Do You See Grooming?

This entry will begin with a short exercise. 

What's the first thing that comes to mind when you look at the three photos below? 

If you reacted with words such as "grooming" or "child abuse" for any or all of the three, congratulations, you're a moron.

Let's begin with the first two pictures.  I'll start by clearing up a potential misconception about children shooting guns.  In a safe home environment, all guns are locked up in a manner that prevents kids or any other unauthorized parties from accessing them.  This was the case in my home, growing up and later, when I had (step) kids of my own.  If you're picturing kids running amok with loaded guns, you're a bit off.

Logically, it's those on the left who take issue with the first two pictures, making accusations of you guessed it, grooming and/or child abuse.  When challenged on what exactly the children in these pictures are being groomed for, the majority don't really have an answer.  Some will say they're being groomed to be school shooters or "they're being groomed to think guns are normal".  I receive the same nebulous answer when I ask why such activities are child abuse. 

Here's a news flash for you:  In many homes across the country, particularly in rural areas, guns are normal.  

Teaching kids to shoot helps them learn helps them learn things like discipline and patience, along with gun safety and most importantly, the destructive power they hold in their hand.  I've previously written about my own childhood where my grandfather owned guns and taught me gun safety and how to shoot, once I got old enough (around 10, as I recall).  Most of my friends' dads owned guns and they taught their kids to shoot as well.  This sort of activity has been going on for as long as the US has existed.  Shooting guns is a family bonding activity.

I'm sure there are some readers who've lost their minds over my comment about shooting being a family activity.  Here's some news for you; you're allowed to be uncomfortable with anything you want, but you're not allowed to condemn something you don't understand.  That would put you on the same plane as the hard right.  

Here's another news flash - Based upon my research, kids who grow up with guns are much less likely to commit mass murder.  More accurately, most mass shooters and mass murderers don't have a long history with firearms, based upon the data I've compiled.  On the murder side, one simply needs to look at some of the recent events where it was reported the shooter purchased their weapon within weeks or months before.  That's one of the reasons they choose AR-15's; they're easy to use.  Obviously, this wasn't the case in Maine, but that guy is a severe outlier, both in experience and age.  

A final thought to close that topic.  True shooters don't pose with their guns for family Christmas cards.  There are only three occasions you'll find a shooter and his unholstered gun in the same picture.  First is if the shooter is actively firing the gun; the only picture of me holding a gun is when I was shooting a stage, when won the USPSA PA State Championship.  The second is if the shooter just achieved a truly noteworthy feat with their gun (this is mostly confined to rifle shooters who've broken a distance record).  The final exception is if the shooter won the gun off a prize table or from a raffle, and then it's only used for publicity by the sponsor.  Beyond that, the shooting community views these sorts of photos as seriously cringeworthy, so none of us takes them.  Ultimately, the douche canoes that take pics of their entire family holding sometimes garbage quality AR's are only guilty of grooming their kids to be the next generation of douche canoes.  

Moving on to the third picture, there are those who are convinced the LGTBQ community consists of pedophiles who want to groom children to be gay.  This belief is the result of two factors.  The first is their inherent bigotry and hatred of those they consider deviant, based on their perverse religious beliefs or plain ignorance.  This is exacerbated by the second factor, which is right wing media validating and amplifying these prejudices.  

With respect to harming children, these people seemingly don't care about facts or logic.  I encounter them on the shooting message boards and they consider pedophilia to be inherent with the LGBTQ community; essentially, every one of them is a pedophile.  Those who aren't terribly bright, may find it to be shocking that LGTBQ people have been around since the dawn of time (they've had to remain closeted for fear of persecution).  If they were inherently child harmers, there would be mounds of incontrovertible data confirming that to be the case.  But there isn't.  What does exist is a massive amount of data that clergy and religious right wingers have an extremely high predilection for touching children.  To be clear, preying on children is reprehensible and offenders should be subject to stoning, regardless of their sexual orientation or political affiliations.  

The flaw in what I'll pretend is logic by these hateful people is not understanding how the brain works.   You can't groom someone into being gay; it's just not how the brain works.  By in large, those on either end of the sexual orientation spectrum they've always known what their orientation was.  Sure, kids can be malleable by suggestion and a significant portion of the population has done some experimenting, but ultimately no one can convince you to be something you're not wired to be, gay, straight, or somewhere in the middle.  

Finally, I'll address the other point the hard right throws at me, which is why do drag queens desperately want access to children?  First, since they're not harming kids, why the fuck not?  Second, put the right wing propaganda down, because it's amplifying shit that sparks fear and outrage.  I'd be willing to bet that every drag queen story hour "exposed" by that stochastic terrorist bitch Chaya Raichik is literally every one that's ever taken place, which is to say very few for a country our size.  Seriously, you're being played.

The takeaway for both of these cases of accused grooming is don't condemn things you're too fucking stupid to understand.

Gun Homicides And Their Drivers - A Cultural Exploration

As we know, the rate of homicides committed with guns has experienced a significant rise over the past few years. (see Gun Homicides:  The Numbers for all the charts and data)  

There are a few trains of thoughts as to why this is happening.  Before I get into those theories, I'd like to address the racial component of gun homicides.  I've seen right wing idiot memes that claim 95% of gun homicides are black on black; those are patently false.  The truth is that homicides are evenly split between black on black and white on white, with a bit of cross racial activity thrown in.

(Source:  FBI Expanded Homicide Data Table 6, 2019)

Also worth mentioning is an article I read recently that provides a unique perspective on why gun violence is higher in some areas of the country than others.  It essentially lays out how present day violence in any given area depends on who and how that area was settled.  These various "nations" don't fit into state boundaries.  Below is a map from the article that shows how these various pieces are laid out.  

Continuing to pick on the South, here's an excerpt from the article that describes their culture:

"Much of the South, he wrote, was settled by “swashbuckling Cavaliers of noble or landed gentry status, who took their values . . . from the knightly, medieval standards of manly honor and virtue” (by which he meant Tidewater and the Deep South) or by Scots and Scots-Irish borderlanders (the Greater Appalachian colonists) who hailed from one of the most lawless parts of Europe and relied on “an economy based on herding,” where one’s wealth is tied up in livestock, which are far more vulnerable to theft than grain crops.

These southern cultures developed what anthropologists call a “culture of honor tradition” in which males treasure their honor and believed it can be diminished if an insult, slight or wrong were ignored. “In an honor culture you have to be vigilant about people impugning your reputation and part of that is to show that you can’t be pushed around,” says University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign psychologist Dov Cohen, who conducted a series of experiments with Nisbett demonstrating the persistence of these quick-to-insult characteristics in university students. White male students from the southern regions lashed out in anger at insults and slights that those from northern ones ignored or laughed off. “Arguments over pocket change or popsicles in these Southern cultures can result in people getting killed, but what’s at stake isn’t the popsicle, it’s personal honor.”

This article also explains the anomalies I mentioned in "It's the Guns - The Finale", where states in the Far West have lax gun laws, high gun ownership, but low murder rates.  

Don't forget the South has the lowest average education level in the country.  

Rather than continue to plagiarize celebrate the article, I'll recommend you read it for yourself.  I found it fascinating.  

The Surprising Geography of Gun Violence

As to why people are killing other people more frequently, I think there are a number of factors at play.

Certainly, the pandemic put people on edge and the follow up civil unrest didn't help either.  At one point, it seemed just as likely as not that civility could break down.  The number of folks in the shooting community who were building SHTF (shit hits the fan) rifles was astounding during that time.  But emotions were clearly set to 11 and let's be honest, the GQP / MAGA asshats didn't help by dehumanizing / demonizing anyone who wasn't sympathetic to their movement.  It's a lot easier to justify shooting someone you see as a traitor to your country.  The vast majority of homicides spawn from disagreements and again, I haven't seen anything to either validate or refute any of the above theories.  

Despite the stats saying otherwise, there were definitely more people buying guns during the pandemic; the number of background checks bears this out.  I know of at least three colleagues that bought their first guns during that period.

Carrying a gun requires a certain temperament the young or dumb (both) frequently lack.  Too many gun owners have fantasies of using their guns to be heroes or worse, exact revenge.  I've been carrying concealed for close to 30 years and am ashamed to admit I was young and dumb and thought I was a major badass when I got my first permit. Age has brought some wisdom and I've learned to work even harder to avoid conflict and deescalate, because when you conduct yourself in the opposite manner, you go to jail if you shoot someone, self-defense or not.  

I've read that the more intelligent a person is, the more cautious they'll be about pulling the trigger, because they understand the finality of the act.  The young and the dumb frequently don't grasp consequences for their actions; both that there will be and how severe they'll be.  Even if you have done everything right, using your gun in a perfect self-defense shooting, you WILL be charged and may face trial.  Pulling the trigger will cost you $100k on average in legal fees even when your actions were justified.  

But who the hell can say for certain?  The gun homicide rate dropped precipitously (>50%) starting in 1994 and stayed low, yet no definitive, widely accepted explanation exists as to why.   Freakonomics has a pretty compelling argument that ties the drop to legalization of abortion.  (article)  

One item I'm missing is solid recent data on gun homicide by state, which would shed some light on whether homicides are rising across the board (in line with the "nations") or are certain states driving more than their traditional share?  I'll save that for another day.

This entry is part of my "Gun Series" that focuses on providing insight into the gun debate and gun violence.  You can find the other entries in the series HERE.  

About the author: Sean R is a recovering conservative who owns a consulting firm specializing in strategic marketing.  He's been a competitive shooter since the early 90's and holds a High Master classification in PPC and a Master classification in USPSA.  Additionally, he's served as an instructor for gun safety and competition courses.  He lives in Raleigh, North Carolina with his overly vocal white dog, Sadie.

Holding Gun Manufacturers Accountable

In response to the recent mass murder in Maine, there have been renewed calls from some who want to penalize gun manufacturers for the actions of those who use them illegally, for their advertising, and other various reasons.  Indeed, one of the goals of the new White House Office of Gun Violence Prevention is to increase accountability.   

Currently, gun manufacturers are shielded from lawsuits by the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) of 2005, which prevents lawsuits from being brought against firearm manufacturers for damages incurred due to the illegal use of their product.  

This entry takes a closer look at the subject of gun manufacturer liability, advertising, and related considerations.  I'll begin with a look at how new guns are brought to market.  

Ease of Purchase
I regularly hear how some gun manufacturers make it too easy for those with ill intent to procure their products.  As someone who's purchased more than their fair share of firearms, I'm baffled how anyone can credibly make this statement, because there are a number of steps in the supply chain between a gun manufacturer and the ultimate consumer, but they all lead to an FFL.  

Again, for the cheap seats:  All new firearms are sold to the public by independent FFL dealers located in the buyer's state, not directly from the manufacturer.  The larger firearm manufacturers (S&W, Colt, Ruger, etc.) are one step further removed from that chain in that they sell their guns to distributors, who only ships the guns to Federal Firearms License (FFL) holders (aka licensed gun dealers).  Some of the higher end, low volume, and custom gun makers will ship directly to an FFL.  The end customer can purchase directly from a manufacturer, but must take delivery through an FFL.  I did this recently, with a custom built pistol; I ordered and paid for the gun directly with the builder.  However, when it was completed, the gun still needed to be shipped to an FFL, where I completed what felt like my hundredth Form 4473.  I apparently wasn't subject to a background check, because I hold a conceal carry permit.  I'm not a fan of that, to be honest, but it's the law here in North Carolina.

When collecting their new gun from the FFL, the purchaser is required to complete the aforementioned  ATF Form 4473, which collects information about the buyer, the gun, and asks the purchaser to affirm they're not a criminal, etc.  From there, the dealer will call in for authorization, per their respective state's law.  Most states are now on the NICS system, which ties to the FBI's database.  Note the gun manufacturer has long since exited the transaction, at this point.  There are many states that still allow private sales between parties without a background check, but those are exclusively used guns.  In short, any claim of manufacturers being careless and allowing their products to get into the wrong hands is utter nonsense spewed by the ignorant.   

Because I've been seeing more articles relating to "US gun manufacturers fueling gun violence by the cartels and in Eastern Europe", I'll quickly address those claims.  How are these foreign entities procuring these evil weapons?  None of the US gun makers is air dropping their product into other countries to be grabbed by whomever happens upon them, so it must be something else.  With the cartels, it should be obvious the guns are being purchased in the US (because it's close, duh) and being smuggled into Mexico, where the border is comically porous and guards can be bought.  

Eastern Europe is a completely different situation in that the guns are almost certainly being imported legally.  If US guns are being discovered more frequently in the region, they aren't additive.  More accurately, they're taking market share from incumbents.  Both Turkey and the Czech Republic have thriving firearm industries, particularly the former, where the government invested a significant amount of money in expanding capacity, so the Turkish military wouldn't have to buy their weapons from manufacturers outside the country.  This has led to a boom in the number of guns their manufacturers (Tisas and Girsan in particular) are exporting even into the US.  Their 1911's are better than what you'd get from Colt, at a third of the price.    

Manufacturer Liability
As I noted in the first paragraph, gun manufacturers are currently shielded from liability stemming from criminal acts committed with their product.  I agree with this, because as I outlined above, gun manufacturers have zero input into who ultimately buys their product.  After the murderer in Waukesha plowed through a throng of parade goers, no one was screaming that Ford should be held liable.  

There are those that claim guns are inherently defective, because they're designed to kill.  This is utter nonsense.  Guns are designed to reliably and safely fire a round of ammunition manufactured to SAAMI specifications.  Nothing more or less.  Some guns are specifically built for use in competition; are their manufacturers producing a defective product if they're used against a human?  For those guns that were meant for personal defense, there's no way to prevent them for being used to take a life versus saving one.  To be clear, the only way a firearm is defective if it doesn't reliably and safely fire the ammunition it was designed to accommodate.  I'm looking at you, Taurus.  Finally, the type of ammunition used plays a significant role in a gun's lethality.  You could be hit by half a dozen round nose bullets and survive quite easily, whereas the same number of hollow points would end your life.  

Advertising
Finally, let's talk about advertising, where there have been claims made about ads promoting violence and turning the viewers into mass murderers.  Again, I consider this to be nonsense.  First, where are people seeing these ads?  I haven't seen a gun ad in a decade.  Am I to believe mass murderers subscribe to Guns and Ammo?  That's a big stretch, kids.  And the kid thing?  Do people really think kids are running out and buying AR-15's?  Maybe a complete idiot would consider this realistic...

A landmark case on the firearm advertising front related to the Sandy Hook shooter.  Before going any further, it shouldn't need to be said, but I'm in favor of addressing contributors to such tragedies taking place; none of my comments should be taken as me diminishing the trauma to the families and community.  Anyway, the families sued Remington mostly over their ad campaign that centered around the message of getting your man card back.  The company settled the suit for $73 million.  (Adam Lanza used a Bushmaster rifle, who was owned by Remington at the time.)

Personally, I don't see how it can be argued such a message would lead to a mass shooting.  Even if it did, there's absolutely no evidence the ad influenced Adam Lanza's mother in her purchase or that she'd even seen the ad.  That's right, the shooter didn't even buy the gun and was not the legal owner.  

The most recent example of an evil advertisement causing a mass murder comes from the Uvalde massacre, where the manufacturer of the AR-15 that was used, Daniel Defense, published an advertisement (where??) someone didn't like because it promoted teaching your kids how to shoot and the dumb people call that grooming (stay tuned for an entry on that subject).  A fuck ton of us grew up, learning to shoot when we were in single digits and no one became a mass shooter.  Anyway, does anyone think this kid saw the ad in the first place?  What almost certainly happened is he Googled "Best AR-15".  The link below is the first hit you get in that search.    

https://www.pewpewtactical.com/best-ar-15/

If you click the link, here's what you'll find:  

The shooter likely saw that and said, "Daniel Defense is the highest rated; I'll buy one of those".  

In case you're wondering, if you Google "best gun to commit mass shooting", there are only stories about the AR-15; no tutorials or buying guides.   

This entry is part of my "Gun Series" that focuses on providing insight into the gun debate and gun violence.  You can find the other entries in the series HERE.  

About the author: Sean R is a recovering conservative who owns a consulting firm specializing in strategic marketing.  He's been a competitive shooter since the early 90's and holds a High Master classification in PPC and a Master classification in USPSA.  Additionally, he's served as an instructor for gun safety and competition courses.  He lives in Raleigh, North Carolina with his overly vocal white dog, Sadie.