For many Americans, strict gun control has already arrived
A sign posted in Webster, NY, where a mentally ill man attacked firefighters. Photo from WXXI
If the last couple of weeks are any guide, America’s national culture of the gun is evolving in complicated and nuanced ways in the new era sparked by the deadly mass-shooting in Newtown, Connecticut.
It now appears likely that Congress will pass only the most modest legislation, perhaps making it slightly more difficult for people suffering a mental illness to buy a gun, and perhaps toughening the penalties for illegal gun trafficking.
The NRA and its supporters have rallied the vast majority of Republicans — and a fair number of Democrats — to oppose a more aggressive ban on assault rifles, a more comprehensive registry of firearm owners, or new restrictions on gun show sales.
But at the same time, a growing number of states are moving rapidly to place strict new limits on firearm ownership, led by a sweeping assault rifle ban in New York and by a wave of dozens of gun control bills that are expected to pass in California.
Late last month, a gun control advocate won a special election for a congressional seat in Illinois, where an assault rifle ban is moving through the state legislature.
Meanwhile, the courts — including the conservative-leaning US Supreme Court — have offered a complicated set of legal rulings that allow states to regulate firearms, so long as restrictions and guidelines don’t reach a certain threshhold.
(Exactly where that threshold lies, and which state laws violate the Constitution’s 2nd amendment, will be tested by a wave of additional court cases that will follow as new gun control measures are passed.)
These developments come as studies show that gun ownership continues to decline in America, down from 50 percent of households around 1970s to somewhere between 35 and 43 percent today.
So what does this all add up to?
Clearly, firearms are an important form of cultural and political expression for millions of Americans, many of whom see guns as necessary equipment for protecting themselves and their families.
And it appears that no consensus has formed nationally that would lead to sweeping Federal measures. Even modest baby-step gun control efforts may, in fact, be DOA.
But on a state-by-state and city-by-city level, it appears that gun regulation and even fairly sharp restrictions on gun ownership will be a growing fact of life for a big chunk of the nation.
The states with the toughest gun control measures either now on the books or looking very likely to pass, post-Sandy Hook, are home to about 25% of the nation’s population.
This is a situation that isn’t likely to make anyone happy.
Gun advocates think the state laws are an encroachment on their civil liberties. Gun control groups think it will be much harder to regulate guns effectively on a piecemeal basis.
In the near-to-mid-term, however, we may find ourselves living with yet another deep fault line running between more progressive “blue” states — which tend to be more urban — and more tradition-minded “red” states with larger rural populations.
States like California, Illinois, Massachusetts and New York may see fairly strict gun control become the new normal, and gun ownership continuing to decline.
Meanwhile, states like Florida, Kansas, North Dakota and Texas may continue to evolve toward an even more freewheeling, unfettered approach to guns — even more “military” style firearms — as has been the trend in recent years.
One final wrinkle, however, is the fierce internal division that exists within many of these states.
In urban Chicago and New York City, gun control is hugely popular. In rural downstate Illinois and upstate New York, much less so.
So while the states move in different directions on firearms, experimenting with different rules and different approaches, the fault lines in the gun rights debate remain very close to home.
Tags: gun control
Sorry, I get it. Next time it would be more clear if you wrote “In my opinion” rather than “given the fact”. That was a little confusing.
By the way, Leahy, as a U.S. Senator, has considerably more realistic reason to be concerned about self-protection than does the average citizen– see Gabby Giffords.
So are you saying that in those cases the benefit might outweigh the risk? I still would not carry or use a gun for protection. Maybe in some kind of extremely rare cases. Like if I was visiting that person that was commenting about how they were almost constantly under attack out in the countryside. Oooh, and if there was a zombie invasion. In this case the best weapon according to the Zombie Survival Guide (a must read book) the weapon of choice is the pump shotgun and a machete.
With a background check if you say it is for protection from zombies would you be rejected as mental? You never know?
“…if you wrote “In my opinion” rather than “given the fact”. That was a little confusing.”
OK, I wrote “…given the fact that most gun enthusiasts claim that they need their guns to defend against extremely unlikely threats, and are completely unmoved by figures showing that their weapons are far more likely to kill themselves or their loved ones than to be used successfully in defense…”
That’s quite the admixture of fact and opinion! Let’s see, any argument over the claim that “most gun enthusiasts claim that they need their guns [for defense]”? That’s certainly what we’ve seen in these discussions over and over. I don’t recall anyone saying that they own them primarily as beautiful or historic objects, though I imagine some of that enters in. (I’m leaving aside the hunters here– I’m talking about the real gung ho, ten gun types– “enthusiasts.”)
So the next element is the “against extremely unlikely threats” part. Those threats mentioned in posts here are generally either home invasion or governmental tyrany. Turns out that there are no statistics on home invasion! Looking at the next best thing, violent crime of all types, it appears that between 2 and 4 people per thousand are victims of violent crime per year. One is left to guess how many of those crimes occur in the home– maybe half? That puts it down to between 1 and 2 people per thousand per year. So if you live 500 years or more, you’re bound to get home invaded. Looked at another way, if you’ve known 10 people for the last 50 years, at least one of them should have had a home invasion by now. Hasn’t happened to anyone I know, but maybe they’re all lucky. How about the people you know, Paul. It’s notable that no one has shared a real life blood and guts story of home defense here– a near exception is Rancid, who is apparently always shooting ravenous predators trying to make off with his livestock, kind of a different flavor of home invasion.
So I don’t know, but I stand by the “extremely unlikely threats” idea, but it’s definitely an opinion, and there seem to be no good facts in the vicinity one way or the other. Besides, one man’s “extremely unlikely” is another man’s “yeah, but it could happen!”
Now if the threat you’re worrying over is that the gubmint gonna come an take all your pretty weapons, that is assuredly an opinion, since there’s no statistics to bear it out, period.
As for the “[most gun enthusiasts] are completely unmoved by figures showing that their weapons are far more likely to kill themselves or their loved ones than to be used successfully in defense,” well, I think we’ve seen that repeatedly in these discussions.
Taken all together, I’d have to say that the statement that you objected to was more fact than not, though your view is bound to vary.
“In this case the best weapon according to the Zombie Survival Guide (a must read book) the weapon of choice is the pump shotgun and a machete.”
Now it just so happens I do own a machete! Tell you the truth, though, come a zombie invasion, I’m prepared to go down without a fight. What a wretched existence living through the zombie apocalypse would be– worse than post nuclear invasion. You can have my machete.
“Paul. It’s notable that no one has shared a real life blood and guts story of home defense here– a near exception is Rancid, who is apparently always shooting ravenous predators trying to make off with his livestock, kind of a different flavor of home invasion.”
That is the place I was talking about where I said I would probably pack heat. It sounds brutal out there. To his (or her) defense I don’t think they said they had actually shot anyone. But I could have missed that.
“Taken all together, I’d have to say that the statement that you objected to was more fact than not, though your view is bound to vary.”
Anything is possible. I don’t think I objected to the statement just that it was characterized as a fact and like you have said it it just your opinion. Fair enough. And what you see here is not statistically relevant sample. Squeaky wheels make up the bulk of online comments so I wouldn’t draw any conclusions from us. There was a good cartoon in the New Yorker recently it was a scientist talking with another one he is saying “research shows that rats who comment online are dumber than rats that don’t”! Probably true.
Yeah, but they just seem dumber– they keep forgetting the maze ’cause they’re busy thinking up snarky comments. If you could get them to pay attention to the job at hand for five minutes straight, you’d find some of them are pretty bright.
Walker, you gotta read this book it is hilarious. I saw David Sedaris doing a live reading. When he does these now he often adds this kind of a book review thing, and he picked that one to suggest to the audience. If enough people read this we just might avoid the all out apocalypse but it isn’t going to be pretty.
Walker check out tip number 4:
Top 10 Lessons for Surviving a Zombie Attack
1. Organize before they rise!
2. They feel no fear, why should you?
3. Use your head: cut off theirs.
4. Blades don’t need reloading.
5. Ideal protection = tight clothes, short hair.
6. Get up the staircase, then destroy it.
7. Get out of the car, get onto the bike.
8. Keep moving, keep low, keep quiet, keep alert!
9. No place is safe, only safer.
10. The zombie may be gone, but the threat lives on.
Yes, the lesson is, get your machete now. That way you’ll have a chance when you run out of shells. Make sure you wrap the handle well with tape– it can do a job on your skin of your palm.
(BTW, I didn’t really think this was funny until I imagined Sedaris reading it. I’ll have to look for it.)
Yes, he read it with a perfectly straight face with some Sedaris sarcasm thrown in. To fully appreciate his material you really have to hear him read it. I reccomend his audio books read by him if you can’t get to a show.
Home invasions are not rare. I live in an area of New York where I read about one at least once a week. Sure, some of them are of people who I would guess are drug dealers, but others are citizens, even elderly people, who get beaten and pistol whipped. About a month ago, there was one where the homeowner had a shotgun, and he chased the robbers off. Who knows what they would’ve done to him and his family if he hadn’t had it. There are legitimate self defense reasons to own a gun.
Even so, Marlo, that’s one a week in an area with a population of, what, 50,000? 100,000? more? Do the math. Have you ever known anyone who was a victim? Known someone who knows someone who was a victim?
Besides, fine, I don’t care, ignore the statistics, keep a gun, fine. What about ten guns? How sensible is that?