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.
At the risk of stating the obvious, a bad person who is thinking of committing a crime with a gun surely isn’t going to care that the government has posted a sign prohibiting guns.
I’ve already cited some examples of this. Today, let’s look at another.
With considerable publicity, New York City decided to make Times Square a gun-free zone. They even spent taxpayer money to post signs.
How did that work out? Did the criminals obey the signage?
According to an Associated Press report from Jake Offenhartz and Michael Sisak, the signs are ineffective.
A 15-year-old accused of shooting a Brazilian tourist in the leg in Times Square Thursday night, then firing at a police officer while fleeing, was arrested just outside of New York City on Friday, police officials said. The teenager was taken into custody at a residential house that police believe may be linked to a family member in Yonkers nearly 24 hours after the shooting that began in a sporting goods store and spilled out onto the bustling streets of Midtown Manhattan. …police identified the suspect as a resident of a migrant shelter in Manhattan… He is also considered a suspect in an armed robbery in the Bronx and a separate shooting in Times Square last month, police said.
To be fair, it’s possible that the suspect does not understands English, so he may have not have been able to read the signs about Times Square being a gun-free zone.
However, does anybody think that he would have been deterred if there were Spanish signs?
P.S. Criminals, like taxpayers, respond to incentives. So if you actually want to reduce crime, increase the chance of getting caught and/or increase the severity of punishment.
And I included a very appropriate poster from Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership to emphasize how gun control often has been a go-to policy for the world’s most despicable tyrants.
What’s now happening in Israel underscores that message.
In a report from the Washington Post, Claire Parker, Jon Gerberg, Judith Sudilovsky, and John Hudson explain that October 7 was a wake-up calls for both lawmakers and citizens.
Since Hamas rampaged through Israeli communities on Oct. 7, the government here has promoted a simple message: Guns save lives. Using rhetoric redolent of gun rights advocates in the United States, hard-right national security minister Itamar Ben Gvir has pushed to loosen strictfirearm licensing requirements and create more civilian “standby teams” to harden communities against a repeat of the deadly surprise attack. …Under an expedited processing system, Ben Gvir’s ministry in the past two months has received more than 256,000 applications to carry private firearms… Jewish Israeli volunteers across Israel and West Bank settlers are arming themselves, training and forming groups to patrol the streets… Private gun ownership was rising before the war. But since Oct. 7, interest has exploded… Before the war, to be considered for a gun license civilians had to live or work in an area deemed to be under heightened security risk, be interviewed in person, submit a health declaration signed by a physician, undergo training and demonstrate they knew how to use a gun safely. The license limited bearers to one gun and 50 bullets. Now residents of more cities have been made eligible. They can be interviewed by telephone. It’s easier to renew licenses that have lapsed. And licensees are permitted 100 bullets.
The article also notes that armed Jews saved many lives on October 7.
The army took hours to respond, leaving men, women and children largely defenseless against the militants. In the aftermath, accounts emerged of volunteer security teams in some kibbutzim fending off Hamas attackers and saving lives. The teams, known in Israel as “kitat konenut,” have long been active in Jewish settlements in the West Bank and in Israeli communities near the Gazan border, where they act as first responders to security threats. For advocates of wider access to gun ownership, the accounts served as vindication of their cause — and helped build support for lowering barriers to firearms access.
In the New York Times, Aaron Boxerman and Talya Minsberg wrote about the expansion of private gun ownership in Israel.
…in the aftermath of Oct. 7, Israelis have submitted at least 256,000 applications for gun licenses, including many who had never before considered owning a weapon. Israel’s current far-right national security minister, Itamar Ben-Gvir, has long pushed for an expansion of gun ownership, and in mid-October, lawmakers signed off on eased gun ownership regulations promulgated by his office. Young adults with assault rifles slung over their shoulders are a common sight in Israel, where hundreds of thousands are soldiers on active duty or reservists with weapons stashed at home. But despite decades of insecurity, private gun ownership never approached the levels seen in the United States, where surveys show about one-third of adults own firearms. …national security minister, Itamar Ben-Gvir, has long pushed for an expansion of gun ownership…told a meeting…“If there had been more guns in the Gaza border area, more emergency response teams, more lives could have been saved.”
This passage is especially relevant.
Maayan Rosenberg-Schatz, said that like so many other Israelis, she no longer believed the Israeli military — which took hours to arrive at some embattled communities on Oct. 7 — would reach them in time in a crisis…said Ms. Rosenberg-Schatz, 42, who applied for a gun license along with her husband. “But in the end, there’s no replacement for having a weapon.”
P.S. Some American Jews also understand this issue. In a column for the Daily Wire, written nearly four years before the October 7 Hamas attack, Josh Hammer wrote about gun ownership among American Jews.
A Jew who is trained, armed, and proficient in the use of firearms is necessarily a Jew who the anti-Semites fear the most — which makes this Jew the very best kind of Jew. This is a Jew who is ready, willing, and able, if need be, to heed the Talmudic principle that one must rise to take the life of someone who is trying to take his/her own life. …This is a Jew who is physically capable and emotionally prepared to take down an active shooter, if need be. …I live in Texas, and it is hardly the least bit unusual for Jews here to pack heat while attending synagogue or attending any other kind of Jewish-themed event. …Why on Earth would Jews, the most systemically persecuted group of humans to have ever lived, delegate responsibility for their own lives to third-party actors?
It’s time to expand our collection of satire about gun control, especially since I’ve only shared one column on this topic in 2023.
We’ll start with this comparison of fantasy and reality.
Our second item is another comparison.
You can see an innocent regular writing pencil and a dangerous and deadly assault pencil.
For our third item, Michael Malice says that he’s already paid for the Taliban to be heavily armed, so the government should let him own the same weapons.
Next, here’s a good reminder that gun bans are not actual gun bans.
As usual, I’ve saved the best for last. No extra commentary needed for this.
Ouch, no pun intended.
I hope you enjoyed these five examples of satire, but never forget that gun control is a very misguided idea (as some honest – and logical – leftists openly admit).
But I’m a libertarian for a different reason. I don’t want government to have a lot of power because I don’t trust politicians and bureaucrats to treat people decently.
This is not just a theoretical concern. I have an entire page dedicated to people victimized by government thuggery.
Today, we’re adding another name to that list.
As documented by Billy Binion of Reason, Charles Foehner may spend the rest of his life in prison even though he did nothing wrong.
A New York City man is facing a mound of criminal charges and a sentence that would amount to life in prison after he shot and killed a man who…was attempting to mug him. …prosecutors have not attempted to indict Foehner, 65, on any homicide-related charge. The counts he’s facing…are related to criminal possession of various weapons, after police searched his apartment and found that only some of his firearms are licensed with the state. In other words, he is staring down decades behind bars for having guns that didn’t have the proper stamp of approval from bureaucrats, despite the government conceding that the practical use of his weapon—in service of protecting his life—was defensible. …Katz, who brought the charges, has described herself as a “progressive prosecutor.” …Foehner had fulfilled the licensing requirements for five of his firearms, meaning the state acknowledged and understood that he was an upstanding citizen. He had just neglected to do the same for the totality of his weapons collection—almost certainly a result of the procedure being time- and cost-intensive.
There are two things about the above excerpt that tell you everything you need to know.
First, the government acknowledges that Foehner was acting in self defense when he was attacked, so there’s no issue of whether he has misused weapons.
Second, Foehner fulfilled the onerous licensing requirements for five guns, so the government repeatedly gave him a stamp of approval as a gun owner.
Given these two uncontested facts, the only conclusion we can draw is that Foehner is being persecuted by a left-leaning prosecutor who has an ideological aversion to gun ownership.
Let’s hope the prosecutor has second thoughts, or that a judge tosses the case. If not, this is another example of why we need jury nullification.
Given his state’s awful fiscal policy, I generally don’t have anything nice to say about Gavin Newsom, California Governor.
And I don’t like his proposal to amend the Constitution to weaken gun rights, which is our topic for today.
But I give him credit for trying to do the wrong (and ineffective) thing in the right way.
Unlike other leftists, who want to enact laws to limit the right to keep and bear arms, Gov. Newsom is proposing a 28th Amendment to achieve those misguided goals.
I suspect his proposal primarily is designed to help his presidential ambitions, but let’s treat it as a serious idea.
Caroline Downey describes Newsom’s new initiative for National Review.
California Governor Gavin Newsom is proposing a 28th amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would enshrine gun restrictions nationwide… The longshot proposal, which Newsom announced on Thursday, would increase the federal minimum age to purchase a firearm from 18 to 21, mandate universal background checks, impose a waiting period for all gun purchases, and prohibit civilians from acquiring so-called assault weapons. …The liberal California governor hopes that the enactment of the 28th amendment will pave the way for more stringent gun regulations nationally, and at the state and local level.
I don’t like this proposed amendment, especially the ban on “assault weapons.”
As discussed more than 10 years ago, these guns function the same as ordinary rifles. The only difference is that they look scary to some people.
Which means Newsom’s proposal will give politicians and bureaucrats the power to dictate the cosmetic appearance of guns. Or it could be an opening to ban just about every gun.
There’s also a practical issue. As explained in the second half of this Reason video, confiscating tens of millions of guns would be very impractical. If not downright destabilizing and dangerous.
P.S. I have three IQ tests (here, here, and here) on gun control for my left-leaning friends.
I’m guessing the one thing they all have in common is a distrust of politicians and government.
Simply stated, we libertarians have noticed that slippery slopes are…well…slippery. When government gets a bit more power, they eventually wind up with a lot more power.
And this is why there is reflexive hostility to proposals for the Federal Reserve to adopt a digital currency.
Some of our friends on the left think such suspicion is absurd, or even downright crazy.
In her Washington Postcolumn, Catherine Rampell accuses Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis of being “looney” and “paranoid” because he recently spoke against the idea.
DeSantis can’t help but pivot from tangible, kitchen-table economic issues to bizarre culture-war concerns. And that’s where we get into looney-tunes territory. In a speech this past weekend in Pennsylvania, DeSantis suggested that the real reason to fear the Fed is that central bankers…”want the Fed to control a digital dollar,” he said. “Guess what’ll happen? They’re going to try to impose an ESG agenda through that. You go and use too much gas, they’re going to stop it. They’re not going to honor the transaction because you’ve already bought more than what they think. You wanna go buy a rifle, they’re going to say no, you have too many, too many of those, you can’t do it.” …DeSantis…appears to be invoking conspiracy theories that the left wants to eliminate physical cash… The Fed would then use that surveillance to control everyone’s lives, specifically to undermine the Second Amendment. …this is all so paranoid and untethered to reality that it’s almost like financial fan fiction.
It appears, however, that Ms. Rampell is the one untethered to reality.
One of the reasons the western world became relatively rich in recent centuries is that “rule of law” evolved to constrain capricious and dictatorial behavior by government officials.
But support for the “rule of law” as a concept does not mean blind approval and/or acquiescence to every bit of legislation that politicians enact.
Simply stated, I want justice. In some cases, that means I want enforcement of laws. In other cases, I want resistance to laws.
Now let’s apply this principle to the issue of gun control in America’s northern neighbor.
Here’s what’s happening in Canada, as reported by Amanda Coletta for the Washington Post.
…in 2020, …Prime Minister Justin Trudeau banned some 1,500 makes and models of “military-grade” assault-style firearms and pledged to buy them back from owners. …as Canada’s Liberal government prepares to launch the first phase of the mandatory buyback, several provinces and territories say they won’t help. The most strident opponents, including the United Conservative Party government in Alberta, are suggesting the Royal Canadian Mounted Police “refuse to participate.” Tyler Shandro, the province’s justice minister, declared the buyback was not “an objective, priority or goal” of the province or its Mounties. Alberta, he said, is “not legally obligated to provide resources for it.” …Saskatchewan, Manitoba and New Brunswick have also balked at using “scarce RCMP resources” for the program. …“Alberta taxpayers pay over $750 dollars per year to fund the RCMP as our provincial police service,” Shandro, the Alberta justice minister, wrote in September to Curtis Zablocki, the head of the Alberta RCMP. “We expect that those dollars not be wasted to pay for a confiscation program that will not increase public safety.”
For what it’s worth, Mr. Shandro is understating the case against gun confiscation.
It’s not just that such proposals “will not increase public safety.” An even bigger concern is that they will reduce public safety because bad people obviously won’t be turning in their guns.
But I’m digressing. Let’s get back to the issue of civil disobedience.
The Post article only mentions one type of disobedience, which is the extent to which provincial and territorial governments will refuse to help enforce Trudeau’s bad law (the same phenomenon exists in the US).
The other type is when individuals refuse to comply, which is something we’ve seen in the United States and in nations such as Australia and New Zealand.
By the way, this is why gun registration is a dangerous step. If politicians and bureaucrats know who has guns, confiscation schemes are easier to enforce.
Though hopefully such efforts can be thwarted if gun owners report that their weapons have been “lost” or “stolen” – which surely would happen if American politicians ever tried gun confiscation in the United States.
Time to add to our collection of humor about gun control.
Back in 2013, I conducted a poll on the most important reason to oppose gun control. The most-common answer was to have the ability to resist government tyranny. Which is the theme of our first item.
The next bit of humor has the same message.
Our third item reminds me of my “IQ test” for criminals.
Next we have a cartoon that combines two hot-button issues.
As is my tradition, I’ve saved the best for last.
And the reason it’s the best is because it is such an accurate depiction of the thinking of our friends on the left.
P.S. Regarding the quiz I mentioned at the start of the column, I think the correct answer is that we should oppose gun control in order to have the ability to protect ourselves in case of societal breakdown.
Of course, that was before the Supreme Court recently ruled against New York’s draconian restrictions on gun owners, so people definitely can make an argument for that being the best gun-related news for 2022.
But allow me to suggest that there is a dark-horse candidate for the year’s feel-good story on the right to keep and bear arms.
Except it’s not a story. Instead, it’s the notion that folks on the left are slowly but surely changing their minds about the right – and desirability – of private gun ownership.
A good example in this column for the New York Times, in which Laura Adkins explains why she wants the right to own a gun for self-protection.
Every month, 70 women on average are shot and killed by an intimate partner. But states like mine make it legally cumbersome to defend yourself with a legally purchased handgun. If my life is ever in danger, I want to be able to protect myself with a gun. And now, thanks to the Supreme Court’s decision in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen, I am one step closer to carrying one. …I…understand why some of my fellow liberals would like to ban guns outright. But guns are already prevalent among those who don’t follow the rules: Despite strong gun laws in my state and city, illegal trafficking abounds. The reality is that in addition to preventing abusers from owning guns, we must empower vulnerable citizens to protect themselves. …New York’s onerous gun licensing requirements deter law-abiding citizens from protecting themselves.
I applaud the New York Times for being willing to publish a differing point of view.
And I certainly hope Ms. Adkins soon will be the proud owner of her M&P Bodyguard.
While recently visiting a state with less restrictive gun laws, I found exactly the gun I would like to buy: a small Smith & Wesson M&P Bodyguard, light enough for me to confidently handle and safely store. It sells for about what a handgun license application in New York City costs. And as soon as I am able to legally buy and carry it without too much hassle, I look forward to sleeping soundly.
At this point, some of you may be wondering whether I’m reading too much into one column.
That’s possible, of course, but allow me to suggest it’s part of a trend. I’ve previously written about other folks on the left who have had epiphanies on gun control and gun ownership.
In 2012, I shared some important observations from Jeffrey Goldberg, a left-leaning writer for The Atlantic. In his column, he basically admitted his side was wrong about gun control.
Then, in 2013, I wrote about a column by Justin Cronin in the New York Times. He self-identified as a liberal, but explained how real-world events have led him to become a supporter of private gun ownership.
In 2015, I shared a column by Jamelle Bouie in Slate, who addressed the left’s fixation on trying to ban so-called assault weapons and explains that such policies are meaningless.
More recently, in 2017, Leah Libresco wrote in the Washington Post that advocates of gun control are driven by emotion rather empirical research and evidence.
Alex Kingsbury in 2019 acknowledged the futility of gun control in a column for the New York Times.
In 2020, Charles Blow of the New York Timeswrote about the value of private gun ownership, particularly for minorities.
Last but not least, Danielle King in 2021 wrote for the Washington Post about her decision to buy a gun for self-protection.
All of these columns were authored by folks on the left side of the ideological spectrum. And all these columns appeared in media outlets that normally cater to folks on the left.
Are most left-leaning people still on the wrong side on this issue? Yes, but I would be very interested to see in-depth polling data on whether there is more acceptance on the left for the right to keep and bear arms today than there was 10 years ago. I think the answer would be yes.
Regarding my comments, it’s no surprise that I have a new reason to dislike Justin Trudeau. He’s a typical, empty-suit, posturing politician.
But the more relevant point from the discussion is that there has been a huge increase in gun ownership in the United States in recent decades. And that increase in gun ownership has coincided with a big drop in violent crime.
You could argue that crime has dropped because more law-abiding people are now armed.
There certainly is a case to be made for that point of view. But as I said in the discussion, I think demographics deserve most of the credit.
I’m certainly not an expert on that topic, but I think we can safely conclude it was a failure since writers for both the New York Times and the Washington Post admit it hasn’t been successful (and the same is true for New Zealand).
Here’s the bottom line: criminals will get guns no matter how much gun control politicians impose on a nation (just like people got booze during prohibition and they get illegal drugs today).
So the only effect of buybacks, bans, and other anti-gun policies is that bad guys will be better-armed than their victims.
I support the the right to keep and bear arms. That said, the horrific school shooting in Texas almost leads me to wish that guns did not exist. Here’s some of what I said as part of a recent episode of The Square Circle.
My main argument during the program is that gun control simply does not work. Such laws might deter law-abiding people from owning guns, but bad people – especially the nutjobs – obviously don’t care about breaking rules.
It is true that nationwide guns bans and gun confiscation might make it harder for these evil people to obtain firearms, but watch this video from Reason (or look at this polling data) if you actually think that’s a practical approach.
Some people argue that it would be better to allow teachers and other school staff to possess weapons.
That would be better than nothing, but who knows if that would have a measurable impact.
Other people say the problem is mental health and/or societal decay.
I’m sure those are factors as well, but pointing out problems is not the same as devising solutions.
Though maybe there is a way we can strengthen “red flag laws” while also guarding against abuse. I’m skeptical, but would like to be proven wrong.
For purposes of today’s column, I want to focus on what appears to be negligent behavior by the cops in Texas. Here are some excerpts from a report by the New York Times.
The grief of families in Uvalde, Texas, was compounded by anger and frustration on Thursday as police leaders struggled to answer questions about the horrific hour it took to halt a gunman who opened fire on students and teachers inside Robb Elementary School. …Parents had massed outside the school on Tuesday as gunfire erupted inside, urging the police who were holding them at bay to go in and stop the carnage. …An armed Uvalde school district officer, who had been nearby, responded…the gunman began firing at the windows and entered the building. The officer did not open fire. …the gunman…went through an unlocked door at 11:40 a.m…and began shooting inside. Police officers, including the school district officer, went into the school minutes later. By the time officers reported that the gunman had been killed around 1 p.m., he had shot dead 19 students and two teachers.
We don’t yet know how quickly this dirtbag killed the kids, but a delay of more than one hour obviously gave him plenty of time.
During that terrifying time — well over an hour — parents of students who were trapped in the school gathered outside the building… Some were physically restrained by the police in a scene that witnesses described as disorder bordering on mayhem. …“Parents were crying and some were fighting verbally with the police and screaming that they wanted their children,” Marcela Cabralez, a pastor, said. Miguel Palacios, a small-business owner, said frantic parents were so upset that at one point they tried to take down the school’s chain-link fence. “The parents were on one side of the fence, the Border Patrol and police were on the other side of the fence, and they were trying to tear it open,” he said. Some of the parents implored the heavily armed police officers at the chaotic scene to storm the school. Others, including those who were off-duty members of law enforcement, went inside themselves to try to find their own children. “There were plenty of men out there armed to the teeth that could have gone in faster,” said Javier Cazares, 43, who arrived at the school on Tuesday as the attack was taking place. He said he could hear gunfire; his daughter, Jacklyn, was inside.
Sadly, the cops in Uvalde either lacked modern training or they disregarded that training.
…questions remained about the decision by the police at the scene to await the arrival of specially trained officers from the Border Patrol to finally storm through the classroom door roughly an hour after officers had first pulled back. …Officers are now trained to disable an active shooter as quickly as possible, before rescuing victims and without waiting for a tactical team or special equipment to arrive.
As I said in the interview, I would not want to charge into a classroom and face hostile gunfire. But if I signed up to be a cop, I would understand that periodic bravery was part of my employment contract.
If I then failed to act, I would live in shame for the rest of my life and would not argue about getting fired and losing my pension.
P.S. When writing on gun-related issues, I always like to share what some honest folks on the left have written.
In 2012, I shared some important observations from Jeffrey Goldberg, a left-leaning writer for The Atlantic. In his column, he basically admitted his side was wrong about gun control.
Then, in 2013, I wrote about a column by Justin Cronin in the New York Times. He self-identified as a liberal, but explained how real-world events have led him to become a supporter of private gun ownership.
In 2015, I shared a column by Jamelle Bouie in Slate, who addressed the left’s fixation on trying to ban so-called assault weapons and explains that such policies are meaningless.
In 2017, Leah Libresco wrote in the Washington Post that advocates of gun control are driven by emotion rather empirical research and evidence.
Last but not least, in 2019, Alex Kingsbury confessed in the New York Times that his long-held dream of gun confiscation was utterly impractical.
This type of analysis also applies to the study of crime.
For instance, do guns encourage crime (by giving bad people access to weapons) or discourage crime (by giving potential victims a means of protection)?
My view is that bad people will get guns, even if they are illegal. As such, the only real-world impact of gun control is that law-abiding people are made more vulnerable.
And that means more crime. In other words, crooks respond to incentives.
Let’s look at some new scholarly evidence. Alessandro Acquisti of Carnegie Mellon University and Catherine Tucker of MIT have produced a new study that investigates whether criminals respond to data regarding the likelihood of armed victims.
The main takeaway is that more guns is correlated with less crime.
This paper explores…a case study of the publication of a gun ownership database in Tennessee. This information was made available due to a FOIA request by the local newspaper and made public online. We evaluate how information about the location and numbers of gun permit holders being made publicly available affected crime… Did the online publication of gun permit holders’ information deter, or increase, certain types of crimes? Or did it simply displace crime from one area to another? We investigate this question using detailed crime and handgun carry permit data for Memphis and nearby areas, from before and after the newspaper’s publication of the permits. We evaluate how incidences of burglaries changed before and after the database was published and publicized, as a function of the number of guns in a zip code. Our analysis suggests a post-publicization relative decrease – both in absolute and in percentage terms – in burglaries in zip codes with higher numbers of gun permits, relative to zip codes with median numbers of permits, and a post-publicization relative increase in zip codes with fewer gun permits: our estimates suggest an 18% relative decrease of burglaries in those zip codes with the largest number of gun permits.
Wonkier readers may be interested in this chart, which maps burglary rates over time in neighborhoods with varying rates of gun ownership.
The authors explain what the numbers imply.
Figure 2 shows mean trends, over time, for burglaries in the period from October 2008 to May 2009. …the figure…suggests an upward trend in crimes across all zip codes in December, spiking around Christmas, followed by a downward trend in January. After the publicity around the database started intensifying in early February (solid vertical line), the downward trend seems to intensify. …From the perspective of our analysis, what matters is whether burglary trends in zip codes with more gun permits differ more from the trends in zip codes with lower numbers of gun permits after the publicization of the database, than they differed before. … zip codes with more gun permits experienced a larger decrease in burglaries relative to zip codes with fewer gun permits. …Relative to zip codes with the middle number of permits, zip codes with the highest concentration of permits experienced roughly 1.9 fewer burglaries per week/per zip code in the 15 weeks following the publicization of the database, and those with the lowest concentration experienced on average 1.4 more burglaries. Given that, on average, there were 9.7 burglaries per week in each of the top zip codes, our results imply a 20% relative decrease of burglaries in those zip codes.
For what it is worth, this issue is sort of like an IQ test.
On the margin, bad people are smart enough to target houses (andlocations) where they perceive there is less likelihood of armed resistance.
But are our friends on the left smart enough to draw the obvious conclusion about public policy? For some of them, the answer is yes. For most of them, the answer is no.
I shared four editions of gun control humor (here, here, here, and here) in 2021, but none so far this year.
Time to rectify that oversight, starting with this amusing video.
Next, we have a message for leftists who think America is a horrible society, yet for inexplicable reasons always want government to have more power and authority.
Our third item deals with America’s withdrawal from Afghanistan, which was the right policy but the wrong implementation.
One consequence is that the Taliban gained control over billions of dollars of sophisticated weaponry.
Needless to say, that made many Americans jealous.
This next item made me laugh.
In part because some people are dumb enough to think it’s easier to get a gun than vote and in part because Martin deserves an award for cleverest comeback.
Here’s my favorite item from today’s collection.
The United States arguably leads the world in gun ownership. That would not be good news for any invaders.
The jab at Oregon was particularly amusing. People who vote higher taxes on themselves obviously are incapable of self-government, much less self-defense.
If anyone knows what is meant by “contractors” and “CMP people,” please let me know if the comments section.
P.S. If you want more gun control humor, click here.
For instance, check out this map of states that no longer require a permit for concealed carry.
The map is taken from a report in the Washington Post by Kim Bellware.
Here are some excerpts from this feel-good story.
On Monday, Ohio became the 23rd state to enact a law eliminating permits as a requirement for concealed carry. The Buckeye State closely followed Alabama, where Gov. Kay Ivey signed a similar law on March 10. The back-to-back wins for gun-rights advocates who want to see fewer restrictions on the Second Amendment signal how partisan divides and relentless activism at the state level are significantly reshaping the landscape around gun possession. …Seventeen of the 23 states that allow permitless carry passed their laws in the past seven years. By contrast, concealed carry wasn’t even legal in every state until 2013, when Illinois lifted its longtime ban decades after most other states. …experts expect more laws easing gun restrictions to pass. Already, bills to allow permitless carry are active in Indiana and Florida.
Proponents of permitless carry make very sensible arguments.
…the grass-roots Buckeye Firearms Association. Executive Director Dean Rieck…argued that licensing laws end up stopping only law-abiding citizens from fully exercising their Second Amendment rights, since lawbreakers won’t submit to restrictions whether they exist or not. …Jake Pelletier, who owns Raven Firearms Training in New Hampshire with his wife, Crystal, offered a comparison…in states that make training a hard-and-fast requirement of concealed carry: “I’ve heard it put that it’s like saying you can exercise your right to free speech as long as you take a communications course.’”
By contrast, the reporter apparently couldn’t find anybody with a compelling argument from the pro-gun control side.
Why do I say that? Because this is the only “evidence” from the left cited in the story.
Researchers have sparred for years over the question of whether easing gun restrictions lessens crime or fuels it. A 2021 analysis by The Washington Post’s Fact Checker found states with looser concealed-carry laws had a higher homicide rate on average during a recent five-year period than the eight states with stricter permit laws.
This type of analysis is nonsensical.
Honest experts don’t simply look at murder rates in two different groups of states. After all, it is quite possible that certain states decided to approve permitless carry because citizens were worried about high murder rates.
Social scientists with integrity would use a different approach.
For instance, they might look at states that made changes (either pro-gun control or pro-gun rights) and then compare murder rates in the years before and after (while also considering whether other factors might play a role).
Though I give the reporter credit. She cited the research, but at least she also acknowledges that it does not prove anything.
…the role looser laws played in higher crime rates — if any — was unclear.
Let’s close by reverting to the main issue for today, which is celebrating the fact that 2nd Amendment freedoms are expanding in the United States.
But I also think that more of our friends on the left are waking up on this issue.
In 2012, I shared some important observations from Jeffrey Goldberg, a left-leaning writer for The Atlantic. In his column, he basically admitted his side was wrong about gun control.
Then, in 2013, I wrote about a column by Justin Cronin in the New York Times. He self-identified as a liberal, but explained how real-world events have led him to become a supporter of private gun ownership.
In 2015, I shared a column by Jamelle Bouie in Slate, who addressed the left’s fixation on trying to ban so-called assault weapons and explains that such policies are meaningless.
More recently, in 2017, Leah Libresco wrote in the Washington Post that advocates of gun control are driven by emotion rather empirical research and evidence.
In 2019, Alex Kingsbury acknowledged the futility of gun control in a column for the New York Times.
Most recently, Danielle King wrote last year for the Washington Post that it makes sense for blacks to become gun owners.
P.S. For those who want to enjoy gun control-themed humor, click here.
When I wrote about race and gun control two years ago, I included five short videos to help show the value of the 2nd Amendment for minorities.
For today’s column on the same topic, we’ll start with this full-length video.
If you don’t have time to watch the video, one of the key messages is that gun control has a racist history, both in principle and in practice.
Gun control was used to make it difficult for freed blacks to own guns after the civil war. And gun control was used to hassle and intimidate blacks during the battle for civil rights last century.
That’s the bad news.
The good news is that civil rights for gun owners have been expanding in the United States.
And the latest issue of the U.K.-based Economist has an article that looks at the growth of gun ownership specifically among minorities.
Annette Evans…is Chinese-American, lives in the suburbs of Philadelphia and identifies herself as socially liberal—not the archetypal conservative, rural white man. Yet she owns over a dozen rifles, pistols and shotguns (“one for every occasion, like purses or shoes”) and teaches self-defence courses to women. …Of the 7.5m Americans who bought firearms for the first time between January 2019 and April 2021—as gun-buying surged nationwide—half were female, a fifth black and a fifth Hispanic, according to a recent study… The share of black adults who joined the gun-owning ranks, 5.3%, was more than twice that of white adults. …Blacks have a long history of owning guns: Harriet Tubman toted them, Martin Luther King kept them at home. …The broadening tent is good for manufacturers and bad for gun-control advocates.
Not everyone is happy about this expansion of civil liberties.
In a column for National Review, David Harsanyi reviews a book that makes a twisted argument about the 2nd Amendment.
Left-wing academic Carol Anderson’s new book, The Second: Race and Guns in a Fatally Unequal America, is all over the news. “The Second Amendment is not about guns — it’s about anti-Blackness, a new book argues,” reads a CNN headline. …This is wishful thinking. The Second is an attempt — much like the 1619 Project — to reimagine history in purely racial terms. The result is tendentious polemic that suffers not only from a paucity of historical evidence, but from a dishonest rendering of the facts we do know. …This is a contention that isn’t backed by a single contemporaneous quote or piece of hard evidence in the book. …Anderson ignores the tradition of militias in English common law — codifying the “ancient and indubitable” right in the 1689 English Bill of Rights — which had nothing to do with chattel slavery. Anderson ignores the fact that nearly every intellectual, political, and military leader of the Founding generation — many of whom had no connection to slavery — stressed the importance of self-defense in entirely different contexts.
Opining for the Boston Globe, Jeff Jacoby explains why gun control is a civil rights issue, notwithstanding the ACLU’s moral blindness.
The American Civil Liberties Union caused some double takes last Sunday with a tweet blaming racism and “anti-Blackness” for the presence of the Second Amendment in the Constitution. It was jarring to see the ACLU, once an indomitable champion of the Bill of Rights, endorse the revisionist view that one of its core components, the right to keep and bear arms, exists for malevolent racial reasons. …the real racism associated with the Second Amendment isn’t in the rights of gun ownership that the Bill of Rights cemented into the Constitution’s text. It is in the long and shameful record of those rights being denied. …In blatant disregard of the Second Amendment’s guarantee, Southern states enacted laws prohibiting Black people, enslaved and free alike, from owning firearms. …After the Civil War, racists continued to use gun control as a tool of white supremacy. …The most notorious of those gun-control posses called itself the Ku Klux Klan. …A favorite formulation of Frederick Douglass was that if Black people were to be really free, “they must have the cartridge box, the jury box, and the ballot box to protect them.”
Amen.
Olivia Rondeau and Hannah Cox (narrator of the above video), in an article for the Foundation for Economic Education, also point out that gun control has a racist history.
The Second Amendment has indeed been selectively upheld throughout our nation’s history, with gun control frequently being used to block black Americans from accessing their right to self-defense. Additionally, enforcement of gun control laws has been discriminatory, and the rhetoric around guns has often framed black people as a threat. …black people were prohibited from owning guns under the “Slave Codes” and “Black Codes.” …in the 1870s, racists in power turned to the use of “facially neutral laws” to continue blocking black people from gun ownership. …They used things like police-issued licenses, permit laws, and business and transaction taxes on guns that disproportionately affected black people, thus successfully disarming them. …By no means was this the end of discriminatory gun control laws or enforcement in our country. To date, black Americans are more likely than any other group to suffer the adverse impacts of gun control laws.
Last but not least, Jacob Sullum adds his two cents, writing for Reason about how gun control is bad news for minorities.
Progressive politicians nowadays overwhelmingly oppose pot prohibition and criticize the war on drugs, in no small part because of its bigoted origins and racially skewed costs. Yet they overwhelmingly favor tighter restrictions on guns, even though such policies have a strikingly similar history and contemporary impact. Drug control and gun control are unjust because they criminalize conduct that violates no one’s rights, which erodes civil liberties, contributes to mass incarceration, and unfairly imposes lifelong restrictions on millions of Americans. …Both types of policies have long targeted racial and ethnic minorities, at first explicitly and later in practice. …”The historical record provides compelling evidence that racism underlies gun control laws—and not in any subtle way,” historian Clayton Cramer noted in a 1995 Kansas Journal of Law and Public Policy article. “Throughout much of American history, gun control was openly stated as a method for keeping blacks and Hispanics ‘in their place,’ and to quiet the racial fears of whites.”
Since the War on Drugs is wasteful and inane, I obviously have no problem with Sullum’s analogy.
P.S. If you like feel-good stories about racial harmony (and assuming you’re not Michael Bloomberg), click here.
P.P.S. As illustrated by columns from Charles Blow and Danielle King, a growing number of African-Americans are embracing gun ownership.
That being said, intervention from Washington is the not the main cause of America’s education problems. The real problem is that we have an inefficient monopoly system that is – for all intents and purposes – run for the benefit of teachers and bureaucrats.
But then I read something that almost makes me think that politicians want the system to be a failure.
Here’s a story from Yahoo! News that I first assumed was from the Babylon Bee. But it’s not satire, it really happened.
Oregon Gov. Kate Brown privately signed a bill last month ending the requirement for high school students to prove proficiency in reading, writing, and arithmetic before graduation. Brown, a Democrat, did not hold a public signing or issue a press release regarding the passing of Senate Bill 744…, an unusually quiet approach to enacting legislation, according to the Oregonian. …The bill, which suspends the proficiency requirements for students for three years, has attracted controversy for at least temporarily suspending academic standards… Backers argued…the new standards for graduation would aid Oregon’s “Black, Latino, Latinx, Indigenous, Asian, Pacific Islander, Tribal, and students of color.” …Republicans criticized the proposal for lowering academic standards. “I worry that by adopting this bill, we’re giving up on our kids,” House Republican Leader Christine Drazan said.
I don’t know which part of the story is more reprehensible. Should we be more outraged that state politicians wants to eliminate standards, or should we be more outraged that supporters are implicitly (at the very least) racist in thinking that minority students can’t perform?
This is equivalent to breaking your bathroom scale because you don’t like your weight.
Ethan Chaplin, a Glen Meadow Middle School student, told News 12 last week that while he was twirling a pencil with a pen cap on in math class, a student who bullied him earlier in the day yelled “He’s making gun motions, send him to juvie.” He was suspended for two days and then underwent five hours of a physical and mental exam at Riverview Medical Center’s crisis unit, his father told NJ.com.
We have another crazy example of political correctness run amok, as reported by the New York Post (h/t: Daily Caller).
Meet 8-year-old Asher Palmer, who was tossed out of his special-needs Manhattan school for threatening other kids with a toy “gun’’ — which he made out of rolled-up paper. …[His mom] was incensed that Principal Micaela Bracamonte told other staffers in an email that Asher “had a model for physically aggressive behavior in his immediate family.’’ Spadone thinks Bracamonte was referring to her husband because he served in the military during the Kuwait war. If that was the reason for the comment, she said, “I find it offensive and inappropriate.’’ As far as the toy gun is concerned, she said Asher, a first-year student, made it out of a piece of paper after discussing military weapons with his dad.
I’ve previously shared many stories of anti-gun political correctness in government schools (see here, here, here, here, here, and here). Makes me wonder whether that kind of nonsense is even more counterproductive to kids that some of the excesses of critical race theory.
He’s certainly not a full-blown supporter of the Second Amendment.
And I don’t think he realizes that many of the first gun control laws had racist motivations.
But I’m not going to nit pick. I welcome converts, even half-hearted ones.
Which is why today’s column will cheer another newcomer to the cause.
In a column for the Washington Post, Danielle King describes her decision to become a gun owner.
I never thought I’d own a gun. But there I was, in Hazard, Ky., in the middle of a pandemic on a Saturday, buying a .38 snub-nosed revolver. I’m not your stereotypical gun owner…as a Black woman, I am a statistical rarity… But I had come to believe that I had two choices: take steps to protect myself, or become a victim. I decided I needed to be armed. …it wasn’t until one night last April at my Kentucky home that I decided to become a gun owner myself. The brightness of the living room light startled me from my sleep. …The rustling sounds confirmed that we had an intruder. …The invader eventually made his way to the bedroom door. …The intruder slammed against the door like a battering ram in an attempt to take it down. He nearly succeeded, shattering the frame, but my husband held the rest of the door shut while I hid on the balcony and called the police.It took officers more than 45 minutes to arrive… I realized we needed protection. …Three days after the break-in, with my husband’s encouragement, I went to the gun store and purchased my revolver and some hollow-point bullets.
Ms. King notes that many other blacks are joining her and becoming gun owners.
The National Shooting Sports Foundation reported a 58 percent surge in gun purchases by Black men and women in the first six months of 2020 compared with the same period in 2019, citing a survey of gun retailers. Of all purchasers, 5.4 percent were Black women. I strongly support private gun ownership and the Second Amendment… To be honest, I am still afraid of having guns in my home — and even of having one in my possession. But we are products of a violent nation, and ultimately, I don’t feel like the police can or want to protect me. …My first practice shot was a couple of feet from my backyard, bordering the woods. My husband created a target for me to practice on. …Terrified, my hands trembling, drenched in sweat, I anxiously grasped the revolver’s handle while searching for the trigger. Then, lining up the target while calming my breath, I pressed the trigger to hear a POP. Now, I thought, we are protected.
By the way, I hope what she wrote about the police isn’t true. I’d like to think they want to protect her and her family.
But Ms. King is definitely correct to fear that the police may not have the ability to protect her. Just consider the fact that it took 45 minutes for cops to arrive when her family was threatened by an intruder.
If you read Ms. King’s full column, it’s clear that she hasn’t embraced the full libertarian view on gun ownership. But just as was the case with Charles Blow, I welcome her shift in the correct direction.
P.S. Here are the other columns celebrating folks on the left who have had epiphanies on gun rights.
In 2012, I shared some important observations from Jeffrey Goldberg, a left-leaning writer for The Atlantic. In his column, he basically admitted his side was wrong about gun control.
Then, in 2013, I wrote about a column by Justin Cronin in the New York Times. He self-identified as a liberal, but explained how real-world events have led him to become a supporter of private gun ownership.
In 2015, I shared a column by Jamelle Bouie in Slate, who addressed the left’s fixation on trying to ban so-called assault weapons and explains that such policies are meaningless.
More recently, in 2017, Leah Libresco wrote in the Washington Post that advocates of gun control are driven by emotion rather empirical research and evidence.
Last but not least, Alex Kingsbury in 2019 acknowledged the futility of gun control in a column for the New York Times.
Our third item also pokes fun at the logic (or lack thereof) of our leftist friends.
Next, the clever folks at Babylon Beeexplain various home-defense strategies for a gun-free world.
Guns are on their way out. And thank goodness! We can’t wait to return to the utopian paradise we lost when guns were invented… Still, once in a great while, you might need to defend yourself against a ne’er-do-well. When those ruffians come kicking your door down, you need to be ready. Here are seven great ways to defend your home against an armed burglar when your guns have all been confiscated.
Here are a few of those options.
Option #3 surely is the best, just as demonstrated in this video.
Yet never forget that there are people who think gun-free zones are a real answer.
Back in 2012, I shared a video clip of Ice-T defending the 2nd Amendment, but that video is now dead, so I’m glad to see that Prager University has added his comments as a prologue to this defense of gun rights by Prof. Eugene Volokh.
Ice-T and Prof. Volokh make for a good combination, one dispensing common sense and the other sharing academic analysis.
In the case of Prof. Volokh, he walks through the language of the Constitution and succinctly explains why the 2nd Amendment clearly was designed to protect the individual right to keep and bear arms.
And that’s the view that consistent with the liberty-focused attitude of the Founding Fathers, who correctly saw government as a potential source of tyranny.
But there’s another part of the video that also deserves attention. Shortly before the 4:00 mark of the video, Volokh explains that the Founders gave people – through their legislators – the option of amending the Constitution (the great Thomas Sowell has made the same point).
P.S. A British writer argued that defending gun rights was akin to defending slavery. In reality, the 2nd Amendment has been especially valuable for blacks.
Time to add to our collection of satire about the foolishness of gun control.
We’ll start with a comparison of the logic of those who believe in the 2nd Amendment and those who believe only the government should have guns.
The obstacle course isn’t as elaborate as my regulation obstacle course, but maybe that’s because the anti-gun crowd doesn’t have the fortitude of business owners.
For the next item in today’s collection, this headline from the Babylon Bee basically needs to commentary, but I’ll add that the War on Poverty also has been a costly failure.
Feel free to draw the obvious conclusion about government competency (or lack thereof).
This next item doesn’t just apply to Democratic gun control “logic,” but also to the cognitive shortcomings of any Republican or independent who thinks disarming law-abiding people is the right solution to criminal behavior.
This following meme is a clever twist on an old theme.
And I like this next bit of satire because the bottom frame captures the mindset of naive leftists who think passing a law will magically achieve a certain result.
Last but not least, here’s my favorite because it cleverly shows the real consequences of gun control. The people who obey such laws are never threats to society. Meanwhile, anti-gun laws are almost no barrier to bad people.
And remember that life is much better for criminals when there are fewer guns in the hands of law-abiding people.
For what it’s worth, I buy t-shirts that already have the right message.
Here’s a hotel employee giving a much-needed wake-up call.
Our next item features a sensible observation from Elizabeth Warren, followed by an equally sensible observation from Dan Gannon.
Next, we have an example of the “slippery slope” in action.
By the way, the above image is real. The United Kingdom has some of the world’s silliest anti-gun policies, which were the gateway drug for absurd anti-knife laws (and even – I’m not joking – anti-teaspoon laws).
I’ve saved the best for last, as usual.
Here’s “Fauxcahontas” getting a clever response from Meme Cat.
I’m (unfortunately) not a rich person, but that doesn’t stop me from opposing punitive taxes on successful entrepreneurs, investors, and small business owners.
Likewise, I’m not a gun aficionado, but that doesn’t stop me from opposing efforts to restrict the rights of law-abiding people to own and bear arms.
In part, my views on guns are driven by cost-benefit analysis. Simply stated, the evidence is fairly clear that there is less crime when bad people have to worry that potential victims have the ability to defend themselves.
Interestingly, it seems that more folks on the left are coming to their senses on the issue of gun control, generally for practical reasons rather than philosophical reasons.
In 2012, I shared some important observations from Jeffrey Goldberg, a left-leaning writer for The Atlantic. In his column, he basically admitted his side was wrong about gun control.
Then, in 2013, I wrote about a column by Justin Cronin in the New York Times. He self-identified as a liberal, but explained how real-world events have led him to become a supporter of private gun ownership.
In 2015, I shared a column by Jamelle Bouie in Slate, who addressed the left’s fixation on trying to ban so-called assault weapons and explains that such policies are meaningless.
More recently, in 2017, Leah Libresco wrote in the Washington Post that advocates of gun control are driven by emotion rather empirical research and evidence.
Last but not least, Alex Kingsbury in 2019 acknowledged the futility of gun control in a column for the New York Times.
Today, we’re going to add to the collection.
Charles Blow of the New York Times recently wrote about how he has become more understanding of why fellow blacks want to own guns.
Growing up in rural northern Louisiana, everyone I knew, at least every household, seemed to have guns. …Gun ownership was the norm in those parts, including in the Black community. It was not associated with danger but with safety. …Indeed, one could argue that the right to bear arms in this country has never been so brazenly and openly abridged as it has against Black people. Many state codes prohibited Black gun ownership before the Civil War and allowed for the disarmament of Black people after. …When I moved north, first to Detroit and then to New York, I moved into a mental space of more stringent gun control. …city dwellers simply didn’t have the same need for weapons as the people in the rural community where I was raised… I, like many, were convinced that fewer guns in the Black community would make it safer. But, for many Black people, that sentiment has turned. …gun sales to Black people are surging. …I, as much as anyone, would like to live in a society in which all citizens felt safe without the need of personal firearms. America could have created such a society. However, it chose not to. …many Black people feel the need to defend themselves from their own country.
To be sure, Mr. Blow can’t be considered a full convert to the 2nd Amendment. That being said, I think it’s nonetheless remarkable that even a committed, hard-core leftist has (partially) seen the light.
Though I can’t resist quibbling with one point in his column. He wrote, “America could have created” a society where gun control would be desirable because no guns would be needed, but “it chose not to.”
I would replace “it chose not to” with “our government is not sufficiently competent.”
Heck, I would probably add “or trustworthy” as well. Given the unsavory history of gun control, Mr. Blow should be among the first to appreciate that argument.
P.S. In 2018, I shared the story of Ryan Moore, another leftist who changed his mind on gun control. But since he also evolved away from being a leftist, I don’t include him
Today, in honor of Bill of Rights Day, let’s change the focus and celebrate the ratification of the 2nd Amendment. It was on this day, back in 1791, that the right to keep and bear arms was added to the Constitution.
To celebrate that freedom, here are some wise observations by some of America’s Founders. We’ll start with Thomas Jefferson.
Next is Samuel Adams.
Here’s what George Mason had to say.
Thomas Paine had the right perspective.
And we’ll finish up by sharing some wisdom from James Madison.
P.S. I feel quite confident that all of these quotes are genuine (not an easy task when perusing the Internet).
P.P.S. Maybe I’m being a Pollyanna, but it does seem that more folks on the left are coming to their senses on the issue of gun control.
In 2012, I shared some important observations from Jeffrey Goldberg, a left-leaning writer for The Atlantic. In his column, he basically admitted his side was wrong about gun control.
Then, in 2013, I wrote about a column by Justin Cronin in the New York Times. He self-identified as a liberal, but explained how real-world events have led him to become a supporter of private gun ownership.
In 2015, I shared a column by Jamelle Bouie in Slate, who addressed the left’s fixation on trying to ban so-called assault weapons and explains that such policies are meaningless.
More recently, in 2017, Leah Libresco wrote in the Washington Post that advocates of gun control are driven by emotion rather empirical research and evidence.
Last but not least, Alex Kingsbury in 2019 acknowledged the futility of gun control in a column for the New York Times.
I fully expect the Biden White House to be much worse on those issues. And I’m sure Biden will also try to move policy in the wrong direction on other issues as well, including a push for gun control (an issue where Biden is both wrong and clownish).
Before having to wrestle with those serious topics, though, let’s enjoy another edition of satire about gun control. We’ll start with this item that definitely elicited a chuckle from me.
If you want some serious discussion of armed teachers, click here and here.
But I want to stick with humor, so let’s go to this item about the difference between conservatives and libertarians.
Reminds me of the difference between liberals, conservatives, and Texans.
This following item compares Maine and Chicago.
Very reminiscent of “research” on the difference between Houston and Chicago.
Here’s some diversity that everyone can support.
Next we have a reminder that the 2nd Amendment is not about hunting.
As usual, I’ve saved the best for last.
This final image is amusing, particularly as I imagine my left-leaning friends spluttering as they try to argue with its logic.
Back in 2014, I wrote about “The Unsavory History of Gun Control” to document how many of the first gun control laws in the United States were used as a tool to oppress blacks.
Today, let’s take a closer look at this issue.
And since we have a lot of material, we’ll follow a chronological outline, first addressing some of the history of the 2nd Amendment, followed by some historical data on gun control, and closing with a look at growing support for gun rights in the African-American community.
Regarding the 2nd Amendment, I’ve written a couple of columns about the Constitution’s right to keep and bear arms.
But not everyone views that part of the Bill of Rights favorably.
Indeed, some people actually view gun rights as being a legacy of racism. Here’s a tweet from Nikole Hannah-Jones of the New York Times.
This is historically inaccurate.
Writing for National Review, David Harsanyi debunks the notion that the 2nd Amendment was created to help slaveowners.
There’s no historical evidence to suggest that the Second Amendment was “created to ensure Southern slaveowners the right to maintain & arm slave patrols to put down insurrections amongst the enslaved,” even if southerners subsequently used guns for their nefarious purposes. …The right to self-defense, in fact, is incompatible with the idea of slavery — it runs counter to the arguments made by the Founders, even if some of them were hypocrites… The animating ideas of the Second Amendment — both as personal and communal protection — are predicated on natural rights and English common law. And while nearly every intellectual, political, and military leader of the Founding generation stressed the importance of the right to bear arms as a means of preserving liberty, some of its most vociferous champions were against slavery. …The first American effort to codify and guarantee the right to bear arms was made in Pennsylvania, under a conference run by Benjamin Franklin, also president of the colony’s anti–slavery society. The second colony to do so was Vermont, where there were few slaves and no fear of a revolt. …What’s most ironic about Jones, who names herself after 19th-century civil-rights leader Ida B. Wells, is that the historic figure was a champion of the Second Amendment. She maintained…“that a Winchester rifle should have a place of honor in every black home, and it should be used for that protection which the law refuses to give.”
And David Kopel of the Independence Institute explains that gun control historically has been a tool used by racists.
If the Times’ project is historically accurate, then it will explain that America’s unique arms culture predates slavery, and historically developed in opposition to slavery. By contrast, American gun control had a close connection with slavery and the maintenance of a racial caste system. …Unlike American gun culture, gun control in America did grow out of slavery. …South of the Mason-Dixon line, various laws were enacted against unauthorized arms possession by slaves, and sometimes against free blacks as well. In the South, slave patrols searched slave quarters to look for unauthorized arms. …some people believe a bogus theory that the Second Amendment was created for the sole purpose of suppressing slave insurrections. But this can’t explain the ardent support for arms rights in Massachusetts, where slavery had already been abolished by 1791, or in Pennsylvania, where slavery was rare and already on its way to extinction. …former slave states quickly enacted laws banning firearms possession by blacks, or allowing such possession only with a government license. The Reconstruction Congress responded vigorously. The Second Freedmen’s Bureau Bill, the Civil Rights Act, and then the Fourteenth Amendment were all enacted with the express purpose of wiping out southern gun control.
Moving to the post-Civil War period, Tho Bishop explains, in an article for the Mises Institute, that the real legacy of racism is with those who want to curtail gun rights.
Prior to the passing of the 14th Amendment, eight states had gun control legislation that criminalized the possession of fire arms by non-white free citizens. Virginia required such individuals to receive government permission. Three additional states had constitutional language that specified that gun rights were reserved exclusively for white men. In order to maintain the horrific institution of slavery, the state had to disarm those most likely to empathize with its victims. While the “peculiar institution” was ended as a result of the Civil War, racially motivated gun control laws were not. While the 14th Amendment prevented states from explicitly mentioning race in legislation, state governments still managed to find ways to disarm black citizens. …these included laws that banned pistols that were not used by former Confederate officers, severe racial discrepancies in the penalty for unlawfully concealed carrying, as well as gun licensing requirements that, in the words of a future Florida Supreme Court Justice, were “passed for the purpose of disarming the negro laborers” and “was never intended to apply to the white population.”
And this becomes even clearer as we advance to the 1950s and 1960s.
Charles Cobb wrote an entire book about gun ownership and the civil rights movement. Here are some excerpts from the Amazon webpage.
Like King, many ostensibly “nonviolent” civil rights activists embraced their constitutional right to self protection—yet this crucial dimension of the Afro-American freedom struggle has been long ignored by history. In This Nonviolent Stuff’ll Get You Killed, civil rights scholar Charles E. Cobb Jr. describes the vital role that armed self-defense played in the survival and liberation of black communities in America during the Southern Freedom Movement of the 1960s. In the Deep South, blacks often safeguarded themselves and their loved ones from white supremacist violence by bearing—and, when necessary, using—firearms. In much the same way, Cobb shows, nonviolent civil rights workers received critical support from black gun owners in the regions where they worked. Whether patrolling their neighborhoods, garrisoning their homes, or firing back at attackers, these courageous men and women and the weapons they carried were crucial to the movement’s success. …Drawing on his firsthand experiences in the civil rights movement and interviews with fellow participants, Cobb provides a controversial examination of the crucial place of firearms in the fight for American freedom.
Writing for Reason, Thaddeus Russell reviews Cobb’s book and explains how armed blacks helped topple the racist laws imposed by Dixiecrats.
I have a dream that one day children in seventh grade will…read about people like C.O. Chinn. …Chinn was a black man in Canton, Mississippi, who in the 1960s owned…a large collection of pistols, rifles, and shotguns with which he threatened local Klansmen and police when they attempted to…intimidate civil rights activists working to desegregate Canton and register black residents to vote. …Although the Congress of Racial Equality (CORE) and the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC) were formally committed to nonviolence, when their volunteers showed up in Canton they happily received protection from Chinn and the militia of armed black men he managed. …According to Charles E. Cobb’s revelatory new history of armed self-defense and the civil rights movement, This Nonviolent Stuff’ll Get You Killed, Canton and the rest of the South could not have been desegregated without people like C.O. Chinn… the original civil rights leadership publicly believed that, as Frederick Douglass put it in 1867, “a man’s rights rest in three boxes: the ballot box, the jury box, and the cartridge box.” …the Ku Klux Klan, whose primary mission was to disarm ex-slaves and thus was one of the first gun-control organizations in the United States. …Williams established an all-black chapter of the National Rifle Association (NRA) and used his NRA connections to procure “better rifles” and automatic weapons for his constituents. …the Monroe City Council banned Klan motorcades and, according to Williams, the KKK “stopped raiding our community.”
Adam Winkler, a law professor at UCLA, wrote for Huffpost about MLK and guns.
Martin Luther King Jr…kept firearms for self-protection. In fact, he even applied for a permit to carry a concealed weapon. …King had armed supporters take turns guarding his home and family. He had good reason to fear that the Klan in Alabama was targeting him for assassination. William Worthy, a journalist who covered the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, reported that once, during a visit to King’s parsonage, he went to sit down on an armchair in the living room and, to his surprise, almost sat on a loaded gun. Glenn Smiley, an adviser to King, described King’s home as “an arsenal.” …One lesson the gun advocates took was from the early King and his more aggressive followers: If the police can’t (or won’t) to protect you, a gun may be your last line of defense.
Makes this tweet from Iowahawk especially noteworthy.
Now let’s shift to modern times and consider how African-Americans are now more appreciative of the 2nd Amendment.
Here are excerpts from a story in the New York Times by Lela Moore.
…more than 100 people who responded when we asked black gun owners to tell us about their interactions with law enforcement, other authorities and the general public. …A quarter of black men and women in a 2017 Pew survey said they own guns. Some of those who wrote us said they have had no issues with authorities or the general public. Others said they have faced fearful store owners and had confrontations with law enforcement over guns they carried legally.
Here’s a sampling of responses from the article.
I moved to Pocatello, Idaho, (a place where guns are very popular) from St. Louis, Mo., about eight years ago. I decided to purchase a firearm so that my 2-year-old son can learn to treat firearms with respect and know that they aren’t a toy. …since purchasing the gun, I’ve experienced a sense of camaraderie with a lot of conservatives who are deep in gun culture. — Andrew Casey, 32, Pocatello, Idaho. Gun owner for two years.
At times, I’ve felt out of place when I’m one of the few people of color at shooting events or gun shows, but I’ve also been heartened to see other Americans of African descent and people of color there. People have been welcoming and willing to share information. …The Second Amendment is for everyone. I am the “good guy with a gun.” I’m just like you. — L. Kenton Dunn, 40, Charlotte, N.C. Gun owner for two years.
I am black and transgender. …I tend to not discuss guns with fellow liberals anymore. They have shown they lack the capacity to discuss the issue with integrity, maturity and nuance. — Naomi Daniels, 33, Houston. Gun owner for two years.
Law-abiding black people are just as motivated to defend themselves, their families and their homes as any other racial group. The right to bear arms has played a vital role in the lives of blacks for generations, and it will continue to do so. — Damon D. Colbert, 42, Alexandria, Va. Gun owner for 18 years.
In a column for the Foundation for Economic Education, Jon Miltimore opines on the growing support for firearms ownership in the black community.
Americans have the right to protect themselves and their property from violence, and some African-Americans are saying it’s past time that people of color embraced their constitutional right to arm themselves against threats. Rapper Michael Render (better known by his stage name “Killer Mike”) recently challenged the black community to reject the stigmatization of legal gun ownership and to find fresh solutions to preventing violence. …Nor is Render alone. Appearing on MSNBC in May following the death of Ahmaud Arbery, an unarmed 25-year-old black man fatally shot in Georgia, Charlamagne tha God said owning a firearm was a reasonable means of self-defense for African Americans. …”I would also tell all my brothers and sisters out there to go buy yourself a legal firearm and learn how to use it so you can protect yourself and your family.” …Render makes a similar observation. “I put this statement out because the police cannot always get to you on time, and the world is not a just place,” he writes.
Some black gun owners recently held a rally in Oklahoma, as reported by KFOR.
Over a hundred people marched with their firearms in a Black gun owners rally to bring awareness to their Second Amendment rights. They started at the Ralph Ellison Library and made their way to the Governor’s Mansion. “It’s time that we let everybody know, especially those that may not be aware, that you can carry your weapons too and that you can protect yourself by any means necessary,” Michael Washington, the organizer, said. …“We’re trying to get Black people to understand the Second Amendment does not only apply to a certain ethnic group, that the Second Amendment applies to everybody.” Omowale said.
In his Boston Globecolumn, Jeff Jacoby celebrated expanding minority firearms ownership.
The gun control crowd isn’t having a good year. Americans have been buying firearms at a phenomenal pace. …First-time buyers have accounted for an estimated 40 percent of gun purchases in 2020,…and of those new gun owners, 40 percent have been women. …Black Americans in particular have been getting a pointed lesson in the value of their Second Amendment right to bear arms, and translating that lesson into action. …The National African American Gun Association, which began in 2015 with a single chapter in Atlanta, now comprises more than 100 chapters with 40,000 members — 10,000 of whom joined within the past five months. …Black gun ownership is as essential today as it was in 1892, when Ida B. Wells wrote that “a Winchester rifle should have a place of honor in every black home, and it should be used for that protection which the law refuses to give.”
In a piece for the New York Times, Tiya Miles rethinks the issue of gun control.
I am an African-American historian and, on the matter of guns and most other political issues, decidedly liberal. …I am anti-gun and support strict gun control laws. But…walking the floors where the Haydens and their compatriots had plotted what turned out to be the roots of a political revolution to overturn slavery, pried ajar a little door in my mind. …“Black abolitionists, especially those involved in the abolitionist underground and Vigilance Committees, tended to arm themselves … fugitive slaves, often resorted to armed self-defense when confronted by slave catchers and law enforcement.” The Underground Railroad activist Harriet Tubman was said to carry a revolver and did not hesitate to point it… In the tumultuous civil rights era of the 1950s and ’60s, black activists and community organizers openly took up arms. And not just those in the more explicitly militant Black Power movement. Martin Luther King Jr., several N.A.A.C.P. officials and other leaders perceived as much more dovish, still carried or stored weapons to defend their households and communities from potential attacks. …Maj Toure, founder of Black Guns Matter…is a former member of the N.R.A., and he told me in a phone interview that…he is critical of the N.R.A. for not doing more for urban Americans, he sees the group as an important civil rights organization. …Philip Smith founded the National African-American Gun Association in Georgia. …Mr. Smith stresses. “We have black Republicans, Democrats, gay, straight.” In what may come as a surprise to some, black women make up 60 percent of the association’s membership.
Kim Trent opines for USA Today about growing support for gun ownership in the black community.
African-American gun advocates argue that guns also preserved our ancestors’ peace when they were menaced by racists in the antebellum South and the divided North. …Kenyatta, co-founder of Detroit’s Black Bottom Gun Club,..believes that gun control measures are often a response to black Americans’ attempts to exercise their Second Amendment rights. He points to Michigan’s adoption of gun ownership restrictions after Ossian Sweet, a black physician who bought a house in a heretofore white Detroit neighborhood in 1925, used a shotgun to protect his family against an angry white mob. …on May 2, 1967, 30 or so fierce-looking members of the Black Panther Party for Self-Defense clad in leather coats entered the California Capitol toting loaded pistols and long guns. The Panthers were protesting proposed legislation they believed was targeting black militants’ right to use guns to protect themselves… They declared loudly that their right to carry the weapons was enshrined in the Second Amendment. …“Gun control has a racist past and present,” says Kenyatta.
Let’s close today’s lengthy column with some very good videos.
Here’s a video about black firearms ownership from the New York Times.
If you like feel-good stories (and assuming you’re not Michael Bloomberg), click here.
P.S. Here’s a family I’d like to have as neighbors.
P.P.S. For what it’s worth, while the intellectual case for gun control is dead, I fully expect Biden (assuming he wins in November) to push gun control next year. The silver lining to that dark cloud is that Americans of all races will engage in widespread civil disobedience.
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…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.
International Liberty 