Category: All About Guns
When you see this at the range, should you intervene? Tom’s empathetic side says yes.
A libertarian mindset and compassion aren’t, at least by definition, mutually exclusive. However, there are occasions in life where one has to plant a stake in the ground and choose one or the other.
Most every range outing, I spot a new(er) shooting cautiously aiming a pistol downrange, arms quivering, anticipation coming off their body in near-visible waves. As I peruse the stance and grip, I see it. The dreaded “thumbs crossed” over the butt end of a semi-auto pistol.
The mini-libertarian elf break dancing on my left shoulder says, “So what? If they choose to come to the range to torch off a lethal weapon without even considering the instruction manual, then they have to live with the consequences. It’s not our role in life to save people from themselves.”
But there’s another gnome on my right shoulder. He’s playing Kenny G. remakes on a harp, and his counsel is different. “You have an opportunity to save someone from slicing their thumb clean off and bloodying up the range. Don’t you love your fellow humans? What, do you watch reruns of Halloween XVIII in your spare time? What’s wrong with you? Go help them!”
He’s got a point, because empathy comes into play in this particular situation.
I’m not talking about sympathy, where you kinda think you can relate to someone else’s situation. I’m talking about real empathy. The kind of empathy Brian Williams and Dan Rather share. You physically feel their pain because you’ve been there before, made that mistake and suffered through the consequences.
When I see the crossed thumbs, I’m pretty sure I have so much empathy the web of my support hand starts to bleed, and I start looking for a police escort to the nearest CVS Pharmacy. That’s because, once upon a time, long, long ago, when I was even more of a dope than I might be now, I just about removed a body part as a result of hubris.
My first “real” handgun was a Series 1 Colt Woodsman .22 LR semi-auto pistol. My grandfather bought it back in 1936 and fired maybe 50 rounds through it. While he didn’t save the box, he did maintain it meticulously. Apparently, his maintenance regimen included sharpening the slide rails, but we’ll come back to that. Anyway, it was (and is — sorry, I’m never parting with it) a gorgeous pistol, and I was anxious to shoot it.
At that point in my life, I’d shot a few BB guns and .22 rifles here and there. If memory serves, I even fired one shot from a .50-caliber flintlock rifle at summer camp, although I now realize the coach charged it with barely enough powder to dribble the lead ball out the fiery end. I had precisely zero experience with handguns.
But no worries, you can tell by looking handguns are easy to operate. Hold the handle thing, yank on the trigger, and it’s sure to perforate the target of your choice, right? Why would anyone bother with directions or asking for help? After all, I was a man and born in America. I’m pretty sure the genes for firearm “expert-cy” are passed down in a meandering genetic path straight from Daniel Boone.
So off to the range I went with a fresh box of .22 ammo. After carefully emptying my newly acquired Wal-Mart shooting bag, opening my fresh bulk pack of ammo, and unwrapping my Woodsman from its well-oiled T-shirt, I was ready to shoot. Admittedly, I was a bit nervous, not having any real idea of what I was doing. It was also my first time in a shooting range, so I didn’t know the etiquette.
Tom knows from personal experience the slide rails on early Colt Woodsman models were intended to serve double duty as straight razors.
I loaded the magazine, inserted it into the pistol, aimed, pulled — not pressed — the trigger and … click. After a hot second or two, I realized there was nothing wrong with the old, but pristine, pistol. In my haste, as you’ve already guessed, I hadn’t racked the slide. Easy fix there. Upon correcting this problem, I proceeded to empty the magazine in short order, putting at least some of the shots on paper somewhere. Success! I figured I was now an experienced, bordering on expert, handgunner! So I removed the empty magazine and reached for the big box of .22 ammo to reload.
It was then I noticed some idiot had bled all over my shooting table, splattering pints of Type O- and various bits of tissue all over my gear. Huh? Where’d that come from? After a minute or two, I figured out the source of the bloodletting was my left hand, in the web between my thumb and index finger. I was flummoxed. How could that possibly have happened? Ricochet? Did the sketchy looking guy four lanes to the left shoot me? Falling pieces from the Skylab Space Station?
While I was pondering the source of my impending death by exsanguination, I made like the old spaghetti westerns and wrapped up my hand with a dirty rag. The only one I had available was the oily T-shirt shroud serving as the faithful preservation agent for my Colt Woodsman. Oil makes a great antiseptic, right? If it works for Clint Eastwood, it’d certainly work for me.
It took me quite a while to figure out what happened. As all of you likely know by now, a Colt Woodsman slide reciprocates rearward at Warp Factor 7 after each shot. And like an asteroid, it doesn’t really care what’s in the way, even if it is a frequently used body part. Oh, and I also learned Colt designed those early Woodsmans with a special bonus feature. The bottom of the slide rail doubles as a great straight razor in a pinch, pre-oiled to go easy on facial skin. I also learned precisely how much blood you can lose and still remain conscious and capable of driving. The range was a bit out in the boonies, and it took me a good 20 minutes to pack up, sneak out the front door, and find a pharmacy well-stocked with bandages and tape. That sucker didn’t stop bleeding for a good hour. What? Ask the range for a first aid kit? That’s ridiculous because it would have been … embarrassing.
I learned a valuable lesson about how semi-auto pistols work, and even more about how not to hold them. I might have also learned a thing or two about the importance of recognizing one’s own ignorance and limitations. I guess, in hindsight, it might have been a good idea to make that first range trip with an experienced friend. And, also in hindsight, I’ll bet a nickel the proprietor of that indoor range would have been happy to help me out had I swallowed the hairball of pride and asked.
By the way, if anyone needs any tips on how to best leave a shooting range discreetly, while bleeding all over the place, drop me an email. I’m kind of an expert in that.
Also you might want to make sure that AR15 is unloaded Mr. Wanttobe Baldwin !!! Grumpy
There’s an interesting report in Health Affairs Scholar which adds a new dimension to the adage that “money talks and B.S. walks.”
According to the authors— Robert Zeithammer, Supriya Kapur, Diana Silver and James Macinko—“While support for firearm restrictions in alcohol-serving venues is widespread, even modest implementation costs significantly reduce public backing.” It is an interesting read, and the authors deserve credit for broaching a subject which has gotten very little attention. Simply put: “How much are you willing to pay for the restrictive ‘feel good’ law you want to impose?”
The UCLA Anderson Review looked at the report and summed it up: Setting an annual tax of, say, $100 per taxpayer “seems to erode backing for restrictions on guns in alcohol-serving establishments.” In other words, people are keen about gun control so long as they don’t have to pay for it.
Amusingly, the UCLA Anderson Review observes, “The results suggest voters, given a price for a law, can be stingy, even in matters of public safety.”
Gun Control Support Weakens When Taxpayers Face the Bill
The discussion by Zeithammer and his colleagues focuses on a question about prohibiting firearms in establishments where alcohol is served. Regulations vary from state to state—in Washington, for example, people cannot carry firearms into areas of an establishment posted off-limits to anyone under age 21, because alcohol is served, yet someone can remain in the dining area and possibly have a cocktail, even if they’re discreetly packing, or if others at their table are drinking—while the authors note, “A recently published analysis of the current legal landscape found 10 different types of alcohol-related firearm laws, with nearly every state having passed at least 1 of these types of laws.”
The Anderson Review article notes, “These restrictions vary widely. Texas, for example, prohibits guns in establishments that get at least 51% of their revenue from alcohol sales, while New Mexico bans concealed firearms in any premise where alcohol is consumed.”
The notion of adding a cost-per-taxpayer to restricting guns in bars—and the reaction to it—may open up a broader conversation about gun control. Gun control supporters evidently get less enthusiastic about enforcing the laws they push when they have to specifically dig into their wallets to pay for it.
A $100 Tax Changes Attitudes Toward Firearm Restrictions
As noted in the study abstract, “Results show that when no enforcement costs are included, a majority of the respondent sample weighted to voting-eligible Americans (56%-74%, depending on the restricted group and venue size) supports firearm restrictions, with support exceeding 65% for restrictions in large venues.
However, introducing a $100 annual cost reduces support: significant majority support remains only for restricting combinations of felons, intoxicated people, or those with alcohol-related convictions and only in large venues.”
How’s that for a strategy to cool the verbal jets of gun prohibitionists? For each restrictive law they force on gun owners, they get billed for their enthusiasm.
While this may initially seem humorous to Second Amendment activists, Zeithammer, Kapur, Silver and Macinko have actually cracked open a “Pandora’s Box” of sorts, which amounts to an uncomfortable revelation: Gun control supporters aren’t so willing to “put their money where their mouth is.” The four researchers may have done a major public service.
Their research also sought reaction to prohibitions on guns in theaters and other “large venues.”
What the Gun Control Study Reveals About Public Opinion
There are three key points in the Health Affairs Scholar report:
- While a majority of respondents favor firearm restrictions in alcohol-serving venues, support is stronger for larger venues and varies modestly by the targeted population.
- Introducing even modest individual costs (eg, $100 annually) substantially reduces majority support, highlighting the importance of cost framing in legislative proposals.
- Support is more strongly associated with gender and political affiliation (highest among women across political parties) than firearm ownership status.
The Anderson Review article includes a link to the Brady Campaign website, where one reads this claim: “Every year, gun violence kills over 40,000 people and wounds over 75,000 others in the United States. Gun violence costs the United States $557 billion annually – equivalent to 2.6% of the country’s Gross Domestic Product.
That’s more than twice what the Department of Education spent to educate US youth in FY 2022 ($235.74 billion). Every year, gun violence costs taxpayers $12.62 billion – or $273,904 per firearm death and $25,150 per nonfatal firearm injury.”
However, if one follows the links, one winds up at another report, from the Harvard Medical School in 2022, which refers to “research by Zirui Song, associate professor of health care policy in the Blavatnik Institute at Harvard Medical School and associate professor of medicine at Massachusetts General Hospital.”
This report also notes, “In his newest paper, published Sept. 27 in JAMA, Song reported that the overall economic cost of firearm injuries in the United States has been estimated at $557 billion annually, or 2.6 percent of gross domestic product.”
It’s an estimate, which Brady passes off as gospel.
And for the sake of argument, one might observe that “gun violence” doesn’t kill anyone. People misusing firearms are responsible for those fatalities, not the firearms, themselves.
Should Gun Control Advocates Have to Explain the Cost?
But the discussion is now launched, courtesy of the four researchers. Should every proposed gun control law include a cost-per-taxpayer for implementation, so that supporters understand how much money their ideas might pull from their checkbooks?
It could spawn an entirely new debate that puts a price tag on anti-gun activism.
About Dave Workman
Dave Workman is a senior editor at TheGunMag.com and Liberty Park Press, author of multiple books on the Right to Keep & Bear Arms, and formerly an NRA-certified firearms instructor.