retraction

A couple of days ago, I took exception to the NRA because I perceived that they were being condescending to "old people who carried guns".

Since then, the NRA has written a couple of articles which clarified their position vis a vis "old pharts", and I have decided that the misinterpretation may have been my fault.

The genesis of the misunderstanding was this GAWKER article:

Titled: "Guns Won't Protect You Old People, You're Too Old And Weak", the article made a strong argument (depending on your attitude) for the proposition that after a 'certain age' (not defined), individuals reach a stage of incompetence wherein they are no longer proficient in the use of firearms as a legitimate and effective means of self defense.

I suppose this might be true, eventually, but I was personally offended in that the premise was far too 'open-ended'; it didn't (a) suggest an age range which would be definitive in terms of undefensibility, and (b) acknowledge that this supposed 'age range' (I made this term up for the purpose of discussion) might not be universally true.

Which, I suppose, might have been why the author didn't presume to be more specific.

As *(perhaps/probably)* a consequence of, or response to the publication of this article, the National Rifle Association (NRA) published a responding article which they titled: "Carry Life / Senior Competence" .. authored, incidentally, by Fred Winn, Guns and Gear Editor.

Winn's response starts out with a reasonable preamble: he refers to the article as "claptrap" (with which I agree).  Then he gets to the bones of the body:

 The short version is simply a beatdown of “old people” who want to own a firearm for personal protection. The thesis is as sketchily condescending as it is deeply prejudiced: Such old people—creatures never actually defined, we notice—shouldn’t have firearms because they’re ipso facto too infirm to use them. Beyond some unspecified age, we evidently become rightless un-persons, explicitly doomed to wait on help that may never arrive. We should shut up and take our lumps: lethal, merely injurious or otherwise.

[emphasis added]

Unfortunately, he then regresses to 'detail advice' in which he includes such details as 'how to rack a slide' and 'locking a slide to the rear'.

Which are valuable items of information for people who don't know this 'stuff'; but this is where I began to take offense.

And when I took my experience in combination with my failure to read the content in detail, I made some assumptions which were not only NOT justified, but were irresponsible.

And so I was offended, because I assumed the author was being condescending, rather than helpful.

It's painful for me to detail the degree to which I allowed myself to sink to this level of outrage, but my vitriol was not only not directed toward the person who was the author, but in my confusion I pointed it another person who was entirely innocent of comment.

And I will not provide any more details of this story, because I'm not only bored with it, but I suspect that if I take it too much further I'll find cause for embarassment.