kind of a long read, but it rings very true with me, and I think it will also with others who have decided to own and carry for self-defense while still wrestling with some of the issues involved. It's also an excellent example of a responsible media source presenting different sides of a subject, regardless of what may or may not be in line with its own editorial stance on the subject.

I'm sure you'll recognize some of the names and concepts described here, including Col. Grossman and the sheep/wolf/sheepdog analogies.

Opinion | A Gun Killed My Son. So Why Do I Want to Own One? - The New York Times

 

[sigp220.45]

That was a good article. I don't agree with everything he says, but I think I'd like the guy.

 

[MurphyPr]

In my opinion, the author still doesn't get it.

In the history of firearms, there has never been a documented case where a weapon pulled its own trigger. The discharge of a firearm requires human action. Therefore, it is not guns that need to be controlled, but people--specifically, criminals and those who lack the mental capacity to distinguish right from wrong. It is not guns that are evil, it is (some) people who are evil.

To remain a free people, we must accept that freedom is accompanied by risk, and while we should endeavor to minimize risks, risks cannot be eliminated.

As far as arming teachers, I see no problem. No teacher will be forced to be armed--only those willing to accept the responsibility.

In the wake of the tragic murders in Virginia Beach there will no doubt be calls for increased gun control measures. Measures which the author will probably support. Any such measures will only serve to punish me for a crime I did not commit, and that is morally wrong.

 

[s&wchad]

I read the entire article and didn't come away with the same thing you did.

I feel like he's using his firearms ownership to legitimize a call for additional "sensible" gun control legislation. We know how that works out. He's dismissed the idea of arming teachers as foolhardy. Virtually all of the mass shootings take place where law abiding citizens are prohibited from carrying firearms. Even the title struck me as insincere. A gun didn't kill his son any more than a hammer and saw built a house.

He expressed a general dislike for "gun culture" people. I don't know about you, but the hunters, collectors, recreational and competitive shooters I've had the privilege to know are salt of the earth and I'm proud to call a number of them friends.

Over the last 20 years, civilian concealed carry has exponentially increased in the US. In every State that adopted "Shall Issue", violent predatory crime has decreased. There are more firearms in our country than ever before and according to FBI statistics, the murder rate has virtually been cut in half since 1980.

Additional restrictions on firearms ownership won't make us safer, just the contrary. Look at China, The Soviet Union, Cambodia, North Korea... Virtually every dictatorship and oppressive regime in the past century started with a common theme; disarm the people first. In 2012, Venezuela banned private gun ownership in the name of safety. The current government is totally corrupt, their economy is in shambles and armed gangs (with a wink and a nod from the regime) rule the streets.

Mass shootings certainly make the news and it breaks my heart every time I hear about one. Not to downplay them, but they're statistically insignificant in a country of 330 million people. Chicago has some of the strictest gun control in the nation and 90 people were shot there last week.

Sorry, but I'm not willing to give up any more rights, liberties or freedom in the name of perceived safety.

 

[Watchdog]

Gregory Gibson has written an opinion piece. It's eloquently written, but it's still just an opinion piece. A long opinion piece.

My opinion is that Gibson is obsessed with the death of his son almost to the point of insanity. The length and detail in his opinion piece reinforces my thoughts on his obsession. And make no mistake, a person can be driven insane by grief...we all know that. He's also written a book about his son's murder (Gone Boy), created a website about it, corresponded with his son's killer for twenty years, and finally produced a video featuring the killer.

Gregory Gibson also supports Moms Demand Action and Gabby Gifford's anti-gun group.

I understand grief at the loss of a loved one, and I sympathize with him in that regard. It's hard for me to imagine losing a son or daughter.

For me, his writing is simply too far over the top. He's an intelligent man, and I like intelligent people. But there's very little, if anything, in his opinion piece that I can agree with.

 

[robertrwalsh]

Maybe it's just me, but my takeaway was;
"I now own a gun, but.........."

 

[vigil617]

It's very interesting to me how differently people can interpret a piece like this. It goes to the heart of how conflicted the writer himself is about gun ownership, self defense, and the associated topics he addresses. I think it also reinforces that we do tend to believe whatever supports what our experience has taught us. The writer sees this in his own journey, I think, and struggles with it.

Good people can disagree, and often do. The journey toward truth is a winding one with many sidepaths along the way.

What I appreciate is that you took the time to read the piece, which was long, or at least to scan it sufficiently to inform yourselves. It speaks well of you, and of this Forum.

 

[Squarebutt]

In my experience, people who have lost a loved one to senseless violence are often unable to accept that their loved one was simply in the wrong place at the wrong time. Can't say that any of us wouldn't feel the same way. Not much point in arguing with them. What is missing from his conclusion is any thought that a few "sheepdogs" might have made a difference at VA Beach, San Bernadino, the DC Navy Yard and a dozen other places where gunmen had no opposition because official policies kept everyone disarmed.

 

[Borderboss]

S&Wchad is spot on. I read the entire article hoping to see something that was different than what I expected it to be. Unfortunately I was disappointed. It was exactly what I expected. It's a typical pscho-babel piece where the apply their "superior intellect" to try to understand the "other side", describe themselves as thoughtful and introspective, and then end up exactly where they started. This guy is exactly where he started because he never intended to be changed.

The key term to prove my point that is used constantly in the article is "gun violence". Guns don't commit violence, as we all know. We also know that people who would commit illegal violence with any weapon, including a gun, don't become choirboys, or girls, if those weapons are somehow miraculously removed from their availability. But the author is like every other anti-gun person as he thinks the miracle will happen. He thought that at the beginning of his "journey" and he thinks it now.

As to teachers with guns, this author and everyone "gun person" he talked to that disagree with it don't understand why it's called hardening the target. These schools will be less likely to be targets because of the existence of the defenders. It's the same result we see every time there's an expansion of law-abiding citizens carrying firearms. The bad guys go elsewhere because there are more armed defenders around. So crime goes down.

In the end, the article is the typical junk that you would normally find in the NY Times.

 

[oldiegoldie]

it's in the NY Times.....i refuse to read ANYTHING in NY Times because i know i will come away mad. they are not our [gun owners] friends.

 

[STCM(SW)]

it's in the NY Times.....i refuse to read ANYTHING in NY Times because i know i will come away mad. they are not our [gun owners] friends.

YOU GOT THAT RIGHT!

 

[MurphyPr]

In my experience, people who have lost a loved one to senseless violence are often unable to accept that their loved one was simply in the wrong place at the wrong time.

One of my nieces was brutally murdered 20 years ago. She wasn't in the wrong place at the wrong time, her murderer was.

 

[haywood]

In my opinion (whatever that's worth) people who want to control guns are looking for an easy way out. They don't want to spend money and time controlling criminals or offending someone. They get on the stop guns band wagon and think that will work. It will work just as good as stopping drugs, drunk driving, and sex for money.

 

[Maddog 521]

I read the article and I agree that it is Mr Gibson's opinion. I don't agree with all of his opinions but, I am impressed that he looked at the other side of the complicated situation. He studied it, got trained in it and accomplished his end goal. I don't know how he will vote or voice on future matters but I am glad he's trained and out there carrying a firearm and willing to protect people in any situation.

 

[Wise_A]

I read the entire article and didn't come away with the same thing you did.

I feel like he's using his firearms ownership to legitimize a call for additional "sensible" gun control legislation. We know how that works out. He's dismissed the idea of arming teachers as foolhardy. Virtually all of the mass shootings take place where law abiding citizens are prohibited from carrying firearms. Even the title struck me as insincere. A gun didn't kill his son any more than a hammer and saw built a house.

I'd agree. The guy spouts every line in the Fudd playbook (people like this exist, in quantity, get used to the idea).

*All those people are out there with guns, they haven't had as much training as me, they're dangerous!

*We need to compromise!

*We need to keep guns in the hands of the right people, and we will decide who the right people are!

I considered my friend with the house in the woods. The first time I used his shooting range I asked him — this guy who routinely kills, butchers and eats the animals who share the forest with him — whether he wanted to take a few shots with my Ruger. He looked at the pistol and made a face. "No, thanks," he said. "I'm good."

I'd have said the same thing. The Ruger sucks, dude.

 

[Ziggy2525]

In my opinion (whatever that's worth) people who want to control guns are looking for an easy way out. They don't want to spend money and time controlling criminals or offending someone. They get on the stop guns band wagon and think that will work. It will work just as good as stopping drugs, drunk driving, and sex for money.

^^ This. Easy to control law abiding citizens. All you need to do to change behavior is change the law. Only takes what, 279 people (218 representatives, 60 senators, president) or just 5 supreme court justices to do that federally for 320 million people. It's way harder to control non-compliant criminals.

 

[ISCS Yoda]

I read that piece this morning. I, too, felt like it was an anti-gun rant dressed up to look like the man had become a self defense enthusiast or something. My brother sent it to me and while I agreed that it was interesting my first two comments were:

In the history of firearms, there has never been a documented case where a weapon pulled its own trigger.

Exactly.

I wrote:

It's pretty interesting. The sheep-wolves-sheepdog thing has been around forever.

I have a few issues with the overall story and mind set. I imagine that won't surprise you.

Not counting suicides, I have now personally lost a friend because she was shot and killed. Her husband shot her (I really dislike the phrase "shot and killed her" but I suppose it is apt.). I don't consider that "gun violence", and the law calls it "domestic violence". It's really just violence. The weapon is irrelevant.

Which is why I have a problem with the title of the story. Not only did a gun NOT kill his son, literally speaking a bullet did that, but the bullet was sent to his son by a person. The gun did nothing but operate properly. "My son was a killed by a violent person using a gun" is correct. By saying that his son was "killed by a gun" the blame is on the instrument. That's why the late, lamented gun guru Colonel Jeff Cooper coined the term "hoplophobes"; people afraid of inanimate weapons.

If you're blaming a hunk of metal and maybe polymer for the destruction of a human life then you have not seen the light of freedom and the right to self defense. You're just giving lip service to the concepts.

 

[Old TexMex]

I know we won't see a contrary "opinion piece" in the New York Times (taking the position I support) because that wasn't an opinion. It was editorial propaganda dressed up. His avoidance of fact to advance an agenda is apparent. Over the years I've had two close family members and a close friend murdered. I got good at self defense, and blame no one but the killers. I've seen drownings, and still love the ocean.
Nobody, including this man who lost his son to a murderer, must either see and face reality, or be insane.

 

[lkabug]

No one can now say he knows nothing about guns the next time he preaches about evils of guns and the need to control if not band.

 

[Ματθιας]

When I saw the term "gun violence", I stopped reading.

 

[snuffy51]

I kept losing my place while reading his story, trying to decide exactly where he was at. Bout' all I came away with was six of one and a half dozen of another. I don't know if I trust him or not.

 

[Bradzed]

I, too read the entire article. On one level I understand his ambivalence. But he seems to have confused criminality with gun ownership. I was particularly leery of his attempt to correlate states with with more gun owners with increased gun violence.

As we all know, England is always invoked as proof that controlling gun ownership eradicates gun violence. That's not acc
Since my area of specialization is Victorian history, I've spent a lot of time in England — I've lived there for 2 years as well as making multiple trips of shorter duration. Yes, in the large cities no one carries guns. However, outside of the cities everyone seems to have a gun of some sort. Yes, I've taken part in the Glorious 14th when grouse season opens (and learned that I suck at it) and know it's common to see people walking around with their shotguns. The difference between the two fairly equally armed nations is in how each deals with criminals. It appears that the US justice system has forgotten the letter "f" as in final and finish. I recently read that in the US, a life sentence means only 14-15 years in prison. And, unlike the Brits, we allow for endless appeals so there's no finality. Both nations face similar societal pressures but the Brits seem to have more common sense than we do.

Having said all that, I'd add that, while I respect the guy's grief, it's damned foolish to run towards gunfire when unprepared. His son was unarmed and had no way to assess the situation. Yes, if I heard a car crash, I'd respond. But I wouldn't respond to gunfire were I in his son's position.

Personally I also think it's just as foolish to arm teachers. When I taught at the university level, I could not have functioned as a effective shooter. The skills needed to teach don't play well with proactive defensive shooting. And we need to interject a little reality here. Teachers are already overburdened: when you have to hunt for a piece of chalk, hold the attention of 40 kids running on hormones, and still find time to do things like prepare lectures, grade class work, survive the evils of administrative work, and find time to meet with students you're just not going to succeed as a school cop.

End of rant.

 

[sotexas]

I, too read the entire article. On one level I understand his ambivalence. But he seems to have confused criminality with gun ownership. I was particularly leery of his attempt to correlate states with with more gun owners with increased gun violence.

As we all know, England is always invoked as proof that controlling gun ownership eradicates gun violence. That's not acc
Since my area of specialization is Victorian history, I've spent a lot of time in England — I've lived there for 2 years as well as making multiple trips of shorter duration. Yes, in the large cities no one carries guns. However, outside of the cities everyone seems to have a gun of some sort. Yes, I've taken part in the Glorious 14th when grouse season opens (and learned that I suck at it) and know it's common to see people walking around with their shotguns. The difference between the two fairly equally armed nations is in how each deals with criminals. It appears that the US justice system has forgotten the letter "f" as in final and finish. I recently read that in the US, a life sentence means only 14-15 years in prison. And, unlike the Brits, we allow for endless appeals so there's no finality. Both nations face similar societal pressures but the Brits seem to have more common sense than we do.

Having said all that, I'd add that, while I respect the guy's grief, it's damned foolish to run towards gunfire when unprepared. His son was unarmed and had no way to assess the situation. Yes, if I heard a car crash, I'd respond. But I wouldn't respond to gunfire were I in his son's position.

Personally I also think it's just as foolish to arm teachers. When I taught at the university level, I could not have functioned as a effective shooter. The skills needed to teach don't play well with proactive defensive shooting. And we need to interject a little reality here. Teachers are already overburdened: when you have to hunt for a piece of chalk, hold the attention of 40 kids running on hormones, and still find time to do things like prepare lectures, grade class work, survive the evils of administrative work, and find time to meet with students you're just not going to succeed as a school cop.

End of rant.

Agree...Don't think I would want my daughter (2nd grade teacher) to be armed. It's to bad we have lost tolerance and civility in society.

 

[Hillbilly77]

I checked out at "A gun killed my son".

No. No it didn't.

 

[Wise_A]

Personally I also think it's just as foolish to arm teachers. When I taught at the university level, I could not have functioned as a effective shooter. The skills needed to teach don't play well with proactive defensive shooting. And we need to interject a little reality here. Teachers are already overburdened: when you have to hunt for a piece of chalk, hold the attention of 40 kids running on hormones, and still find time to do things like prepare lectures, grade class work, survive the evils of administrative work, and find time to meet with students you're just not going to succeed as a school cop.

I've not seen a single proposal to arm teachers. I have seen plenty of proposals to no longer prohibit a teacher from being armed, if they so choose. Nothing is requiring them to engage in "proactive defense shooting" (srsly, what is that?). All we want is for teachers to have the option, when they've huddled all the kids under their desks, of having the J-frame or G26 they already own, instead of simply praying the guy runs out of ammo before he finds them.

These individuals target locations where nobody can legally carry. And we know that any type of armed resistance dramatically reduces the number of casualties, on average.

Every single mass shooter required the intervention of a good guy with a gun, whether that meant the good guy dropped him like a sack of potatoes, or that said crazy self-terminated when it stopped being fun. The only question is whether the victims are able to defend themselves, or whether they have to wait for the police (while more people die).

You want to stop mass shootings? Flip the switch from "fish in a barrel" to "immediate return fire".

Also, lol, a daycare where I drop off kids has this dumb sign, printed on ordinary paper and taped up in the front alcove:

"No firearms, shotguns, or rifles permitted in the building."

K, sure, I'm sure that anybody bringing a shotgun to a daycare place is totally gonna turn around when they see that sign. Also, thanks for clarifying that I can't bring my muzzleloader, either.

 

[Wise_A]

Personally I also think it's just as foolish to arm teachers. When I taught at the university level, I could not have functioned as a effective shooter. The skills needed to teach don't play well with proactive defensive shooting. And we need to interject a little reality here. Teachers are already overburdened: when you have to hunt for a piece of chalk, hold the attention of 40 kids running on hormones, and still find time to do things like prepare lectures, grade class work, survive the evils of administrative work, and find time to meet with students you're just not going to succeed as a school cop.

I've not seen a single proposal to arm teachers. I have seen plenty of proposals to no longer prohibit a teacher from being armed, if they so choose. Nothing is requiring them to engage in "proactive defense shooting" (srsly, what is that?). All we want is for teachers to have the option, when they've huddled all the kids under their desks, of having the J-frame or G26 they already own, instead of simply praying the guy runs out of ammo before he finds them.

These individuals target locations where nobody can legally carry. And we know that any type of armed resistance dramatically reduces the number of casualties, on average.

Every single mass shooter required the intervention of a good guy with a gun, whether that meant the good guy dropped him like a sack of potatoes, or that said crazy self-terminated when it stopped being fun. The only question is whether the victims are able to defend themselves, or whether they have to wait for the police (while more people die).

You want to stop mass shootings? Flip the switch from "fish in a barrel" to "immediate return fire".

Also, lol, a daycare where I drop off kids has this dumb sign, printed on ordinary paper and taped up in the front alcove:

"No firearms, shotguns, or rifles permitted in the building."

K, sure, I'm sure that anybody bringing a shotgun to a daycare place is totally gonna turn around when they see that sign. Also, thanks for clarifying that I can't bring my blunderbuss, either.

Unless, wait, does a blunderbuss count as a shotgun?