Anti-Gunner’s Call for a ‘Gun Culture Reckoning’ Backfires



“Gun culture’s reckoning is long overdue,” retired educator Greg Slyford writes Thursday in Fort Wayne’s The Journal Gazette.

“Reckoning” as in having “shall not be infringed” finally recognized? Predictably, no. (And let’s overlook that he presumes “gun culture” to be a monolith and stipulate he’s talking about Second Amendment advocates.)

Slyford has a different agenda, starting by relating how he considered the intent behind an anonymous mailing from a reader containing “Armed Citizen” stories curated by the National Rifle Association to be “a trifle scary.” The thought of citizens being able to defend themselves evidently elicited the inference that “This anonymous sender fancied himself or herself a patriot and a firearms lover. I mean a real firearms lover.”

“What’s wrong with that?” was left unstated and instead, Slyford shared regrets that “all the letters and op-eds I and others had written on this subject of gun violence … apparently had not broken through to my anonymous sender.”

Perhaps that might be because their arguments were not very compelling against real-world accounts of people just like you and me successfully defending themselves with a gun…?

Nine paragraphs into his screed, Slyford gets to his thesis:

“The central point we have been making for years is that we all live with entirely too much violence tied to firearms, therefore an undeniable part of the problem. Firearms are certainly an important piece of any meaningful examination.”

Agreed. There is too much criminal violence. But that hardly justifies “begging the question,” that is, using a circular reasoning logical fallacy where his premise assumes the truth of his conclusion, that the problem lies with firearms. You’d think a “retired educator” would know that, and wonder what he was teaching kids all those years

Per studied estimates, over 89 million peaceable Americans lawfully own firearms and do not commit acts of predatory coercion or violence with them. We also know that criminals overwhelmingly obtain the weapons they abuse through illegal channels, meaning they ignore gun laws. That’s neither circular nor based on opinion. It’s demonstrable, with Bureau of Justice Statistics data.

“When discussing lung cancer, do we mention smoking? Of course. When attempting to curb diabetes, do we speak of sugar intake? Of course,” Slyford notes. “Why, then, is it any different for violence across America and the role firearms obviously play?”

We’re to believe firearms aren’t mentioned in crime stories? Who does Slyford think perpetuates that pejorative “gun violence” terminology he uses? A cursory glance under the Google “News” tab dispels that notion for anyone who cares to look.

“Perhaps it’s because of our misguided judicial interpretation of the Second Amendment that essentially seems to have caused elected officials to throw in the towel,” Slyford speculates. “But I, for one, believe that citizens and elected officials at all levels from any political persuasion should take every opportunity available to return this country to its previous understanding of the Second Amendment.”

What “previous understanding” would that be? That it’s not an individual right? He can have the same challenge I issued to the American Civil Liberties Union over a quarter century ago when I asked them “to provide evidence based on writings from America’s Revolutionary era to substantiate [that] claim.” To no one’s surprise, all they could do was duck the question and try to talk around it. And does Slyford really see no cognizant dissonance in calling for a return to text, history, and tradition, and in the same breath bemoaning the Supreme Court that handed down the Bruen decision?

But that’s not all Slyford seems to be struggling with. By calling on action from city councils, at least in Indiana, he ignores state preemption of firearm laws. The alternative would be a patchwork quilt of local edicts making it virtually impossible to lawfully travel through the state while armed, which, for someone who doesn’t consider 2A an individual right, is presumably what he wants.

He does touch on a point that can be substantiated, although probably not for reasons he’ll admit, when he cites “violence in cities across America” and asks “Just how many firearm-related dead, injured or otherwise involved young African American males in particular must the public see in mugshots or on television before we as a community say ‘enough is enough’ and call out the problem for what it is?”

Some of us do just that. It’s just that we have to be really careful about how we say things before sanctimonious white prohibitionists like Slyford, who presume to be the arbiters of acceptable social expectations for blacks, start screaming “Racism!”

“Initiating real violence reduction starts with the courage and commitment to take the first step,” Slyford declares, repeating an old deception the antis keep trotting out. Again, from a quarter century ago:

They’ll propose further restrictions under the bald-faced pretense that it’s “a good first step.” They won’t tell you that there are already over 20,000 gun laws on the books at the federal, state and municipal level that are consistently ignored by all but the law-abiding.

“A good first step…” the clueless segment of our victim pool populace will drone back at the proposal of law number 20,001.

“One helluva good first step– keep ‘em coming!” agree illegally armed criminal predators, emboldened with each new law that renders their prey increasingly vulnerable…

“A step we may have to take over and over again until we reach our rightful, reasoned destination,” Slyford continues. Or as Nelson “Pete” Shields, founder of Handgun Control, Inc. (now the Brady Campaign) revealed back in 1976:

We’re going to have to take one step at a time, and the first step is necessarily — given the political realities — going to be very modest. . . .  [W]e’ll have to start working again to strengthen that law, and then again to strengthen the next law, and maybe again and again.  Right now, though, we’d be satisfied not with half a loaf but with a slice.  Our ultimate goal — total control of handguns in the United States — is going to take time. . . .  The first problem is to slow down the number of handguns being produced and sold in this country.  The second problem is to get handguns registered.  The final problem is to make possession of all handguns and all handgun ammunition-except for the military, police, licensed security guards, licensed sporting clubs, and licensed gun collectors-totally illegal.

“But take that first step we must by putting our gun culture in its proper place once and for all,” Slyford concludes.

Bring it. Put us in our place.

Now flesh out how you intend to do that, because we will not disarm. And it probably won’t be as easy as writing an op-ed, where someone who finds letters about defensive gun uses “a trifle scary” expects others to do all the dirty work.

About David Codrea:

David Codrea is the winner of multiple journalist awards for investigating/defending the RKBA and a long-time gun owner rights advocate who defiantly challenges the folly of citizen disarmament. He blogs at “The War on Guns: Notes from the Resistance,” is a regularly featured contributor to Firearms News, and posts on Twitter: @dcodrea and Facebook.