Didn’t you learn anything from Clint Eastwood movies? “Urban” street thugs always wait for the good white guy to draw his weapon and say something darkly witty. Then either their eyes bug out of their heads and they run away, or they make a desperate flailing move for a weapon. Sometimes they will yell some variant of “jive turkey.”
Urban youth are too focused on stealing and drugs to put in the hours of practice and days of mental rehearsal to outdraw suburban heroes.
For those of you who may have missed it, I recommend the recent two-part This American Life show on Harper High School in Chicago and the effects of the gangs-and-guns culture of the neighborhood on the school life and the students. It’s an interesting show and is not pushing a particular agenda (other than “this situation really sucks”), but a couple of points stick in my mind:
Gang “membership” is defined by where you live. If you live on a particular block, you’re assumed to belong to that gang even if you don’t want to. So those “urban street thugs” may just be trying to survive.
In a culture where everyone has guns, people without guns are at a disadvantage. This creates a vicious cycle whereby everyone has to have a gun whether they want one or not. An armed society is not a polite society in this case; it’s an extremely violent one.
It is incredibly easy to get a gun illegally because it’s so easy to get one legally. Most of the guns in this area were purchased legally in the suburbs or in Indiana, sold on illegally to gang members and then claimed as stolen by the purchaser. The local gun laws of Chicago are irrelevant when one can get them right outside the city.
Although everyone has a gun, most people are crap at using them. The fact that most of the people have terrible aim actually keeps the homicide levels down because so many attempted murders are unsuccessful. The irony is not lost on me.
And between now and then, how many more guns will end up in the hands of criminals? How many more people will be come the victims of gun violence? How many small mass jmurders will fly under the media radar until we finally get something even worse than Newton to ignite our collective outrage? This was a wasted opportunity to do something good and now we will be lucky to even get a universal background check that does much mroe than force background checks at organized gun shows.
Increasing gun ownership over the last few years; much of the increase is among Democrats.
Newton changed public opinion (from gallup):
The point is that the public mandate isn’t nearly as clear as you would think just by looking at the polls that are cherrypicked by code pink.
I think a lot of people favor gun control because they are afraid of guns.
37 guns is not that many if you are a collector.
I would like to think that the guys I know would be OK with anyone who can legally own guns to own whatever guns they wanted, BUT I think you make a good point. A lot of middle aged white suburban gun nuts are afraid of young black guys for the same reason urban hippie gun conrol advocates are afraid of guns… lack of exposure and a media image that makes you think they are inherently dangerous.
While I don’t agree with the sentiment that darwinism has any place in the gun control debate, I am willing to bet that the average suburban gun owner that spends an hour at the range every month is a much better shot than the average gangbanger.
Its not a lack of focus, its a lack of opportunity. Where can they realiztically go to practice?
Like everyone else in this debate, I am interested in reducing gun homocides and I think and AWB does almost nothing to further that goal. I think licensing and registration would do MUCH more to further everyone’s goals than an AWB but the Democrats have let their loony left drive the debate for them.
Oh, I agree. But the “registration = confiscation” crowd on the right also share the blame for that being taken off the table. So we’re stuck with “ban scary-looking guns” as the only option that can get passed.
I don’t think its the loony left that is driving this so much as the middle of the road ill-informed soccer moms who knows hunters use rifles so think rifles are OK are but only see guns like AR15s used in movies to kill people en masse so think those should be banned. The real loony left wants something far more comprehensive and effective such as the nearly complete ban Britain has.
Is this by way of disagreement or cheerleading?
I don’t mean to suggest that these events are driven entirely and exclusively by gun tragedies around the nation. But every time they happen, the focus becomes sharper.
Opportunity lost? Well, yes, sorta kinda. But no such opportunity really existed until now.
Gun regulation is not inherently a right v left argument, it only tangentially affects social issues or questions of wealth and poverty. The right seized upon this issue like a starving dog on a pork chop, for the bounty of single issue voters to be harvested. But there are growing cracks in the solidarity, the NRA is exposed to a critical public as unreasoning and unreasonable “gun nuts”. Either that, or they don’t believe a word they say and are in it for the money. Mr LaPierre makes quite a decent living, enough at least to keep a full time hairdresser on alert.
Just as you say, it isn’t nearly enough. But until just recently, we couldn’t even get that.
The British can vote. If this is all so dreadful for them, why haven’t they changed it? Have you told them how miserable they are, perhaps they are too dim to realize it?
Darwin mainly discussed natural selection. This type of selection is highly artificial.
If only Gregory Rodriguez had been more familiar with guns, perhaps he would have been able to defend himself. Guess he was just not enough of a gun-lover to keep himself armed at all times.
I blame the gun-grabbers.
Be Vigilant!
Baby should have been armed. Clearly, bystanders should have more guns – this will protect them from bullets.
An armed baby will, eventually, in the fullness of time, become fifteen years old. And still be armed.
Those of you who know of what I speak, 'nuff sed. The rest of you, don’t ask. If you believed us, you wouldn’t do it, and that wouldn’t be fair.
Maybe he thought that “This is my rifle. This is my gun. This is for fighting. This is for fun,” was either/or and he couldn’t use one the same time as he was using the other.
I don’t think so. They never even tried because they were too busy with an almsot entirely useless AWB. I know plenty of folks who are against registration but at least they can see some sense in it. Its a lot easier to defend against the paranoia of gun nuts than to try and defend largely cosmetic legislation. The gun rights advocates did this to themselves. Its a shame.
Hrmm, maybe so. I don’t actually think Feinstein is stupid or ill informed but she certainly looks that way on this issue.
Disappointment.
Yes, and they blew it.
I agree gun control is not a right vs left thing (or at least it shouldn’t be) but the Democrats seem much more hostile towards guns than the Republicans and I think this reflects the geographic differences in gun attitudes. A lot of people disagree with the NRA (and their RIDICULOUS response to Newton) but they still support gun rights, and Democrats are going to lose more rural voters and suburban men over this if they can’t fix the perception that Democrats are hostile to gun owners.
There is always going to be a huge entrenched opposition to gun control, stupid mistakes like the AWB are going to ensure that you keep blowing opportunities and Wayne LaPierre is going to keep laughing his ass all the way to the bank (I think he makes about a million dollar a year, thats a lot even for a lobbyist, never mind a non-profit special interest group).
So, all of this spells great trouble for the Dems, then? Because the great mass of the people are solidly opposed to their program of regulations? Because the popularity of the NRA is at an all-time high, and only looks to grow bigger?
I find your proposition extraordinary, and would like to know what supports it. Are you expecting a backlash? Great numbers of people enraged that they cannot buy the assault weapon of their choice? Furious that they cannot add a 100-round magazine to their deer hunting rifle, in case Bambi’s Mom is uncooperative?
I had thought that, according to recent polling and opinion sampling, the trend was in the opposite direction. I am mistaken, then?
Hmmm… I must be trying so hard to avoid sounding like I’m overly partisan that I’m beginning to lose my reputation as a card carrying member of the looney left. This is the second thread that people thought I was arguing against them when I acutually agreed with them. I’m all in favor of British style gun laws if they could be enacted here. My comment was just that the opposition to assault rifles is more of a middle American think of the children reaction. Real gun control opponents would like something with a bit more bite to it, but reducing magazine sizes is a good start,
Feinstein is pushing the assault weapons ban because that is what is most likely to be viable politically, given it has the support of said middle of the road, think of the children, soccer moms.
No, I didn’t say that. I said that despite the public revulsion to the NRA response to Newton, the response from the gun control side was so stupid that people can just wave away the gun nuttiness from the gun lobby but have reacted to the stupid ideas by actual elected officials and actual proposed legislation focusing on assault weapons.
Newton defintely had an effect on public opinion on gun control (which created the opportunity for change) but it didn’t make an assault weapons ban seem much less stupid than it did a year ago (which is where the gun control advocates squandered their opportunity, Wayne LaPierre should contribute to Feinstein’s next campaign for making him look so good). Its moved within the margin of error on that issue and it still sounds overwhelmingly stupid to anyone that understands the issues.
www.bradycampaign.org/xshare/pdf/memo-11-18-08.pdf
See how the support for an AWB wasn’t affected very much by Newton, people are still opposed to it by 7% two months ago and probably more now that its utter stupidity has been publicized? See how people are really in favor of magazine caps or background checks have really high support? Registration and licensing is certainly no less popular than an AWB and with more information, they become more popular as an AWB becomes less popular.
To put it simply, pushing and AWB is stupid and counterproductive.
Ah! That would be you and those who agree with you, then? My condolences, I too have endured the stubborn ignorance of people who disagree with me.
Aside:
What would that be, in formal logic terms? How about the Ralph Kramden Fallacy, whereby you prove the intelligence of your position by asserting that those who disagree are stupid. Ad hominem-hominem-hominem?
Remember, Dumuri Ajashi accused me of relying on code pink cherry-picked survey results. Then he repeatedly posts Gallup results regarding a ban on assault weapons.
Here are other polling results on the topic, from PollingReport.com:
ABC News/Washington Post Poll. March 7-10, 2013. N=1,001 adults nationwide. Margin of error ± 3.5.
“Would you support or oppose a law requiring a nationwide ban on the sale of assault weapons?” Support 57, Oppose 41
Quinnipiac University. Feb. 27-March 4, 2013. N=1,944 registered voters nationwide. Margin of error ± 2.2.
“Do you support or oppose a nationwide ban on the sale of assault weapons?” Support 54, Oppose 41
Pew Research Center/USA Today. Feb. 13-18, 2013. N=1,504 adults nationwide. Margin of error ± 2.9.
"A ban on assault-style weapons" **Support 56, Oppose 41**
CBS News Poll. Feb. 6-10, 2013. N=1,148 adults nationwide. Margin of error ± 3.
“Do you favor or oppose a nationwide ban on semi-automatic weapons – including some rifles, pistols, and shotguns – that have detachable magazines, allowing them to rapidly fire a high number of rounds?” Favor 52, Oppose 44
Quinnipiac University. Jan. 30-Feb. 4, 2013. N=1,772 registered voters nationwide. Margin of error ± 2.3.
“Do you support or oppose a nationwide ban on the sale of assault weapons?” Support 56, Oppose 39
University of Connecticut/Hartford Courant Poll. Jan. 22-28, 2013. N=1,002 adults nationwide. Margin of error ± 3.
“Please tell me if you would favor or oppose the following proposals made as ways to control gun violence. . . .” “Banning military style assault weapons” Strongly favor 48, Somewhat favor 9, Somewhat oppose 11, Strongly oppose 26
Fox News Poll conducted by Anderson Robbins Research (D) and Shaw & Company Research (R). Jan. 15-17, 2013. N=1,008 registered voters nationwide. Margin of error ± 3.
“Banning assault rifles and semi-automatic weapons” Support 54, Oppose 42
CNN/Time/ORC Poll. Jan. 14-15, 2013. N=814 adults nationwide. Margin of error ± 3.5.
“A ban on the manufacture, sale and possession of semi-automatic assault guns, such as the AK-47” Support 56, Oppose 44
AP-GfK Poll conducted by GfK Roper Public Affairs & Corporate Communications. Jan. 10-14, 2013. N=1,004 adults nationwide. Margin of error ± 4.
“A nationwide ban on the sale of military-style, rapid-fire guns” Support 55, Oppose 34
Cherry picked by code pink? Dumuri Ajashi is an asshole.
But those numbers! 54 percent, 55 percent, 59 percent, wildly at variance with each other. The other numbers are sensible and sober numbers, very much within a couple of points from each other! Clearly, those gun grabbers are volatile and excitable, and apt to change their minds over even the most trivial and ordinary massacre.