Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Fearing Obama Agenda, States Push to Loosen Gun Laws
When President Obama took office, gun rights advocates sounded the alarm, warning that he intended to strip them of their arms and ammunition.
Virginia lawmakers passed a bill allowing people to carry concealed weapons, like this .45 Colt semiautomatic, in bars. (Karen Bleier/Agency France-Presse - Getty Images) And yet the opposite is happening. Mr. Obama has been largely silent on the issue while states are engaged in a new and largely successful push for expanded gun rights, even passing measures that have been rejected in the past.
In Virginia, the General Assembly approved a bill last week that allows people to carry concealed weapons in bars and restaurants that serve alcohol, and the House of Delegates voted to repeal a 17-year-old ban on buying more than one handgun a month. The actions came less than three years after the shootings at Virginia Tech that claimed 33 lives and prompted a major national push for increased gun control.
Arizona and Wyoming lawmakers are considering nearly a half dozen pro-gun measures, including one that would allow residents to carry concealed weapons without a permit. And lawmakers in Montana and Tennessee passed measures last year - the first of their kind - to exempt their states from federal regulation of firearms and ammunition that are made, sold and used in state. Similar bills have been proposed in at least three other states.
In the meantime, gun control advocates say, Mr. Obama has failed to deliver on campaign promises to close a loophole that allows unlicensed dealers at gun shows to sell firearms without background checks; to revive the assault weapons ban; and to push states to release data about guns used in crimes.
He also signed bills last year allowing guns to be carried in national parks and in luggage on Amtrak trains.
"We expected a very different picture at this stage," said Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, a gun control group that last month issued a report card failing the administration in all seven of the group's major indicators.
Gun control advocates have had some successes recently, Mr. Helmke said. Proposed bills to allow students to carry guns on college campuses have been blocked in the 20 or so states where they have been proposed since the Virginia Tech shootings. Last year, New Jersey limited gun purchases to one a month, a law similar to the one Virginia may revoke.
But recent setbacks to gun control have been many.
Last month, the Indiana legislature passed bills that block private employers from forbidding workers to keep firearms in their vehicles on company property.
Gun rights supporters also showed their strength last year by blocking legislation to give District of Columbia residents a full vote in Congress by attaching an amendment to repeal Washington's ban on handguns.
Asked by reporters about the Brady group's critical report on the Obama administration, a White House spokesman, Ben LaBolt, pointed out that the latest F.B.I. statistics showed that violent crime dropped in the first half of 2009 to its lowest levels since the 1960s.
"The president supports and respects the Second Amendment," Mr. LaBolt said, "and he believes we can take common-sense steps to keep our streets safe and to stem the flow of illegal guns to criminals."
Still, gun rights groups remain skeptical of the administration.
"The watchword for gun owners is stay ready," said Wayne LaPierre, chief executive of the National Rifle Association. "We have had some successes, but we know that the first chance Obama gets, he will pounce on us."
That Mr. Obama signed legislation allowing guns in national parks and on Amtrak trains should not be seen as respect for the Second Amendment, Mr. LaPierre said. The two measures had been attached as amendments to larger pieces of legislation - a bill cracking down on credit card companies and a transportation appropriations bill, respectively - that the president wanted passed, Mr. LaPierre said.
Regardless of Mr. Obama's agenda, gun dealers seem to be reaping the benefits of fears surrounding it.
Federal background checks for gun purchases rose to 14 million in 2009, up from 12.7 million in 2008 and 11.2 million in 2007. But from November 2009 to January 2010, the number of background checks fell 12 percent, compared with the same months a year earlier.
In Virginia, the success of new pro-gun laws is partly a result of the Republican Party's taking the governor's office after eight years of Democratic control.
A major setback for state gun control advocates was this week's House vote repealing the one-gun-per-month law, which was passed in 1993 under Gov. L. Douglas Wilder, a Democrat, and has long been upheld as the state's signature gun control restriction.
Supporters of limiting gun purchases to one a month said the law was important to avoid Virginia's becoming the East Coast's top gun-running hub. Opponents dismissed the concern.
"We shouldn't get rid of our Second Amendment rights because some people in New York City want to abuse theirs," Robert G. Marshall, a Republican delegate from Manassas who supported repeal of the one-gun-a-month limit, told reporters.
Gun control advocates hoped to win new restrictions after the Virginia Tech massacre on April 16, 2007, in which a student, Seung-Hui Cho, shot and killed 32 people before turning a gun on himself.
After the shooting, Gov. Tim Kaine, a Democrat, pushed for stronger gun control measures. But last year the legislature rejected a bill requiring background checks for private sales at gun shows and repealed a law that Mr. Kaine had supported to prohibit anyone from carrying concealed weapons into a club or restaurant where alcohol is served.
In previous years, the guns-in-bars bill cleared both chambers but was vetoed by Mr. Kaine. But the new governor, Robert F. McDonnell, has said he supports the measure.
Virginia is also considering a measure adopted in Montana and Tennessee that declares that firearms made and retained in-state are beyond the authority of Congress. The measure is primarily a challenge to Congress's power to regulate commerce among the states.
The Montana law is being challenged in federal court, and the United States Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives has sent a letter to Tennessee and Montana gun dealers stating that federal law supersedes the state measure.
- Posted in
99 Comments so far
Show All"Gun rights" are part and parcel of the Bill Of Rights and thus the Constitution. Living in this kleptocracy, where the police have no obligation to protect us, nor politicians to do our bidding, nor bureaucrats to act in our interests, the right to go armed is possibly even *more* important than it was in the 18th century.
The author of this article didn't seem to read what he himself wrote: "Virginia is also considering a measure adopted in Montana and Tennessee that declares that firearms made and retained in-state are beyond the authority of Congress. The measure is primarily a challenge to Congress's power to regulate commerce among the states."
I wonder what part of "made and retained in-state" he doesn't understand.
Very hypocritical that the arms industry and its apologists tout states rights when arms are the issue, while ignoring all the heavy handed regulations and unfunded mandates the DC politicians have forced upon the states during the past decade.
Too true. And the scum in Congress are no better - pushing off the responsibility but keeping the authority. Since Reagan there hasn't even been the _seeming_ of integrity, never mind the substance.
I believe in the constitution. I'm a Libertarian so I support the second amendment as much as I do the first.
Thank you for posting this Mairead,
This goes all the way back to the roots of our nation, the right to arm yourself, in self defense, against all intruders, be they French Indians, Town thieves or abuser's of the King's Authority from a distant city.
The anti-gunners who ignore the second amendment's source, (the pre-USA colonial mandate that all houses will keep a firearm ready), always maintain literally that it's a provision for the army. I have never understood the liberal aversion to firearms. They may be all that's standing between us and 1984.
TJ
"All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent." - Thomas Jefferson
Close.
But if you are going to call yourself "ThomasJefferson" you should really know/relate more of the specifics from that period of history.
1. Many of those in the colonies WERE in towns and cities. In some colonies majorities or near majorities were. Framing rights-to-arms as "self-defense measures" against one's neighbors and fellow colonists is just plain wrong.
2. Because the "self-defense" envisioned then was not only individual or familial defense, but community and societal defense. This is why the 2nd Amendment considers rights-to-arms in the context of a "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State...".
3. Mandates for each head-of-houshold to keep arms-ready-to-bear are threrefore to be understood also in the context of such a Militia. Which is nothing like an "army" as you mistakenly write, but more like a Citizen's police-force/national guard.
As important to me as retention of right-to-arms is the retention of the understanding of the context in which we were meant to exercise them -Citizen's Militias. More important to me would be the REINSTATEMENT of the Militias themselves, with the overdue disbandment of the professional police and military forces accompanying this reinstatement!
-matti.
More important to me would be the REINSTATEMENT of the Militias themselves, with the overdue disbandment of the professional police and military forces accompanying this reinstatement!
-------------------------
That's on my list too, for sure.
Smedley Butler laid it out clearly and simply: the wealthy can't get enough profit in the US so they send their money abroad, and when it gets into trouble, the Marines are sent to rescue it and beat up on the nasty furriners who want to keep their wealth in their own hands.
Getting rid of *all* the standing armies and standing para-armies would go a long way to solving the world's problems.
Yes.
But as I wrote elsewhere, I'd be satisfied with a "everybody's military is like some Finland's" scenario of a professional officers in the military to maintain standards and order, elected higher-ups in police forces with perhaps some professionals at the State and Federal levels, and Citizens filling in the rest.
This means proud conscripts as the beat officers, duty desk officers, and investigators of the police forces, and soldiers/sailors/guardians/fliers of the military ones.
-matti.
Matti,
I agree with you on much of your posts. However, taking things literally without knowing the whole source or history, is just plain wrong. My screen name is not ThomasJefferson. My screen name is ThomasJeffersonWasRight. Your browser probably cuts it off.
Matti said:
"1. Many of those in the colonies WERE in towns and cities. In some colonies majorities or near majorities were. Framing rights-to-arms as "self-defense measures" against one's neighbors and fellow colonists is just plain wrong."
ThomasJeffersonWasRight says:
If you will re-read my post you will find that I did not frame self-defense as a protection "against one's neighbor's or fellow colonists" as you said. You misquoted me, matti. I said "thieves" as in marauding pirates of the "Tidewater" where 80 percent of the colonists lived. I said French Indians, which pre-dates even Article eight of the Virginia Declaration of Rights (see my longer post to NCtom elsewhere in this thread for the origin of the second amendment.)
Matti said:
"3. Mandates for each head-of-houshold to keep arms-ready-to-bear are threrefore to be understood also in the context of such a Militia. Which is nothing like an "army" as you mistakenly write, but more like a Citizen's police-force/national guard."
ThomasJeffersonWasRight says:
I was trying to relate the wrong-headed position of the anti-gunners. Perhaps I wasn't clear. A standing army, was like the British Redcoats, or like the Continental Army (which got it's members from individual town militias.) General George Washington promised the Continental Congress that he would disband the Continental Army, previously the Boston Army, at the conclusion of the war. He acknowledged that "there is nothing more dangerous to free people's everywhere than a large standing army".
Matti said:
As important to me as retention of right-to-arms is the retention of the understanding of the context in which we were meant to exercise them -Citizen's Militias. More important to me would be the REINSTATEMENT of the Militias themselves, with the overdue disbandment of the professional police and military forces accompanying this reinstatement!
ThomasJeffersonWasRight says:
Boy, I couldn't agree with you more.
However,
In the Constitutional Convention of 1788:
"On February 6 [1788}, [Samuel] Adams submitted another amendment, foreshadowing some of the measures that were soon added to the Constitution as the Bill of Rights. It said, "And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience;or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms......" "Adam's one-sentence amendment contained elements of what became the First, Second, and Fourth Amendments to the Constitution."
From "Samuel Adams A Life" by Ira Stoll 2008
NOTICE: CITIZENS KEEPING THEIR OWN ARMS i.e, taking your own gun home with you; this was the intent of the second amendment, not to have it locked up in a armory like the National Guard does.
The second amendment was passed in 1789. Gun rights were championed by new England for most of the century before that. Especially after the Boston Masacure of 1770. But even before that, Ben Franklin personally organized militias to fight off Indian raids as far back as 1750.
Act of Parliament noted by the Boston Town Meeting Sept 19th, 1768:
"the subjects being Protestants may have arms for their Defense [and a] good and wholesome law of the providence [requiring that every household] "shall be always provided with a well-fix'd Firelock, musket, accoutrements and ammunition." [Citing the] "prevailing apprehension, in the minds of many, of an approaching war with France," [the meeting requested that the law be duly observed,] "in order that the inhabitants of this town may be prepared in case of sudden danger." [Four hundred muskets were displayed at the meeting, a show of force that, Samuel Adams and his colleagues understood, would have been noted by the British as much as by France, the supposed threat of which was strictly a pretense.]
source: ["Samuel Adams a Life" by Ira Stoll 2008]
Being armed is, and always has, been a right of every American. The founders put that in the second amendment not to protect the town strictly in a militia - because that was controlled by the crown appointed governor, (who in this case, shortly thereafter dissolved the town council and forbade it to reconvene), but to enable the common people in New England to keep the Redcoats or other domestic police forces or armies, from quartering troops in their houses and disarming them, which is why the next amendment, the third which prohibited quartering of troops, was supported by the second.
TJ
"The measure is primarily a challenge to Congress's power to regulate commerce among the states."
This would also challenge the Civil Rights laws, requiring for instance equal rights to use of public accomodation, as well as laws forbidding child labor, rquiring health and safety standards, minimum wages, etc.. There is a chess game going on here with far reaching consequences including a return to pre-1937.
No it doesn't.
Paranoia strikes deep.
As Americans arm themselves to the teeth, expect to see more scenes of children shot dead in schools and other random acts of gun violence.
Americans are afraid, paranoid, and angry. Expanded "gun rights" just give us more tools to emote how we feel with deadly force.
There are serious problems with this country. They won't be solved with firearms.
The domestic arms race that Congress created when they failed to renew the assault weapons ban in 2004 is contributing to higher taxation as police departments at all levels need to continually upgrade their arsenals to compete with the ever more lethal and legal arms they face when confronting career criminals and domestic violence cases.
Not to mention the boatloads of legal assault weapons that are being smuggled into Mexico and exacerbating domestic and international terrorism.
The right to own firearms only recently, in another five-four decision, was made a PERSONAL right. Before then it was up to the states, as it should be, the 2nd Amendment is for militias not individuals no matter what dumb-ass SCOTUS says. Why in the hell do we really need all these weapons -- to fight a civil war? That's mad. Even the best "prepared" gun-owner has no real chance against national guard units, let alone SWAT teams. Just get a lot more people killed, like with Randy Weaver -- that dumb-f^ck.
On the other hand it is damned appealing to think that gun in hand is some kind of final protection against fascism -- but really it isn't. It's a deadly weapon that's use will condemn dissenters to a violent backlash. Non-violence is the way to go.
Gary
PS I am a gun owner; shotgun, and two automatic pistols.
“I wonder what the engineers, technicians, and workers who make weapons all day long for killing their neighbor can possibly be thinking of. They're not working for a living; they're working for dying.”
-- unknown
Hi Gary,
Nice post. It's an intelligent mind that can hold two contradictory ideas simultaneously. Why do you own the two pistolas? As for non-violence, what would be your best case scenario for non-violent change in America?
Non-violent change? Stop voting for fascist politicians and avoid patronizing fascist corporations wherever possible.
Unfortunately, as we observed in Austin last week, the US working class is increasing to use violent means to deal with fascism.
So you think the average smoe who is struggling to put food on his table and keep a roof over his head is going to stop shopping at wal-mart because you or I tell them to? Your solution is unrealistic. We can't afford it.
As for not voting, I agree. Disengage yourself. A 25% turn out would send a real message to our leaders and to ourselves.
And a 25% turnout would mean that the 25% that voted would get all the offices. Like them Christian Coalition people? They vote 100% of the time in a monolithic block. Nothing like the opposition staying home to empower them.
Disengage and drown.
Which is worse than Obama? How might I ask? The system is broken. Your vote is giving the corporate fascists legitimacy. They use it to claim that the system is democratic when if fact, you have no choice. It is corporate fascist choice A versus corporate fascist choice B. Stop playing their game. Make a real statement for a change.
Why not just vote for someone other than A or B?
Statewide and Congressional elections have been regularly recieving turnouts as low or lower than 25% for decades. It has also been common for such "elections" to be "choices" between one candidate and no one else.
So far this is failing to break the corporate fascists in any way.
Because they merely ignore the fact in their "news" presentations. And whatever their "news" presentations show is what many know and what most feel limited to discussing.
What would be different in a situation where such low turnouts hit the Prez Election (which is presumedly what you have in mind since your write about such turnouts as if they would be something new)?
Wouldn't it be better to vote for someone other than A or B, even if it was thought of as a moment of futile effort separate from one's REAL efforts elsewhere?
Even writing in Donald Duck or Ficus at least sends the message that one KNOWS one is being offered no real choices. Not showing up at all can be spun to mean mere "apathy".
-matti.
Hi matti,
I've been puzzling about this for some time. While voting for Zippy the Pinhead has its merits, I think that by giving them over 50%, they can claim a democracy and I give them legitimacy. I think if we boycotted these phony election in serious numbers and held protests 200 yards from polling places, that might send a message that the natives are restless. I have until November to make a decision. One thing is certain, I won't be voting for a Democrat or Republican. Never again.
When 50% of the electorate votes left and 50% right as they did in the 2000 and 2004 elections, then you are handing them the election. They already don't care if you are on the losing side. At that point, they would ignore you completely and you'd have NO recourse.
"Stop playing their game. Make a real statement for a change."
You sound like that scene in Annie Hall where Woody Allen says the Nazis are marching in New Jersey. Let's go over with some baseball bats and let them know how we think and the erudite intellectual says, "oh no. I can't do that. I am going to write s strongly worded letter to the New York Times." Allen responds, "No Baseball bats are really effective with Nazis..."
If you want to write a letter to the Times, fine, but 25% of people not voting instantly makes them irrelevant. If you want to see a dictatorship of the majority, you just organize that. I pity you if you succeed. If you aren't going to get in there and fight, even if you lose, then you should go keep bees in the country, get off grid and leave society to those that care about it.
gdgoodman
How can you read the Constitution any other way than it was an individual right? "The peoples right to keep and bear arms" Seems plain to me.
"Why in the hell do we really need all these weapons"
I'd suggest that if you noticed and I'm sure you did, the first step of any dictatorship or coup is to confiscate all weapons.
Though you point about Weaver and his ilk is of course correct, consider though, if most of your neighbors were with you in resisting and armed.
A shotgun is most certainly protection for your home, forget fascism, its the punk criminal thats the real danger.
All that said, you have the final word, the correct idea, "Non-violence is the way to go"
I am a gun owner too, but quit hunting years ago for the obvious reason.
gdgoodman, in your rebuttal you said: "The peoples right to keep and bear arms" Seems plain to me. as a response to: How can you read the Constitution any other way than it was an individual right?
The second amendment says:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
It clearly has a reference to a "regulated Militia" in it and seems to imply that the reason people can bear arms is in support of that militia. IMHO if it were not so poorly written there would not be so much controversy concerning its interpretation.
The U.S. Code, the CURRENT, LEGAL definition of the 'militia':
"www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode10/usc_sec_10_00000311----000-.html
TITLE 10 /> Subtitle A > PART I > CHAPTER 13 >
? 311. Militia: composition and classes
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are?
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
WE are (b), (2).
Current law. At the time militia meant able bodied males between 18 and 45 so basically the same. I might add that the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause was there specifically to guarantee 2nd amendment rights to freed slaves who were having guns confiscated by ex-confederate soldiers.
This points us to the LEGAL method for restoring the Militias and putting the 2nd Amendment back into useful context in our society.
The Militias were transformed into the National Guard, transform them back into State Militia's and were halfway there.
Get rid of the professional police forces and put there operations under the purview of Local Militias and you are the rest of the way there.
As the cherry on top, restore the Standing Military Forces back to their pre WWII make-up of professional officers commanding a rotating group of Citizens acting as the bulk of the forces.
Problems solved.
-matti.
"I'd suggest that if you noticed and I'm sure you did, the first step of any dictatorship or coup is to confiscate all weapons."
Actually, it is not. Such a remark is pure NRA propaganda/urban legend. Saddam encouraged all Iraqi households to have at lest one AK-47, ammunition, and training in using it. I also believe that guns were widely avaiable and legal in Franco's Spain, Pinochet's Chile, and Mobutu-Sese-Seko's Zaire (Rep. of Congo)
Perhaps I should have suggested "sucessful" dictatorship? Germans were disarmed after Hitler got power, the Russians certainly weren't armed, The French certainly weren't allowed arms, you'd find no arms among the Japanese conquered lands. The Chinese are not armed I assure you. The Burmese are not. They chop you if you are caught with guns, etc.
Its not NRA anything nor urban legend. Its simple policy and self preservation.
deleted
Even the best "prepared" gun-owner has no real chance against national guard units, let alone SWAT teams.
-----------------------
I'm not sure the people of Viet Nam, Iraq, & Afganistan would agree with you.
Mairead
Excellent point.
If there were general insurrection do you believe that guard units would be reliable? Probably in some places not others. I doubt that the Carolina Guard would move to confiscate weapons for instance.
So you think the North Vietnamese had a hefty cache of hand guns to fend off the French and Americans? Too funny. Hand guns in America are nothing more than pacifiers. Fearful and alienated Americans need cold steel glocks. Otherwise they might get off their couch and actually do something about the current state of disrepair.
Last I checked, the Iraqi resistance most clearly lost, inflicting absolutely tiny casualties to US soldiers (3000 including accidents and friendly fire) compared to the several hundreds of thousands of Iraqis killed by the US.
In firefights with US forces with air support, the Iraqi fighters were virtually always killed to the last man. One must delve into science fiction to find another fighting force as absolutely, diabolically efficient in their murderousness.
Viet Nam won only becausue the US, under domestic pressure made the corect decision to leave. But in a way Vietnam lost too, as the cost - millions of lives - was so high that no other nation dared confront the US again.
The result in Afghanistan wil be similar.
Your basic point is spot on.
But your analysis of the Indochina War is WAY off!
1. There was no "Viet Nam vs the US" scenario. The U.S. took the "South Vietnamese Government's" side in a civil war in Vietnam. Vietnam can only win AND only lose any civil war in Vietnam.
2. Domestic pressure in the U.S. began to become overwhelming AFTER the Tet Offensive proved that the U.S and its South puppets were most certainly NOT winning and perhaps victory was hopeless.
3. Beyond the point above that a nation both wins and loses in a civil war, the N. Vietnamese cause was a) unification of the country under their system and b) removal of Imperialist/Colonialist influence from the U.S./France. No amount of loss of life negates this if succesful.
4. North Vietnam -let alone "Vietnam"- never "confronted" the U.S. at all. The U.S. took over the French NeoColonialist confrontation of the people of Vietnam and the indigenous N. Vietnamese government.
5. Many nations self-determination efforts have "confronted" the Imperial will of the U.S. government since the end of the Indochina War.
-matti.
pjd412
"Viet Nam won only becausue the US, under domestic pressure made the corect decision to leave"
There is that view, but I would point out that though we would beat the NVA every single time they faced us, the only ground we really controlled was that we stood on. That even though the NVA effectively finished the VC for us, they kept getting stronger. Our losses kept mounting. So, domestic pressure yes, but don't discount the Vietnamese themselves. They are a hard working and hard fighting bunch.
You can never win a war where the majority of the population isn't with you.
That decision only applies to DC and federally controlled areas, not to the states. That case that will extend it to the individuals in the state, McDonald v Chicago, is being heard on Monday I believe. With the last vote and this being the same case really but in context of states, I don't see how it can't be the same result.
Once a federal right exists derived from the 2nd Amendment, then all state legislation regarding firearms becomes obsolete. Much the same way you can't have a poll tax or land ownership requirements for voting or some litmus test for free speech, you are not going to be able to have local legislation to limit guns in the states.
It is a monumental case for 2nd Amendment law.
"Even the best "prepared" gun-owner has no real chance against national guard units, let alone SWAT teams"
Let's analyze that a little:
There is no way a NG unit will be used against a single individual. The right people with the right mix of skills would be able to put up with a NG unit. I'm not talking about being holed up in a compound. Yes, the NG unit might have air assets but in terms of individual equipment any civilian has similar access, including night vision, ammunition and individual weapons. Plus the would not be bound by strict rules of engagement.
SWAT teams, while they look good on TV. They are nothing but cops playing soldier, busting down doors at 4AM killing dogs. Their main advantage is surprise. No disrespect meant, just trying to look at facts.
The most important part that I left for the end is: "Just get a lot more people killed". That in itself is a main deterrent against a government, or any thug for that matter, to attack an armed citizen.
I'm certainly not ready to declare it a settled fact, but I'm wondering if it might not be justifiable to suggest that there is some kind of conspiracy afoot between the gun selling industry and the Obama administration. It seems a pretty good recipe for encouraging profitability in an illicit market by promising "tough" enforcement, keeping the threat open but never quite delivering on it. It's the same psychological pitch as that of the huckster you says buy your such-and-such NOW because after this 48 hours period or the light on the blue light special goes off, the price of the product being sold will go up. As the article says, the gun industry has profited mightily from this promise-much, deliver-little or nothing in the way of gun control being practiced by the administration.
It's always possible to raise the issue whether the creation of a supposedly undesired effect (more gun buying) was intended by the party that created this situation. Perhaps that party is simply incredibly incompetent as it takes actions with effects the opposite of its intended ones. Most political administrations would get "high" marks for incompentence, so maybe that is what is operating here. But there are many on these comment threads who assert that Obama knows and intends exactly what are the consequences of his actions and inactions (often at odds with his words), whether it be ending foreign military operations, discouraging a coup in Honduras, having a comprehensive health care reform, whatever. I'd just say at the least we should add the "failure" of a gun control threat to that list of suspected proposals that were designed to fail, and to do so for the benefit of those merchants who profit from those failures.
phoenix20
I believe the President is too busy screwing everything else up to even consider this at the moment. Does it really make any difference?
I looked at the stats again and the factual evidence (FBI, State Attorney General's, Justice Dept., etc)is that gun control has little and in some states, negative effect in controlling crime.
When "right to carry" laws are passed, the gun related crimes have gone down in every instance.
It looks as if the gun control people are wrong on this one. If their ultimate aim is to ban guns period, they are a little off center with the bubble.
Veritas, I'd love to see what are the "stats" you've examined in terms of the correlations between "right to carry" laws and reduction of gun related crimes. If your stats are right the gun control people (like moi) are wrong. "Stats" as you know can lie depending on who is using them for what rhetorical purpose so, I'm sorry "I've looked at the stats" doesn't really do it for me.
phoenix20
You must check out the records for yourself. See what you find and if it differs from what I found.
The main argument against the data was useing a straight arithmetic average of the crime rates, rather than a population weighted average. If you use the weighted average the per cent crime rate does not decline as much as claimed. So of course you are right, figures can lie or say what you like. Start with these as a jumping off point...
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/2009prelimsem/index.html
http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/stats/cw_monthly.html (for base stats) Then extrapolate for state comparisons. I used Florida as my baseline. But any will do.
In my view weighting it by population per city is a way to impact the population as a whole. No matter how its presented, each state has a certain population. If the numbers for the entire population show something, then why would you use anything but a state to state comparison?
Are you opposed to "right to carry" or gun ownership per se?
Since I'm totally opposed to gun control (no I don't have a permit and won't apply for one), we are unlikely to agree. :)
Well stats are complicated and there are many factors that influence crime and specifically murder. I don't have stats on hand and as you say they show what the collecting group wants to show. One study showed, for instance, that it was the legalization of abortion in the 70s that created fewer unwanted children who presumably were more likely to become criminals.
One fact that I can point to is that Canada, the US, Australia, and the UK have all had a roughly 40% decline in murder since about 1980. In the case of Australia there were permissive laws at the beginning of that period that were drastically tightened. Canada and the UK had strong controls on handguns, practically a ban during the period. In the US there are really no controls at all and gun ownership grew steadily during that period.
Four different countries, with three different paths of gun legislation and one outcome... a rough 40% drop in murder.
If you also look at New Zealand, Finland, Sweden, Switzerland, France and Germany, they all allow guns (with limits!) and are relatively highly armed and they haven't had a serious problem with guns and have experienced a similar reduction in violent crime.
France, Finland, Sweden, Canada, Switzerland, Greece, Austria and Germany all have 30 or more private guns per 100 people. (So do Yemen and Iraq...)
I don't have answers as to what it was, tougher crime legislation? Legal abortion? Economic upturn not making people as desperate? What I can point to is that there seems NOT to be a correlation to gun control laws and murder/violent crime rates.
JohnShade
Thanks very much. I hadn't gone further than the states in the US.
As you say, stats can be very complicated. You would expect burglery and robbery to have increased during this recession, but our state stats show they have actually declined. True?....got me, thats just what the numbers show. Did all departments report? Are people just not reporting as much because their insurance deductables are higher?
"What I can point to is that there seems NOT to be a correlation to gun control laws and murder/violent crime rates."
That was my general impression. But as you pointed, its a complicated question.
Veritas: I'll look at your "stats" as I have time as well as those of other respondents. But this goes on a tangent from the main point of my original post: that there is a suspicion---no proof---that the "threat" of new gun controls by the administration might have been done under pressure from the gun-dealing industry to promote their sales under the threat of imminent regulation of gun ownership. Whether you're pro or anti gun control (I'm pro as you say you are anti), it's the same question of a (perhaps) cynical faux-threat that was actually intended to drive up the demand for and the price of weapons. Anybody have any thoughts on that possibility? Am I too far out in left conspiracy field?
I think you're too far out on this one. Obama and Holder and a few other members of the cabinet have been outspoken on gun control long before the campaign. What they said was in line with their previous statements. The anomaly here is that having said all that they aren't doing anything about it. That dissonance between what they said historically and now is creating the atmosphere for gun sales to skyrocket. Remember that an average 10% rate of growth, means a doubling of arms in 7 years and some months. We could be looking at 500-600 million private arms by the end of his term if he does nothing more and the rates stay the same. (unlikely)
Since he has was elected, my family (extended, not me personally) has bought 5 more guns. I think that is unrelated to Him directly, but we started having friends out of work that were selling their guns to stay fed.
JohnShade: Your post makes an interesting point. I grant that Obama and Holder and others did make pro-control statements on numerous occasions, but so did Obama, to use another example, use anti-NAFTA speeches in campaigning among working people in Ohio, then of course has done nothing to restrain NAFTA as President as his campaign aide said his anti-NAFTA speeches were just "campaign rhetoric." Gun dealers may have been savvy enough to realize that the threat of gun control was only rhetorical but may have more or less deliberately used this threat as if it were real, in which case they could scare the crap out of nervous citizens who would troop to their stores to get themselves some protection while the getting was good. Rather than a conspiracy between Obama and the gun dealers, the latter may simply have taken advantage of citizens who were naive enough to believe---or be made to believe---that a promise made to the lily white "liberals" who were the base of his support would be an actual threat to themselves. This isn't exactly "conspiracy", but it certainly suggests a symbiotic relation between a constituency-pandering politician and those in a position to make a buck out of treating his words as if they were impending policy. Maybe I'm ready to trot in from left field.
You're not crazy. I just don't see it from my touching this elephant in the dark. My picture is that it was a lot more popular than that. As a denizen of gun shops at the election (I was buying two hunting rifles at the time as there was a great rebate from Remington) All the dealers had to do was open the doors in the morning and let the crowds in. It was impossible to buy most anything and certainly impossible to buy handgun ammo or reloading supplies.
Gun dealers are a lot like corner markets, they don't really advertise, people know they are there and when they want something they go there and man, did they want things. I have never seen so many people in a gun shop. That hasn't changed either. I was in a Cabela's in Nevada and there was one of those Now serving number deals and a crowd three deep at the longest gun counter I have ever seen.
Not to say dealers weren't happy as pigs in poo, but they didn't have to do anything to scare/push people to buy. I really believe there is/was a common perception that Obama is going to be bad for gun owners. I personally am amazed at how far the pro-gun agenda has got this last year, but common perceptions often (always?) lag fact.
You aren't crazy, it could be true, but I don't think so.