I’ve been thinking about the changes in America since Sept 11, and one thing struck me - A lot of tension over gun control seems to have subsided. I think the country has shifted to the right on that issue. Consider:
The Democrats are moving away from gun control. The Democratic governor of New Jersey is pro-gun, and he’s rising in the party. The perception that Gore may have lost the presidency over gun control has caused some Democrats to rethink their positions.
Books like John Lott’s “More Guns, Less Crime” has made a number of converts out of fence sitters.
Rising crime rates in countries with heavy gun control has got people re-thinking their positions.
The war has increased the desire for security, and that favors the pro-gun side.
Anyway, see that that looks a lot like a justification, and pretty one-sided. But is there some truth in it? Are Americans going to stop fighting over gun control and settle on roughly the situation as it exists today, with perhaps a slight laxing of restrictions on concealed carry? Will it become an issue like Education where there is wide bipartisan agreement on what the correct level looks like?
Nah, the “battle” isn’t over. Just wait a few months for the next time a cute little girl gets shot, and then that’ll reinvigorate another campaign of “OH MY GOD THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!”
Agreed. Lack of education will lead people to think that it is dangerous to even be near a gun (regardless of whether its loaded). That fear (To quote the o great and wise Yoda) will lead to anger. So we’ll get a bunch of people thinking guns are evil. Guns don’t shoot by themselves people! You may as well stay away from people. Their potentially harmful you know. Its an old arguement and I don’t think there is a easy solution.
Speaking for myself, the events of September 11 haven’t affected my personal feelings about “gun control.” However, I was never in favor of banning guns, or even heavily restricting who uses them, so that sort of thing has little to do with my feelings on the subject. I still wish to see some stronger laws (and stronger enforcement) to encourage responsible gun ownership. My views on this are largely unchanged in the last year.
That said, I think Sam Stone is at least partially right. The climate on the gun control issue has definitely changed, and there are definitely fewer (if any) calls for gun bans since September 11. People have strong reactions to fear, and one of those reactions is a strong desire to do something – anything – to protect themselves, and often that response is inappropriate to the reality of the situation.
I actually think the change is a good thing. I hope that the changed climate will at least tone down the rhetoric of the extremists for gun control (and the extremists on the other side too), and leave the debate to the more moderate opinions. It makes it hard to discuss the issue reasonably when people on both sides target their reactions at the most extreme opponents.
I don’t expect that to last forever… but I can hope, right? smirk
Guns like alcohol and automobiles, and everything else that can be used all have one thing in common. They are inert without the human presence. The Michael Moore statement after 9/11 may have a bearing. When he said that the worst attack was not perpetrated with the use of firearms, he might have to rethink his position.
The control debate isn’t going to go away. There are too many who depend on it for their living to let that happen. Maybe a little dose of reality slowed it down for awhile but the core controlers are still there waiting for the chance to pounce again.
Well, I accidentally wondered into GD and saw this thread. I probably won’t be participating much in it, as everything I have to say has already been said repeatedly in other threads and it gets the tiniest bit boring. Anyway…
I think that the American Public have other things on their mind besides daily crime. Politicians are in the business of staying in power. They bend with the wind. (Of course, you could say that politicians respond to their constituencies; but I’m a bit cynical.) California Senator Barbara Boxer has long been an opponent of private ownership of firearms. And yet she has come out in favour of arming airline pilots. Now, I think this is a good idea. Certainly it’s a better idea than allowing a passenger jet to be shot down by an F-16. But why does Boxer support it? She (and her buddy Diane Feinstein) would be the last person I’d expect to support the measure. Could it be that Dubya is against guns in the cockpit and so she must be for it so that she can be opposed to him?
As 47/70 (BTW: I have a Shiloh Sharps #3 It’s never been fired) said, too many people depend on the debate for their livelihoods. As SPOOFE said, there will soon be another incident where a criminal (someone who is already prohibited from owning a gun) kills someone and we have to “protect the children!”.
Sqweels, you’re going to find very few people in favor of a complete gun ban in the US before or after Sept 11 - I don’t have a link to any polls handy, but the debate in the US is generally over whether more laws are needed, not an outright ban on private firearm ownership. It’s obvious from just basic observation that the prime movers in the gun control movement want to completely ban private firearms ownership, but most people in favor of gun control don’t really want to ban guns and are merely suckered in by doctored statistics and scary-sounding outright lies.
While the Brady Bunch and friends may be in full retreat now, presuming that ‘the battle is over’ is just absurd - it’s not like we can look forward to congress repealing any gun control laws (or our allegedly pro-gun president signing those repeals). The gun-control crowd continue to use tragedies to support further incremental restrictions on private gun ownership, despite their inability to show that said restrictions do any good. Witness the hoopla about the ‘gun show loophole’ after 911 (as if terrorists are going to buy semi-auto AK-47s over here and smuggle them out of the country when they can buy full-auto AK-47s cheaper in countries that don’t care about export), or the hysteria over .50cal ‘sniper’ rifles. Does anyone really expect the ‘assault weapon’ and ‘hi cap’ bans to be allowed to quietly sunset in 2004?
As an aside, one of the more humorous editorials that I read after 911 was one about gun control both saying that gun-control proponents weren’t interested in banning hunting rifles and shotguns, and criticizing the NRA for opposing ‘common sense’ gun laws, like the ban on cop-killer bullets. Of course, the original version of the ‘cop-killer’ ammunition bill would have banned all rifle ammunition but .22 rimfire (and a few other light rounds), and the NRA supported the bill after the focus was narrowed a bit. So, either the editorial writer was simply a moron who didn’t do basic fact checking, or their statement about not having anything against hunting rifles was a lie.
Nah, the whole gun controll battle isn’t over by a long shot. I’ve been hearing ads almost non-stop on the radio, claiming that “10 children are killed by gunfire every day.” I looked up some stats from the CDC, and unless they’re including 20-24 year-olds as children, the CDC doesn’t agree.
Another vote for the “it ain’t over crowd.” With senator’s Feinstein, Schumer, Kennedy, Boxer and Mclain in the mix, gun rights will never be safe. There are about 8 bills pending sponsorship or awaiting committee action that have something to do with furthering restrictions on gun ownership, and most have some type of language addressing “common sense” and/or “gun safety.”
I think the gun issue is in a lull right now, but that it’s got nothing to do with September 11, 2001, but rather with Election Day, 2000.
Many Democratic politicians believe they lost votes in pro-gun areas where there was a lot of Democratic support on other issues, such as West Virginia and rural Pennsylvania. (I think that had less to do with the effects of any gun-control legislation on law-abiding citizens than about the NRA’s Borking of this issue, but be that as it may.) I think the Democratic Party has examined its priorities, and decided that it made more sense to stick to core issues such as the economy, health care, corporate regulation, and the like.
Call me crazy, but one day I’d really like to see a gun debate that didn’t automatically descend into calling the other side a bunch of suckers and liars. Such is the rhetoric of extremists, I suppose.
Interesting how many other civil liberties the american public would be ready to give up to keep terrorists under control, yet apparently we won’t try to make it any harder for them to get guns.
Hey, isn’t that statement extremist in itself? What about people like abolitionists (of the pre-Civil War days)? Or people like Martin Luther King Jr.? Have they “ruined everything” with extremism?
RTF, here’s a few reasons why B. Boxer is in the “anti-gun” camp.
Junk Guns (S. 193)
Senator Boxer introduced the American Handgun Standards Act, which would effectively take junk guns off our streets by requiring American-made handguns to meet the same quality and safety standards as imported guns. Junk guns, also known as Saturday Night Specials, are inexpensive, easily concealable, and are the preferred weapons of juvenile criminals. She first introduced this legislation in 1996 and will continue working to take junk guns off the streets.
Lawsuits (S. 686)
Frustrated by the high financial and social cost of gun violence, several local communities around the country have filed lawsuits against the gun industry. Senator Boxer introduced the Firearms Rights, Responsibilities, and Remedies Act to protect the rights of cities and other entities to sue gun manufacturers, dealers, and importers for the cost of gun violence. As more local governments file suit, the gun lobby is trying to block their access to the courts.
From the senate website.
S. 25
Introduced by Sens. Diane Feinstein (D-CA), Charles Schumer (D-NY) and Barbara Boxer (D-CA)
The Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2001 would:
Amend the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act to prohibit a person from possessing a firearm unless that person has been issued a firearm license under this Act or a State system certified under this Act and such license has not been invalidated or revoked. Prescribes license application, issuance, and renewal requirements <<snipped>>.
Oh goodness, she wants to get rid of Saturday Night Specials and require licensing. Therefore, she must want to eliminate all private gun ownership. It’s just inescapable!
(In case my sarcasm got in the way, the point is that one can support both private gun ownership and reasonable restrictions on private gun ownership. It’s not an either/or proposition.)
But as I learned in this thread, it is dangerous to be near a loaded gun, and in fact, it is proper education which leads one to that conclusion. Evil does not equal dangerous, and anyone who attempts to “educate” people so they believe guns are not dangerous is doing a disservice to everybody.
I realise you’re being a little tongue-in-cheak here, but still, you might want to rethink your statement.
It’s never been fired) said, too many people depend on the debate for their livelihoods. As SPOOFE said, there will soon be another incident where a criminal (someone who is already prohibited from owning a gun) kills someone and we have to “protect the children!”.