When I originally published Guns: Responsibility and Projection I figured I would address Ms. Yewman’s irrational and irresponsible display and be done with it. I had hoped that she would see how dangerous her demonstration was and that she would return to the firearms dealer she supposedly purchased her Glock handgun from and sell it back so that a more deserving owner could give the handgun a new home. Unfortunately, it seems that Ms. Yewman’s determination to attack 2nd Amendment rights was far more substantial than her desire to obtain worthwhile firearms education and training.
In Part Two of her journey, Ms. Yewman outlines how her daily routine has changed since acquiring a firearm. Much like part one of her display, she begins by highlighting her anti-gun bias in calling attention to her belief that her family was at greater risk because she brought a firearm into the home.
After her short introduction, Ms. Yewman recalls a specific time during the 30 days when she left her loaded Glock in her purse after coming home. Almost frantic, she discusses the fear she felt when she realized she had left the gun unattended only a few feet away from her 15 year old son, who at the time was playing video games. Glock grenade jokes aside, Ms. Yewman correctly outlines how she placed her son’s life in danger, but unfortunately once again fails to appropriately assign blame for the situation. Rather than keep her gun on her person, lock her firearm up, or, god forbid, teach her son about firearm safety, she irresponsibly put her family at risk; all so she could prove some sort of emotionally saturated “point”.
Next, Ms. Yewman points out the worn out “statistic” that a gun in the home is 43 times more likely to be used against a family member than an intruder. Of course, Professor John Lott (formerly of Yale University, University of Chicago, and the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania) has debunked this myth, but several gun control advocates still cling steadfastly to it like a broken wood plank floating alongside a sinking ship. She also adds that 19,000 people die from negligent discharges and suicides by firearm each year as if the bulk of these troubled individuals would still be alive in a world without guns. Unfortunately for Ms. Yewman, the statistics from other nations, such as Japan, do not support her position. Of course, like many other gun control advocates, it is safe to assume that Ms. Yewman only cares about issues like suicide as they pertain to guns and couldn’t care less about the possibility that people could harm themselves by other means. For her, it is all about the gun and nothing else matters, not even her own safety or the safety of those around her.
The rest of Part Two is dominated by the emotional instability that Ms. Yewman seems to have experienced during her month with a firearm. She outlines how she could not sleep at night as a result of her anxiety. One moment she is afraid her son is going to shoot himself, the next she wonders if she could really shoot someone. These are all worries that could have been alleviated with proper training and a family safety discussion. Rather than take the initiative to be a decent parent and safe gun owner, Ms. Yewman continues to attack the constitutionally-protected right to bear arms and proudly embraces her reckless ignorance. At the same time, she leaves sensible readers wondering if she has the mental fortitude to not only own a gun, but to simply make it through the challenges of every day life.
For Ms. Yewman, the gun seems to be the answer to everything. At least as far as her perception is concerned, she can barely see any situation without her firearm being present. In this sense, her projection of her irresponsibility onto others is frightening. It is clear that she does not trust herself with the firearm and that she has made the broad assumption that most others are equally inept. The fact that she would consider pointing the gun at her son when he came home late at night without properly identifying him reflects her total ignorance of firearm safety. This is something that she is responsible for learning and thinking about herself as a responsible adult. Of course, she also fails to address why she might be so surprised by her son’s arrival. Is it not the responsibility of a good parent to be able to account for their children at any given time? If she is losing track of her 15 year old son, just wait until the poor child has a drivers license.
After finishing Part Two of her article, I am taken back to the beginning of the section where she claims to straddle the line between a responsible gun owner and an irresponsible idiot. How someone who has acted so recklessly can consider themselves in any way a responsible gun owner is beyond ludicrous. Unfortunately, she continues her drama into Parts Three and Four, so look for some additional reflection on each of these soon.
Some commentary from John Lott: