Why Advocating for Gun Control in Gun Publications Carriers Consequences

The Atlantic has an article titled Why We Can’t Talk About Gun Control. In it the termination of Dick Metcalf from Guns and Ammo is discussed as an excuse for why this nation, supposedly, can’t have a discussion about gun control (you know, except for all of the discussions about gun control that happen every damn day):

In the column, Metcalf wrote that he did not believe it was an infringement of the Second Amendment to require some training before a person can have a concealed carry. He added that states can have a universal background check law without him feeling infringed upon.

That did not go over well.

The column appeared in the December 2013 issue of Guns & Ammo, but subscribers started getting it in late October. Within three days, Metcalf said, as responses poured in—by mail, in forums, and on social media—from what he called the pointed end of the bell curve, people who “think the constitution is the only law we need,” Metcalf was labeled a “gun control collaborator” and “modern-day Benedict Arnold.”

“What struck me most about what happened to me was that this huge media corporation [Intermedia, the owner of Guns & Ammo] was absolutely unprepared for the onslaught of social-media negativity,” Metcalf said, “when we went over that line and dared ask the question, whether people might think about whether or not regulation is by definition infringement.”

The tone of the article insinuates that us gun owners are such extreme nut cases that we tirelessly censor any attempt in the media to discuss gun control. Let me explain this from a different angle, namely from the angle of a gun owner and gun rights activist. As a gun owner I am the demographic that Guns and Ammo targets. It makes money by selling magazines primarily to its target demographic. When your target demographic involves gun owners and gun rights activists publishing articles that basically raise a gigantic middle finger to them is bad for business. Not surprisingly when Metcalf went on his little rant about supporting mandator background checks for all firearm transfers, a legalese way of making something as simple as gifting one of your firearms to your own fucking child a crime unless you also paid $20 to a federally licensed dealer to do nothing more than make a phone call to a federal agency, it irked Guns and Ammo’s target demographic. Why would gun owners and gun rights activists want to pay money to be told that they are potentially dangerous people who should not be allowed to possess a firearm unless some faceless bureaucrat working for one of the most violent governments currently in existence says so?

But here’s the thing, Metcalf hasn’t been silenced by us evil gun owners. His employment with Guns and Ammo was terminated but he’s still free to write for another publication. In fact there are many publications, including The Atlantic itself, that are more than happy to pay writers money to toe the gun control advocates’ line. Hell Michael Bloomberg would probably pay big money for a writer who was bullied by us big mean gun owners.

So The Atlantic’s assertion that there can’t be a conversation about gun control is flat out bullshit. It’s true that many of us who own guns aren’t willing to pay money to have gun control preached at us but we’re not stopping anybody from preaching. I’m also not willing to pay writers to call me a misogynist. That doesn’t mean that we can’t have a conversation about whether or not I’m misogyny for liking an author’s works, it simply means that I won’t fund the damn conversation.