Like many “gone woke, goin’ broke” media outlets loved by the Left, The Atlantic can consistently be counted on to grace it’s dwindling readership with gems of anti-gun bigotry and buffoonery. Unlike most of the others, it’s backed by the billions of Steve Jobs’ widow, so they’re not likely to feel the effects of the marketplace any time soon.
The latest Atlantic piece to hit our radar is titled, ‘Why We Keep Guns In The House,’ written by Daniel Levitin. Whether or not he completed his first draft in Crayon couldn’t be determined before we hit the ‘publish’ button. However, it’s chock full of psychological projection, hoplophobic bigotry, clear contradictions, and downright ignorance.
Fortunately, he has lots of experience with guns. We know this because he establishes his bona fides by describing that time his father allegedly bought a mythical “Remington 870 12-gauge, double-barreled shotgun.”
Then again, if Levitin really is as he describes himself, perhaps he’s not an ideal candidate for gun ownership. For instance, he describes a lifetime spent examining the human condition.
I have spent my career studying the way the human brain works and how it can be influenced, including by stress. We know that when individuals are extremely stressed, their decision-making can be impaired, leading to impulsive or irrational behavior. When someone has a firearm, a single moment of impaired judgment can have devastating consequences.
He then admits that he wanted to shoot the tires of a car that allegedly sped past him. He claims it was the result of the drive “almost knocking me and my dog over” in a crosswalk.
Here are the opening lines of ‘Why We Keep Guns In The House.’ You might want to take a Zofran before you start reading . . .
When we were in our 20s, my friend Jim Ferguson would say that if you find yourself living someplace where you need to own a gun, you should move. That made sense to me then; it’s not so easy now to find safe places. If you live in a remote area, it can take the sheriff an hour or more to get to you, so if there’s a deadly threat from an intruder, you are on your own. And the past few years—indeed, the past few weeks—have shown us that gun violence knows no boundaries of geography, socioeconomic status, or age. Wherever you are, violence can find you. This reality has pushed me toward a moral dilemma: I wish no one were armed, but because practically everyone else is, I have a gun myself.
The problem with having a gun is that you can be tempted to use it. Guns also make committing acts of violence seem easier and less personal; if you’re not looking someone in the eye, it may not seem as real when you pull the trigger. To control that risk requires mental and emotional preparation, as well as rigorous training. As a reluctant gun owner, I continue to be baffled by the lack of regulation on gun ownership. Shouldn’t it be at least as difficult to get a gun license as a driver’s license—or better still, as difficult as it is to get a private pilot’s license? Gun owners should have to prove their competency and their ability to exercise good judgment, just as other licenses require.
If you manage to read the whole thing, you’ll be treated to a story chock full of likely fabulism and clear contradictions. He spends quite a lot of time early on discussing that, as a “reluctant gun owner,” he takes six hours of training with an off-duty police detective every two years. Because as we all know, few people are as expert in the use of ballistic tools as police detectives. This, however, makes Levitin a “responsible gun owner.”
Levitin writes of learning about conflict avoidance and knowing the law. “Responsible gun owners will consider every other alternative before pulling out a gun,” he wrote. He even admits that “running and hiding” are superior alternatives to using deadly force. All true enough.
That’s then followed by his claim that, “I have been in situations when I felt threatened and pulled out my gun.” Maybe Mr. L. hangs out in higher-crime and more dangerous neighborhoods than most of us. Responsible gun owners pulling guns is about as rare as police officers discharging theirs. Many, if not most go an entire career without pulling a trigger.
If, with all his training, Levitin is regularly feeling threatened to the point of clearing leather, he’d better know the law. If not, he’ll soon find himself interrogated and arresticated by Johnny Law if he lacks good legal justification for brandishing and threatening others with his reluctantly-owned firearm.
And then there’s this. Levitin describes his reaction when someone knocked on his door unexpectedly one evening. His natural reaction was to lock himself and his wife in their bedroom.
When his she urged him to “find a clear way out of the house,” he didn’t want to leave her alone and unarmed. The self-described responsible, highly trained gun owner then “handed her the shotgun. She held it for the first time.”
That was quick thinking. Every personal defense maven who’s worth his salt will tell you thaty shotguns are the ideal self-defense tool for people who have never used one before.
Heather Levitin can sleep well at night, secure in the knowledge that she’s living with a top-notch partner who welcomes education, enlightenment, and skills development. Someone who has already fully wrestled with the “impossible moral quandary of gun ownership.”
Taking self-defense advice from The Atlantic is about as wise and prudent as seeking heart surgery advice from your local auto parts guy.
18 Responses
This guy is an idiot, and as someone who has been there several times I can tell you he is a complete moron on defensive gun use.
And… the contradictions…. man, its almost like he made up a lot of this…ok, I’m kidding…its obvious he made up a lot of this.
“Gun owners should have to prove their competency and their ability to exercise good judgment, just as other licenses require.”
I sure wish you had been made to prove your competency and ability to exercise good judgment before you were allowed to even look at a computer.
“He even admits that “running and hiding” are superior alternatives to using deadly force…”
Except in about 99% of gang criminal encounters, and violent home invasions, and rapes, and surprise attacks, and ‘gun free zones’, and a whole lot more where the success rate of ‘run & hide’ for direct victims is less than 4%. For example, if ‘run & hide’ actually worked as well as you claim Eli Dicken would not have needed to use a firearm to defend about 100 people from a mentally ill killer.
You obviously do not understand the dynamics of defensive gun use.
Daniel Levitin is the type of ‘advice giver’ that gets people killed. Like that time this self-described responsible, highly trained gun owner then “handed her the shotgun. She held it for the first time.” while he apparently was going to leave her there alone.
“Here honey, take this shotgun you have never held before without any gun training what so ever, and ill go find a way out, good luck..buh bye”
Heather Levitin can sleep well at night, secure in the knowledge that she’s living with a top-notch partner who welcomes education, enlightenment, and skills development enough to abandoned her and place her in mortal danger.
The embedded video above is laughable. Whenever I’ve taken newbies for shotgun fun (whether steel target or some rounds of clays), I always start off with an empty shottie to discuss proper buttstock placement. Meat of the muscle, never the crook of your shoulder joint…that’s a great way to cause an uncomfortable injury. And then I load a single low-power birdshot shell. After firing it, if they don’t like it, then the gun is now “empty” and safe, as compared to still containing more shells.
Only two people (both ladies of smaller stature) didn’t like it, but upon switching to smaller 20-ga, loved it.
“I have spent my career studying the way the human brain works…”
Apparently, not his own.
But I do want one of them thar double-barrell 870’s in 12 gauge. Wonder where I can find me one.
“Levitin writes of learning about conflict avoidance…”.
Apparently, his conflict avoidance teacher accurately assessed Levitin’s capability and said “Look, just lock yourself in the bedroom”.
“Responsible gun owners pulling guns is about as rare as police officers discharging theirs.”
{Raises hand.}
Twice, in my life so far. Both times it was when someone entered an area (Time one, my car. Time two, inside a house I was painting) they had zero business being, and advancing rapidly towards me.)
Both times, as soon as they saw me extract something from my pocket, turned one-eighty and exited as fast as they could.
Neither time did I need to aim, thank God…
Similar story for me, albeit only once. Three men maneuvering to trap me at the end of a cul-de-sac that was curiously dark from the recent loss of the street lamp’s bulb, in a nefarious neighborhood (I was looking for a specific address). I turned on my car’s interior dome light, pulled out my gun, placed it on the dashboard in plain view, and looked them right in the eyes. They turned and hoofed it out of there post haste, and I drove away without completing my task of finding that address. Never went back.
If that turns out to be the only time I’ll ever have needed to draw, it will be a good life.
“I have spent my career studying the way the human brain works”
How does a brainless person study anything?
He is writing a new book and it is reported that he plans to color it next week.
When your audience doesn’t know shit and is known to dismiss those who do know shit you can make up whatever nonsense you want free and clear of any checks or challenges.
you just described anti-gun people.
In the linked article, this…
“Most of the day is spent on finding ways to remove myself from a dangerous situation before things escalate. Can I run? Can I hide? Running and hiding are not cowardice; they mean taking the higher moral ground of avoiding confrontation in a situation where the person seemingly threatening you might be drunk, or off their meds, or simply confused about which is their car or the right address.”
Running and hiding are not cowardice, that’s true. But it does not “mean taking the higher moral ground of avoiding confrontation in a situation where the person seemingly threatening you might be drunk, or off their meds, or simply confused about which is their car or the right address.”. Its a good thing to avoid confrontation when you are armed and you should but you don’t do it for ‘moral high ground’ but rather its survival instinct motivated in sane people, not a moral high ground. And that’s where his problem lies, his desire to reach a ‘moral high ground’ instead of survival and in that few seconds or less that considering ‘moral high ground’ and not recognizing the need for survival can get you killed. A “person seemingly threatening you might be drunk, or off their meds, or simply confused about which is their car or the right address” will not hesitate to harm you if they so desire no matter what you do – he thinks these are not threats because he can have a ‘moral high ground’ – he doesn’t see the reality that these, in his scenario, are threats even though he has stated “seemingly threatening” – either they are threatening or not, there is no ‘seemingly’. He thinks its something over which to achieve a ‘moral high ground’ – a threat is a threat until its proven otherwise, he doesn’t understand that and not understanding that can get you killed. And sure, some people do make mistakes or act wrongly just as some people do for or with anything – for example, drunk drivers.
See, that’s a problem with this guy and even states it without realizing it by saying “My education as a liberal gun owner…” – that, right there, that ‘liberal’ part. Liberals have trained their selves to look at the world in terms of ‘moral high grounds’ that suits them, that are self-satisfying, and he is still trying to apply that to defensive gun use and that’s not what defensive gun use is about at all.
Very well said. He’s justifying his superiority to the ignorant readership
Kinda reminds me of that logic puzzle about being in a room with 2 robots and 2 doors. The safe bet is to believe the opposite of whatever anybody from that rag says.
“Responsible gun owners pulling guns is about as rare as police officers discharging theirs. Many, if not most go an entire career without pulling a trigger.”
That’s true but its not true too (while at the same time being true broadly) – you did a sort of unintentional apples vs oranges thing there, both are fruit but each is a different kind of fruit.
Its true that gun owners only actually pull the trigger less than 5% of the time when they draw the gun, but in the overall of annual defensive gun uses about 90% did pull the gun and brandish preparing to defend causing the bad guy to run off so didn’t need to fire. But also, there is a difference in perception police have to their advantage the ordinary citizen gun owner does not have.
But at the same time, although police actually pulling the trigger “is about as rare” (comparatively to number of ordinary citizen gun owners) as gun owner firing police do draw their firearms (on a collective basis) more than gun owners would. For example, officers had their firearms drawn but did not actually fire but when its looked at no where in the report is it mentioned the officers had drawn their firearms in public – in other words, the point is: Police (collectively) draw their firearms (without firing), on a comparative nation wide basis with the number of ordinary citizen gun owners defensive use, actually more than ordinary citizen gun owners defensive use yet its not reported but if an ordinary citizen gun owner were to do it in public its plastered all over the news. And this is because (collectively on a nation wide basis) police encounter more situations daily where their ‘self judgement perception’ of, broadly, ‘officer safety’ and ‘qualified immunity’ is involved – where the ordinary citizen gun owner is restricted by mostly the desire to not have to shoot someone unless its absolutely necessary and adherence to the ‘law’ defining ‘deadly force use’ for them which makes, collectively, ordinary citizen gun owners more ‘law’ abiding than (collectively) police are overall.
But this brings up another point though. One of the vague ’emotionally based’ arguments that anti-gun make sometimes is that a trained police officer is less likely to shoot a criminal ’cause training’ and for some reason they never define clearly a gun owner is more likely to shoot someone accidentally because they are not ‘trained’ (and from their arguments, implied not trained as police officers are).
For accidentally shot by police vs. ordinary law abiding armed citizens:
* Handguns: Less than a 0.0004% probability a person will be shot accidentally by an ordinary law abiding armed citizen, a little more than a 6% probability a person will be shot accidentally by law enforcement.
* Rifles: A 0.0005% probability a person will be shot accidentally by an ordinary law abiding armed citizen, a 4.7% probability a person will be shot accidentally by law enforcement.
When near misses (‘others’ not actually hit) and personal injury ‘negligent discharge’ types are factored in …
* Handgun: law enforcement slightly over 7% probability – ordinary law abiding armed citizen a little over 0.0004% probability.
* Rifle : law enforcement – 5.2% probability – ordinary law abiding armed citizen a little over 0.0003% probability.
correction for: “…is that a trained police officer is less likely to shoot a criminal ’cause training’”
should have been…
“… is that a trained police officer is less likely to shoot someone accidentally, including a criminal, ’cause training’…”
clarification correction for : “..and for some reason they never define clearly a gun owner is more likely to shoot someone accidentally because they are not ‘trained’ (and from their arguments, implied not trained as police officers are).”
The anti-gun argument never defines clearly their claim a gun owner is more likely to shoot someone accidentally because they are not ‘trained’ (and from their arguments, implied not trained as police officers are).
Its a bogus and disingenuous argument used to paint a deceptive picture.
Clarification for: “And this is because (collectively on a nation wide basis) police encounter more situations daily where their ‘self judgement perception’ of, broadly, ‘officer safety’ and ‘qualified immunity’ is involved – where the ordinary citizen gun owner is restricted by mostly the desire to not have to shoot someone unless its absolutely necessary and adherence to the ‘law’ defining ‘deadly force use’ for them which makes, collectively, ordinary citizen gun owners more ‘law’ abiding than (collectively) police are overall. ”
Police, where ‘deadly force’ is concerned, are required to also follow the law -BUT! – they have an exemption from it except in the most egregious circumstances. Their exemptions are where their ‘self judgement perception’ of, broadly, ‘officer safety’ and ‘qualified immunity’ is involved.
Ok, brandishing a firearm (AKA drawing your firearm) is (broadly) considered a use of, or depending on the situation a part of or threat of use of, ‘deadly force’ even if you did not fire. The applications in the law to how serious the brandishing was in relation to the situation may determine that a brandishing was or was not an application of actual deadly force. For the ordinary law abiding armed citizen there are very few circumstances under which brandishing is permitted, basically, the threat has to be almost on top of you before you can brandish. So basically an ordinary law abiding armed citizen, in relation to firearms use, is not permitted that which police officers have and that is ‘self judgement perception’ of, broadly, ‘officer safety’ and ‘qualified immunity’. So police officers draw their firearms a lot more than ordinary law abiding armed citizens do and are permitted to do it using their own ‘self judgement perception’ of, broadly, ‘officer safety’ and its so routine (collectively, nation wide) that its not even mentioned or considered in anything unless, basically, someone got actually shot. This is just not, say, police officers in a city, its the the entire law-enforcement community (federal, state, county, local).
This gives a false impression that law-enforcement overall are more ‘safe’ with firearms compared to the ordinary law abiding armed citizen. In reality, overall ordinary law abiding armed citizens are greatly more safe for firearms use, because, overall, two reasons: First, they do not employ a ‘self judgement perception’ of ‘personal safety’ like law enforcement is permitted to do for ‘officer safety’ and draw their firearms because they ‘I feelz’ (and not saying there are not situations where law enforcement doesn’t need that). Second, they do not have a culture of ‘‘self judgement perception” allowed them. —- or overall, in short, overall ordinary law abiding armed citizens are greatly more safer for firearms use than law enforcement is simply because ordinary law abiding armed citizens don’t draw their firearms for ‘‘self judgement perception” but rather for actual active threat. This is not to say every person is perfect all the time, there are some who are not as safe as others with firearms just as there are those who, for example, are not as safe with driving a car as others may be.