Concealed carry article in Harper's Magazine ...

[spin]

Posted on 27. Jul, 2010 by Runcible in concealed carry, Dan Baum, Harper's Magazine



The cover story of the August 2010 issue of Harper's Magazine is titled "Happiness is a Worn Gun: My Concealed Weapon and Me," by Dan Baum. It's unusual.

It's certainly not the kind of cover story that Harper's would have run under the editorship of Lewis Lapham, whose trademark leftist rants became too frequent and too detached from reality for me to continue purchasing the magazine. Lapham is still listed in the masthead as "National Correspondent", but his name is not among the writers in the table of contents. If the Harper's Index were to to somehow quantify the contempt for America and Americans spread throughout each issue of the magazine, it would certainly record a substantial drop from the closing years of Lapham's editorship. Good riddance to an old fool.

***snip***

The article itself lives up to my hopes. Baum is a lifelong gun owner and the article is free of contempt for those who hunt or own guns for defensive purposes. He gives a fair appraisal of the state of concealed and open carry in the United States, why and how people choose to do it, and what the societal effects have been and might be in the future.

Baum is at his best when he is gently dismantling anti-gunner beliefs. Playing to Harper's readership, he presents John Lott's More Guns, Less Crime with a fair amount of skepticism and neglects to mention the Bellesiles fraud. Immediately after, though, he brings forth this defense:

But shall-issue didn't lead to more crime, as predicted by its critics. The portion of all killings done with a handgun -- the weapon people carry concealed -- hasn't changed in decades; it's still about half. Whereas the Violence Policy Center in Washington, D.C. can produce a list of 175 killings committed by carry-permit holders since 2007, the NRA can brandish a longer list of crimes prevented by armed citizens.

And he follows with this:

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. I CARRY A GUN BECAUSE A COP IS TOO HEAVY, goes the bumper sticker.

Baum also mentions that while many police unions and associations lobby against shall-issue laws, "Every street cop I've met, lately, sees it the other way."

The editing is a bit weak: there are one or two paragraphs that would benefit from being expressed as itemized lists, and data charts may have helped readers better visualize some of Baum's points. Those are my only complaints. Gun owners and CHP holders should go out, buy the magazine and read Baum's article. It is honest and thought-provoking.
http://richmondguns.com/story/concealed-carry-harpers-magazine

CONCEALED CARRY: A MIDDLE-ROAD VIEW?

The current edition of Harper’s magazine carries a cover story on concealed carry, illustrated with an Andy Warhol portrait of a High Standard Sentinel .22 revolver…ironically, more of a Backwoods Home utility handgun than a concealed carry piece, but what the heck.

It is a very articulate story from a man who carried a Colt Detective Special .38 for some time, and understood the power and responsibility he carried with it. In the end, he decided not to carry every day. Some in the gun world see that as a cop-out. I noticed that the author reserved the option to carry it on long drives or in other situations where he felt less secure than usual. In the end, it’s his choice. Hell, I know a lot of determined, busy Second Amendment Rights activists who don’t carry a gun every day, either, and I’ve known some who don’t carry at all…and there are a few 2A supporters who don’t even own a gun. While I am one of those who does carry a gun daily wherever and whenever it is legal, I don’t think those who choose otherwise are Commies or anything.

Give it a read. You can find it here. The editors at Harper’s did something interesting. The glued-on flyleaf on the cover reads “My Concealed Weapon and You.” Turn it over, though, and the subtitle for the article on the actual cover says, “My Concealed Weapon and Me.”

I gotta admit, I like that. Our concealed weapon is initially about us, and those we have a responsibility to protect. But it’s also about others, who are present when we are armed and who may be present and even close to the line of fire if any of us every have to draw a defensive handgun for its intended purpose.

Kudos to Harper’s for “Fair And Balanced” factor.

Read the essay. I would link it for you here, but you have to be a subscriber to the magazine to log on. The magazine is on the stands as I write this, though, and should be at your local public library.
http://backwoodshome.com/blogs/MassadAyoob/2010/07/31/concealed-carry-a-middle-road-view/

[WHEN CRABS ROAR]

1. First let me say I support your and my right to own and if we need

to carry a gun. What I don't understand is a culture that has thirty thousand gun deaths a year and please lets not argue about the number. And it still sickens me to see a photo of some child in Africa or elsewhere with an automatic weapon who should be in school or playing and not being taught hate and fear.

[shadowrider]

3. Thirty thousand gun deaths where?

Not arguing the number, just want it defined.

And yes, a child with a full-auto weapon is and should be bothersome to everyone (except the people that taught/trained them to use it).

[WHEN CRABS ROAR]

4. " Nationwide each year an average of 30,000 people die in gun violence,

suicide and mass killings." Editorial, page 5 - America magazine Aug. 2-9 2010
Taught? trained? they are only children and that way of thinking is bothersome to our future and even to their trainers.

[shadowrider]

5. Taught and trained

Yes, they're only children, but in those parts of the world they grow up in a hurry. Their trainers TRAIN them to shoot and die. The only thing that bothers the trainers is there aren't more young to train.

Does America magazine say where they get their 30,000 figure? Again, not arguing, just want to make sure they didn't quote a number someone made up.

[AtheistCrusader]

7. It is total gun related deaths, suicide, accident, and homicide. Which begs the question why they

called it 'violence'.

Is it 'violence' when someone in Washington State exercises their right to end their life under I-1000?
Kind of a stretch of the term. I suppose it's violently messy, but people do have the right to end their own lives if they choose, and if you have a look at Japan's higher rate of suicide per capita, and almost non-existent firearms ownership, I daresay Americans are resourceful enough to figure out how to commit suicide with or without firearms as well.

[shadowrider]

12. Which begs the question

Why isn't it called vehicular violence when a car is involved in an accident?

[Callisto32]

33. Don't mean to be a jerk about this....

but it doesn't "beg the question." This is a personal crusade of mine.

Begging the question is essentially assuming facts not in evidence. It is where you assume something to be true in the premise, without substantiation, and then make a conclusion based upon it.

Proposition=Statement that presumes X to be true.

Ergo: X. It doesn't work. It should be called "avoiding the question."

I understand that you mean "it makes you want to ask the question:" I am just trying to spread the joy of the understanding of basic logical principles.

[WHEN CRABS ROAR]

8. So your OK with that kind of world?

Don't know how to "make sure" about their numbers.
Back to my statement, all I said was that I didn't understand why we had so many gun deaths in this country compared to other countries, fear, power, greed, lack of values, ignorance, what?

[X_Digger]

10. Our non-gun rate of violence is multiples higher than many countries' total violence.

It isn't the guns- even if they all magically disappeared, and the crimes committed with them never happened (no method substitution), we'd still be heads and shoulders above many other countries.

[WHEN CRABS ROAR]

14. Thank you, that was my point, all I said was that I didn't understand

the violence in this country.

[AtheistCrusader]

15. No, that's what you SHOULD have said.

Instead you singled out 'gun violence' (including suicides).

Americans are very violent, over all, and the longer people like you tapdance around reality, the longer we will continue to have this problem.

Hint: The people who jump through the hoops to get a concealed weapons permit, and purchase a firearm and the appropriate holsters and often wardrobe choices to keep it concealed, aren't the 'violent problem'. They are people trying to protect themselves, from violence.

[Callisto32]

34. Funny thing, violence.

I ABHOR violence. Causing harm to others and their property is utterly reprehensible to me. Ergo, I am a libertarian.

However, I am part of the gun culture. At first, this may seem a contradiction, but I do not think it is.

As callous as it may sound, I strive to be the most dangerous person in the room, precisely because I dislike violence so much. I believe that we are all better off when the people with the greatest capacity for violence are the least likely to use it, and the people who would like to be violent know it.

In a perfect world, we would not need sheepdogs, until then I hope our sheepdogs are stronger and smarter than our wolves.

[shadowrider]

13. I never said I was ok with that kind of world

I said in those parts of the world violence and death are to be honored and the younger the recruit, to the trainer, the better.

If I could stop it I would but I can't.

[AtheistCrusader]

6. And less than 300 of those deaths are lawful uses of concealed carry weapons.

How many of the 30k, minus 15k suicides, are related to lawful concealed carry?

And to go one question further, what difference does concealed carry make to suicides?

[X_Digger]

9. Who determines 'need' and when do civil rights require 'need'?

Do you have to demonstrate a 'need' for religion? For writing a letter to the editor? I just don't get it. That line of thinking wouldn't fly with any other civil right.

That seems to be a common tactic these days, the "I support the second amendment but...".

[safeinOhio]

21. Lots of regulations on religion and the press.

No slavery, mutilation of female genitalia, polygyny and human sacrifice. Can't write threatening letters or bad checks. You use bad examples.

[X_Digger]

22. That's not an answer, that's a dodge. n/t

[PavePusher]

23. Note that those are limitations on causing harm.

They are not limitations on owning the instruments that could cause those particular harms.

[safeinOhio]

27. I don't think that "owning" a gun

is the question in the article. The Chicago case allows ownership, in the home.

[PavePusher]

29. Which is a lot more limited than what the Constitution says. n/t

[Euromutt]

24. It's also illegal to discharge firearms at others, or in certain areas

Prohibitions on slavery, FGM, writing bad checks etc. are insufficient justification for restricting ownership of cotton plants, razor blades, pens, etc. on the off chance you might use them to violate one of the aforementioned prohibitions. As others have put it before now, the fact that freedom of speech doesn't permit you to falsely shout "fire" in a crowded theater doesn't entitle anyone to tape over or sew up your mouth before you enter the auditorium.

[safeinOhio]

26. ON the other hand

the law does allow for restraining orders to prevent those that make threats from carrying them out. Kind of like tap over the mouth to prevent a crime you have not committed.

[X_Digger]

28. Which would be analogous to 'shall-issue' licensing.

The default position is to allow unless there's reason to disqualify.

You don't have to prove why you need a permit, the state has to prove why you shouldn't.

Same with restraining orders- it's not like everyone is born with one and you have to "prove" why yours should be lifted.

[PavePusher]

30. Except that by uttering a threat, you are actually umm...

making a threat.

Merely keeping and bearing arms is not a particular or remarkable threat... except to criminals.

And I don't forsee crims trying to get restraining orders against bearers of arms: "Well, yer'oner, him be carryin' like that seems like a threat to me bein' able to commence a well-intentioned robbery. Sir."

[Callisto32]

35. And it is illegal to shoot people or their property, outside very specific circumstances.

[slackmaster]

18. Are you going for the Bulwer-Lytton prize, WHEN CRABS ROAR?

http://www.bulwer-lytton.com/lyttony.htm

[SteveM]

19. If I "need" to carry. Not interested in some entity called "we."

[Hoopla Phil]

2. I'll pick up a copy next time I'm at the grocery. Recommended

[X_Digger]

11. K&R, excellent article.

I happened to notice the cover yesterday while out shopping (carrying, of course) and picked it up.

Fairly unbiased read on the state of affairs. Only one or two winces in either direction.

[old mark]

16. Sounds like a great article - I am proud of Harpers for publishing it and

for taking a stand for reality and common sense.

Now I am waiting for Gucci holsters...


mark

[Statistical]

17. Ever so slowly the tide is shifting.

I would say the pace of restoration of the 2nd to equal weight among the other amendments is moving at a glacial pace but it is moving. Not just in the courts, but also in recognition among politicians, and (as this article illustrates) among the public.

Slowly, painfully slow but in the right direction.

Sadly I think this will only make the anti more and more desperate.

[X_Digger]

20. Our local NPR affiliate interviewed the author-

http://www.kera.org/audio/think.php

eta: a few more *ugh* winces in both directions- seems he toned down his rhetoric a bit for the article, or had a really good editor.

[GreenStormCloud]

25. Thanks. I enjoyed the interview. N/T

[GreenStormCloud]

31. Esquire Magazine, Sept 1981, "The Case For Guns"

The subtitle was something like, "He Decided To Quit Being A Victim". The article described how the author went to a gun training institute, and began to carry and had an encounter with a group of gang members who demanded his money. He displayed the gun, the leader didn't believe he wold shoot, he shot the leader in the leg and the others fled.

It was a very pro-gun article and touched off a fire-storm with the magazine's regular readership.

I found the article: http://www.tboverse.us/HPCAFORUM/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=5109&view=next

Excerpt:

Walking home about six-thirty at night, just off the corner of West Washington Boulevard and Westminster Avenue, I was confronted by five young, well-dressed uptown brothers. Black. Okay. Let's get that right out front. They could just as easily have been white. We were directly under a streetlight and less than fifty feet from an intersection thick with traffic.

I was not dressed as a high roller. I am not a high roller. I don't look like a robber baron or a rich dentist. I look like exactly what I am, a middle-aged guy who's seen a little more than he needs to see. I thought, what are these guys doing?

Their leader pulled a kitchen knife out of his two-hundred-dollar leather jacket. His mistake was that he wasn't close enough to me to use it, only to threaten me. He smiled at me and said, "Just the wallet, man. Won't be no trouble."

That was a very long moment for me. I remember it just as it happened. I remember thinking at the time that it was one of those moments that are supposed to be charged with electricity. It wasn't. It was hollow, silent, and chilly.

I looked at this guy and at his companions and at his knife, and I thought: Don't you see how you're misreading me? I am not a victim. I used to be a victim, but now I'm not. Can't you see the difference?

I pulled the automatic, leveled it at them and said very clearly, "You must be dreaming."

The guy smiled at me and said, "Sheeeit," and his buddies laughed, and he began to move toward me with the knife. I thought, this guy is willing to kill me for thirty-five dollars. I aimed the automatic at the outer edge of his left thigh and shot him.

He dropped like a high jumper hitting the bar and yelled "Goddamn!" three times, the first one from amazement, I guess, and the second two higher pitched and from pain.

He yelled at his buddies, "Ain't you gonna do nothing?" They did do nothing.

I backed off and walked away, right across busy West Washington Boulevard, with the gun still in my hand. I remember thinking, shouldn't I call a doctor? And then I thought, would he have called a doctor for me? And I kept right on walking.

[spin]

32. I actually remember that article. (n/t)