Guns: As American As Decrying Liberal Elites

Brian Doherty | May 11, 2009

Some more reasons why severe restrictions on gun rights from the federal government are unlikely if the Democrats are concerned with their political future, from Washington pundit Michael Barone:

On guns, Gallup has been testing opinion for many years on one extreme proposal that is the goal, usually unstated, of many gun control advocates: banning the possession of handguns. Support was 60 percent in 1960 and 49 percent in 1965. It was as high as 43 percent in the early 1990s, before the Clinton Congress passed the so-called assault weapon ban. In March 2007 it had fallen to 29 percent — a minority, almost a fringe position. In the early 1990s Gallup found that Americans by a 2-1 margin favored stricter gun sale laws over less strict ones or keeping them the same. By fall 2008 they were evenly split.

Some of these shifts in opinion may be responses to events that liberal elites have not deigned to notice. Forty of the 50 states now have concealed weapons laws that allow law-abiding citizens to get permits to carry guns. Gun controllers predicted these would result in traffic shootouts and general mayhem. They haven’t. It turns out that criminals are deterred from attacks less by gun control laws than by the possibility that their intended victims may be armed.

I wondered back in January if Obama and the Democratic Congress were going to shoot themselves in the foot on the gun issue. And for all you ever wanted to know about gun control, see my new book Gun Control on Trial. 

Comments

Warty|5.11.09 @ 2:59PM|#

Of course Team D will try to ban more guns. They can't help themselves.

Tomcat1066|5.11.09 @ 3:00PM|#

Several have said that the reason the Democrats lost Congress was because of the assault weapon ban, a ban that did nothing to reduce crime. I think they're right too. Now, they have Congress back. If they have half a brain (and I'm not betting on that one), they won't even think about going after guns in any real way.

Of course, HB 45 is a pretty real way...provided it makes it out of committee.

|5.11.09 @ 3:01PM|#

Which is more likely to be put forward by Our Masters in DC:

(1) A significant increase in gun control; or

(2) A significant decrease in the WOD?

|5.11.09 @ 3:04PM|#

Embracing the social cons is the extra crispy fried stupid of the Republicans. Gun control is the extra crispy fried stupid Colonel's special recipe of the Dems. Go for it, morons, and lose your majority.

Elemenope|5.11.09 @ 3:07PM|#

Of course Team D will try to ban more guns. They can't help themselves.

Nah. Just the California delegation, from whom no good has ever come.

libertarian democrat|5.11.09 @ 3:15PM|#

I'm not really afraid of more gun control. It might happen, but I think it's on it's way out.

The thing is, I understand why people gun control seriously as a debate. I don't understand why people don't just laugh at social conservative issues.

High Every Body|5.11.09 @ 3:19PM|#

Gun controllers predicted these would result in traffic shootouts and general mayhem.

Stupid Leftoids! California didn't relax their laws.

Warty|5.11.09 @ 3:22PM|#

I don't understand why people don't just laugh at social conservative issues.

CUZ TEH GEYS R TAKIN AR MARRIGE AWAY

High Every Body|5.11.09 @ 3:25PM|#

CUZ TEH GEYS R TAKIN AR MARRIGE AWAY

But I'm not gay and I want to take marriage away. I LAUGH at the social conservatives. Hum, okay, I laugh but I am not gay about it.

|5.11.09 @ 3:28PM|#

I wish they would get rid of the federal ban on the M72 LAW. Only then with America be free.

|5.11.09 @ 3:47PM|#

It is funny how everyone associates gay marriage with social cons and no one else. The large majority of blacks and hispanics object to gay marriage. The majority of people in this country object to gay marriage.

|5.11.09 @ 4:20PM|#

John, the dirty little secret is that blacks and hispanics are socially quite conservative.

The popular image of social cons as fat, sweaty lily white Southerners is, shall we say, less than accurate.

wingnutx|5.11.09 @ 4:21PM|#

Can we at least change that image to sweaty lily white southern belles?

Shannon Love|5.11.09 @ 4:37PM|#

Elites like gun control because gun control originates from a elitist view of society.

Gun control is really people control. It seeks to control people's access to guns. The only reason for doing that is if you think those people are to stupid and irresponsible to use guns responsibly. The elitist thinks of themselves as a superior human being so the disdainful vision of their citizens required for a person to support gun control comes to them naturally.

Once orignary citizens figure out that the people who elites think to stupid to own guns is in fact the ordinary law abiding citizen, they tell the elites to go %$#@!-themselves.

phalkor|5.11.09 @ 4:50PM|#

I'm so totally an elite.

Brad|5.11.09 @ 5:19PM|#

"Can we at least change that image to sweaty lily white southern belles?"

Southern bells don't sully themselves with things political.

Oh, and hourses sweat, men perspire. Women, just a rosey glow.

Brad|5.11.09 @ 5:20PM|#

"hourses" shiuld be "horses"

phalkor|5.11.09 @ 5:27PM|#

If you were an elite, you wouldn't make such mistakes.

Brad|5.11.09 @ 5:30PM|#

The middle word in elite is I.

|5.11.09 @ 5:51PM|#

The large majority of blacks and hispanics object to gay marriage.

Apparently not enough to convince the democratic party that its a losing issue. Just accept it John, they'll be able to file taxes jointly no matter how much jesus cries.

|5.11.09 @ 6:04PM|#

Forty of the 50 states now have concealed weapons laws that allow law-abiding citizens to get permits to carry guns. Gun controllers predicted these would result in traffic shootouts and general mayhem. They haven't. It turns out that criminals are deterred from attacks less by gun control laws than by the possibility that their intended victims may be armed.

Check out this Right to Carry States Map from 1986 onward from Wilipedia. Watch it for a little bit rather than just glance, its changes illustrate the point Brian Doherty is making very well.

|5.11.09 @ 6:05PM|#

Wikipedia. Wilipedia sounds kinda dirty in a jr. high sort of way, doesn't it?

|5.11.09 @ 6:16PM|#

In the interest of seeing where things are going in the future, I'd be interested to see what the age breakdown is on these statistics.

Younger people tend to break "left" (i.e. toward the Democrats) on most issues, which bodes poorly for gun rights.

On the other hand, younger people tend to have a more libertarian streak than older ones, which is a good sign.

More practically, younger people today don't remember (or only dimly so) the crime and urban decay of the 1970's and 1980's.

On the one hand, that might make arguments of gun ownership inevitably leading to the wild west, blood flowing in the streets less believable to younger people (who have grown up in an era of widespread gun ownership, including the proliferation of concealed and open carry laws, and dropping crime rates).

On the other hand, they might also be less likely to buy the argument that firearms are important for self-defense against the crooks (who probably will never show up anyway).

On the third hand, they also do not remember that gun control was essentially ineffective in stopping the crime and decay of the 1970's and 1980's, so they might be more willing to repeat that 'experiment' not being aware that it was already tried, and already failed.

Morris|5.11.09 @ 6:59PM|#

"So many guns, so few brains."--Philip Marlowe

Steven|5.11.09 @ 8:21PM|#

Younger people tend to break "left" (i.e. toward the Democrats) on most issues

I am so sick of hearing this talking point. "Young People" have always tended to break left. And then they get married, have kids, buy a house, etc and their view mature and change. Some remain on the left, and other move right.

I mean, how old is that quote that is always misattributed to Churchill?

"If you're twenty and not a liberal you have no heart. If you're forty and not a conservative you have no brain."

Morris|5.12.09 @ 12:25AM|#

If you're any age and a right-wing libertarian, your head is so far up your ass that your brain is touching your heart

LarryA|5.12.09 @ 9:49PM|#

Forty of the 50 states now have concealed weapons laws that allow law-abiding citizens to get permits to carry guns.

Actually it's 39. Vermont has no concealed handgun permit, and no law against carrying.

Gun controllers predicted these would result in traffic shootouts and general mayhem.

They also predicted that airline pilots who carried would flip out and shoot unruly passengers, that the end of the "assault weapon" ban would see bodies stacked like cordwood, that allowing off-duty cops to carry would cost cities billions in liability, and that .50 caliber rifles would shoot down airliners.

Batting average: .000

Some of these shifts in opinion may be responses to events that liberal elites have not deigned to notice.

Like D.C. v Heller? A lot of folks who used to answer surveys favoring "reasonable gun control" got to see the Brady folks call D.C.s law "reasonable." No handguns, banned long guns, the long guns you are allowed have to be unloaded/disassembled/ locked up, loading your shotgun is illegal even if someone is breaking down your door. "Reasonable gun control" isn't quite as shiny as it used to be.

Another one you don't hear is that according to the National Sporting Goods Association consumer spending on shooting sports overtook former second place golf in 2006, coming in second only to exercise equipment. Note that 2006 was before Obama was on the horizon.

OTOH the Hawaii Senate is working on Senate Bill 126: Dangerous Weapons; Pocket Knives; Sale
"Any person who knowingly manufactures, sells, transfers, possesses, or transports a pocket knife in the State shall be guilty of a misdemeanor." A pocket knife is "a knife with a blade that folds into the handle and which is suitable for carrying in the pocket." Blade length doesn't seem to matter.