"Liberal, Female and Minority: America's New Gun Owners Aren't Who You Think"

From CNN (David Culver & Jason Kravarik) Tuesday:

Several times a week you can hear gunfire echoing from Brandi Joseph's scenic Southern California property. A licensed firearms instructor and dealer, Joseph decided to open Fortune Firearms in December to serve a growing and rapidly changing clientele.

"There is a huge uptick in female owners," Joseph said. "Women are getting trained; women are carrying … liberal and conservative."

Proof of that change pulled up Joseph's long, dusty driveway in the San Jacinto Valley just before 10 a.m. for a Saturday social, of sorts. A group of seven African American women stepped out of their cars seemingly eager to start their first firearms training session….

If you want more data about gun owner demographics, you can see the study noted here, though it doesn't discuss whether and to what extent those demographics have been changing. (The overall numbers still show more gun ownership by whites and American Indians than by blacks and Hispanics, though not by much, and considerably more than by Asians.) Still, this struck me as an interesting anecdotal discussion, especially noteworthy because it's not something I'd normally expect from CNN.

Comments

[Doktormoo]

Welcome new gun owners.

[RENATA the rational]

I was posting these facts a year ago...It is fatal to all anti-gun arguments that the greatest increase in gun ownership is from traditionally anti-gun demographics. Not wanting their family killed is all that ranks higher.
"Research shows that first-time gun buyers since 2019 have been more likely to be Black and more likely to be female than gun purchasers in previous years"

[SRG]

It is fatal to all anti-gun arguments

It isn't. It's a game-theoretic response. Once A has chosen one strategy, B may be compelled to adopt the equivalent strategy to maximise the available payoff even if B thinks that a higher payoff would be available - perhaps even to both parties - if A had chosen a different strategy.

(Obvious analogy to Prisoner's Dilemma)

[MaddogEngineer]

How can you know this is a game-theoretic response? That presumes a whole bunch of your policy preferences, starting with guns are too plentiful so I have no choice but to arm up myself.

The fundamental flaw in your thinking is denying that gun ownership is a right, and assuming there is a such a thing as too many guns. The solution to the wrong people owning gun (those with criminal records or mental illness) is not to ban all guns. It's to implement better procedures so that those people don't.

A major secondary contributor to this new gun ownership phenomenon might be the calls to defund the police, and the subsequent police enforcement pullback coinciding with progressive DA's not pursuing prosecutions because of racial justice concerns.

[Brett Bellmore]

" It’s to implement better procedures so that those people don’t."

This concedes too much. There are no such procedures, otherwise we'd have won the war on drugs by now. Prohibitions are just uniformly a failure.

The real answer is to recognize that if a an adult with a criminal record can't safely own a gun, then maybe they shouldn't be on the street. Because if they're on the street, and they want a gun, they're going to have no more trouble getting one than they will cocaine or meth.

[SRG]

Stop getting so fucking hysterical.

The original point was that the anti-gun demographic buying guns is fatal to all anti-gun arguments. Even if I am wrong about the specific reason in many cases, for the reason I gave, buying guns is not fatal to the anti-gun argument. But if people are buying guns in response to other people having guns, that is assuredly a game-theoretic response.

[M L]

"It isn’t. It’s a game-theoretic response. Once A has chosen one strategy, B may be compelled to adopt the equivalent strategy to maximise the available payoff even if B thinks that a higher payoff would be available – perhaps even to both parties – if A had chosen a different strategy."

As noted above, quite a stretch to say that is actually what's going on here.

However it does not seem like a stretch to say that this may apply to conservative willingness to adopt "common good" constitutionalism or "living" constitutionalism and recognize that the original meaning of the constitution is not held.

[Aubrey LaVentana]

"Ladies, ladies! It's green to recycle your brass. Let me show you how. This is a Dillon RL550 press."

[Abdul Abulbul Amir]

The Super 1050 with a bullet feeder is faster and safer to operate.

[Aubrey LaVentana]

Agreed, but the 550 will cost about as much as a second handgun, or less.

[Dan Schiavetta]

CNN often posts "conservative-friendly" news and commentary. You should view it more often.

[Dan Schiavetta]

I suppose a black female with a gun is less likely to be shot at by the police than a black male with a gun.

It would be interesting to test this out on real police. The study would have to be double-blind and deceptive, using realistic looking dummies of various races and genders. With lights and sound effects indicating a dangerous, noisy violent situation, show the dummies pointing a gun (not at the police officer, but perhaps to the side). Measure whether the officer shoots or not, and reaction time.

On the other hand why do the study? We unfortunately know the findings from what has happened in real life.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

If you [racial slur]s start buying guns, we'll shoot you.

/sincerely, the government

[jimc5499]

When I used to work as an armed security guard, one of the most important parts of the training was how to deal with responding police when you had your weapon on someone. I think skin color has less to do with it than your actions.

[Ben of Houston]

Don't forget dress. There is a reason that security uniforms are so standardized, so iconic, and so visible. If people see a white button-down shirt and a badge, people will stand down, criminals and cops alike where, a t-shirt and jeans will be met with suspicion.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

On the other hand why do the study? We unfortunately know the findings from what has happened in real life.

What you think you know and what you actually know are two very different things.

[Aubrey LaVentana]

"We unfortunately know the findings from what has happened in real life."

Some of us do.

"as of July 9 [2016], whites were 54 percent of the 440 police shooting victims this year whose race was known, blacks were 28 percent and Hispanics were 18 percent, according to The Washington Post’s ongoing database of fatal police shootings."

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

There is nothing wrong with people who wish to possess a reasonable firearm for self-defense in the home. That right should be defended.

The antisocial jerks who want to carry military-grade weaponry into nightclubs, Little League games, high schools, bars, Klan meetings on public property, and grocery stores -- the gun nuts -- are a huge problem . . . and the core audience of a white, male, bigot-friendly, right-wing blog. The culture war -- and replacement -- will take care of those losers.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Could you expand on what, in your view, distinguishes a reasonable weapon from a military-grade one?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

In general, a pistol or shotgun seems reasonable for self-defense in the home.

How would you distinguish a weapon suitable for self-defense in the home from other weapons? It should be relatively easy for reasonable people to develop a consensus in this context.

[Currentsitguy]

Different tools for different purposes. I own a lot of tools, we picked most of them up during the rebuild process after our home burned down. I must have 7 or 8 different types of hammers for different applications alone.

The same goes for weapons. a Dan Wesson target pistol is a lousy gun for home defense, for example.

That being said, I tend to agree with a shotgun being a good choice for a home defense weapon. Statistically speaking, if someone is stupid enough to kick in your door it will probably in the dead of night when you are bleary eyed, and half asleep. A shotgun requires less accuracy to at least partially connect with your target.

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

I'd like to understand why so many people say that. Any two handed weapon is less useful in a house with doors and needing to aim a flashlight or steer kids away, but mainly, the spread from a shotgun at 5-10 feet is too little to make much practical distance. The only real advantage I see is lots of damage from a lot of buckshot.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

I’d like to understand why so many people say that. Any two handed weapon is less useful in a house with doors and needing to aim a flashlight or steer kids away, but mainly, the spread from a shotgun at 5-10 feet is too little to make much practical distance. The only real advantage I see is lots of damage from a lot of buckshot.

This. The assumption that a shotgun is superior to a handgun for home defense ignores many of the critical aspects of CQB in relatively confined spaces, close-range ballistics, etc.

[BadLib]

According to Joe Biden you should be firing your shotgun through the door so people (perhaps a Girl Scout selling cookies, perhaps the FedEx guy, perhaps a neighbor telling you that your car is on fire, perhaps thugs that just escaped from the nearby SuperMax) never get into your house. He did not recommend using a handgun for that purpose.

You should respect authority more.

[ScottM1A]

I thought the 12 ga pump was the ticket for a very long time but have come to prefer an AR15 for our home defense weapon. It's much more ergonomic in that it can be adjusted to fit either my wife or myself, more range, it has more rounds available before need of a reload and considerably less recoil which ensures both faster follow up shots if needed and that my wife will practice with it.

[Noscitur a sociis]

The military issues pistols and shotguns, and of course the primary firearms that the military uses are, for all intents and purposes, unavailable to civilians. Which is why I'm curious what you have in mind when you're envisioning when you talk about the military-grade weaponry.

How would you distinguish a weapon suitable for self-defense in the home from other weapons? It should be relatively easy for reasonable people to develop a consensus in this context.

There is a consensus, but most of the features that make a weapon more suitable for self defense also seem to be exactly the features that get targeted for restrictions.

[Abdul Abulbul Amir]

When an anti-gun wacko mentions military grade or military style weapons it means two things. 1. Virtually no military in the world uses such weapon. 2. You are meant to believe the opposite of 1.

The AR15 is a prime example.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Better Americans will distinguish the weapons that may be possessed by citizens for self-defense in the home and those that may not. I hope the dividing line is "reasonable."

I sense that gun nuts are disqualifying themselves from that debate.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Well, where do you draw the line? Should people be able to possess AR-15s, in your view? Semiautomatic shotguns with pistol grips? Pistols with 15 round magazines?

[Aangroev]

Obviously, we should be able to possess rifles, just not ones with those shoulder things that go up.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I will be content to enable informed, reasonable people to draw that reasonable line.

I do not consider gun nuts, particularly bigoted and superstitious gun nuts, to be reasonable people.

Where would you draw the line?

[Abdul Abulbul Amir]

Any firearm that is unsuitable for civilian police will be reasonably unsuitable for other civilians.

[BadLib]

Of course "ordinary" citizens should be allowed to possess pistols with 15-round magazines.

Police, who generally arrive with backup and will often hold back until there is backup, seem to think that they need "high capacity" magazines and even then carry a "spare" loaded mag.

If police need such weapons for personal protection, surely a citizen needs such a weapon for their personal protection when a call to 911 will not result in a response for many minutes at best and often many tens of minutes in some rural areas.

When police are restricted to "smart guns" and not more than ten round magazines, then a rational discussion can be had about if "civilians" have a need for more and if we should amend the Constitution to give Congress and state/local governments the power to put such restrictions in place.

[Aubrey LaVentana]

" for self-defense in the home."

This assumes an urban or suburban situation, and possibly one or two invaders entering the home.

Other situations, and greater numbers of assailants, such as a rancher tending acre upon acre of land supporting expensive machinery and cattle or horses, or a homeowner whose dog alerts her to a suspicious presence on her wooded property, will call for one of those reviled low-recoil semiautos, with a stack of standard-capacity magazines.

There's a reason that, globally over the last 60-plus years, militaries have adopted light, compact, modular, intermediate-power self-loading long arms fed by 20- or 30-round magazines. It's not to maximize the bloodshed or vaporize the opponent, but to issue their soldiers something convenient in and configurable to many roles, easy to master, and less expensive to feed and maintain while armies still do most of their bloodshed with far larger, more technically and logistically complex weapons. The military and police agencies, and even more so civilian enthusiasts, have debugged these rifles to render them and their civilian-available versions very reliable, consistent, customizable, and affordable.

The AR15 isn't a Doomsday device. It's a Toyota.

Those features make them very attractive to ordinary reasonable consumers. Even consumers who possess full dentition, can tell red wines from whites, and shower every day.

[Aubrey LaVentana]

'military-grade' simply means consistent, mass-produced by the lowest bidder.

E.g. MIL-C-44072C (W/CHANGE DATED 12 FEB 2003), MILITARY SPECIFICATION: COOKIES, OATMEAL; AND BROWNIES; CHOCOLATE COVERED (12 FEB 2003) [NO S/S DOCUMENT]., This specification covers chocolate covered oatmeal cookies and chocolate covered brownies in flexible bags for use by the Department of Defense as a component of operational rations.
http://everyspec.com/MIL-SPECS/MIL-SPECS-MIL-C/download.php?spec=MIL-C-44072C_CHANGE-12FEB2003.024607.pdf

[Currentsitguy]

Black women are one of the most likely groups to fall victim to violence, so it's no wonder they are arming themselves in greater numbers. It's amazing how one's politics takes a back seat when reality smacks you in the face.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Are you referring to Republican legislators who arrange abortions for their girlfriends, Marjorie Taylor Greene's (Mrs. Christian Family Values) casual bed-hopping, the Supreme Court's remarkable delay in abandoning pandemic-related precautions, or something else?

[Currentsitguy]

Since I mentioned none of those things, it's quite obvious what I was referring to.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

You appeared to be offering a general observation, in which circumstance other examples would be quite relevant. Which ones did you have in mind?

[Aubrey LaVentana]

"I sense that gun nuts are disqualifying themselves from that debate."

You appeared to be offering a general observation as well.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Nothing wrong with general observations.

Was there a point hidden in your comment?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Guess not. Thanks for trying, Aubrey.

[Aangroev]

Don't you have a 6 year old boy to be grooming?

[Ed Grinberg]

It’s amazing how one’s politics takes a back seat when reality smacks you in the face.

A conservative is a liberal who's been mugged.

[apedad]

(From the CNN article) “Over the course of nearly two hours, Joseph led a detailed instruction, teaching the women about everything from the types of handguns best suited for self-defense to how to load and disarm a firearm. Only after the women had repeatedly loaded the cartridge, inserted the magazine, chambered the gun, and then doing it all in reverse, did Joseph determine they were ready to fire at their paper targets.”

I wonder if they teach the legal aspects too like when is self-defense authorized, what can the person do, e.g. is brandishing in self-defense authorized, when can you shoot a non-invited person on your property (there’s a question about that on today's Thursday thread), what are the stand-your-ground rules in their state, what are storage requirements, etc.

Knowing when you can legally use a weapon is just as important as knowing how to use a weapon.

[Pooneil]

This confirms the trend that I have noticed in my native Texas and the nation. Our government is abandoning its policing responsibility and leaving citizens to fend for themselves.

Self policing is a symptom of a grave problem. Gun control advocates are just as much to blame as gun promoters at the government level because neither group actually want to do something about our awful policing practices.

[Aubrey LaVentana]

"leaving citizens to fend for themselves"

That has been the default since the Founding. Leaving all response to violent conflict for armed agents of the state is the recent aberration, that citizens increasingly realize is untenable.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Who knew that when John Wayne was collecting the hayseeds' guns at the saloon door for safekeeping until they (1) slept it off or (2) left town he was godless commie gun-grabber?

Enjoy your remaining moments of relevance in modern, improving America, clingers.

[not me]

Not John Wayne, but the gunfight at the OK Corral actually resulted from enforcement of a law requiring that all guns be handed over upon entering Tombstone, AZ, to be returned when the owner left the town.

As applied, there is no way the law could pass constitutional muster as it was selectively enforced by the authorities only against members of the other party. IIRC the Earps were Republicans and the Clantons were the Democrats. But dead men appeal no judgements.

[Orbital Mechanic]

Gun ownership by citizens is a liberal concept. So I see no real surprise there. If you cherish your right to own a gun you have liberal thought to thank for it.

Regarding the other adjective, I do not see very many women appear randomly at concerts, malls, or schools loaded up with AR rifles and thousands of rounds to kill dozens of innocent strangers. The significance of this will be fully lost on many of the slavering 2A gun fetishist that seem to post here a lot.

[Rossami]

So you're saying that profiling and gender discrimination are acceptable practices? Is that all the time or only in respect to rights you don't like?

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Regarding the other adjective, I do not see very many women appear randomly at concerts, malls, or schools loaded up with AR rifles and thousands of rounds to kill dozens of innocent strangers.

You don't see very many men show up randomly at those locations for that purpose either, nor with "thousands of rounds".

The significance of this will be fully lost on many of the slavering 2A gun fetishist that seem to post here a lot.

There is no significance to your statement, other than that it further paints you as the blathering fool we already knew you to be.

[Voize]

These women feel society eroding around them and instinctively react. It's understandable, but nothing to celebrate.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Our society is not eroding, except in the substandard minds of delusional, disaffected losers who can't keep up with modern America. You know, Republicans.

[Aubrey LaVentana]

Do ask those students whether they sense any erosion of society.

[Aangroev]

The fact that men like you who enjoy grooming little kids for sex are celebrated shows we are eroding.

[SimonP]

I also celebrate the fact that public safety and trust in the police has degraded to the point where a diverse group of people all feel the need to arm themselves. Surely that can only help reduce gun violence!

It's like pointing out that lots of people own cars. We design our communities so that driving becomes necessary; everyone therefore takes on the expense of owning a car. Consequences be damned! Now everyone is "free" to drive wherever they like!

[CJColucci]

I’d be interested in knowing the following:
1. How many of you have ever been in a non-professional armed self-defense situation?
2. If you had a weapon, were you able to get to it or did the bad guy(s) have the drop on you?
3. Did you fire, or was showing the weapon sufficient?
4. If you did fire, how many shots did you take?

[DaveM]

I dunno. A gun is a deadly weapon, and if you don’t know how to use it in a crisis situation, no doubt it could be as harmful as it is helpful. The reason I don’t own a gun is because I don’t want to spend the time and money to become proficient, nor the drill it will take to remain so.

I am a musician, and I can tell you that any skill that relies on split-second timing absolutely fades without adequate, regular practice. I’m all for gun ownership, but if you decide to carry, for your sake and ours, please put in the time and the dime to do it right.

[Dan Schiavetta]

It's odd that some people think that way.

Some years ago a blogger (I think it was Matthew Yglesias) said that a web site is not very factual about the things he knows about, but the articles on subjects he's new to are interesting. I thought -- what?? Some commenters thought the same thing.

I'm not like that. Wikipedia, for example -- I learned to trust it (more or less) because as to the things I know a lot about, it's fairly accurate.

[bevis the lumberjack]

I've been in two situations in which I was "on the inside" and knew what was really going on that were things that were discussed in the media a lot. One involved a college football team and the other involved a prominent, very wealthy American businessman.

The stories in the media almost universally bore no resemblance to the truth.

[Seamus]

"Always" is a little overstated. In Virginia, the NRA's Basic Pistol class will qualify you for concealed carry, and it doesn't go into the legal details of armed self-defense, but focuses first on safety and then on how to operate and clean your firearm.

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

A few years back there was a voluntary recall on a vehicle I had bought a couple of years before, rotors and calipers needed replacing. After the fix, I hadn't gotten more than a couple of blocks away when something started clicking, got back to the dealer, they were horrified, gave me a loaner to come back the next day, said the mechanic had forgotten to tighten a bolt. I debated asking them why the heck I should trust them the second time for the same job, but (1) stuff happens, (2) they were (seemingly) honest and took responsibility, (3) I knew nothing of any place else I could have taken it, (4) the sheer hassle of going anywhere else, and (5) the dealer and its mechanic were probably scared stiff of making the fix even worse.

[darkknight9]

"I trust wikpedia for pop culture things, that are not politically controversial, like if I want to know the names of the Smurfs. Works like a hivemind that way."

I have also trusted wikipedia for pop stuff. Without it and urban dictionary I fear my sons teen years would have been rough without his old man being able to keep up. Hell, I still need it and to a lesser degree Know Your Meme to understand half of the stuff I see on twitter. 🙂

[Rossami]

If he actually said "interesting", that's not contradictory at all. "Interesting" is not a synonym for "trustworthy".

Personally, I find many articles interesting - which means they inspire me to learn more. And often in learning more, I learn that the original article was wrong - sometimes wildly so. It was still interesting.

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

One article in a newspaper (dating myself) concerning the city I lived in had a map showing the city 50 miles south of its actual location, and it was only about 100 miles from the newspaper's location. Someone actually went out of their way to move the city on the map, delete it from its real location and add it in the wrong location. I could not imagine why anyone would so deliberately do that. But even then, reading other articles in the same print edition, it was all too easy to assume they were honest and reliable.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

That would lead to a situation where a convicted felon couldn't bear arms himself, but could combine with others through the ballot box to send people with guns to enforce his policy preferences.

[darkknight9]

"Several times a week you can hear gunfire echoing from Brandi Joseph's scenic Southern California property. A licensed firearms instructor and dealer..."

California? I don't know with certainty but if I were a betting man I might lay a buck or two on a bet that California has some type of law or direction for what a conceal carry class must have.

"Now, is the Basic Pistol Class a concealed carry class? No, it’s not, and not designed to be."

Agreed. The article did mention it was a 'first firearms training session'.

[Brett Bellmore]

They might not have any policy preferences in common, but share a lack of interest in voting against attacks on rights that they don't themselves get to exercise.

My personal position is that there should be no second class citizens: You get all the rights, or you're in prison.