Invitation to Heidi Yewman

Heidi Yewman is a board member of the Brady Campaign and the author of a book about “the impact of gun violence”, Beyond the Bullet. She recently bought a 9mm Glock and is carrying it daily now.

You can be pretty certain the intent is not benign in regards to the gun culture but I left a comment on her blog post welcoming her to the world of gun ownership. The comment is currently awaiting moderation so to protect against “Reasoned Discourse” I’m posting here as well:

Heidi, I’d like to welcome to the world of gun ownership. I’m sorry it’s so stressful for you. It doesn’t have to be. The culture you are familiar with regards gun ownership as dangerous and to a certain extent evil. Those of us in the gun culture know better.

Although I know your intention is to destroy our culture I want to thank you for visiting and would like to make the visit as pleasant as possible. Knowledge is good thing but can be hard to come by. This is especially true if your background has a strong bias.

I know good gun people not too far from where you live and even consider myself within range to welcome you and show you around. Let me know if you are interested in meeting our ambassadors. If your objective is to understand our culture then let us show you around and make your visit as safe and pleasant as possible.

Update: There are several other comments with timestamps after my comment that have made it through moderation now. Combined with other people reporting the same thing in the comments here we can now safely conclude the following:

Heidi Yewman, Brady Campaign Board Member, does not want free speech. And when she has the power she will enforce restrictions on it.

When allowed the power to do so Mayor Bloomberg didn’t just enforce and advocate strict gun laws. He created laws against “high capacity” soft drinks, and salty foods.

Anti-gun people are not just anti-gun. They are anti-freedom. And far too often they enable or implement genocidal regimes. All in the name of “common sense”, “for the children”, and “preventing gun violence” they are anti-life. Of course people like Yewman don’t realize this. The road to Hell is paved with good intentions but it is still a road to Hell.


30 thoughts on “Invitation to Heidi Yewman

  1. Wow, I thought she might have come to her senses when I started reading that article. Then I got about halfway through and I’m wondering.

    What isn’t open to question is that she is every bit as stupid as the most extreme brainless stereotype you ever thought of when discussing victim disarmament extremists.

  2. If I had a dollar for every comment that referred to “missing the point”…

    While I admire your optimism, this feels like the author is attempting some weird performance art experiment.

    If she knows she has no clue, and that is in fact her purpose for the stunt, should the unthinkable happen she will inevitably blame “the system”.

    • She didn’t explicitly state this but I think she is carrying it around unloaded. My guess is she doesn’t even own any ammunition.

      • I wouldn’t imagine that she’s carrying any ammo, either. The feel I got from reading that article is that she’s only doing this to prove a very specific, very biased point, that its easy to buy a gun. She is not interested in actually learning about firearms. The fact that she went in and purchased a gun within…what was it…7 minutes or so, and left the store, just bought the one the guy recommended and walked out tells you a lot. I know there are bad firearm salesmen, but I don’t know of any that would sell even a “girly” gun without at least asking if the customer was familiar with its operation. This whole thing smacks of “okay, just sell me a gun, lets make this as quick as possible, don’t ask me any questions and I won’t ask you any, so that I can spin this the proper way” reporting. No wonder she sits on the Brady Board.

        • I don’t see how she walked out the door in 7 minutes, unless the state she’s in has a VERY streamlined NICS system. It seems to take at least a half hour to clear NICS every time I buy a gun.

          • Your state sucks then, I have never had to wait more than two minutes to clear NICS, the longest part is always filling out the paperwork. But it certainly does seem that she is doing this for all the wrong reasons and has already decided that she will not actually try to learn anything in the process, which is kind of sad when you think about it.

  3. From the article, it looked like she carried it around unloaded only because that’s how it came from the store — not because she had any idea. It also looks like she wouldn’t know how to load it even if she wanted to.

    Sean’s comment rings a bell. This smells a bit like the Mark Kelly (husband of Gaby Giffords) stunt where he orchestrated some sort of straw purchase “to show how easy it is to buy a gun”. When he accidentally gave away the fact that it was a straw purchase, the seller cancelled the reservation and returned his money. It doesn’t seem that he was prosecuted for federal law violations, though — which figures.

    • I think she’s carrying it unloaded because it has a magazine in it, and she believes the magazine came from the factory loaded. Remember, she freaked out when she opened the box and saw a magazine already inserted. No attempt to verify it’s clear, didn’t eject the magazine, just ran off to find a policeman to hold her hand.

      (Which is weird. Most gun people know that MOST police are unlikely to be familiar with anything but their issued weapon. We’ve all heard stories of poor gun handling by police confronted with something new. Lucky for her she bought a Glock, I guess.)

  4. I just left a comment as well. It is in moderation. It doesn’t have as friendly a tone as yours, but I’m guessing neither comment will pass moderation.

    “Every gun owner I know is more mature and responsible than to begin carrying a gun without any training and with no knowledge of firearms. You have the chutzpah to have written a book about firearms policy, yet you know nothing of the basic rules of firearm safety and handling. This is not evidence of credibility. Please get some training.”

  5. Yep. My comment (posted below) got black-holed. Looks like “reasoned discourse” is only acceptable when such discourse agrees with the preconceived notions of the elite:

    It’s good that you are nervous about having the firearm at this stage. That nervousness serves to remind you that you are neither familiar nor proficient with firearms in general, or yours in particular. Then again, you were likely terrified when learning to drive as well, and for the same reason – inexperience, unfamiliarity, and the looming awareness that a mistake on your part could be fatal to yourself or others. I doubt you feel the same fear now while driving, as you have many years of practice and experience that make you familiar with the limitations of both your automobile and yourself.

    What amazes me is that you do not recognize the same need for practice and experience with a firearm. Having the right to carry is one thing, but you need to practice. Go to a range. Practice shooting. Practice running out of ammo and having to reload quickly (you do carry at least one spare loaded magazine, do you not?). Practice breath and trigger control. Practice drawing, aiming, and firing quickly. Take a course from an expert. Find out why the Tueller Drill is important. Go here:, and run some of their drills. Practice as if your life depended on it, as it well may.

    The other thing is “situational awareness”. I like this to the “defensive driving” meme. You need to be constantly aware of what is going on around you. While driving, you note the person in the other lane who seems to be having control issues, and you adjust accordingly. Same on the street. Having a firearm at the ready does not mean you can walk down the street oblivious to your surroundings. Instead, you must be more aware. Remember – the only (gun)fight you are guaranteed to win is the one you do not have. If you see a situation starting to develop, get out of there if at all possible. The firearm is your last resort, not your first or only resort.

    One month sitting in Starbucks with a gun on your hip while shaking with fear does no one – least of all you, any good at all.

  6. My comment has been awaiting moderation for 2 days now:

    I think you are mis-understanding the entire concept of what it is you are writing about.
    I get it that you are attempting to highlight the (relative) ease in acquiring your new tool, but in a (relatively) free society _that is the way it is supposed to be._
    Government isn’t there to hold your hand and guide you through the process, nor to train you on the intricacies of your new sidearm, and this is a good thing, This means you need to learn this yourself. This is on _you_ to learn, as a grown adult, responsible for one’s actions, and if you intend to carry it around like you state, for the sake of those around you, I hope you get some good training. At least learn the legalities of the use of deadly force, and have someone instruct you in the proper manual of arms when it comes to operating your pistol. As it stands right now, you are a liability, rather than an asset, to society.
    The fear and anxiety you are feeling is based in ignorance, and some knowledge will greatly allay your fears.

  7. Reasoned Discourse is indeed in effect. I posted yesterday, and it also made the black hole.

  8. My best Rod Serling:

    “Imagine, if you will, a civilization without politics. What differentiates people in such a civilization? On the surface, it would seem to be rationality and irrationality. Come with us to the world of irrationality…”

    So, off we go with Rod Serling to that land of irrationality.

    Two examples: remember the guy who went to Alaska to live with the grizzly bears? Remember his fate? Seems salmon fishing slowed down so the bears looked for alternate food…

    Remember back to the Sixties when Piper and Cessna both tried to convince more people to fly? They ran ads trying to sell flying GA aircraft as easier AND safer than driving a car. Their sales points failed to mention the lengthy training period OR the fact that learned judgment in flying is EVERYTHING, and you can never have enough of it.

    Both of those examples seem to resonate the same as this woman’s “quest”, if I may defuse it a bit. All three of the examples reek with the complete abandonment of real-world experience in dealing with dangerous things.

    She may be outfoxing all of us, though if she is testing the waters for a new type of gun control, establishing an onerouis training and re-certification regimen as the price for being able to carry. That idea has been sitting in the wings of the anti-gunners for some time, and there is a bill which proposes to do just that in Oregon now.

  9. “Reasoned Discourse” broke out on that site pretty early on. My comment was in the low double digits and didn’t make the cut. I expressed disapproval but wasn’t too harsh, I thought. This is why we have trouble making headway with these folks, though. They don’t want to learn anything from us.

  10. With due respect and applause to everyone making a good-faith effort to engage this woman in Reasoned Discourse, I must nevertheless point out the obvious.

    She’s a Brady Campaign shill. Any and all information she needs about any aspect of carrying or the mechanics of her Glock is a phone call away, assuming it’s too much trouble to RTFM. There is no honest intent here, at any level.

    Earnest and helpful comments are ratholed instantly, along with the vitriol. Nice of everyone to want to pitch in (and I did too), but they’re snickering at our intentions. We’re not matching the narrative and they can’t let the gibberings in the echo chamber become distorted by reason.

    As an aside, this is a stunt with an ironic and vaguely Newspeak twist: She’s playing out the “I’m-just-a-dumb-girl-who’s-afraid-of-guns” stereotype on the Ms Magazine blog. I’m sure that’s too subtle for most of the commenters over there, but they never were known for their attention to detail.

    • Interesting. If I’m understanding you right, you are saying she’s playing up the misogynistic stereotype of dumb, ignorant, helpless, girl afraid of gun, in a women’s magazine, to play up the point that because SHE can’t hack it, no one should be able to do the stupid shit she deliberately did KNOWING it was stupid, in order to further an irrational agenda. Could be. It’s twisted enough in it’s logic.

  11. Try posting “What difference does it make?” in ANY article about Hillary on the NYT site.

    This is one of the signs of whom you are dealing with. It’s group-think or no think.

  12. Since this is only part one of a four part series, how do any of you know she didn’t get training?

    • As of the article posted, she has stated (and demonstrated) multiple times that she knows nothing about guns, and has no intention to learn. Anything that pops up in a later article is by definition unknown at this point, and need not be speculated on or commented on.

      You do realize you’re making the “No WMDs!” argument, right? I.e., since we didn’t find an operational WMD program in Iraq, that we should’ve magically known it somehow behorehand?

      • Well given the entire world knew before hand that Iraq didn’t have WMDs, I think your article is specious.

        He has a point- we don’t know the content of the later articles, and they CAN be speculated on.

  13. Pingback: Thoughts on Heidi Yewman | The View From North Central Idaho

  14. My comment on her article is also stuck in moderation.

    I believe she is deliberately playing up the “I’m a helpless female scared of guns” angle. She is validating people who are already scared of guns, who can then point to her article as support for their irrational phobia. She’s also hoping to get those people to support gun control — probably in the form of training requirements, but there are suggestions in the article about needing improved background checks, waiting periods, etc. If you read this article it becomes clear that she is either leaving out a lot of details from her story, or else did some careful research beforehand in order to be able to tell her story with maximum impact.

    (For example: the author lives in Washington State, which has a 5-day waiting period for firearms purchases unless you have a concealed-carry permit; the concealed-carry permit takes an average of two months to receive, unless you do the research and go to a specific location and happen to get a good spot in line on a slow day; none of those delays or checks are mentioned in the article).

  15. I guess we just have our “reasoned discourse” here, instead.

    I agree with Moriarty: RTFM. That would go a long way in learning about her weapon. As far as I’m concerned, she’s already failed at her “experiment” since one of her stated goals is to “…finally be prepared to use it for protecting myself at home or in public.” If she doesn’t know how to tell if it is loaded, then she certainly doesn’t know how to aim it, much less safely use it. She has not prepared to do anything except to make guns an evil device designed to kill children.

    It really scares me what she will do when it comes to her final goal: “Finally, what happens when you don’t want that gun any more?”

  16. “(For example: the author lives in Washington State, which has a 5-day waiting period for firearms purchases unless you have a concealed-carry permit; the concealed-carry permit takes an average of two months to receive, unless you do the research and go to a specific location and happen to get a good spot in line on a slow day; none of those delays or checks are mentioned in the article).”

    She *explicitly* stated that she obtained a CPL:
    “Getting the permit to carry a concealed weapon was simple. I filled out a form, had my fingerprints taken for a background check and paid $56.50. No training required. It took far longer to get my dog a license.”

    All of that sounds correct except the part about the dog license. It *may* have taken more time to be handed the dog license than it took to *apply* for the CPL but very few offices will hand you the CPL at the time of application (it does happen, it’s just not the common case).

    If you have been a Washington resident for the previous 90 days and have a Washington drivers license it takes a *maximum* of 30 days to receive the CPL. If you don’t meet those conditions, it take a *maximum* of 60 days. It certainly does *not* take “…an average of two months to receive”. See RCW9.41.70 section 1.

  17. Bob R: I know she explicitly stated she obtained a CPL. She didn’t mention the delays associated with the process, leaving the impression that it was a very easy and simple process to go through. It’s not quite as easy as she makes it sound.

    For the average length of time required, I cited my source for that information. (I’m not a Washington state resident). Statutory requirements about the time required to process an application are not the same as the *real* time required to process the application. I don’t know what the real times are, but I wouldn’t be surprised if it takes longer than it is supposed to.

  18. I’ve been sending e-mails to the Ms. Magazine Senior Editor Michele Kort and Me. Yewman asking why legitimate comments are not being published and updating my post on this whole situation. To date I have not received any reply from Ms. Kort or Ms. Yewman, but I have been visited by what I think are the Prosecuting Attorney’s Offices of Seattle and Los Angles on my blog. I screen shotted the visit’s from my sitemeter logs and posted them up on the original post. I’ve also been calling out Ms. Magazine, Ms. Kort and Ms. Yewman on Twitter everytime I send an e-mail to them or update my post.

  19. Why should she want to meet you and your friends, complete strangers? The fact that you accuse her of somehow wanting to eliminate free speech suggests she’d probably be better off staying well away from you.

Comments are closed.