A year ago, the self-professed news organization Who What Why published an article entitled, Why Nearly All of America’s 400 Million Guns Have Got To Go. This site claims to be "a global nonprofit news organization committed to reporting without corporate pressure, political agenda, or a pack mentality." The author of the article is Editor-in-Chief Russ Baker. His bio says, "He is an award-winning investigative journalist who specializes in exploring power dynamics behind major events."
How well does this article represent that standard? Does it make any sound arguments at all? Let's take a look-see.
Photo used in the original article by Tonio Vega on Flickr (CC BY-NC-SA 2.0)
If others won’t say it, I will: We do not need all these guns in our society — and there are very strong reasons to get rid of almost all of them.
Well, that's a strong opening. Let's see how he supports this thesis.
Let’s face it: Many armed Americans are deathly — and irrationally — afraid of others. And so they have become a menace to the rest of us.
According to a 2021 Gallup Poll, as many as 88 percent of gun owners are apparently terrified of being harmed, since they say the guns are for self-defense.
Baker included a hyperlink, so I included it here, too. Let's see whether it actually supports the author's claim. Guess what? It's an article with a link to yet another poll where 88% of respondents mentioned "crime protection" as the primary reason for buying guns. No mention of terror, just mention of a perfectly rational reason to own and carry a weapon. Claiming people are "terrified" seems like the author's projection, not honest reporting.
The author then mentions several incidents to support his claim that firearm ownership causes widespread reckless and unjustified uses of a firearm. None of these instances suggest the firearms were used in accordance with proper firearms handling and self-defense, but the Baker seems to imply this kind of behavior has at least the tacit support of firearm owners. He then goes on to assert racism is a motivating factor for white gun owners afraid of black people being black in public, but let's look at those shootings.
First, according to USA Today, "Clay County Prosecutor Zachary Thompson said at a news conference that there was a 'racial component' to the shooting. However, nothing in the charging documents says the shooting was racially motivated, Thompson said." Further, the stories of what transpired differ between the shooter and the victim. This is far less of an open-and-shut case than Baker reports, although I doubt it was justifiable.
In the second incident, according to CNN, the driver of a car pulled into the wrong rural driveway late at night in upstate New York. The driveway was posted as private and had "no trespassing" signs. The shooter reports multiple vehicles with obnoxious drivers revving engines, but even so, the use of deadly force doesn't appear justifiable here at all based on any of the available information. How does this incident prove the author's thesis, though?
As for the third incident Baker uses to support his claim, again from CNN, it seems a dispute arose around children playing basketball and a loose ball rolling into the perpetrator's yard. He cussed out the kids, and was confronted by one of the parents. In response, he relieved a gun and began shooting indiscriminately, severely wounding one and injuring others, including a 6-year-old. Nothing about this tragic situation represents what people who support firearm freedom advocate. It suggests to me that his victims might have benefitted from being armed, though.
Finally, another CNN article reports two cheerleaders were shot when they opened an occupied car they mistook for their own in a parking lot. Again, this seems to me like an unjustified shooting, but is it proof we need more restrictions?
The racial component is undeniable, although gun violence affects all races as both perpetrators and victims. In the Kansas City incident, the shooter was white, and the victim was Black. In upstate New York, both the shooter and the victims were white. In the Texas parking lot, the shooter was Hispanic, the victims, white. In North Carolina, the shooter was Black, the victims, white.
In short, even Baker had to admit the incidents cited do not demonstrate the asserted latent or open racism, and the one which even slightly fits the pattern might fall under justifiable self-defense, although that is a sketchy application of castle doctrine. The others appear to be disproportionate response to trespass or completely unjustifiable assault with a deadly weapon. Does this really prove America has a gun problem?
Meanwhile, the vast majority of guns are in the hands of a small group — just three percent of American adults collectively own half of all guns in America. About 10 million Americans own 30 or more guns apiece.
Wait a minute. Remember that poll I had to go a couple links deep to find just a few paragraphs back? The one Baker cited as proof 88% of gun owners were "terrified?" It said 31% of U.S. adults and 44% of households own guns. This source he cited incorrectly as proof of gun owners being "terrified" also directly refutes his insistence that only a small number of people own guns. Additionally, that data assumes gun owners are willing to tell pollsters whether they own guns. As a member of the US firearm community, let me guarantee there's a huge selection bias in those numbers, because many gun owners do not trust pollsters or journalists and will not even talk to them on the topic, so the real numbers are doubtless higher, possibly significantly so.
We all feel this mounting dread, yet the Republican Party keeps making it easier for people to buy deadly weaponry, and the Democratic Party and many gun reform advocates still propose only marginally ameliorative measures, like more effective registration and so forth.
Who is this "we," Baker? Got a mouse in your pocket? Have you actually looked at the data? I know this post I wrote is a few years out of date now, but I have data. Violent crime has fallen, but this does not correlate with gun control laws. One could even argue it does correlate with relaxed restrictions on carrying weapons in public, although I hesitate to claim a causal relationship there. But Baker is supremely confident in his prescription while he projects his own openly-admitted fear upon those who disagree with him.
So let’s start talking about getting rid of the firearms that terrify our children and sane people everywhere. Obviously it won’t be easy, and a small number of Second Amendment hard-liners will resist violently. But the rest will grumble and threaten and then, in the end, they will comply. And we’ll go back to being a country pretty much like the vast majority of the world’s other countries — a less “exceptional” place where our children aren’t terrified all the time. After all, we are the only country in the world with more civilian-owned guns than citizens.
Baker is openly advocating gun violence. He won't admit the hypocrisy, but he wants anyone who disagrees with his idea to be forced to comply, fined if they refuse, and shot if they resist. He wants to weaponize the power dynamics of politics in order to force his opinion into law. I thought he was supposed to be an expert on recognizing such abuses.
Obviously, law enforcement, the US military, and members of those “well-regulated” militias would be exempted.
The militia is the people. Not the National Guard. Not the army. Not the police. And "well-regulated" has never meant "government-controlled" in that context. Baker is blatantly disingenuous with language and dishonest about history here.
The article continues in a similarly emotion-fueled screed against anyone who disagrees with his opinion. It spends many more words to say nothing of substance. I will skip it and wrap this up.
Baker offers no strong reasons to get rid of guns. He instead appeals to emotion and completely ignores any arguments or evidence against his position.
Baker does not demonstrate gun owners are irrationally fearful. Quite the opposite, in fact. He admits to feeling afraid himself. He exemplifies self-righteous tyranny, and calls for state violence against any who oppose his Utopian ideals.
Finally, Baker commits the usual lazy hoplophobic analysis of including suicides in his proof that gun violence is an epidemic while ignoring the real factors creating black markets which fuel gang violence, and refuses to consider the effects of victim disarmament zones in creating the mass shootings he wants to blame on innocent people.
Baker should be embarrassed by this blatant political agenda and pack mentality hisnorganization claims to reject. This muckraking yellow journalism he thinks is an editorial is pathetic. Disagree? Read the original in its entirety and discuss it in the comments!
Yup, I'm back after taking a break. Expect a lot more responses to authoritarian nonsense. If you liked this, better buckle up, because I'm probably about to offend you when I tackle immigration soon.
