I periodically highlight folks on the left who are sensible on the issue of gun control, either because they realize it is a bad idea or because they at least recognize that it is an impractical idea.
I’ve also written about leftists who have epiphanies on the issue, which means something has happened that causes them to become much more sympathetic to gun rights
Which is the focus of today’s column.
It seems that some people in California (though not the governor) are waking up on the issue.
Here are some excerpts from an article in the Los Angeles Times by James Queally.
Gun ownership has boomed in the U.S. over the last several years, including in California. Among those first-time gun owners are L.A. liberals, and more and more, those rookie shooters seek out Nguyen, who started teaching basic pistol courses in 2020 under the banner “L.A. Progressive Shooters.” …Nguyen says he’s also trying to dispel the inherent disgust some left-leaning friends have for firearms. …Nguyen did not invent the left-leaning gun group. The Pink Pistols, John Brown Gun Club and the Socialist Rifle Assn. have existed for decades. …Nguyen more occupies the role of the lefty gun instructor next door. …He’s neither surprised nor bothered when a student breaks down in tears the first time they pick up a gun. …Nguyen posted footage of their range visits to Instagram. …Nguyen received…a request for a lesson. The potential student was a musician who had just bought a gun for home defense following the at times violent street protests after the murder of George Floyd in 2020. “He grew up in Venice in the ’90s. Drive-by shootings. He absolutely hates guns. But he’s like: ‘Yo, I’m married now. Even though I don’t like ’em, I don’t wanna be the only one not to have one,’” Nguyen says…….Shrieves said she got serious about learning about firearms in 2020… “I want to know how to protect myself, to protect the community I live in,” she said. “I know [the police] are not out there to protect me or my community.” …Quezada said, adding that she enjoys “shattering the illusion” that all leftists are latte-sipping, gun-fearing academics. …“I’m a short, brown Latina who owns a gun, and I like making it known that there are people like me out there,” she said.
Interestingly, the author of the column is among those who now realize it is a bad idea to be vulnerable
I was among those new gun owners. In 2021 — after watching colleagues hide from the violent mob on Jan. 6 and remembering I have a habit of writing about angry men with access to weapons — I walked into a Burbank gun store to pick up my first handgun. …My foray into gun ownership is part of a larger trend. Last year, a national NBC/Wall Street Journal poll showed 52% of registered voters said someone in their household owned a gun, up from 46% in 2019. The share of Democrats who answered “yes” rose from 33% to 41%.
I’ll close with the observation that statism does not always win.
Whether looking at the issue from a political perspective or a constitutional perspective, gun rights are in a far stronger position today than at any other point in my life.
P.S. Feel free to add your voice to my questionnaire on gun control.
We are different from Europe because we enshrined the right to bear arms in our constitution.
Eugene, forcing people to have insurance to own a gun is a terrible idea. It is just an anti-gun ploy. The right to bear arms is in the constitution, the right to own an automobile is not, that is a big difference. Most fatalities and property damage cause by automobiles is caused by accidents, which is why people are required to own liability insurance. There is very little property damage caused by guns and most of the fatalities are either suicides or caused by people who didn’t buy their guns from a licensed dealer. Forcing insurance for gun owners would do little to nothing to lower gun deaths, it might even increase then as it would make it more expensive to acquire guns, by disarming law abiding citizens thus making them easier targets. A disarmed citizen is a criminal’s favorite target.
From a policy standpoint there is little difference between motor vehicle ownership and ownership of a weapon. Neither instrumentalities are necessities and both are useful and safe in the right hands. In all public policy, it is important to remember that the average I.Q. is 100. Almost two thirds of the population are between 85 and 115 on the intelligence quotient scale. 15.8% of the population is below 85 and the other 15.8% are suitable for college and professional level work.
Mandatory vehicle insurance helped victims, and limited ownership and operation to those who could pass a driving exam. Insurance rates are adjusted based on many safety factors that predict the actual risk of harm.
Mandatory gun insurance would accomplish the same social objectives by pricing the actual risk of harm of particular weapons and ammunition in the hands of particular persons. The insurance companies can use AI to to evaluate people and weapons on a massive scale to fairly predict the risk of harm to victims and the cost to society for lax oversight of weapons. Note that is the insurance companies and not the government that will have personal data and calculate all the risk factors.
Mandatory insurance can be expected to promote safety training, safer weapons and ammunition, ongoing social media and personal history reviews. Reports of unsafe behavior might be met with private investigation and suspension of insurance. Not every government policy demands punitive government enforcement at least when civil and contractual discipline should be tried first.
Those who for moral, physical, or other reasons want no part of weapons, should not have to pay for the enterprise risks of weapons. Society also has an interest in using the insurance system to fairly allocate the costs of the risks.
In the not too distant future, self-driving cars will significantly reduce the risk of accidents and the resulting property damage and personal injury. Insurance rates should go down and the incentive to purchase these safe vehicles should go up. The same general benefits and cost analysis can be expected for weapons. Smart owners with reasonable weapons can be expected to pay next to nothing. Indeed, some people may be considered a benefit to society and an aid to local safety (off duty police, national guard, gun instructors, etc.) that they should get a credit to offset or eliminate any cost of mandatory insurance.
I am a military veteran living in the state of Virginia. As such, and under the Commonwealth code I needed only to present my DD 214 in order to receive my concealed carry permit. I’ve been a second amendment supporter since childhood and I’m almost 70, and I’ve known about the DD-214 for 43 years since completing my time in the Navy. Nonetheless it’s only in the last year that I actually got my concealed carry permit. Now, and due to many societal changes, I carry at all times and everywhere. The questionnaire asks about the main reason, but I suspect like many, I have several. Societal breakdown, and safety of my family are one but I noted that my main reason is to restrict government. I will leave it at that.
I support the right to own a gun, but can anyone tell me why we are so different in this regard from most Western European nations where far fewer people own guns (not counting a country like Switzerland where all men have a rifle, I believe, as part of their role in the militia, but those rifles are not involved in many crimes)? How did we get to where we are and Europe not?
from my perspective, most anti gun proponents have a very loose grasp on reality.