What’s different?
I’ve noticed something odd. I fully expected that, in light of the horrific incident at Virginia Tech, that we’d see calls for gun control. And we have. But I figured we’d also see more people agreeing with those calls. But that’s not the case (see here, here, and here – note: they’re not scientific polls).
In the 1990s, I would have bet money on that. Now, not so much. What changed? I don’t really know. But a few guesses:
1) Blogs – more importantly, faster dissemination of info and faster ability of critics of gun control to respond. On guns, the press just takes dictation from the anti-gunners. Now, folks can respond to that and dispel untruths.
2) Katrina – I think people realized during that incident how useful and practical guns are. People would not have thought so before. A spike in gun ownership happened after Katrina.
3) More concealed carry – There are now only two states that have no provision for concealed carry. And there are nine states that have may issue provisions. Your average citizen is more likely now to pack or know someone who does.
4) And, yeah, maybe (as much as I am loathe to get on the ‘it changed everything’ wagon) 9-11. But gun ownership also increased after 9-11.
I’m just speculating but there’s something in the water.
Update: And no politicians are really screaming for gun controls either. Well, except the usual suspects. And Barack Obama, who seems trapped in the 1990s. Seriously, have you heard the rest of his message? He’s like Bill Clinton only without the cool.
Meanwhile, the AFP:
The powerful US gun lobby, far from being weakened by last week’s tragic college campus shooting, actually has emerged stronger, gun advocates said, stepping up calls Sunday for a better-armed US citizenry to prevent future attacks.
April 23rd, 2007 at 11:33 am
I have a sneaking-suspicion that the pols have learned that being overtly anti-gun is a non-winner. Many folks speculate that the Clinton ban got all those folks booted out of office to hand-over Republican control.
Perhaps they’re keeping quiet & waiting to see if they can capture the executive branch in ’08. If they do, you can bet that all the antis will come out of the woodwork.
April 23rd, 2007 at 11:33 am
Meh thinks it is because people realize it is just frickin’ obvious that those people could not defend themselves.
– He didn’t use “assault weapons”, he used common pistols.
– He didn’t hold them hostage, he hid among them.
– People survived to tell what happened and that story came out unfiltered. Perhaps due to blogs, live coverage showed interviews uncensored, perhaps due to fear of being scooped.
– It wasn’t a conspiracy, it was just a guy who lost it. We *all* know people who could lose it.
– Perhaps it was because the city and school had recently turned down requests to allow CCW holders to carry there.
– Perhaps it was the school administrator’s letter rejecting a request by a CCW holder to carry on campus where he _bragged_ that the students on that campus were well-protected due to all of the well-armed and well-trained security people on his staff.
I know that Americans have a strong “self preservation / self supporting” mentality. This man was the equivalent of a tornado hitting campus. Many call a tornado “The Finger of God” because it can touch _here_ but not _there_. This even was similar to such an occurrence. It appears to me that most Americans do not look to others to protect them from a tornado. They look to their own preparations and abilities. I think it is the same thing here.
Those are my brief thoughts on the subject.
April 23rd, 2007 at 11:39 am
In the past two decades, there has been a crystallization of the red state, blue state, swing state phenomenon. So, Dem politicians, who in prior years would have been the ones ‘screaming for gun control,’ know, before they get started that doing so will only piss off voters in Florida, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Missouri, Ohio, Michigan, Arizona, Nevada, etc. What’s more, since they already have New York and California sewed up, there’s less need to push issues popular with their own base.
April 23rd, 2007 at 11:51 am
I think the grabbers are just biding their time; they have hopes of a liberal POTUS and/or more liberal representatives in 2008. If that happens, they’ll be writing more idiot laws as fast as they can.
April 23rd, 2007 at 11:54 am
I think there may be a “been there, done that” mentality among some would-be gun control advocates. In the wake of Columbine, a few thousand angry shrews called themselves a million moms and marched on Washington for more gun control. They ended up getting squat, and in fact losing ground as the AW ban expired and more states went shall-issue. The libs haven’t exactly seen the light on the merits of the gun issue, but may well have come to recognize it as the political loser that it is.
April 23rd, 2007 at 11:56 am
Then again, maybe we’re all fools to be analyzing the political impact of the VT massacre a mere week after it happened. For all we know, maybe Bowling for VTech is being filmed as we speak.
April 23rd, 2007 at 5:23 pm
Perhaps a t-shirt is needed that says, “I am the gun lobby”.
…and then we need to get women, minorities, and gays to wear them for public relations purposes.
April 23rd, 2007 at 11:22 pm
I’ve noticed democrats and libs picking up the 2nd amendment slowly over the past year. I guess the democrat and lib politicians are more in-tune with their constituents because their change has been just as subtle.
I think minds are changing.
I still have nothing specific to attribute it to (though liberal blogs supporting RKBA have made a difference, I’m sure), I think the “So, Bush is Hitler? Why don’t you want guns then?” argument is sinking in. But that’s just speculation.
April 24th, 2007 at 9:01 am
[…] may have spoke too soon. Here’s comes the first wave: US Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY) and US Rep. Carolyn McCarthy […]