Tags
anti liberty/gun cracktivists, assault weapons, Background Checks, correlation is not causation, Dr. John R. Lott, FBI, gun control, new gun owners, NSSF, unprecedented gun sales
As I recently noted in You’re On Your Own, 2022, in many places in America, no one can rely on the police for protection. It’s not because—at least in red states—they don’t want to protect people, but because they’re so understaffed, so demoralized, so harassed, prosecuted and threatened, they can’t. Realities of time and distance always apply, even with the best, most fully staffed agencies. By the time police officers can arrive, lives can be, and are, lost. Americans, like never before, are responding to real reality:
Firearm sales in October and September were down roughly 12 percent and 9 percent, respectively, when compared to the same months in 2021—a market normalization experts predicted after the demand the past two years. Pundits, however, didn’t anticipate 2022 would be poised to claim third-place honors in the record books by shattering all pre-pandemic gun-purchase highwater marks.
‘[W]ith two more months to go before year-end, this calendar year’s total unit sales are expected to come in at somewhat less than 18 million units, the highest ever save for the 2020 and 2021 Covid-19 pandemic years,” Jurgen Brauer, chief economist for Small Arms Analytics & Forecasting (SAAF) said. October’s total sales, according to his estimate, came in at roughly 1.3 million. In September the figure was about the same, with August coming in at 1.4 million.
‘August’s figures show there is a clear and steady desire by the American public for lawful firearm ownership,’ Mark Oliva, a spokesperson for the National Shooting Sports Foundation said in early September. ‘Consistently throughout the year, background check figures for firearm sales at retail have put 2022 on pace to be the third strongest year, behind only the outsized years witnessed in 2020 and 2021.’
Keep in mind these figures reflect only background checks made by the FBI. Not every state uses that system, and the number don’t account for private sales and gifts. In addition, each check is of the buyer, not the gun, so a cleared individual may buy more than one gun at time. All of which means the numbers of new gun owners are surely even higher than “official” figures might suggest. So who is buying all those guns?
In its final analysis of FBI background checks, the National Shooting Sports Foundation estimated gun sales at about 21 million, a huge 34% jump over the previous record set in 2016, another year where politics helped to drive sales.
In its final analysis of FBI background checks, the National Shooting Sports Foundation estimated gun sales at about 21 million, a huge 34% jump over the previous record set in 2016, another year where politics helped to drive sales.
Unique to last year was the surge in sales to first-time gun buyers, women, and blacks.
The group’s analysis said, ‘8.4 million people bought a firearm for the first time in 2020. That’s 40% of all purchases. This year’s buyer is increasingly diverse too. Forty percent of 2020’s buyers were women and the biggest increase of any demographic category was among African Americans, who bought guns at a rate of 58% greater than in 2019.’
Of course, all those Americans buying guns, and truck loads of ammunition– let’s not forget that–the self-imagined elite led by the most elite of all—Joe Biden—are apoplectic:
Just a day after President Biden pledged he was going to ‘get rid of assault weapons,’ MSNBC viewers heard guests and hosts obediently blame gun deaths on Republicans for failing to pass legislation banning these weapons.
‘What’s it going to take?’ MSNBC anchor Katy Tur wailed at the top of the 2pm ET hour of MSNBC Reports on Friday. ‘If it’s not going to take children getting shot, or shoppers in a Walmart, even though that was a pistol, other places, other markets, kids getting shot, lawmakers getting shot, I mean what is there — do you have a sense of where the line is, or if that line exists for lawmakers to say, ‘ugh, God, we’re just a little bit tired of this?’’
TIA MITCHELL, Atlanta Journal-Constitution: ‘You know, I do think that the issue of guns, which is kind of one subset of the overall issue of crime, is really important to voters. When we polled voters both formally and informally ahead of the general election, we heard over and over again that crime is of concern from voters in both parties. But we know that interpretation is different. Democrats are more likely to support gun control measures, Republicans are more likely to support legal access to guns which they think can help good guys deter the bad guys. So I think — however, the issue of an assault weapon ban, particularly, is more of a rallying cry for Democrats.’
Indeed it is. Why “assault weapons,” which don’t actually exist? Anti-liberty/gun cracktivists have long tried to trick the public into thinking any gun that looks military is an automatic weapon. “Assault weapons,” are common, semiautomatic firearms that outwardly resemble military assault rifles,–automatic weapons. They believe it will be easiest to whip up public sympathy for banning those, and once any single class of firearms is banned, it will be easier to ban the rest, Second Amendment be damned.
But Biden’s handlers–does anyone still think Joe Biden is actually running the Executive branch?–aren’t stopping there. They’re trying to ban all semiautomatic firearms. That’s a technology more than a century old.
Just how serious is the problem of mass public shootings. Dr. John R. Lott provides the most accurate statistics. From 1998 through May 15 of 2022, there were 88—less than four per year. Rifles of all types were used in a surprisingly small number of those attacks—surprising only if one believes the media:
Unsurprisingly, handguns are by far the most used weapon. The mass attack with the highest body count to date remains the Virginia Tech attack of 2007, where the killer used two common handguns, one a .22LR of only 10 round capacity. And did you know gun owners are racist? Dan Lennington and Will Flanders at The Federalist explain why they aren’t:
White people own guns — and oppose gun-control legislation — because they are racist and fear black people. Two new studies advance this dangerous narrative building among our academic elites. While such rhetoric is perhaps unsurprising among political pundits or celebrities, otherwise serious academics are now ascribing racist motives to gun ownership and opposition to gun control. These studies are not only based on a slew of bigoted assumptions, but also bad science.
The University of Wisconsin recently promoted a new study contending that in U.S. counties where black people were enslaved in 1860, gun ownership is higher today. In fact, gun ownership, they say, is correlated to the number of slaves formerly in each county. To support this more-slaves-means-more-guns theory, the authors construct a historical narrative that whites feared newly freed slaves, bought guns for self-defense, and then this fear somehow trickled down over 160 years.
I trust, gentle readers, you know correlation is not causation. If it were, the fact most people die in bed would mean mattresses are killers. I’m sure you also can point out a variety of reasons the supposed racist “correlation” is nonsense, among them, gun control has historically been practiced by D/S/Cs, the party of slavery and segregation, to keep guns out of the hands of black people. They were indeed afraid of black people, because they didn’t want them taking revenge for slavery, nor did they want them to enjoy the liberties of all Americans, including the right to keep and bear arms.
There are many valid policy and legal arguments opposing all sorts of gun-control proposals. But academics are attempting to short circuit the debate by simply labeling opponents as ‘racist’ and gun owners as harboring ‘white fear.’ Discrediting opponents with ad hominem attacks like ‘racist’ is offensive and wrongheaded on its own. But employing ‘science’ based on discredited theories or faulty assumptions is a dastardly attempt to foment racial divisions.
Final Thoughts: Interesting, isn’t it gentle readers, anti-liberty/gun cractivists will tell any lie to get what they want? Are we to believe all those black Americans buying guns, many for the first time, are racist and fear blacks? Actually, some likely do, because blacks commit crimes far out of proportion to their numbers in the population.
D/S/Cs are aiding and protecting black criminals, who disproportionately prey on blacks, and everyone else. Whatever fear of crime Americans have is rational, real, and caused by D/S/C politicians who let criminals run wild and hamstring the police.
As a result, the number of Americans carrying handguns has skyrocketed:
Twice the number of Americans were carrying handguns daily in 2019 compared to 2015, according to a new study published this month.
Around 6,000 gun owners carried handguns every day in 2019, up from 3,000 in 2015, according to a study from the American Journal of Public Health published on Nov. 16.
The number of respondents to the online survey who said they had carried a gun in the last month also nearly doubled from 9 million to 16 million in 2015.
Facing this stark reality, as well as growing distrust of the federal government, and blue state governments, it’s unsurprising Americans, in unprecedented numbers, are arming themselves. That’s alarming to totalitarians that would rule us. They damned well ought to be alarmed.
Stately McDaniel Manor 
African Americans account for only 1/8 of the US population yet they commit well 1/2 of all homicides (60%) and 2/3s of all gun homicides. This BS argument is obviously an intentional distraction.
All your postulating, pontificating, and posturing regarding the Second Amendment as it was decided by the Court (not the Founders) matters little when compared to the morality of those innocents killed by firearms each year… who were presumably living under the amendment’s protection as part of the greater document meant to do just that. As it turns out, there are so many guns that the tragedy feeds on itself. It’s ok though… this nations pays for the Second.. and it’s legal interpretation of what it’s supposed to really mean… in lives every years. The cost of freedom and the price for keeping America that shinning place on that hill you referenced earlier.
The Founders were vey clear in writing the second amendment. They recognized the natural right to self-defense, and the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms. Individual statements from Mason, Madison, Jefferson, Washington, Hamilton, Lee, Franklin, Henry, made their intent crystal clear.
I might add, also, you are overlooking the number of defensive firearm uses there are annually. You are ignoring that over 20 million AR 15’S are owned, legally. You are ignoring millions and millions of Americans carry legally daily. With no harm to anyone
So, what you are saying is that if your mother gets shot simply going to the local Walmart it’s “too bad, so sad, don’t mess with my Second”? Or is about “if you get shot maybe you should’ve bought a gun to defend yourself”?
Of course it’s a numbers game. But the game is deadly.
And, sorry… the “intent” of the Founders was to unite for independence from oppressive laws, and put their lives on the line for the cause of freedom to self-determine. The Constitution was created after much debate.. at times, heated debate over simple wording. Then it was ratified by the Thirteen Colonies… not without it’s own debate. The Constitution was not decided by a few popular speakers and authors of the day… no matter how “clear” they made their own opinions known. They “contributed” like everyone else. Their post-Independence writings, for as sound and educated as they were, were not alone in creating the final document.
Just to make it yet again clear.. because each and every time the discussion goes to the Second Amendment, some presume I am some anti-gun Liberal. Sorry to disappoint. First off, I am a Reagan Republican, ex-pat, now Indy. I own guns and I am at best simply a recreation target shooter… and at “worst” I have ’em just in case I need to use ’em against another human being. But honestly, if the latter ever occurred I’d likely be the first one to die in the process anyway because I have no illusions whatsoever that owning a gun doesn’t make me some military veteran/all-knowing strategist, king of the hill, macho clown.
That being made clear, I firmly believe in some stronger and federally mandated gun control as it relates to purchase and registration… and CCW, with a minor in doing something about assault weapon ownership (Mike can be as semantic as he wants about gun definitions, but we all know what we are talking about.. let the laws be written to scrutinize the differences). On the other hand, there are so damn many guns in this country they could make the entire enchilada illegal tomorrow and no one would care or be able to enforce anything. In the end it’s all about who controls the ammunition anyway.
To me the Second is written as plain as day by the Founders. But SCOTUS has ruled otherwise. Since I believe in the Constitution I will defend the institutions in it. But it doesn’t have to mean I agree with their decisions. And if enough of us feel the same way, the Constitution even provides a remedy for that as well. The day we need to use a gun against our own government, most of us not die by bullets anyway given the apocalypse to follow.
Dear Doug:
Considering what you’ve written here alone, your arguments are indistinguishable from those of “some [any] anti-gun liberal.”
Oh, and Benjamin Franklin said it best:
“Those that would surrender essential liberty for a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
Wise words (not yours, rather his), but hardly applicable given there’s nothing being surrendered… at least regarding my opinion/arguments. You might try reading for comprehension rather than skimming anticipating the irrelevancy of my retort to your post. (Actually it is irrelevant, like everyone else’s.) I own guns so I am not likely anti-gun… besides the fact I didn’t say anything anti-gun.
Dear Doug:
Regarding reading comprehension, you wrote about mother getting shot, then ridiculed the idea of carrying a gun for self-defense. You ridiculed those who carry for self-defense:”macho clown[s].” You advocated for stronger and federally mandated gun control, specifically “purchases and registration.” You do know any federal gun registry is a violation of specific federal law, and surely, the Constitution? You also advocated for concealed carry restrictions, which, with a few narrow exceptions, is also a violation of the Constitution. You must know “semantics” is not the issue. In law and political discourse, accurate language is essential, which is why D/S/Cs work so hard to subvert it. In trying to ban “assault weapons,” the enemies of liberty know they’re talking about every semiautomatic firearm in existence, as Joe Biden recently affirmed. Actual automatic firearms–assault rifles–are, thanks to D/S/Cs, virtually impossible to own, and have never been a crime issue.
You referred to guns as “damn guns,” and bemoaned their numbers. Then you suggested the issue is really about ammunition control, which is also a tactic of anti-liberty/gun cracktivists, who from time to time, try to ban various types of ammunition, and also engage in semantics when they call .223 ammunition “high-powered,” when it very much is not–once again refer to Biden, who has taken to claiming .223 travels five times faster than any other ammo.
You also suggest SCOTUS has not correctly interpreted the Second Amendment, which, since they have interpreted it for liberty, based on the writings and conventions of the colonial era, can only mean you see it as taking liberty from “the people.” Indeed, the Constitution does provide means of amendment, but until an amendment is ratified, it’s not the law of the land. So far as SCOTUS accurately reflecting the intent of the Founders, have you actually read Bruen?
Can you really not see how all of these things you’ve specifically said–I won’t get into implications–are identical, in many cases word for word, to the arguments of those who would disarm us all? Spend a bit of time with Google if you doubt me.
As to the wisdom of my scribblings, as always, I leave that to readers.
Oh gawd. Label me as you wish.. it’s your forte.
“Regarding reading comprehension, you wrote about mother getting shot, then ridiculed the idea of carrying a gun for self-defense.”
No, actually, I was satirizing the apparent gun proponents disregarding as frivolous collateral damage the gun deaths of innocents by shooters who shouldn’t even have owned their weapons to begin with… and also pointing out the hypocrisy that to stop gun violence requires more people to buy guns in order to carry them for personal defense.
“You ridiculed those who carry for self-defense:”macho clown[s].”
Well, no I did not. I said, “….I have no illusions whatsoever that owning a gun doesn’t make me some military veteran/all-knowing strategist, king of the hill, macho clown.” I was saying for me owning a gun doesn’t transform me into a person of power over others just because I might own one… as it seems to do with many gun proponents.
“You advocated for stronger and federally mandated gun control, specifically “purchases and registration.”
Yes, I did… and do. Do I expect it alone to curb gun killings? Of course not. It would be a tool in the arsenal of gun transfers of ownership, and thus having a trail of responsibility in gun ownership.
“You do know any federal gun registry is a violation of specific federal law, and surely, the Constitution?”
For now it is. You sure do like to impose the “Constitution” to imply some sort of credibility to American ideals of independence. The law was created according to the process set forth in the Constitution. The Constitution itself does not state anywhere, “Congress shall make no laws that constrain my gun ownership or allows anyone to find me.”
“You also advocated for concealed carry restrictions, which, with a few narrow exceptions, is also a violation of the Constitution.”
Yes, I did. (refer to the previous for the law and applying the Constitution to it.)
“You referred to guns as “damn guns,” and bemoaned their numbers.”
Yep, I did. Should I have said “wonderful guns” and celebrated record-breaking gun sales?
“In trying to ban “assault weapons,” the enemies of liberty know they’re talking about every semiautomatic firearm in existence, as Joe Biden recently affirmed.”
Um.. well, I apparently am not as tuned to what the “enemies of liberty” are thinking as well as you. I had no idea that Joe Biden was an “enemy of liberty”. In fact, I had no idea that not liking guns made a person an enemy of liberty. Can Biden pass gun laws all by himself?
Read Bruen? You mean, the idea that the decision was somehow rendered value by assigning “historical traditions”? What traditions? Traditions made by whom? And who struck the balance between Second Amendment rights and firearm restrictions? Who was, as they say, in the room where these “traditions” were decided?
I’m still trying to draw a line between gun control and “enemies of liberty” wanting to “disarm us all”.
The thing is Doug, everyone here can see you’re arguing in bad faith. You espouse leftoid talking points and ignore rebuttals, you overlook facts in favor of what you personally feel/want to be true, and lately you’ve shifted to using passive aggressive insults. When you are politely called out on that, you pretend you’ve provided no insult (despite the comment and insult being clearly visible.) So if you’re arguing in bad faith and insulting those you disagree with, why would anyone bother to engage with you?
You are doing an excellent job of demonstrating the need for a national divorce though. When one side cannot be reasoned with, is diametrically opposed to everything the other wants, and treats the other with contempt it’s time to call it quits.
I appreciate you took the time to reply nicely… but here’s the thing as it relates to MY perception.
I’m not debating the ballistics of .223 bullet characteristics on the human body.
I am not debating all the types of AR15 variants that are in the world, nor types of AK47’s.
I am not debating the semantics involving what is or is not an assault weapon, nor am I even debating the fact that it is not an official gun class. I WILL contend that it is a recognized social classification, broad as it may be… and obviously would not be official legal jargon if laws were made.
I am not even debating all the stats, or their sources or accuracy of what humans die from what weapons… or what racial makeup gun-totting felons tend to be… or the economic status…
I am not debating the stats or accuracy of how many people with guns managed to thwart crime or even defend themselves. (Although I could take moral issue over the need to kill another human to thwart them taking material items, even money; kill or be killed is one thing; dying over trying to keep material items is not necessarily worth a human life… IN OUR CURRENT SOCIETY.)
I am not debating the right to gun ownership.
I am certainly not debating the numbers of humans killed in random mass shootings each year.
I am completely taking note of the moral abomination that our national preoccupation with guns (numbering well more than our population) without controls and/or constraints as to ownership and regulation of types of weapons is ending up in the hands of incompetents and the mentally challenged.
I am completely taking note that the wildly inappropriately written for our times Second Amendment has become a centerpiece of patriot national fodder from which political ideology suggests the need for a civil war to replace representative government rather than compromise.
I am completely taking note that while the Supreme Court has equally wildly misinterpreted the Second, I will always defend it’s decisions because it is the way of our Constitution.
I am completely taking note that the incessant playing of the numbers game to justify guns-at-all-costs is setting a value on human life, hence living under the Constitution with a reasonable amount of faith in that the average American can pursue life, liberty, and happiness… as the true inalienable right.
I am siding on the morality.. or lack thereof… deficiency in how we handle guns in America, and somehow justifying the killing of another, whether to defend one’s self or commit a crime, is collateral damage to keep the Second Amendment (as it’s being currently interpreted) alive and well.
I am siding on the need for a national mental health program, on the scale of NASA if need be, to cover the political, to genome mapping s, to behavioral causes between nature vs. nurture… and I expect the gun industry to help finance it, and the public sector with regulation fees, along with the federal pocketbook.
So.. I’m not debating stats and semantics? You are absolutely correct.
Dear Doug:
And you, at great length, make optimisticallypessimistic’s point. Fundamental, natural, unalienable rights need no justification, though they, circa 2022, do need to be defended against those that would dismantle them. How, by the way, does one “compromise” on unalienable rights? Allow free speech only in newspapers, or perhaps only on alternate days, and then only if special snowflakes aren’t offended? Allow self-defense only every other year, or only for approved, politically correct persons? Abolish the 4th and 5th Amendments for Republicans, but not for D/S/Cs?
Should things devolve to open conflict, it won’t be because Americans wanted to retain their rights, but because some wanted to destroy them.
Well… there ya go with that “open conflict” nonsense… as if someone would be around to re-organize the government at gunpoint in time for Monday Nigh Football. Any “open conflict” of any sort ain’t gonna end that way. I also see a specific separation from “right of personal self-defense” (which I don’t see anywhere written down in the Constitution), and the right to own a gun (which I also don’t see written down in the Constitution). Both those things were declared by the Court… and as such is law of the land.
As for the “unalienable” you constantly assert as if it were brought down from the mountain by Moses, exists only to the point that it doesn’t, because it’s a precept declared by man for man. Authoritarian leaders of past history have declared their own “unalienable” assertions to justify their kind of government. If one wants “unalienable” then one must manage it, in order to defend it, as there’s always outside pressures that can affect social change… like population growth. To me, owning a gun is not an unalienable right, but defending oneself could be… as determined by law. The “right” is not with the weapon, but the right is the impetus to act. Obviously the Court has determined otherwise. You prefer to think that a right of self defense means you have to have the same weapon as the threat… which then brings us to the proliferation of gun ownership in America where all kinds of potential threats also own guns.
Just look at all the Amendments… and look at all the various interpretations and laws enacted in the last 245 years that have attempted to “manage” our freedoms. Freedom of speech as it exists today did not exist in the same way back in 1789. Even the Second is not the same.
Dear Doug:
You really don’t know the definition of “unalienable?” You really don’t understand the difference between totalitarian whim and natural rights?
You don’t see “the right to keep and bear arms” as a right to keep and bear weapons, including guns? That’s not in the Constitution? You present as an informed person, yet claim not to know–or recognize–these fundamental, constitutional issues?
So you think the right to self-defense only embodies “the impetus to act?” And how does that work for a 5′, 90 pound woman facing a 6′ 200 pound rapist? Do you suppose her invocation of “the impetus to act” will be impressive? How does that work for anyone facing multiple armed thugs?
To begin with, as I’ve stated often enough (albeit no one really cares), I read the Second as it’s written…
“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.”
I’m sure you know it in your sleep. “A well regulated militia..” the key phrase here. That doesn’t mean I don’t subscribe to gun ownership for other purposes, but rather I don’t see it given how it’s written, other than for militia purposes in defense of the State. Now, any elementary school kid in history class understands the use of firearms back in the 18th & 19th centuries required firearm use for hunting and home defense. That’s not the debate here. The debate is what the Founders wrote down in the Constitution.
You can make every justification for anyone to own a gun to kill someone threatening them. I am saying.. it’s just not in the Constitution… and that document is a whole different enchilada than the Declaration, or the Federalist Papers. You’re the guy who likes to engage in the semantics of things. Surprising you can’t see this. Madison himself said, following the publishing of the Federalist Papers, that there should be caution in trying to interpret law based on the opinion expressed in that publication as there was some SCOTUS justices of the day trying to do that.
BTW, I’m only as informed as the dumbest person in here.
I’m finding it a bit ironic (or would that be.. moronic?) that the fall of American democracy would be all about gun ownership.
Fact is the “key” to the second is that the RIGHT to bear arms, bear meaning to CARRY is recognized for the PEOPLE! Why would the Founders include this if they meant only the MILITIA? The Founders, unlike you had no time for verbal gymnastics sir! FROM the Founders
To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms.
Richard Henry Lee
No clause in the Constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give to congress a power to disarm the people.
William Rawle
Laws that forbid the carrying of arms . . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes . . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.
Thomas Jefferson
Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself.
George Washington
To disarm the people… was the best and most effectual way to enslave them.
George Mason
Americans have the right and advantage of being armed – unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.
James Madison
The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that… it is their right and duty to be at all times armed.
Thomas Jefferson
The Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms.
Samuel Adams
Arms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property… Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them.
Thomas Paine
The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed.
Alexander Hamilton
Arms in the hands of citizens may be used at individual discretion… in private self-defense.
John Adams
Let me ask you this, sir… and try and be honest with yourself when you answer this. If any one of these gentlemen were alive today would they say the same thing?
Of course. Unlike you they believed in natural rights. And would grasp that these liberties are a blessing from our Creator.
You, sadly do not comprehend such ideals.
I suppose my ideals are more aligned with my moral convictions toward humanity.
Well, I would say your ideals are wrong if you assume your can make bad people not hurt others by taking rights from good people. Our Founders realized this truth. Take care
Dear gatordoug:
What you said.