Skip to content

Luke Scott doesn't like MLB's gun ban

Feb 27, 2010, 9:33 AM EDT

Luke Scott tells of the Baltimore Sun that just because he abides by MLB’s policy doesn’t mean he has to like it:

“I don’t think that everyone else should be pay for the mistakes of a
few,” said Scott, one of baseball’s most vocal gun rights proponents.
“There is a good reason behind the rule, I can’t deny that. The reason
is you cannot trust 25 guys in a locker room to have the same respect
and training as I do with a weapon. That I do understand. I’ve carried
a gun for 10 years. I’ve carried them in the locker room and nobody
really knows about it. I know how to handle myself and I stow it away
where nobody really knows about it.

Ryan Franklin of the Cardinals had a similar reaction last week. The policy was actually put in place last July — after the Plaxico Burress incident — but Scott said he wasn’t aware of the rule change until very recently. In advance of the new season, major league baseball has sent out reminders to the players and the ban has been posted in clubhouses for the first time.

It sounds like the initial ban was just some P.R., and major league baseball did little or nothing to actually enforce it, but they are taking the issue very seriously after what happened between Gilbert Arenas and Javaris Crittenton of the Washington Wizards. As they should.
 

  1. Old Gator - Feb 27, 2010 at 9:56 AM

    Okay, let’s see if I’ve got this right: Scott understands the “good” reasons for the policy and still doesn’t like it. Okay. He’s just off on one other thing: it’s not that X out of 25 guys can’t be counted on to know what to do with a gun, it’s that most people can’t. That’s why there are, in saner places than the inside of Scott’s head, rules limiting who can and can’t have one. Aside from the overall pathology of this culture’s twisted romance with firearms, those who like Scott and Eddie the Eagle extol the virtues of knowing what to do with a gun still whine paranoiacally and resist every effort to mandate that those who own them will know what to do. Hell, even a gun nut as savvy as Clemenza was worried about Michael Corleone knocking off “pain in the ass innocent bystanders.” As a gun owner for much of my adult life – one of those who does know what to do with it – I ardently support sane and responsible gun control as well as sane and responsible gun ownership. Not to see the continuity between them is classic ideological constipation.

  2. Phil - Feb 27, 2010 at 10:44 AM

    That’s why there are, in saner places than the inside of Scott’s head, rules limiting who can and can’t have one.
    Unfortunately those saner places don’t include large swaths of the US. The federal government has just turned regulation of guns in national parks back to the states. It is now legal for those with concealed carry permits (another grand idea) to carry in the Tennessee portion of the Great Smoky Mountains National Park, for example. Last year our state legislature passed a law allowing permit holders to carry in bars and restaurants so long as they refrained from drinking. (Right. Everybody goes to a bar to refrain from drinking.) Remember we are talking concealed carry here. A sensible judge threw out the law on the grounds that it forced the wait staff to essentially be law enforcement officers because they had to determine if a customer was carrying before serving them a drink. The Neanderthals are back in the legislature trying to get it passed again because guns and alcohol go so well together. Both police organizations and the hotel/restaurant lobby have opposed it. If the law passes again and goes into effect, you won’t be able to have a beer without running into some clown in search of his John Wayne merit badge.

  3. Joey B - Feb 27, 2010 at 11:25 AM

    “As a gun owner for much of my adult life – one of those who does know what to do with it – I ardently support sane and responsible gun control as well as sane and responsible gun ownership. Not to see the continuity between them is classic ideological constipation.”
    I’m impressed. I didn’t think those on the left were allowed to hold moderate positions. It’s a well-thought out position. If you got rid of the nut jobs on the far left, and the nut jobs on the far right, the other 70-80% could probably arrive at a reasonable accommodation eliminating about 90% of the problems in about 15 minutes, including the 5 minutes required to order a round of beers.
    I’m not sure why you think Scott is off-base, since it sounds like he agrees with you on responsible gun-ownership, but still.

  4. Joey B - Feb 27, 2010 at 11:38 AM

    “Both police organizations and the hotel/restaurant lobby have opposed it. If the law passes again and goes into effect, you won’t be able to have a beer without running into some clown in search of his John Wayne merit badge.”
    This is exactly what I’m talking about. I don’t own a gun, but support both responsible ownership, and heavy, heavy penalties for illegal guns (which would wipe out about 90% of the problems).
    But the bar thing is nuts. Once upon a time, cops in NYC were required to have a gun with them at all times. I don’t think any of the ones I knew liked it. They didn’t want to bring a gun into a bar for the same reason I don’t bring my work into the bar. On more than one occasion, I’d see a cop discreetly pass his gun and holster to the bartender to put away. It’s the type of fringe position I just don’t understand.
    FWIW, can the local bar put up a sign prohibiting gun possession on their grounds? I’d think they’d be more likely to pick up business than to lose business.

  5. Phil - Feb 27, 2010 at 11:50 AM

    I didn’t think those on the left were allowed to hold moderate positions.
    Joey, I am as far to your idea of left as you can find. I support responsible hunting and appropriate gun ownership to support the effort. We need it for wildlife management if nothing else. I think those who own guns to practice target shooting and related activities are fine. I have a friend who restores vintage firearms. The handiwork on some of those pieces is beautiful. I have no problem with someone keeping a permitted firearm in their home if it makes them feel safer. But what I do not support is the kind of idiocy I outlined above. Not only did our legislature pass legislation allowing guns in bars, they also passed legislation allowing guns in all municipal and state parks. One Republican candidate for governor is getting pilloried because as mayor of one of the state’s major cities he thought guns in the same park where children played and youth baseball and soccer games were held was a bad idea. Imagine that?
    Gun ownership and use in the activities I’ve specified is fine. But I do not believe and there is no evidence to support that a randomly armed citizenry makes us all “safer”. Gun owners are a subset of the general population. With a large enough sample size you are likely to find a similar percentage of mentally unstable and ill as you do in the general population. Permitting is far from fallible. Here in Tennessee convicted felons have been able to game the process and secure permits.
    I’m not sure what “solution” you envision the other 70%-80% arriving at. In my experience those who oppose any limits on private gun ownership are unbending. They want their guns everywhere and they won’t accept any limits on what kind of weapons they are allowed to own. How do you get these people to accept controls? I have a feeling if the Founders where here today, they would have a very different view of the 2nd Amendment than the NRA.

  6. Phil - Feb 27, 2010 at 11:58 AM

    FWIW, can the local bar put up a sign prohibiting gun possession on their grounds? I’d think they’d be more likely to pick up business than to lose business.
    Under the old law, they could. I’m not sure what the new effort is going to look like. There is mounting opposition not the least because we are a poor state hit hard by the recession and some folks think the legislature has more important things to do.

  7. Old Gator - Feb 27, 2010 at 12:06 PM

    Frankly, I’d like to hold on to the nut jobs on the left. When I was younger, those women were so easy.

  8. bravotwoone - Feb 27, 2010 at 12:31 PM

    Where I live in Florida there is a drive to get guns off the streets. At the same time a gun show and sale is going on at the civic center.

  9. YANKEES1996 - Feb 27, 2010 at 1:32 PM

    This issue and these type of policies are what heated discussion is all about. If it wasn’t for Plaxico Burress and the basketballers this probably never would have come up, thanks knuckleheads. Responsible gun ownership and use and carry is something that I take very seriously and is a guaranteed right. Burress and the basketball players are far from responsible. Tucking your loaded gun into your wasteband and going into a bar to impress someone with your gangster skills is about a far from responsible gun ownership as is bringing them into the locker room to settle a bet or gambling debt. If he understands the need for the regulation then he should have no problem following it. The thing about owning a carrying a gun is that the few always ruin it for the many.
    The whole carry in bar thing I don’t know, I’m glad I don’t go into many!

  10. Andrew - Feb 27, 2010 at 2:33 PM

    Am I the only who thinks some if not most of Scott’s teammates are freaked out to learn he’s been carrying a gun? I would like to know what his teammates reaction is to this story..

  11. Luke Scott - Feb 27, 2010 at 3:17 PM

    Shhhh, don’t tell anyone. I hide my gun with my underwear. No one would ever think to look there. And when I’m on the beach, I slide my keys and wallet into the toes of my running shoes.

  12. Curious George - Feb 27, 2010 at 3:21 PM

    “The whole carry in bar thing I don’t know, I’m glad I don’t go into many!”
    .
    But why be afraid? You’re packing heat. As your constitution permits, you are presumably carrying a musket to protect yourself from British soldiers.

  13. zac - Feb 27, 2010 at 3:29 PM

    I support responsible hunting and appropriate gun ownership to support the effort. We need it for wildlife management if nothing else
    Honest question: having grown up in rural Upstate New York, I heard this a lot, but it always seemed like strange concept to. Does unregulated hunting actually help deer populations, or just reduce them? Natural predators pretty much always weed the weakest and smallest out of the gene pool, thus strengthening the group as a whole. Every hunter I ever met bags the biggest, strongest buck they can find, removing the most viable reproducers available. Has anyone looked into what this does to the groups as a whole?

  14. Phil - Feb 27, 2010 at 3:45 PM

    The problem is that in many areas the natural predators are gone. There are no more bobcats or cougars to thin the deer population around here. Combine that with the loss of habitat due to unrestrained development of gated communities with golf course and the like and you have a problem.
    I live in a suburban area on a wooded peninsula that’s 10 minutes from the city’s main drag. It isn’t unusual to wake up and find 4 to 6 deer in the front yard. I’ve had foxes, raccoons and a peregrine falcon perching on the back deck. While I consider my yard a sanctuary for these friends, they really should not be here. But they have nowhere to go. Three years ago a young man was killed when he swerved at night to avoid a deer and ran into a tree on my property boundary.
    When I say “responsible”, I mean those who follow good animal management practices. They are not trophy hunters. They cull the unhealthy. The healthy animals they kill they use. Most of the hunters around here dress their kill and have a freezer full of venison. I’m not saying we don’t have the type of hunter you identify, we do. But they aren’t responsible IMO. But even with them around, the deer population is flourishing.

  15. Jonathan - Feb 27, 2010 at 8:33 PM

    Scott’s sentiments about how he “knows what he’s doing” with a gun exemplify the increasingly common and highly contagious plague of overconfidence vis-a-vis one’s own abilities. I’m a good driver; it’s those other folks that are always getting into accidents. I possess above-average intelligence; I don’t know who the dumb people are, but it’s not me. I’m a responsible gun owner; it’s those other people that don’t know what they’re doing.

  16. Jeff V. - Feb 27, 2010 at 8:35 PM

    Considering the fact that Scott has been a vocal gun advocate that has admitted to having a concealed weapon permit I do not think his teamates would be suprised at all to know he had one.

  17. zac - Feb 27, 2010 at 8:50 PM

    When I say “responsible”, I mean those who follow good animal management practices. They are not trophy hunters. They cull the unhealthy.
    As someone who both loved to watch deer as they grazed in my backyard growing up and loves venison, I wholeheartedly support this practice. Hopefully there are more hunters like this than there are guys who pose with 10 point bucks.

  18. willmose - Feb 27, 2010 at 10:24 PM

    Why the heck do MLB players need to bring six shooters to work? Milton Bradley settling the score in Chicago as he roams RF? JD Drew shooting himself in the foot at Fenway? Losing a little zip of the fastball, hey, here is a new way to mow down oppositing hitters. Suffer a heart breaking loss to a walk off HR? Not if the batter never gets past 3B on a carry off almost HR. There are so many good reasons for MLB players to carry guns in their work place. Dealing with booing fans on the road is just one of them. Seriously unless you are a police or drug dealer why should you have a gun at your work place? Nobody said that players couldn’t have all the legal guns they want at home, just not at the ballpark, their place of employment. And if MLB players don’t freaking like it then they can talk to their union and get the condition changed in the next CBA. Maybe the players would be willing to give up free agency so they can pack guns in the clubhouse.

  19. Benshotat - Feb 28, 2010 at 12:17 AM

    Wouldn’t it be nice to come to work and know that one or more of your fellow employees was packing heat. There’s the guy working beside you that throws a nutty every fifteen minutes because of something he has heard on the radio, or something the supervisor has told him, or because he thinks another employee is getting favoritism. Or maybe that other person, down at the other end of the building, the paranoid one who really is nuts and should be given a mental disablity. Or that grouchy guy, or the one that drinks too much, the ones from those other countrys, or the veegans, the vegetarians, the loners, the stressed out ones, the supervisor that likes to date other guys wives. Yes, nothing could make me feel safer than to know that one of these typical fellow employees was carrying a gun and not afraid to use it. Thank God guns or weapons of any kind are not allowed in my workplace.

  20. Moses Green - Feb 28, 2010 at 7:21 AM

    What happens with the deer population when man doesn’t step in for the natural predators who are now absent is that they reproduce like crazy until they reach a population number at which there is no longer enough food available for them. What follows is that young deer die by the thousands of starvation, which is a hell of a worse way to go than to be shot mercifully by a responsible hunter.

  21. Joey B - Feb 28, 2010 at 9:52 AM

    “Wouldn’t it be nice to come to work and know that one or more of your fellow employees was packing heat.”
    Here’s what you do: put up a sign saying ‘no guns allowed or you’ll be fired’. That should stop him. The nut job with the Uzi in each hand will see the sign and realize it could cost him his job.
    If you want to see the real issue, or at least one of many, it’s the gun laws in states described as ‘tough’. Adding one year is mild. Giving someone 5 years for simple street possession, and 15 minimum for use in a felony, all federally-mandated, will eliminate many street punk possessions for wanna-be tough guys, and leave possession to legit law abiders and legit criminals.

  22. Rays fan - Feb 28, 2010 at 10:13 AM

    “I’m not sure what “solution” you envision the other 70%-80% arriving at. In my experience those who oppose any limits on private gun ownership are unbending. They want their guns everywhere and they won’t accept any limits on what kind of weapons they are allowed to own. How do you get these people to accept controls? I have a feeling if the Founders where here today, they would have a very different view of the 2nd Amendment than the NRA.”
    The problem is that this is one of a few hot button isssues in this society that has been defined by extremists’ positions. Yes, there are many who oppose any restrictions of any kind. There are also others who think that all weapons can be banned. Both are wrong and should not be listened to. The debate really should be about reasonable limitations on ownership, qualifications, types of weapons allowed, etc. It’s far more complicated than a blanket “it’s my right to carry a piece anywhere I want to,” but doing the right thing is usually not the easy answer.
    The framers of the second ammendment wrote from a position of many in society needing to hunt in order to eat and men to have firearms at the ready in order to serve in the militia (National Guard) due to very real threats of attack. The certainly could not have envisioned Gatling guns, let alone Uzis, AK-47s, or M-16s. As a result, I’d say you are correct that the framers would likely have a different perspective on the ammendment than the NRA does 220 years later.

  23. Rays fan - Feb 28, 2010 at 10:21 AM

    Maybe–IF the laws are actually enforced, meaning enough cops, enough prisons for the violaters, enough wardens, guards, lawyers, judges, etc, etc, etc. All of those must be paid for too–by another hot button issue…taxes.

  24. Phil - Feb 28, 2010 at 10:47 AM

    I think the segment of the population that thinks all guns can be banned is much smaller and considerably less vocal than the “you’ll get my gun when you pry it from my cold, dead fingers” crowd. It’s the latter crowd that starts raising holy hell when any type of restrictions are proposed. It’s also this crowd that has the backing – and the money – of the NRA and the the gun industry. Finally, these are the people who have politicians cowering in fear to the point that they extend themselves to ridiculous lengths to prove they are “2nd Amendment friendly”. Who can forget Hillary’s shooting lessons or Mittens trying to claim his hunter bona fides? How does reasonable discussion and legislation take place in this environment?

  25. Rays fan - Feb 28, 2010 at 11:12 AM

    “How does reasonable discussion and legislation take place in this environment?” It doesn’t.
    My pipe dream is for meaningful campaign finance reform. If that were to happen, the PACs would lose a lot of power. *sigh* It’ll never happen.

Leave Comment

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!

Featured video

This was 'the perfect baseball game'
Top 10 MLB Player Searches
  1. S. Kazmir (5120)
  2. G. Springer (3665)
  3. K. Uehara (3379)
  4. M. Machado (3131)
  5. D. Pedroia (2893)
  1. J. Chavez (2717)
  2. H. Ramirez (2691)
  3. J. Reyes (2679)
  4. T. Walker (2602)
  5. C. Granderson (2491)