An Open Letter to Andrew Exum

Dear Andrew,

Good morning.

I write to you today as the United States Supreme Court releases its New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen decision. I read your article from a few weeks ago in the Atlantic Monthly about guns in American life and would say a thing or two about it.

I write to you because you know your way around firearms. You were an Army Ranger officer, trained in the use of firearms, and have led men in combat. You are unlike the typical progressive Democrat who struggles to distinguish firearms from fireworks. So there is a shared understanding which I hope to build on in terms of what a gun is and isn’t that others might not understand. It is on this basis, Andrew, along with our shared citizenship, that I write to you.

First of all, I completely concur with you in your Atlantic Monthly article when you claim that in a country flooded with guns all Americans should have some basic facility with firearms — so that young kids, for example, who might encounter an abandoned gun know not to play with it and to get a responsible adult. Also, with so many guns used in American movies in ways which violate fundamental rules of firearm safety, it would be good to have something giving citizens better information. Assume every gun is loaded until you see otherwise; never point a gun at anything you are unwilling to put a hole in; never put your finger on the trigger until you are ready to shoot; be sure of what is in front of and behind your target. It seems many (most?) Americans have gotten an awful, if indirect, training in the use of firearms through the movies. People waving guns left and right with their fingers on the trigger – unsafe actions which would get you in deep trouble very quickly in the army in real life. A lovely woman I have known almost my whole life who has never held a firearm nor shot one (and looks askance at guns as akin to the “spawn of Satan”) lets her teenage boys play untold hours of violent video games where they run around with all sorts of guns online and shoot them at each other in simulated firefights. It might be a good idea for her boys to learn the rudiments of firearms safety and how to shoot a gun responsibly from someone who knows, even if once for only an hour or two, to give a real life underpinning to all the pixelated combat.

Because shooting a gun in real life is not the same as doing it in a video game, as you know as well as anyone. It is louder. The explosive charge from the bullet has a sharp, acidulous smell. Even with ear protection, your body feels the concussion. Someone could get hurt: it is real life. But if you follow the basic rules of gun safety, the ones you had drilled into you in childhood and again during basic training decades ago, as you explained it, shooting is a safe activity. You know this.

Too many Americans think they know more about firearms than they really do. Your suggestion that we do a better job of giving our fellow citizens basic gun safety education is an excellent idea. But I think many college-educated progressive Democrats – the usual constituency of The Atlantic Magazine – will shun this advice. Again, to them a gun is the spawn of Satan. They want nothing to do with guns. Period. This is both giving too much weight to what a firearm is and isn’t. Andrew, you mention how we should not “fetishize guns,” and I totally agree. Neither should we demonize them. A gun is a tool. It’s a piece of steel (or polymer-steel). Learning the basics about them might be the first step towards demystifying and understanding them better. Maybe our discourse about guns would not be so unproductive – people shouting past each other – if Americans understood better the basics of how firearms work. 

Secondly, you mention how your sons were recently unable to play a baseball game because of a shooting at the park where they were supposed to play, and how another deranged shooter nearby shot wildly from his second story apartment for reasons known only to himself. You did not mention too much more in your Atlantic Monthly article, but it would appear that you and your family live in an area where gun violence is pervasive. A quick search on Google this morning shows me that gun violence in Washington D.C. is at its “highest rate in 18 years,” and that most of it is “driven by [a] small number of people” – presumably street gang members and/or career criminals. These types are not going to pay attention to any of the many gun laws already on the books, and you cannot control what happens on the streets there. For the protection of yourself and your family, I suggest you move somewhere safer. Gun violence does not strike equally in all parts of the United States, and most places in our country you do not encounter the level of shootings as you do in a place like Washington D.C.

But you might reply that you work in government (or government-adjacent), and so you have no option but to live in Washington D.C. If this is the case, I have another suggestion for you, Andrew. I say this in all humility to you as an army veteran who grew up with firearms and is neither a militia cosplay wannabe nor a doctrinaire anti-gunner. Think about getting your concealed carry license (CCW) and carrying a gun. If you have a good chance of coming across armed criminals who might threaten your life or the life of your wife and children, which your article suggests is the case, you should really think about it. (Or maybe you should just move.) 

I suggest you get a Glock 26 with a Vedder LightTuck holster. You seem to cast shade on Glocks in your article, as the antithesis of the traditional bolt-action hunting rifle with a beautiful wood stock – and indeed it is. Glocks have never been my favorite, and they have all the aesthetic appeal of plumber’s T joint. But they are the most common handgun in the world, as the Glock brand is the Honda Civic of firearms: they just work, and last forever, with few frills, for a low price. Glocks go “bang” when you need them to. And the handgun is a concealable tool which gets the job done “in the last extremity” for self-defense at close-range to save your life, which is what we are talking about. Your skeet shotgun, in contrast, is too big to carry concealed on your person. You need a handgun, and if the moment arrives you will need it quickly, taking it from a holster on your belt. Almost any handgun which works might suffice. A snub-nosed revolver or whatever. Something small but make it something. Have it on your person. First rule of gunfighting: avoid a gunfight, if at all possible. Second rule: have a gun. Can you think of a better tool for the task, Andrew?

With a good holster a Glock 26 is so small nobody will ever know you’re carrying a gun. That is the point of “concealed carry.” But if you need it, you have it.

As you well know, a gun is not a magic talisman which wards off evil and protects you by its mere presence. A gun does not guarantee your safety in a high-crime area. But if you (or your wife or children) are confronted by armed criminals in Washington D.C. who might take your lives, you are much better off with a gun than without one. Armed assailants might get the draw on you, or attack you unawares, it is true – and you can do nothing, even armed. You are a victim. But if you do have some time it would be better to get access to and have a gun in your hand than nothing at all. You might be able to take action to save your own life, or the lives of your wife and sons. You can refuse to be a victim. Andrew, you seem exactly like the kind of “good, sane, sober, moral, prudent person” for whom CCW licenses were designed. (And you’re a combat veteran, to boot.) 

You argue in your Atlantic article that America is “awash” with guns and gun violence collectively, and if so why wouldn’t a CCW be the logical conclusion for you individually? For the defense of your wife and your boys, too? You want to leave that up to chance? Put yourself and your family at the mercy of armed criminals? Or wait for the police to (maybe) arrive? Will law enforcement be there in time to help you? Or maybe you should take more responsibility for your own safety and that of your wife and children?

It does not have to be an all the time sort of thing either, Andrew. Perhaps just carry when you go out in the dark to the grocery store or gas station at night? Maybe just have legal permission and the option to carry? Carry when you go to the areas with the highest crime rates? If you have to go to an ATM to withdraw cash at night (something you probably should never do)? 

You might respond that if we simply got rid of the guns in Washington D.C. and elsewhere, you would not need to resort to carrying one. Maybe. But when in the past 50 years has that been the case in Washington D.C.? Gus violence has been endemic to the most dangerous neighborhoods in cities like Washington D.C., Chicago, Baltimore, New York, Houston, and Los Angeles forever.

If you live in a high-crime area and don’t have your CCW license and gun on you, are you really being a responsible husband to your wife and father to your boys? You might conclude that not fighting back is the best way to survive a violent robbery or physical assault. But just because you comply with someone aggressing you with a gun does not mean they won’t kill you, your wife, or one of your children. In Washington D.C. there are criminals carrying guns illegally who won’t hesitate to shoot you. Maybe decent law-abiding citizens like yourself should have one also? Or at least have the option to carry one legally? Maybe short of keeping violent criminals off the streets, the authorities could approve your CCW application?

If Washington D.C. denies almost every single CCW application from persons such as yourself, is this “regulating” firearms in that jurisdiction? Or is it, in effect, a ban? What are the details with respect to how CCW licenses are issued? Or why applicants are rejected?

Or maybe you should just move your family someplace safer, Andrew.

Despite the high rate of gunplay and murder in Washington D.C., the civil authorities have hitherto refused to give the vast majority of the qualified, law-abiding applicants in the district CCW licenses – for decades almost no licenses were issued, although that has been improved somewhat by a 2017 federal court decision which forced district officials to open up their CCW policies). It is way worse in New York City, where – despite exploding murder rates and a failure to control it by the authorities there – almost all CCW applicants are denied as a formal policy. The Supreme Court today just made that illegal in its New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen decision, and now someone in New York can get a license to carry without almost automatically being denied. The reality now is that someone like yourself in Washington D.C. has the green light to get a CCW, if you want one (an option not there 7or 10 years ago).

You have a choice, Andrew. You can take a more direct role in the defense of yourself and your family. You can tell your wife and children, in case of exposure to illegal gunplay, to do the following:

 — or you can do nothing and wait for the police to show up. But will they show up in time? Or will they arrive after the fact to take a police report over your dead body? If unarmed you place your life and the lives of your wife and children in the hands of an armed criminal. You really want to do that, Andrew? Let the image in the above graphic sit in the part of your brain which deals with the protection of you and yours, and let it marinate there. You will know what to do.

It would be best to live in an area with little or no gun violence. Absent that, you can take steps to protect yourself and your loved ones. Check out this recent article about the defensive use of legally-carried firearms in crime-ridden Philadelphia:

“As more people get guns and carry permits, Philly sees a sharp rise in homicides ruled justified”
June 20, 2022

Draw your firearm and shoot the armed robber who assaults you? Or place yourself at his mercy by not fighting back? There is a lot at stake, Andrew. I know how I would choose. You?

A good friend finally got his CCW from Los Angeles County. He had wanted one for years. Like  yourself, he is an outstanding candidate. My friend is an upstanding citizen with a wife and children, owns his own business, and has a criminal record clear of even the slightest blemish, and lives and works in high-crime neighborhoods. There was no good reason to deny him a CCW, except for a doctrinaire belief that more guns on the streets are bad. Now that has changed, thankfully. The Los Angeles Sheriff Alex Villanueva back in 2021 saw that the violent crime rates were rising precipitously while his department’s budget was being cut, so he started issuing CCW permits to qualified, vetted, and trained applicants. Never before had LA County done this. So my friend applied and got his CCW permit.

Maybe you should join him, Andrew?

Maybe others should, too?

Academics who study nationwide statistics might complain that owning a gun makes you, statistically, less safe. But you already own hunting rifles and trap shooting shotguns. As a combat veteran you know what you are doing and I’m sure you store your guns in safes. You are most likely not going to shoot yourself on purpose (suicide), or anybody else by mistake. These fear tactics do not persuade.

It is up to you, Andrew. But if you are ever in mortal danger in Washington D.C. and don’t have any means of protection at hand, you have made a choice.

Thanks to the Supreme Court today, you have that choice.

From what I have been able to find out, Andrew, you seem like an honorable man and a thoughtful citizen. I am happy to share this country with you. And I wish you all the luck in the world with your family and career.

Very Truly Yours,
Richard Geib

P.S. Andrew, I did some digging and after further research I see you and your family took my advice recently and moved to Dallas, Texas. They have gone whole hog there to the opposite side of the gun control spectrum from anti-gun Washington D.C. to pro-gun “Constitutional Carry” as a Texas state law – anyone (not a felon or “prohibited person”) can carry a firearm without any license or training whatsoever. Hey, you don’t even have to apply for a CCW license! This whole letter is unnecessary. I suspect you are totally against Constitutional Carry and so am I, probably for many of the same reasons. Oh, well. The extremes on both sides tend to render themselves risible, eh?

P.P.S. I saw your mom was an English teacher, and you studied literature in college. Good stuff! Cheers from Ventura, California.

P.P.P.S. You probably heard about the “responsibly armed citizens” recently who stopped AR-15-wielding criminals dead in their tracks in West Virginia and Indiana. Andrew, I have a question for you: If you and your family had perchance been eating in the food court at that mall in Greenwood, Indiana when that psychopath emerged from the bathroom ready to commit mass murder, would you have gotten up from your table to confront him and save your life? And if so, would you have gotten to your feet with only your dick in your hand — or would you have had a loaded gun out and ready?

---

“One Civilian With a Gun at an Indiana Mall Offered Better Protection Than 376 Cops in Uvalde”
by J.D. Tuccille