Debunking the Gun Lobby

Back in the late 1990s, the Harvard School of Public Health undertook an exhaustive study of Americans' attitudes toward guns. Given our reputation as a trigger-hungry nation, the findings were surprising--and worth revisiting in light of the horrific tragedy at Virginia Tech.

"Americans feel less safe rather than more safe as more people in their community begin to carry guns," the paper, published in 2001, stated. "By margins of at least nine to one, Americans do not believe that 'regular' citizens should be allowed to bring their guns into restaurants, college campuses, sports stadiums, bars, hospitals, or government buildings." [Via Down With Tyranny.]

The study shows a striking disconnect between the policies promoted by the NRA (and passed by politicians) and the views of the public. After Columbine, for example, "bills were introduced to bolster background checks, force the inclusion of trigger locks with gun sales, and close legal loopholes that allowed firearms to be bought from gun shows without full background checks," according to the Washington Post. "But the NRA helped scuttle those measures."

As the Harvard study notes, the US has the highest rates of gun ownership in the developed world and the highest rates of gun homicide. Compare that to the much-vilified French. Guns are nearly impossible to procure in France and, according to David Rieff's recent article in the New York Times Magazine "homicide rates are far, far lower than in American cities."

The state of Virginia, by contrast, allows its residents to buy a gun a month, with a background check that take minutes. Maybe it's time to say that laws like these are crazy.

Comments (43)

1. Once the "hoopla" over the tragedy at VT fades...and it will at some point...

   we come back to some harsh political realities, Mr Berman, and one of them is...Democrats get CREAMED (in the districts/states where it matters) when they start going hard on gun control laws.

   If the public was on the side of more and more restrictions...Columbine would have inspired Gore and the Dems to run on that in 2000 and ...they didn't.

   and that's not even raising the EFFICACY of any legislation anybody could propose that would have stopped Cho.

   Posted by Mask at 04/18/2007 @ 11:45am

2. the only people suggesting that there should be more weapons in public, as opposed to less or none, are extremely marginal figures. and frankly, i don't think anyone on campus at virginia tech wants to hear from them ever again.

   Posted by darladoon at 04/18/2007 @ 11:58am

3. Doing away with all the guns will not keep the crazies from killing people.

   I've been reading a lot about this sociopath in DC who has killed thousands of our (mostly) young people with little more than a pen. Not only is he completely unrepentant, but he has publicly stated that he does not intend to stop.

   Posted by drhammer at 04/18/2007 @ 12:08pm

4. BTW, Mr Berman's data may be a bit off-track

   www.cnn.com

   By Bill Schneider CNN Senior Political Analyst

   WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Is the Virginia Tech tragedy likely to put gun control on the political agenda? Don't bet on it. In recent years, gun control has been an issue most politicians prefer to stay away from.

   The last significant gun control measures to make it through Congress were the Brady bill in 1993 and the assault weapons ban in 1994.

   And what happened? Democrats lost control of Congress for 12 years. President Clinton said the gun lobby had a lot to do with his party's defeat. Democrats have been gun-shy ever since.

   Then-Vice President Al Gore rarely talked about gun control during the 2000 presidential campaign. Gore even went so far as to say he wouldn't restrict sportsmen or hunters, "None of my proposals would have any effect on hunters or sportsmen or people who use rifles."

   Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry, the Democrats' 2004 presidential candidate, went hunting during his campaign. He defended 2nd Amendment rights said during a campaign debate, saying, "I will protect the Second Amendment. I always have and I always will."

   Nevertheless, the National Rifle Association ran an ad railing against Kerry and Gore's stance on gun rights. "John Kerry, you are not fooling America's gun owners," the ad stated. "They know you voted against their gun rights for 20 years. So now you're running away from your record, just like Al Gore did."

   This year, former New York City mayor and current Republican presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani, a longtime supporter of gun control, says the matter should be left to the states. Polls show the public supports gun control. Why don't the politicians get with the people?

   Support for gun control dropping Public support for stricter gun laws has been declining since the 1990s, according to the Gallup Poll. In January 2007, the number of people who supported stricter gun laws was at 49 percent, less than a majority for the first time since at least 1990.

   Why such a decline? It seems related to the steady drop in the nation's violent crime rate since 1994. After a shocking incident like the one at Virginia Tech, public anger over gun violence rises. So does support for gun control measures.

   Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-California, issued a statement saying, "I believe this will re-ignite the dormant effort to pass common-sense gun regulations in this nation.''

   But public anger is not usually sustained very long, whereas gun owners remember every gun control vote as a threat to their rights. Gun owners vote the issue. Supporters of gun control typically don't. So politicians believe they will pay a price at the polls if they support new guns laws, even when most voters agree with them. When it comes to public opinion, intensity matters. Not just numbers.

   Posted by Mask at 04/18/2007 @ 12:10pm

5. In the old west people were, at first,allowed to carry guns everywhere they went which resulted in many towns having a higher rate of violent crime than big cities have now.The solution these towns came up with to solve the problem was to ban guns, which worked.Law enforcement statistics prove that one is safer with an alarm system than with a gun and the alarm system won't kill anyone if accidentally or intentionally set off.The reason the gun lobby has to resort to fear based propaganda is because all statistics are against them.

   Posted by i'm nobody at 04/18/2007 @ 12:11pm

6. I won't C&P the whole thing, but this quote and link from "The Hill"--

   "In much of America, gun ownership is part of a way of life," a spokesman for former Sen. John Edwards (D-N.C.) said in a statement. "John Edwards believes that the Second Amendment protects gun ownership and that we must keep guns out of criminals' hands."

   All of the candidates were quick to issue messages of condolence, but none rushed to call for stricter federal gun control laws Monday or yesterday."

   the whole story at The Hill.com [thehill.com]

   And that's EDWARDS...the guy who's trying to out-flank Obama and Clinton on the Left!

   Posted by Mask at 04/18/2007 @ 12:13pm

7. The idea that "most Americans want guns to be illegal" is assuredly wrong, as everyone seems to be pointing out.

   But the "more guns, less crime" idea is just as wrong. Over and over, we find that societies that actively discourage gun ownership are less violent.

   Of course, it may well be that a population less prone to violence is simply more apt to have laws restricting firearms. The causal relationship can always be called into question.

   So I would get away from broad debates as to the effect of the right of citizens to bear arms.

   What I want to know is, what is the law in Virginia, specifically? Where did Cho get his weapons? What kind of background check was done?

   I know it's a bit of a stretch, but it seems to me that at the point where he was brought to attention of the authorities at Virginia Tech for the violence in his creative writing, some sort of note could have been made, and since he was a student at a public, in-state university, the background check might have picked that up.

   Posted by MyParadigm at 04/18/2007 @ 12:55pm

8. Posted by MASK 04/18/2007 @ 11:45am

   You've made this point several times here Mask, but I'm not sure it's supportable. Sure, any politician that raises gun control issues gets immediately jumped on by the NRA (regardless of what's proposed) but that doesn't equate to getting creamed electorally. I just don't see as how the one has actually translated into the other. If you have examples of this, feel free to share, but there's nothing I've seen so far that actually backs this beyond some rather dubious anecdotal evidence.

   I think this is more perception than it is reality. I'll agree that many Democrats believe that this is a "third rail" issue, but I'm not convinced they're right. It's also fair to say that there are many solutions to this problem of how to regulate guns, and this too is a part of the problem. Most Americans at this point don't have a problem with regulation (as this Harvard study makes quite clear) but that doesn't necessarily mean they'll all support the same regulations. There's a real disconnect between what many gun owners might accept and what's usually proposed (a disconnect I've experienced myself, being a gun owner but favoring regulation.) Somewhere in this there is sensible and Constitutional policy, but we haven't seen it get to the public in a way that builds support for specific measures. That's what I see as the real problem, not the political influence of the NRA and the gun industry lobby. They have money and connections, of course, but a sufficiently strong public opinion could overcome that if the public actually could be presented with a viable alternative to the laissez-faire policies we have now at the Federal level and the hodge-podge of regulation by the states. There is no doubt that this is a Federal issue, since it involves a basic right and power laid out in the Second Amendment (following from the militia clauses of the Constitution itself.) Beyond that we have only uncertainty, and nothing will get done until that is cleared up.

   I've long since laid out my ideas on this subject, when it's been debated here. I still hold for unrestricted ownership of types of guns, but very careful licensing and registration of guns and owners with mandatory training provisions (the "well regulated militia" of the Second Amendment) and bars to those convicted of felonies, committed for mental problems, etc. as we have now. Basically, there should be a clear connection between gun and owner and absolute responsibility for that owner over the gun and its use, with severe penalties for failure that causes harm. It's as sensible as we can get without amending the Constitution to eliminate the Second Amendment, and that will never happen (not least because many of those same people that support regulation would never support it.)

   Not that any regulation besides an absolute ban would have stopped Cho. His guns were bought legally and he could have obtained them in any state, not just in one with lax gun laws like Virginia. He didn't even use a loophole (like buying them at a gun show) but went through the background check (and again, he would have passed any conceivable check, since he'd never done anything that might show up on one) and even the wait between purchases. That's no reason to avoid better gun regulation, but we have to realize that events like the VT shootings will be a part of our life (though hopefully an increasingly rare one) until America gets over its love affair with the "macho gunslinger" image of itself. But that, alas, is not something that can be regulated away no matter how much we might want it to be.

   Posted by Stwriley at 04/18/2007 @ 1:18pm

9. ARI BERMAN

   Diagreeing with the NRA's priorities does not mean one disagrees with the premise behind the 2nd Amendment. Nor can any poll coming from Harvard be taken at face value. Your article is an attempt to manipulate the thought process.

   Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 04/18/2007 @ 1:31pm

10. Any Dem who takes this,er, poll, to the campaign trail will be sent home quickly.

    Put the people who use guns in the comittment of a crime into a jail that is horrible(no cable, weights, TV and shitty food with lumpy beds), not plea bargain, no deals, no parole,for LONG periods and you might cut down on the criminals..and stop being PC about it..no matter who you are or where you come from , jail is where you will head..no plea bargain ever..

    As far nuts go like Cho..they will always be with us as will the Aris of the world still try to blame the weapon and not the man...imagine him writing this crap if he was a warrior in a tribe in the old days of sticks and arrows.....

    Posted by john maasch at 04/18/2007 @ 1:55pm

11. Posted by DRHAMMER 04/18/2007 @ 12:08pm

    Yeah, we saw this in 4 other threads from you and the effect is the same...

    Posted by john maasch at 04/18/2007 @ 1:56pm

12. i wonder how many people cho could have killed with a front loading musket?

    because that was the technology we were dealing with when our founding fathers wrote the constitution. bet he would not have gotten beyond one or two...

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 04/18/2007 @ 2:09pm

13. Posted by JOHN MAASCH 04/18/2007 @ 1:56pm

    Thanks for the extra credit, but it was one other thread.

    Did you read each one twice?

    If you did, thanks, I guess.

    (But that kind of thing is bound to damage your reputation.)

    Posted by drhammer at 04/18/2007 @ 2:12pm

14. The constitution says you have the right to keep and bear arms which I do in the summer,but my arms get too cold in the winter so I cover them up despite the fact that I have nice tattoos.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 04/18/2007 @ 2:19pm

15. The point that gets forgotten in moments of hysteria following a gun related tragedy is this: the 2nd amendment is about giving ordinary citizens a means to fight government oppression. The American Revolution was fought against an oppressive English government, but it only stands to reason that there may be a time where we will have to do it again - the 2nd American Revolution.

    Proponents of gun control measures are people that worry more about other individuals than they do about their own government - despite the ample evidence throughout history that governments are far more dangerous than any individual or groups of individuals. It is choosing safety over freedom and the end result - over a long enough period of time - means you will have neither.

    Posted by srjenkins at 04/18/2007 @ 2:35pm

16. Posted by DRHAMMER 04/18/2007 @ 2:12pm

    Yeah, I give extra credit...and the benefit of the doubt.

    ..I read many things more than once and I read all here(except the nuts Reese and Plunger)...I just ignore others as I am ignored...reading something more than once eliminates errors by clarifying or double checking to see if what you read is really what you have just read...as in, I can't believe he wrote this..

    ;)

    I am sure you agree...

    Posted by john maasch at 04/18/2007 @ 2:49pm

17. And despite anything I write, I am sure my reputation is, ah, safe here...

    Posted by john maasch at 04/18/2007 @ 2:50pm

18. HERE IS THE GREAT NEW LIB ICON SPEWING A DISGUSTING SELF SERVING SPEECH:

    But while Obama mourns the slain students, he takes the massacre more as a theme than as a point of discussion.

    "Maybe nothing could have been done to prevent it," he says toward the end.

    So he moves quickly to the abstract: Violence, and the general place of violence in American life.

    "There's also another kind of violence that we're going to have to think about. It's not necessarily the physical violence, but the violence that we perpetrate on each other in other ways," he said, and goes on to catalogue other forms of "violence."

    There's the "verbal violence" of Imus.

    YOU FUCKING LIBZ MAKE ME TOTALLY SICK....YOU ARE ALL DISGRACEFUL SCUM OF THE EARTH....YOU CANT EVEN LET THE VICTIMS GET BURIED BEFORE YOU TRY TO USE THIS TRAGEDY FOR YOUR OWN SELFISH TRAITOROUS POLITICAL GAINS....I HOPE THIS FUCKING BACKFIRES ON YOU ASSHOLES BIG TIME

    FUCK ALL OF YOU TRAITOROUS LIBZ

    Posted by shittylibz at 04/18/2007 @ 2:53pm

19. ARE YOU DETESTABLE LIBZ PROUD OF THIS SHIT????????

    Less than 24 hours after the deadliest shooting spree in U.S. history, liberal Rep. Jim Moran took to the airwaves to launch a political attack against President Bush, congressional Republicans and the National Rifle Association.

    Appearing on the "Jack Diamond Morning Show" on 107.3 FM in Northern Virginia, Moran suggested Republicans were to blame for Monday's tragedy at Virginia Tech, which left 33 dead and injured another 30. The anti-gun congressman said Republican policies made it easy for the shooter to obtain a gun.

    When the show's host tried to suggest that the gunman may have been hellbent on killing regardless of the law, Moran turned the conversation back to the GOP, complaining that the United States needs a national registry to track all firearms purchases and more stringent gun-control laws. Moran then blamed Bush and Republicans in Congress for opposing such measures at the behest of the NRA.

    When I called Moran's press secretary, Austin Durrer, this morning to get an explanation, I was told Durrer wasn't available. If you'd like to call, the office number is (202) 225-4376. I've also put in a request with the "Jack Diamond Morning Show" to get the audio of the conversation. (I was driving when the interview took place.)

    Moran has a history of making politically charged comments that have landed him in hot water. In 2003, he said Jews were responsible for pushing the U.S. to war with Iraq. He later apologized, but not before an uproar in the Jewish community.

    GOD HELP OUR COUNTRY AGAINST THE ENEMY FROM WITHIN.....YOU TRAITOROUS LIBZ

    Posted by shittylibz at 04/18/2007 @ 2:56pm

20. Annie C. clicked violently on the "submit" button and grunted in satisfaction like a vulture with two right wings, temporarily sated by some still-warm left lane roadkill. "Fucking pussy traitors!", she ranted at her amply padded walls. It had been some time since she felt this gratified. It wasn't bad enough that she had been dissed repeatedly by both broadcast and print media. Her latest "Let Me Pinch One Off In Your Inbox For Free" campaign was only slightly less successful than Harriet Miers' bid for the Supreme Court. It felt great to spew at a large crowd again, albeit anonymously.

    "Fuck me!" she yelled, as her knuckle hair got caught in the Caps Lock. It hurt like a sonofabitch, but at least with the Caps Lock stuck, the injured hand was freed up for other forms of patriotic multi-tasking.

    And, like an amputee who still feels the ghost sensations of a recently severed limb, Annie mindlessly scratched the place where her testicles used to be.

    Posted by drhammer at 04/18/2007 @ 2:59pm

21. YOU FUCKING ANTI-AMERICAN TRAITOROUS STALINIST LEFTIST NITWITS ARE SUCH TOUGH GUYS AREN'T YOU....WILLING TO KILL FETUSES BUT NOT THE TERRORISTS....

    ISN'T THAT SPECIAL

    Posted by shittylibz at 04/18/2007 @ 3:00pm

22. Caution should be taken when "facts" surrounding guns come out which support the agenda of the NRA. To this day, even though the Supreme Court has twice ruled that the right to own a gun has nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment, the NRA continues to justify its agenda by way of the 2nd Amendment.

    I find a candidate's stand on gun ownership determining whether he/she gets elected as more than suspicious.

    Posted by felicity at 04/18/2007 @ 3:07pm

23. I understand in Mexico guns or ammo are illegal...I wonder what kind of govt they would have today down there if they had a 2nd ammendment in their whatever they have...a bar napkin apparently...

    Posted by john maasch at 04/18/2007 @ 3:25pm

24. Posted by STWRILEY 04/18/2007 @ 1:18pm

    Not sure I put it down to "our macho gunslinger culture". Cho was deranged and was into killing, not Clint Eastwood. I have no doubt that even if he couldn't have gotten his hands on a legal weapon like a 9mm....like McVeigh, a few pounds of fertilizer and fuel oil would have sufficed.

    I think there's a rather visceral reaction to GUNS that occurs and the "macho gunslinger" idea is more from the people who OPPOSE gun ownership than those who own them, hunt, or even the psychotics who use them on their killing sprees.

    After all, Ed Gein and Jeffrey Daumer were hardly "imitating Billy the Kid" by killing people and eating them.

    Posted by Mask at 04/18/2007 @ 3:57pm

25. Zero, your discussion of conceal/carry law in Washington may be correct, I don't know. But here in Minnesota, businesses that want to ban guns on their premises need a sign on the door stating that fact. My children's theatre, for instance, needs to post a sign to ban guns, for crying out loud! The law applies to any public building, including government buildings, churches, restaurants, sports stadiums, and movie theaters. A sign won't prevent a mentally ill person with a weapon from entering any building, but reasonable gun control laws can prevent that person from obtaining the weapon in the first place.

    So while Ari may be exaggerating in some instances, he is also dead on for a state like Minnesota (unfortunately!).

    Posted by DocRoss at 04/18/2007 @ 4:28pm

26. There is no constitutional right to own guns. While the wording and punctuation of the second amendment is ungrammatical and ambiguous, it definitely says nothing about any right to own a weapon. But really it's beside the point. The problem is not guns; the problem is that Americans kill Americans with guns in far greater proportion than any other nationality on earth kills their own countrymen. It's in our national character. If we are ever to find a solution, we have to start to ask why we are the way we are. It doesn't help of course that millions of Americans are so dumb-as-a-stump that they vote for power-tripping bozos like Cheney and goofy puppets like Bush. I believe that our national bloodthirst is due in great measure to this widespread deep stupidity.

    Posted by bookmanjb at 04/18/2007 @ 4:32pm

27. If only one crazy guy has a gun, we just saw what can happen at VT. What if some of those victims had been trained in the proper use of guns. The outcome may have been different.

    Some times the best defense is a good offense.

    Posted by pdquesnell at 04/18/2007 @ 8:48pm

28. Posted by BOOKMANJB 04/18/2007 @ 4:32pm

    There is no constitutional right to own guns. While the wording and punctuation of the second amendment is ungrammatical and ambiguous, it definitely says nothing about any right to own a weapon.

    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.

    Hardly ambigious - especially considered it is part of a larger Bill of Rights all of which concern protecting the rights of citizens.

    The problem is not guns; the problem is that Americans kill Americans with guns in far greater proportion than any other nationality on earth kills their own countrymen.

    If you want to look at facts, this statement is simply false. If you limited it to Western countries that gather injury related data, then yes, the U.S. would have more gun related deaths than those countries - most of which strongly regulate guns. It would be interesting to compare how knife deaths, poisoning and other alternatives compare.

    If you look at data on the U.S. - even when highlighting violence, motor vehicle traffic beats out homicide with a firearm by a factor of four. It is also a fact that more people killed by unintentional poisoning, unintentional falling and killing themselves with a firearm than kill other people with a firearm.

    Why do you think guns get singled out when more stringent motor vehicle requirements, control of poisonous chemicals or more guard rails to prevent people from falling - all of which have higher rates of deaths - might have a greater impact?

    ftp://ftp.cdc.gov/pub/ncipc/10LC-2003/PDF/10lc-violence.pdf

    Posted by srjenkins at 04/18/2007 @ 9:37pm

29. Posted by PDQUESNELL 04/18/2007 @ 8:48pm

    What if some of those victims had been trained in the proper use of guns. The outcome may have been different.

    Probably more dead people - since it would be more difficult to identify the shooter and the "heros" with weapons would likely either shoot themselves or others.

    Posted by srjenkins at 04/18/2007 @ 9:40pm

30. Posted by SRJENKINS 04/18/2007 @ 9:40pm

    SRJ, look at the posts we've had here since VT. Hard-core "progressives" like FRANKGRITS (for one) who have accepted, even embraced the fact that trying to "ban all guns" is impossible.

    A point that continues to amaze me about the anti-gun Left on this issue...because most of them SEE the failure of the stupid "Drug War" and rightly oppose that. But think that somehow in a country that can't keep pot, cocaine, or HEROIN from entering it (and 99% of everybody knows that heroin is the worst shit there is)...

    that we're going to enforce a workable "weapons Prohibition" whereby the criminal or insane are unable to get them?!?!?

    Posted by Mask at 04/18/2007 @ 10:42pm

31. Ari:

    I registered just to see that you'd made the exact point I wanted to make. Having a CCW permit, I know you are absolutely on target. Good catch.

    Posted by LabDog at 04/19/2007 @ 12:28am

32. You Americans are so weird. You've slain all but a confined few of your wildlife and your natives. Who do you want to shoot with your guns now? Your gun-saturated media wrap the world, accompanied by justifications for violence as 'entertainment', as though humans had no psychology. The same viewpoints that justify aggressive foreign wars, deny climate change and shaft the poor bleat loud and long for the right to shoot each other; for it seems that most gun deaths are perpetrated on family and acquaintances.

    Conservatism is patriarchy - dominance by alpha males through violence - and guns go with it, at family as well as State level.

    If you allow your Arms Industry to continue to dictate policy, you will have to live with the consequences - a television in every room, surveillance in every corridor, every man armed, every man for himself.

    Posted by mikecope at 04/19/2007 @ 03:32am

33. MIKECOPE

    Where 'ya from?

    Posted by drhammer at 04/19/2007 @ 07:19am

34. While being radically against arms, I also believe that this tragedy would not be avoided by controlling arms. A crazy man who becomes mad will always find a gun to kill. So linking this type of tragedy to arms control is a little risky. The US is a violent country, the constitution allows arms because of a clear need centuries ago, if this is still a need today remains to be seen, Americans should discuss this topic putting aside partisan ideologies. In any case the world is watching America, and what they see is too much bang - bang, maybe it is the time to change that negative image. The feeling abroad is that to much ressources are being allocated too violence, and not sufficient to building a knowledge based society. Why?

    Posted by areyouok at 04/19/2007 @ 07:49am

35. Guns, guns, guns - not Movies, Games, Media ? Hollywood and violent game makers incite this behavior free of responsibility. The media enforces it by continually naming the names of the Columbine killers and now the new a-hole. What would destroy all of the killers would be eternal anonymity. Too bad we waste time blaming guns, teachers that "should have" done something etc. etc.. The problem is our society, the lax and unsupervised development of young minds and the corporate dollars that market pure filth. Free speech has a price and we are paying it.

    Posted by spirals at 04/19/2007 @ 10:25am

36. MIKECOPE

    Where 'ya from?

    From Cape Town, South Africa

    Posted by mikecope at 04/19/2007 @ 10:28am

37. Posted by ZERO 04/18/2007 @ 12:13pm

    I think you mis-read Ari here. He does not either state or imply that the public would support banning guns, but does imply that a majority would be in favor of revisiting gun regulation and strengthening it. That is a debatable point, to be sure, but it can be extrapolated from the study he's using. Remember, the Harvard article was citing two surveys, not one. The critical one for the "less safe" conclusion was not the 1999 survey (the one you quote from about carrying guns into specific places) but the 1996 survey that used this question:

    "Some states have recently changed their laws concerning gun carrying. If more people in your community begin to carry guns, will that make you feel more safe, the same, or less safe?"

    A solid majority answered "less safe" to that question. Nor is that the only survey they cite that asks a similar question; they refer to a National Opinion Research Center poll from 1999 that asked this (more specific) question:

    "Do laws allowing any adult to carry a concealed gun in public provided that they pass a criminal background check and gun safety course make you feel more safe or less safe?"

    In this one 56% answered "less safe" and only 36% answered "more safe". The same survey also asked if people felt that carry permit should be issued restrictively (to those who need to carry, like private detectives) or on a "shall issue" basis, and the results were similar, with 60% favoring restrictive issuance.

    This is the point that Ari is making, that a solid majority of Americans do not like the idea that the person next to them in any situation may be carrying a gun, even legally. That is a conclusion that can be drawn from these surveys.

    By the way, I'll also mention that freely issued carry permits are not exactly something that most police like either. It makes their job harder, because they never know (having detected a concealed firearm) whether the person carrying is legal or not. It makes their work more dangerous, because they must try both to treat any gun detected as a potential threat but then not step on the legal right granted to those with permits (and the potential lawsuits if they get it wrong.)

    Posted by Stwriley at 04/19/2007 @ 10:40am

38. From Cape Town, South Africa

    Posted by MIKECOPE 04/19/2007 @ 10:28am

    I'm sorry, did we Americans just get lectured to about our "violent patriarchael culture"....

    by somebody living in South Africa?!?!??!

    Posted by Mask at 04/19/2007 @ 11:02am

39. Posted by MASK 04/19/2007 @ 11:02am...and by that I reference---

    Source: United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, 2000[3]

    Country---Non-firearm homicide rate per 100,000 pop.---Firearm homicide rate per 100,000 pop.---% homicides with firearms---Overall homicide rate per 100,000 pop.

    South Africa---51.3901---74.5748---59.2028---125.9650

    United States---5.5000---3.6000---39.5604---9.1000

    Posted by Mask at 04/19/2007 @ 11:07am

40. Posted by MASK 04/18/2007 @ 10:42pm

    It's an emotional issue. People that I've encountered that want to ban guns simply don't see a use for them and only see them as a danger. I understand the viewpoint, even if I don't agree with it.

    I don't disagree on one point. Guns are dangerous. However, it is precisely the fact that they are dangerous that decentralized ownership of them is useful.

    I personally don't want to argue about whether gun control measures can accomplish their goals. I think it is better to focus on the benefits that come from having weapons ownership decentralized - such as the difficulty it presents to coordinating a military coup overthrowing the U.S. government.

    To most people, the idea that the U.S. government could be overthrown by the military, taken over by a dictatorship or some other set of circumstances that we have seen time and time again in other parts of the world where governments fail is something they have never considered. It seems impossible - which I think is fundamentally why the need for gun ownership is not appreciated by some people in the U.S.

    The people that fought that American Revolution - on the other hand - clearly understood this issue. It is unfortunate that so many of the people that enjoy the benefits of their fight have forgotten it.

    Aside: It is also unfortunate that this has a "progressive" vs. "conservative" framing. I generally agree with "progressive" stances on issues - there is a reason I am a Nation subscriber, but if I talk about gun control, dangers of secularist intolerance (there is a religious left, you know) or other topics that do not fall in lock-step with the official "progressive" line, "progressives" generally respond negatively. In my experience, people calling themselves "progressive" have a difficult time understanding that you can be progressive without having to sign up for every so called "progressive" idea.

    It is time the word "progressive" stand for more than a laundry list of accepted beliefs. I don't want that from my church - and I certainly don't want that from my politics.

    Posted by srjenkins at 04/19/2007 @ 11:17am

41. dangers of secularist intolerance (there is a religious left, you know) or other topics that do not fall in lock-step with the official "progressive" line, "progressives" generally respond negatively. In my experience, people calling themselves "progressive" have a difficult time understanding that you can be progressive without having to sign up for every so called "progressive" idea.

    Posted by SRJENKINS 04/19/2007 @ 11:17am

    Hey...tell me about it! hehe.

    But I'll say, I don't buy the "We must have private gun ownership in case of dictatorship" argument. Sorry, but a couple of Joes with their 9mms and 30.06 hunting rifles aren't going to be able to take out a National Guard detachment armed with M-16 and grenade launchers.

    I simply don't see how (at this point...maybe 60-70 years ago) it would be possible to ENFORCE a total gun ban, that the "progressives" (I'll discuss THAT term later) seem to "hint" at.

    Posted by Mask at 04/19/2007 @ 12:47pm

42. Posted by MASK 04/18/2007 @ 3:57pm

    Care to revise that in view of Cho's multi-media manifesto? There he is, imitating every movie bad-ass ever put on film, even down to the "the blood is on your hands, I had no choice" elements of movie revenge fantasy. Don't get me wrong, I'm not one of those who thinks that we can eliminate violence by eliminating violent movies (or video games, or whatever other form of violent media you care to name.) But there's also an element of glorification of this revenge/badass fantasy (that "macho gunslinger attitude" I referred to) and of violence in general that plays on the minds of disturbed individuals like Cho. That is something that could be changed is we really wanted it to be. But the whole attitude is now embedded in our culture and it will take a long time to get it out. Movies could as easily portray violence realistically, and it would be a lot less glamorous, a lot more like what it is (dirty, nasty, and ugly.) That's not to say such movies wouldn't have fans (you only need to see the success of MMA and ultimate fighting to know that very real violence is still appealing to many people) but there'd be less of the glorification aspect and thus less attraction for disturbed minds. That was the point I was going for with that.

    I'll disagree with you, by the way, on what Cho might have done if a gun wasn't available to him. He certainly would have found some other path to violence, but not of the McVeigh type. Bombers are different in the pathology and McVeigh was a good old-fashioned terrorist. I'd have a hard time classifying him as insane. He knew what he was doing perfectly, it was a political statement (albeit one so far out on the fringe that most of us would think it insane in everyday terms.) For someone like Cho, it has to be a direct method, so that they can see the victims at the moment of action. I'll certainly agree, though (and I said this before) that there's little that we can do to stop these kind of people, we can just try to limit the damage. By the way, it now turns out that Cho had been involuntarily committed in 2005, which should have barred him from getting a gun legally. The problem was that Virginia's instant background check didn't catch it. This is what I mean when I talk about a rigorous system of licensing and training. In that kind of regulatory system, where guns and owners are both accounted for, legal guns are kept as much as is possible under any system out of the hands of people like Cho and illegal guns are much harder to obtain (remember that most illegal guns in the U.S. have their origin in a legal of semi-legal gun sale.)

    Posted by Stwriley at 04/19/2007 @ 2:22pm

43. Posted by MASK 04/19/2007 @ 12:47pm

    But I'll say, I don't buy the "We must have private gun ownership in case of dictatorship" argument. Sorry, but a couple of Joes with their 9mms and 30.06 hunting rifles aren't going to be able to take out a National Guard detachment armed with M-16 and grenade launchers.

    The problem is in your conception. Resistence movements are rarely exercises in conventional warfare. As the old saying goes, time and I can take on any two.

    Based on your argument, we would expect Iraq to be a tranquil, secure area given the respective levels of firepower. Clearly, this is not the case - so you would need to explain why this counter-example is "special".

    If you were to present a reasonable argument, I'd bring in the French Resistance, Chinese communists under Mao, Vietnam - I could go on all day giving examples. All of which illustrate there is something wrong with firepower arguments.

    Posted by srjenkins at 04/19/2007 @ 5:03pm