GREAT Bloomberg Article - Attitudes Towards Guns Changing

[30 cal slob]

I can't help but think of the THR community (well, at least before the schism lol) when I read this article. Over the years, the founders and mods on this site have always been consistent about reiterating one fundamental thing - that self defense is a human right. It think that has paid off - we've come a long way.

This is also somewhat ironic, considering the source of the article. Mike Bloomberg, hope you are reading this. lol.

<snip>

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-...stol-shows-american-warm-embrace-of-guns.html

...The surge has been propelled by shifting politics and demographics that have made it easier and more acceptable than at any time in 75 years for Americans to buy and carry pistols. Post-9/11 fears also seem to be a factor, as has been the relentless pro-gun politicking of the National Rifle Association and marketing, particularly to women, by handgun manufacturers. Events like yesterday’s fatal shootings on the Virginia Tech University campus reinforce a feeling that the world is an unsafe place, even as violent U.S. crime rates fall...

<Copyrighted Material Removed>

 

[Ryanxia]

Very neat. It's good to see more women shooting. My mother just went for the first time a few weeks ago (with me) and loved it.

 

[CWL]

I doubt gun attitudes have ever really changed, it has just been reported in a highly skewed manner by liberal antis in the press.

This is the reason elections for public officials have always turned against those who wanted to ban firearms. The Democratic Party no longer maintains an official stance against firearms ownership due to fear of being voted out.

 

[Ryanxia]

Contrary to CWL I think gun attitudes have definitely changed over the past years. Kids used to stick their guns in their lockers at school, they don't now. You used to be able to buy a gun out of a magazine and have it shipped to your door, couldn't do that now without an FFL. I think as more and more gun control laws came into affect that it became harder in many areas to own guns, so much to the point that many people just don't bother and those that do are looked at a little differently. This isn't the case in all areas but in quite a few IMO.

 

[AlexanderA]

The take-away from the article is that being "liberal" doesn't necessarily equate to being anti-gun. I think this has always been true, but now some in the press are realizing it.

 

[2WheelsGood]

Contrary to CWL I think gun attitudes have definitely changed over the past years.

I agree. And I think it's in large part to increasing adoption of 'castle laws' and 'shall issue' mandates. It implicitly tells people that the police aren't going to be there when you need them the most. It also means that you're less likely to be seen as the bad guy if the time ever comes when you need to defend yourself.

 

[raz-0]

I doubt gun attitudes have ever really changed, it has just been reported in a highly skewed manner by liberal antis in the press.

This is the reason elections for public officials have always turned against those who wanted to ban firearms. The Democratic Party no longer maintains an official stance against firearms ownership due to fear of being voted out.

I'd have to disagree with you a bit.

In part, the antis made a big push, and it was polarizing. That killed some fence sitters. On top of that, people are growing very displeased with the government and the quality of help they get form them. Look at someplace like democratic underground over the last decade, and you will see an emergence of lefty types who previously were all for gun control arming themselves because they realize they distrust the people they thought they were on the same side as.

I think a lot of the anti-gun rhetoric and activism I have dealt with growing up was fueled by ideals/opinions with their roots in the anti-war hippie movement of the 60s for the less buttoned down lefty, and from the kennedy assassinations for the more suit wearing lefty. JFK and RFK weren't anything but history book material for me and I'm pushing 40. Heck, the anti-war movement was barely an actual real life thing to me, and that was mostly aftershocks. for 35 and under folk, that stuff isn't even really real, especially in an emotional drive sort of way.

Heck, you arverage gay person probably spends more time thinking about self defense than most people outside of the demographic that visits the strategies and tactics sub-forum. When you worry about how to survive things going bad due to gay bashing, and you aren't an idiot, you come to certain logical conclusions. They often involve arming yourself.

If you were to boil it all down to one unifying principle, I think the status quo is working for less and less people, and faced with the fact that you might be collateral damage to the enforcement of the status quo, more people see arming themselves as trying to keep the deck form being totally stacked against them.

 

[danez71]

The take-away from the article is that being "liberal" doesn't necessarily equate to being anti-gun. I think this has always been true, but now some in the press are realizing it.

I agree and REALLY wish more people on this forum (and others too) would realize that and STOP making fun of liberals.

Seriously, there are a LOT of liberals that I consider to be the swing votes. Pretty much all of the people I know that would decribe themselves as liberal or liberal leaning dont want their liberties taken away. They want less government restrictions on personal issues.

They also tend to be more environmentally conscious and I think thats why they get lumped in with the ultra left that would like to get rid of anything that might kill anything else.

In part, the antis made a big push, and it was polarizing. That killed some fence sitters. On top of that, people are growing very displeased with the government and the quality of help they get form them.

I agree with this as well.
I think the more people that are unhappy with the Govts results in general strengthens the idea that the Govt should stay out of your personal life and NOT RESTRICT your choices, freedoms, and liberties.

 

[hermannr]

I think the attitude of everyone, including the media, will completely change when the mainstream law abiding black person realizes that most of the gun laws today are actually just an extension of the old Jim Crow laws.

Once these law abiding blacks figure out that the black politicians are playing them for patsys, then we are going to see a real change..including in places like Chicago and NYC.

Just because you are poor should not mean you cannot defend yourself, but if you look at the cost of obtaining a legal firearm in NYC, Chicago, and WaDC for example, there is no otehr reason than to keep the poor from having legal access to firearms.

No matter what the politico's do, criminals will always have access to firearms, even if it comes down to only being able to steal them from LEOs or the military.

 

[230RN]

Very interesting article, not only for its excellent content, but for the fact that it came out of the Bloomberg "Vatican." I wonder if the author and editor have been excommunicated yet.

But could this be a trial balloon from the Mayor? Could he be testing the waters in preparation for a moderation of his extremist anti-gun stance?

<Terry, wake up. You're talking in your sleep again.>

Terry, 230RN

 

[parsimonious_instead]

I think a lot of the anti-gun rhetoric and activism I have dealt with growing up was fueled by ideals/opinions with their roots in the anti-war hippie movement of the 60s for the less buttoned down lefty, and from the kennedy assassinations for the more suit wearing lefty. JFK and RFK weren't anything but history book material for me and I'm pushing 40.

Anyone ever doubts the ability of a single individual to create sea change, but for the worse need look no further than these and other shootings.
Crime stats *generally* haven't driven the major gun control legislation of the last 50 years, but the acts of various nutcases have.

 

[22-rimfire]

It was a pretty well written article. It presents both sides to the discussion on firearms and women primarily. I will book mark it for future reference.

If you have ever spent time in the projects areas or any traditionally high crime area of many cities, you learn why you need a firearm regardless of being a man or woman. Your gun is your best defense. You don't have to be 6'4" and be an expert in self defense. It is all about feeling empowered and feeling responsible for your own safety because we all know that the police will seldom arrive while an incident is in progress unless it is just coincidence.

Maybe they need to market small transponders to call the police such as being used used by older folks for medical emergencies. "I fell and I can't get up." That is a brand new marketing opportunity. Like a neck knife, you wear it all the time. There is money to be made there.

 

[AirForceShooter]

I keep wondering if Mike Bloomberg saw this?
Did he fire the writer?
did he fire the editor for not killing it?

AFS

 

[JRH6856]

Security is a state of mind. Safety is a matter of fact. I think that post 9/11, more people are realizing that they are not as safe as they thought they were. The less safe people are, the more insecure they feel and the government can't restore that secure state of mind. All the government can do is try to improve public safety. Personal safety is another matter. What it comes down to is more people realizing that rather than rely on government, they must at least share responsibility for their own safety. And as they prepare themselves to assume that responsibility, their improved ability to protect themselves makes them safer and they feel more secure.

-jrh

When seconds count, the police are just minutes away.

 

[Loosedhorse]

I credit Heller and MacDonald.

Up until just a few years ago, if someone had the opinion that the RKBA was a "collective right", or that it simply didn't apply to the states, they would have had some solid academic backing (although not a shred of common sense, IMHO ).

That entire veil of "reasonablity" is torn away now. People who are antigun are now exposed as anti-civil rights, and there is no denying that...

Even for someone who doesn't like guns at all.

 

[mljdeckard]

I'm sorry.....that paragraph was supposed to sound positive?

 

[doc540]

"relentless"

That has such a nice ring to it.

 

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

“When you look at how rigorously our police and military are trained in firearms to keep their skills up to snuff, I just think it’s a huge leap to suggest people will be able to safely use guns with so little training,”

HAH!

I'm military and LE, and I've seen far better shooters in the purely civilian side than I have ever in the military or law enforcement.

 

[mortablunt]

The article great. It does try a little bit to mollify the anti gunners, but it doesn't really present much evidence to support them. It's saying that people who are threatened are arming themselves and they are becoming safer and crime in general is going down. Favorited

 

[ErikO]

The take-away from the article is that being "liberal" doesn't necessarily equate to being anti-gun. I think this has always been true, but now some in the press are realizing it.

I can totally agree with that statement.

 

[lloveless]

"The take-away from the article is that being "liberal" doesn't necessarily equate to being anti-gun. I think this has always been true, but now some in the press are realizing it." It is really hard to buy that when the poster child liberal is a Radical anti gun nutcase! You may have some liberal leanings(very few people are died in the wool conservatives either), but a true died in the wool liberal also is anti-gun from where I sit and observe the world. As far as gun views changing-my grandfather took his gun to school and shot supper on the way home. Try that today thanks to the like of Schummer, Feinstein, Bloomberg etc. Liberals all.
ll

 

[ErikO]

Fine, you win. RKBA can remain a Conservative plank. I have grown very tired while trying to bridge the gap between Conservatives and Liberals on the 2nd Amendment.

My frustration level is at an all time high. On one side we have Bloomberg, Fienstein et al trying their damnedest to divide and conquor those of us who are trying to regain the lost ground on gun issues and on the other we get attacked by the likes of Brietbart.

I was born after 1950 so I could not work against the 1968 laws that went in after the assassinations of JFK, MLK and the fear that the Black Panthers caused when they dared to assert their 2nd amendment rights in California. I was born after 1968 so I could not work against the Hughes Amendment. In '96 I voted against Clinton and voted FOR Al Salvi in an attempt to get the AWB repealed early.

But yes, appearantly ALL Liberals are for Gun Restrictions, ALL LIberals are afraid of guns and none of us have the spine to stand up on this issue.

Ok, I've changed my mind. I refuse to ****. If Liberals Like Me need to take on the Conservatives as well to keep our gun rights then so be it.