Why opposition to gun control has increased over the last half-century

The Washington Examiner ^ | November 22, 2013 | Michael Barone

[Q-ManRN]

Economist Bryan Caplan notes that support for gun control — specifically, banning handguns or pistols — has decreased dramatically since the 1950s and 1960s.

Caplan seems puzzled by this substantial change in opinion. I think it's explainable by two developments.

(1) Violent crime roughly tripled between 1965 and 1975. As Caplan's graph of Gallup's results shows, majorities came to oppose handgun bans during this period. Americans saw more need to protect themselves.

(2) The success of laws permitting citizens to carry concealed weapons, starting with the Florida law in 1987 (thanks, Gov. Bob Martinez). Many, including me, predicted that this would lead to gunfights on the street and over traffic altercations. Those predictions have proved wrong. It turns out that ordinary citizens who can demonstrate that they know how to handle guns do so responsibly — just as they handle cars (potential weapons, after all) responsibly as well. The very few exceptions make news.

[Q-ManRN]

It is simple, there are two large groups of people who use guns: violent criminals and decent law-abiding people. Once you learn to differentiate between these two disparate groups, the emotional and extreme approach of gun control does not make sense.

Violent criminals do not get guns where they would undergo federal background checks. Violent criminals do not care if the law says that that you can only have 7 or 10 bullets in a gun. They do not care if the government bans guns. In fact, they do not care what the law says at all. That is the reason that they are criminals and it is also the reason that criminals can get guns.

[Q-ManRN]

The simple realities.

[umgud]

People don’t buy the bull$h!t anymore.

Gun control has no impact on crime rates. The only thisng that drives crime rates is the available number of criminals.

The reason Chicago is so violent and Billings Motana docile is Chicago haz a bumper crop of criminals and Billings doesn’t.

PERIOD

[Foundahardheadedwoman]

Proof of the old saying that ‘The difference between a Liberal and a Conservative is that the Liberal hasn’t been mugged yet.’

[RC one]

I think they realized that their laws did nothing to keep them out of the “bad guys” hands and they would have to take responsibility for their own self preservation.

[Paladin2]

Billings is not all that great.

http://www.neighborhoodscout.com/mt/crime/

[RedMDer]

"An instance within the memory of some of this house will show us how our militia may be destroyed.
Forty years ago, when the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain,
the British Parliment was advised by an artful man, who was governor of Pennsylvania,
to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them;
but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually,
by totally disusing and neglecting the militia."
— George Mason
Support Free Republic.

[StaffiT]

Commonsense Civil Right of Self-defense. [CCRSD] Ping.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

I carry a handgun because I can't carry a policeman.

[Wonder Warthog]

"Economist Bryan Caplan notes that support for gun control — specifically, banning handguns or pistols — has decreased dramatically since the 1950s and 1960s."

I think one factor that contributed was that the full agenda of gun control was revealed. At that time, there was (and still is) a statistical case for stronger controls on handguns as contributory to crime. In fact, the leading anti-gun org called itself "Handgun Control, Inc.". And then some bright boy inside HCI came up with the idea of an "assault weapons ban" on semi-automatic long guns. And indeed, for a while, it looked like that propaganda shift would be successful.

Problem was, there was NO evidential case that could be made for banning ANY long guns.....they were (and are) minor factors in crime.

And this it became clear that the REAL agenda of gun control was the eventual elimination from society of any and all firearms.

Enough people caught on so as to blunt the AWB legislation and get a cutoff date included after which the ban would "go away". Soooo.......society did the experiment. The AWB had zero effect on gun crime rates, and was not re-instated when it reached it's "sell-by" date.

And that was the high-water mark of gun control.

[marktwain]

It was a major reason the Democrats lost control of the House for the first time in 40 years.

The message sent was not subtle.

[Still Thinking]

Violent criminals do not get guns where they would undergo federal background checks. Violent criminals do not care if the law says that that you can only have 7 or 10 bullets in a gun. They do not care if the government bans guns. In fact, they do not care what the law says at all.

Not true at all. Violent criminals are no doubt the biggest supporters of civil rights violations against the rest of us. It's like OSHA for home invaders.

[Wildbill22]

I think a better example is El Paso Texas, where crime rates are unusually low. Being in Texas, we know the level of gun control; Not much. Probably very high rates of gun ownership, as it should be.

Then just yards away across the southern border is Ciudad Juarez Mexico, which has oppressive gun control laws, most if not all gun ownership is banned, and the highest murder and violence rate in the Western Hemisphere.

Want gun control? Move to Juarez.

[Wonder Warthog]

"It was a major reason the Democrats lost control of the House for the first time in 40 years."

One hopes that it will (help) work similar magic in the Senate.

"The message sent was not subtle."

Well, some have to be hit over the head with a 2 x 4 to pay attention. Folks like Zumbo and a few others of the "gun rights are only about hunting/sport weapons" community.

[Q-ManRN]

You are right about the assault weapons ban having no effect on crime rates. Most crimes involving guns involve handguns presumably because they are more easily concealed.

In that sense, handgun controls are statistically more sensible. Of course, violent criminals do not normally try to obtain guns legally. It makes sense that a criminal does not want to fill out paperwork and undergo a background check for a gun that would directly tie them to a crime. Convicted felons could not pass a background check anyway.

That is why criminals use straw buyers, steal guns, and get guns from black markets; so, then the question becomes what kind of controls will we apply?