Holding a Gun Doesn't Explain Weapon's Lure - Washington Post

Roadrunner

New member
It's not surprising that Ms. Britt is confused and doesn't understand why we like to go to the range. However, read her last two sentences. It sounds like what she's really afraid about is that she just might enjoy the wonderful world of shooting and marksmanship.

"I still hate guns. To be sure I keep hating them, I won't be trying target practice anytime soon."

Holding a Gun Doesn't Explain Weapon's Lure

By Donna Britt

Friday, November 1, 2002; Page B01

One afternoon near the end of the sniper's reign, I was busily plotting -- for the second time that day -- the safest route to get my 7-year-old across his school parking lot. Then it hit me:

I hate the sniper.

Not "I hate feeling frightened for my kids," but I hate the man who's picking off my neighbors like so many state fair game targets. Whatever his supposed mission or actual problems, I realized, I hated him.

Now that there are suspects with faces and identities, I'm more bewildered than hateful.

Because I don't get it. It seems that neither anti-American zealotry nor drool-inducing madness spurred this cruelty. Our fantasy of an uncommonly bright and organized villain has evaporated before images of a thieving wife-threatener who appears to have held a teenager -- and the world -- in his thrall.

Could an unremarkable thug become this?

My bewilderment took me to a store I'd passed dozens of times but never visited, an establishment just four blocks from where Lori Lewis Rivera was shot dead while vacuuming her minivan.

At Potomac Trading Collectibles, I found knives, dueling pistols, ammunition and rifles lined up against the walls like soldiers at attention.

And I found two very pleasant men who earn their livings selling firearms.

Rivera's slaying "was just terrible -- it's horrendous that a family has to endure something like that," said longtime owner Bill Printz, whose Kensington shop sells new and antique weapons and, in an area upstairs, Lionel trains and toys.

The slaying "made me feel just as bad as it made you feel, if not worse," Printz continued. "Anybody could have been a target. You would have thought I was a kid with a boom box, the way my head kept moving.

"I wasn't giving anybody a target."

No, I thought. But you'd sell them a weapon.

But life isn't that simple. In fact, I found Printz and salesman Harry Andrée Jr., engaging and amusing -- despite their penchant for making disingenuous comments about cars killing more people than guns.

Would Washingtonians have been as terrorized by men wielding a rogue Explorer?

I visited the store because I hated guns -- and had no idea why others love them.

Now, I would never confuse millions of law-abiding gun owners with brutes who'd mow down innocents at gas pumps. But as an urban girl too familiar with gun-related agonies, I find hunting distasteful, the NRA's bullying disgusting and the entertainment media's gun-lust outrageous.

I wanted Printz to show me the weapon that stole 10 decent lives. And perhaps to help me comprehend why some will never blame guns for their absence.

A half-hour later -- after examining a Civil War Spencer carbine whose Gettysburg-bound owner carved his name onto its stock and marveling at an 18th-century Japanese "smooth bore" as graceful as calligraphy -- I realized:

Immerse yourself in any aficionado's passion -- antique buying, Thai cooking, guns and other weapons -- and you'll get a glimmer of understanding.

Whatever its object, love's expansiveness pulls you in.

As a boy in Northwest Washington, Printz fashioned weapons from walnuts, tire pumps and firecrackers. "I've always enjoyed history -- guns are part of history," he says. Most owners have personal gun histories -- "my dad had a gun, my uncle. . . . "

Printz paused. "You'd be surprised at the people you know who own guns," he said.

"And who'd never admit it," Andrée added.

Having no Bushmaster rifles -- the sniper suspects' gun -- in stock, Printz handed me a near-identical Colt AR 15. Hefting its six pounds, I positioned its curved stock between my collarbone and shoulder. I lined up a window as a target. I held a .223 bullet as the men spoke knowledgeably about impact, velocity and kick.

But experiencing what the sniper felt physically -- the metal's unyielding heaviness, the narrow peer down the barrel's length -- felt eerie. Felt . . . wrong. It brought me no closer to fathoming why anyone would target any living thing.

"I still don't get the appeal," I confessed, returning the Colt to Printz.

"Just fire one," he responded. "Visit a shooting range; you might understand."

Of course. The point of a gun is to shoot it. To reduce the distance between the snipers and me, between decent people who adore guns and equally nice people who question their sanity, I'd have to shoot one.

Long before we learned about marksmen accurate across five football fields, this ordeal was about distances. The distance between a rifle barrel and an unsuspecting body, between the victims and us, between a killer's logic and his walled-off heart.

Between what we love and what we hate.

We expect the distances between people to explain things. Yet the chasms created by nations, ethnicities and economic groups -- the distance between us and everyone who's different, between our better and lesser selves -- are rarely as wide as we make
them.

I still hate guns.

To be sure I keep hating them, I won't be trying target practice anytime soon.

© 2002 The Washington Post Company
 

SW9M

New member
Ms. Britt has not a clue. She thinks that the lure or guns turns that person into a killer!:rolleyes: Give...me...a...break!

She trying to understand the wrong thing. The real weapon here was this man's twisted mind. That is what she needs to grasp if she wants to understand what the "lure" was.
 

David Park

New member
Disgusting.

John Muhammad, in addition to being a (de facto) gun owner, is also a Muslim. Imagine this woman writing an article about visiting her local Islamic center and being surprised to learn the two Arab-Americans there were decent people. She could look at some beautiful Middle Eastern art and hear how Islam emphasizes leading a virtuous life. But, she would close her article with the following sentences: "I still hate Muslims. To be sure I keep hating them, I won't be reading the Koran anytime soon."

To willfully choose to remain ignorant simply to prolong your irrational hatred is inexcusable. I thought journalism was about seeking the truth.

Her email: brittd@washpost.com
 

BrokenPaw

New member
My response to Ms. Britt.

Ms. Britt,

Because I am a homeowner and parent living in the DC area, your article in the Post was very poignant to me. I live in Manassas, and I filled my car's gas tank at the Manassas Sunoco station only two weeks before a man was shot there. Knowing that I once stood in the exact place where a person was later murdered in cold blood brings things home.

When the shootings in Maryland first began, I felt as many people in Virginia probably felt: that while the shootings were horrible, horrible things, they were distant from me and my family. I did not fear to go to the store, I did not hesitate to go to work, and I did not worry that my kids might be next.

Then, one evening, I heard the news that a connected shooting had occured only five miles from my home -- at the Sunoco station. In fact, I had almost taken the family to a movie that evening, at the Hoyt's Theatre only a mile away from the Sunoco. I would have been driving home, right past the station, near the time that the shooting occured. I don't recall why I didn't take them out that night, but I didn't. I had, instead, to calm the fears of a 10-year-old girl and a 7-year-old boy. Neither of them understood why someone would want to shoot people. I couldn't explain why, because I don't know.

I've never wanted to shoot anyone. As a Wiccan, my religion and philosophy revolve around careful consideration of how my actions affect others. I cannot comprehend the mind of the DC shooter enough to satisfy my own bafflement; certainly I could not explain it to a child who has never seen what cruelty the world has to offer.

Once the shootings became so close to home (so to speak), I had many of the same thoughts that others in the area did. "Do I want to risk getting gas?", "Are the kids going to be safe walking from my car to the school's doors?"

That line of thought brought me to another. My daughter is a lovely girl already, at age 10. In five or six years, she is going to be quite beautiful. She's an active kid, and she's strong for her age. But there are people out there who are bigger and stronger than she will ever be. There are men of strong body and pathetic character, who feed on the feeling of power it gives them to force themselves on a woman. I could not countenance the possibility that she might ever become a victim to one of these men.

She's beginning to realize that not everyone is like me and Mom; not everyone believes that we are responsible for our own actions, and do not have the right to subvert the rights of others.

She heard someone on the radio talking about how we needed more and stricter gun laws, to prevent such tragedies in the future. She looked at me, and she asked me, "Isn't it against the law to kill people?" I nodded and told her that, except for very specific circumstances, it's illegal to kill someone. And she asked me, "Then why would more laws stop people from killing?".

She's ten.

She's figured out what the mainstream media, the Million Mom March, and the Brady Campaign haven't yet figured out. She's figured out that passing more laws cannot prevent crime.

Murder, rape, burglary, assault, battery. All of these things are illegal. And yet all of them occur, every day.

My little girl is going to be a big girl in just a few more years, and I won't be able to drive her to school every day. I won't be able to chaperone all of her dates. I won't be there when she has to walk across her college campus alone.

How am I going to keep her safe? I'm going to teach her the rules of gun safety, and the rules of proper gun handling. Then I'm going to teach her to shoot. And when she's old enough to legally own one, I'm going to buy her a gun.

I am a Wiccan, and I believe in the sanctity of all life. I believe that life should not be taken without need. I am also a gun owner and a family man. I have owned guns for over eight years. I've had a Virginia concealed carry permit for over 2 years. I carry a handgun all day, every day. I own a Rock River Arms AR-15 rifle. It's not made by Bushmaster, like the DC shooter's was. But who made it does not change the fact that it's essentially identical to the one the shooter used.

Why do I have this? Why would a pacifist such as myself own a gun that the media have painted as a "killing machine"? I do not hunt. I do not compete in shooting competitions. I have never killed an animal with any of my guns. I have never even pointed a gun at anyone. But I have an AR-15. And a handgun. And a carry permit.

I do this because I refuse to live in fear. I will not stand by and watch my family become victims of a human predator. Not while I can stand between them and the threat. Not while I have any rounds left in my magazine. It is *because* I consider life to be sacred that I carry a gun. I carry it to protect my life, and the lives of those I love.

No one who is of good will to me and mine need ever fear me. But one whose goal it is to harm my family will find that some prey have teeth and a will to live.

People say that it takes two sides to make a war, and that if one side refused to fight, there wouldn't hjave to *be* a war. That's true. Because when one side refuses to fight, it's not called a war. It's called a massacre.

When good people refuse to fight, the bad people win.

I would like to invite you to come shooting with me. Perhaps meeting me, a tree-hugging pacifist, will begin to change your mind about what a "gun owner" is like. Perhaps that will allow you to look beyond the black, media-reviled surface of a rifle, and see that it can only destroy what *you* point it at, and that as long as good people have guns, there is some hope that the bad people will *not* win.
 

spacemanspiff

New member
hate, a powerful emotion, for an inanimate object. if you're going to hate something, why not hate something that can hate you back?
 

DMK

New member
OUTSTANDING commentary Broken Paw!
I second that sentiment with emphasis!

Broken Paw, your commentary should be in the paper instead of Ms. Britt's closed minded drivel. Please, please send it to the editor.
 

Waitone

New member
One more time Ms. Britt:

A gun is not a living being. A gun is not a free moral agent. A gun has no mind. A gun has no heart. A gun does not live. A gun has no inherent means of locomotion. A gun possesses no morality. A gun is not evil. A gun is not good.

A gun is a tool. A gun is an extension of the human using it. The morality of it use depends completely and solely on the moral framework of the individual using it.

Ms. Britt, perhaps you should review your western philosophy one more time. Matter does not possess nor does it exercise morality.

Used to be cards and likker were considered to be evil in their being. I guess we should add guns to that list.

Sad, very sad.
 

OF

New member
Outstanding is right! Bravo!

(I'll bet you a million dollars it doesn't make the editorial page of the Compost, though. But that's no reason not to send it, over and over again.)

- Gabe
 

brownlow

New member
Maybe Ms. Britt needs to be taken to the NRA range and shown exactly why people love firearms, shooting & gun sports.

One of my favorite things is to take anti-RKBAers shooting. They typically love it.

And the arguements stop.

WGBV
 

Art Eatman

Staff in Memoriam
A recent article over at LewRockwell.com spoke of the mindset of many anti-gun folks as "animism". Giving all manner of attributes to statuary of animals, for instance. "The symbol is the thing". If a gun is a symbol of evil, it must have some life of its own...All that sort of non-think.

How many times, here, have we related stories or cited articles of similar nature, where it's obvious that we--with facts and logic--are virtually helpless against a quasi-religious mindset of emotion? The anti-gunners play on the fears of those who are all unknowing. It's fairly easy for them, given the brainwashing of our society into believing that Security Is All.

As a society, are we not trading liberty for "security"? Go to any airport and observe.

Art
 

MikeK

New member
brokenpaw;

Beautiful letter! If you sent it to the Post and they don't print it, perhaps the Times will (all letters are exclusive BS aside) or run a story on it and you.
 

MessedUpMike

New member
I sent her an e-mail explaining that her research was not fully complete without actually shooting the firearm in question. I offered her the oppourtunity to handle an AR-15 on a range in an attempt to dispel the current "fetishization" of firearms in general. I doubt much she'll contact me back.

Mike

Got to use a bigger word than "cadre" eh?
 

Monkeyleg

New member
Ditto the above comments, BrokenPaw. If the Post doesn't publish it, re-word it slightly so that it's not directed to Ms. Britt. (Britt? What an appropriate name).
 

Kaboom

New member
Donna Britt doens't have the dicipline necessary to shoot a target. Shooting is truely individualistic. She couldn't stand the thought of not scoring 10-10X. It would show that she wasn't perfect and just like everybody else. She has no business in journalism.
 
Top