Category: Anti-Gun Folks

Over at Joe Huffman’s.   To be somewhat fair, though it doesn’t diminish the point, a lot of these folks are just anti-American, and express that through anti-gun attitudes.  Hell, I’m almost convinced one of the only reasons Canada’s gun laws are worse than ours is because having less restrictive gun laws would be too American and we can’t have that in Canada.

Damon Root of Reason takes Dennis Henigan to task for suggesting Heller won’t ultimately mean much.  If we get incorporation of the second amendment as applicable to the states, that is where it will likely have its greatest impact.  There are precious few gun laws at the federal level I think are likely to be impacted in the short term.

If the thought of new pro-gun constituencies being created in cities like Chicago and New York City doesn’t scare the hell out of Dennis and his boss Paul Helmke, it ought to.  What will happen to gun control when the latte elite of Chicago and New York *gasp* know people who own guns?  Know people who shoot guns?  Maybe even know people who carry guns?  Dear god!

There are two major centers of political support for gun control: New York and Chicago.  Oh, there are minor ones, like San Francisco, Boston, and DC, but what do all these areas have in common?  They’ve all severely restricted access to handguns.  No one in these cities likely knows anyone who owns or shoots a gun for recreation, and don’t think much about them for self-defense, because it’s not an option for non-criminals.   That is about to change, and that should keep Paul Helmke and Dennis Hennigan up at night.

UPDATE: Glenn Reynolds and Brian P. Denning chime in with an article in the Northwestern University Law Review.

For all you ladies out there:

I really need to stop linking to these folks. I really do. But its a great study in narrow mindedness, and people unwilling to look beyond their own prejudices and stereotypes.  This is the open minded and tolerant progressive left.  I don’t know how people can have such disdain for their fellow citizens, and turn around and believe they are enlightened.  Where I come from, it just makes you an asshole.

Another Gun Blog points out another instance where Progressive Democrats for Delaware is crapping on gun owners in the First State.  It’s rather pointless arguing with folks on the Internet, especially when they don’t know what they are talking about, don’t want to accept they don’t know what they are talking about, and are mostly interested in looking down and spitting on you.  It’s a small mind that can’t make his case without resorting to personal attacks.

Joe spoints out that some anti-gunners are just giving up.  Good!

This is not the reaction of a man who is at the top of his game.  This is the reaction of someone that’s losing and knows it:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D_k0EXWrbg8[/youtube]

Here’s what struck me:

“Any contribution helps to make a difference.  It allows us to defend the good laws that are on the books, and then we can start pushing for better laws in the future.”

Emphasis mine.  This is exactly where we want them.  They are on the defensive.  They are begging for money to defend the laws that are already out there, and maybe then, sometime in the future, they might be able to actually get some new laws passed.  They essentially admit there is no hope for that now.

This is not the time to let up.  This is not the time to become complacent.  We must send these people to join the Women’s Christian Temperence Union in the dungeon of political irrelevance.  That’s going to depend on making sure that 5-4 majority grows, rather than shrinks.  2008 is the most important election for gun rights in my lifetime.

Hat Tip to Jacob, for finding the video.

Well, forget the quote.  You just have to see this.

One thing that’s really been bothering me lately is all this talk that suicide is driven by gun ownership.  It doesn’t just bother me because the notion that guns cause suicides is absurd, it bothers me because it’s obviously absurd, even to a casual uninterested observer.  Most reasonable people, I’d suspect, would not in the slightest be persuaded that we have to reduce gun ownership levels to reduce suicide.  Suicide is primarily a function of depression, and there are many effective ways of carrying out a desire to kill oneself.  Citizens of Japan kill themselves at a far far higher rate than Americans without needing guns to do so.

So why are the anti-gun folks pushing this so hard?  Are they desperate?  Are they stupid?  I think the answer to the former is a little, and to the latter, no.  I couldn’t figure out why they might be latching on to an argument that’s clearly not going to get any traction in the sphere of public opinion.  But thinking about it last night, it occurred to me.  It’s likely a ploy to develop a new constituency for gun control.

Most of us have interacted with gun control advocates.  The vast majority of the people I’ve come across who have become activists in the issue have been relatives of victims of gun violence.  Hell, even The Brady Campaign’s namesake fits that profile.  So does Bryan Miller.  The gun control movement’s bread and butter is tragedy; it’s what makes anti-gunners, and it’s what keeps their organizations churning.

In the pre-Heller world, various gun control groups were not performing all that well.  In the post-Heller world, it’s going to be even harder.  If you’re a gun control group, and you need to enlarge your base of core supporters, how can you ignore the largest pool of people who have been affected by tragedy involving the gun?  There are far more folks out there who have been affected by suicide of a loved one than have been affected by gun violence, and more importantly, families affected by suicide are often middle class, and have money and time to donate.

But why now?  Well, because Heller offers them an opportunity.  We can’t really deny that where law abiding people have access to guns, some small fraction of people will choose a firearm to commit suicide over other methods.  If the gun bans in Chicago and other major cities are struck down, the gun control movement is virtually guaranteed to be able to point to rising levels of suicide with firearms.  This creates new possibilities for them with gun control schemes, possibly including expanded mental health prohibitions, renewed calls for waiting periods, and various other requirements that could be plausibly linked with suicide prevention.

I had said previously the gun control movement will change post-Heller, and this might be an indication their focus is shifting away from crime control, which we’ve shown doesn’t work, to suicide prevention.  Regardless of how well the message resonates with the public at large, if it allows a larger constituency for gun control, and more money rolling into the coffers of gun control groups, they’d be foolish not to exploit the opportunity.  I think we’re seeing a deliberate shift in rhetoric.  Time will tell how it pans out, but we must be ready to counter it.

Rustmeister points to Josh Sugarman calling out gun bloggers for publishing the information on his federal firearms license:

“The bloggers put my phone number out there, and people have been calling to ask how much I’ll charge to transfer guns,” Sugarman says.

Come on Josh!  It’s a good business opportunity.  It’ll certainly work out far better for you than what you’ve been doing.  Look at who your competition is.  You already have a far more widely recognized name than those other guys.  We’ll even be happy to do some free bloggy marketing for you.  We can hook you up.