Brady Center Says Obama Has Failed on Gun Control.

[USAFNoDak]

Doc Intrepid:

Brown's win in Massachusetts only underscores the difficulties that Democrats will face in mid-term elections later this year.

Agreed. Speaking of Brown's win, did gun control ever come up as even a miniscule debating point? I didn't pay too much attention until the news started showing that he was quickly gaining ground and the race was becoming a toss up. I didn't hear anything about Coakley ranting about the need for more gun control. Of course, Massachusetts already has a broad assortment of restrictive gun control laws, including an 'assault weapons' ban.

I don't see gun control as any sort of winning issue for the dems, or "pro-gun-control" RINO's. The fact that gun sales, including sales of 'assault weapons', standard capacity magazines, semi auto handguns, and ammo, have increased dramatically, while violent crime rates have decreased to their lowest level in decades, sort of takes the wind out of the "pro-gun-control" sails. That makes me smile. In retrospect, it makes me laugh.

I wish the gun controllers lots of luck in trying to move their agenda forward. NOT! As Rush Limbaugh said about the President's policies, I hope they fail. I hope they fail big time. I hope they fall flat on their faces, as a matter of fact.

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

The Brady's protestations are pathetic. They are like a small child yelling "Daddy, Daddy pay attention to me!".

As others have posted the Democratic party has no concern about the Brady's or left wing progressives. What are they going to do, vote Republican? Hardly, the Democrats view them like the the Republicans view the Evangelicals. The worst they can do is not vote.

NOW, my fear? As always in life expect the unexpected. We may one day find ourselves betrayed by Republicans in a bid to be "bi-partisan" but hopefully we will keep the electoral pressure up and stymey them too.
I trust none of them!

Always be a good ambassador and work for climate change. Political, that is

 

[SwampYankee]

I see a lot of commentary on Obama but not a word on the Congress here. Let us not forget who makes the laws- and it is not the POTUS. The fact that the Congress has backed off gun control is what is important. And we should not be surprised. The last AWB got a slew of Democrats tossed out of office. They are not going to let it happen again. And after the Scott Brown victory, their position is even more tenuous. I do not expect any new gun control any time soon.

When was the last time you heard a politician seriously talking about abortion (pro or against) since the 2008 election? Maybe even the 2006 election? Gun control is in the same category of politics: too hot too handle.

 

[Mike Irwin]

I think this is a good point to remind everyone that we don't do political discussions, especially not on subjects like abortion, gay marriage, etc. Subjects such as those guarantee a swift thread lock.

Discussions of how politics can affect the law, as is obviously the case with gun control, are generally OK, but are subject to heightened scrutiny from the mods.

keep your conversation and points narrowly defined and we should be fine.

Thanks.

 

[Buzzcook]

With few exception democratic politicians have decided to punt on gun control, Obama isn't one of the exceptions. I've pretty much said this since the late 90's

While I don't mind that position at all on gun control, I wish it wasn't true of more important issues.

 

[USAFNoDak]

SwampYankee:

I see a lot of commentary on Obama but not a word on the Congress here. Let us not forget who makes the laws- and it is not the POTUS. The fact that the Congress has backed off gun control is what is important. And we should not be surprised. The last AWB got a slew of Democrats tossed out of office. They are not going to let it happen again.

Yes, let's not forget that the democrats strategy was to run more "gun right's friendly", moderate candidates in some of the more conservative states to gain control of congress. In some respects, especially with gun control, that strategy has worked against the progressives' agenda. The progressives, including Obama, quickly figured out that gun control was a third rail for them and have stayed away from it. This has certainly angered groups such as the Brady Center and people like Michael Moore.

I think they will eventually come back after the "gun show loophole" because they know they have some "moderate" republicans on board with closing that, such as John McCain, Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins.

Lastly, the Heller decision didn't help the progressives as it took away one of their main arguments, that the 2nd Amendment was a collective vs. an individual right. If McDonald goes our way, it will further marginalize the gun control groups and politicians. Incrementalism seems to be going in our direction, for now.

Even the ranting about our weak gun laws arming drug cartels in Mexico didn't fly for the gun controllers. That really had to hurt their feelings.

 

[Gary L. Griffiths]

Yes, let's not forget that the democrats strategy was to run more "gun right's friendly", moderate candidates in some of the more conservative states to gain control of congress. In some respects, especially with gun control, that strategy has worked against the progressives' agenda.

Also seems to have put the kabosh on fast-tracking the health care reform bill.

Talk about your unintended consequences.....

 

[Kreyzhorse]

Obama "failed" because he didn't follow their suggested path at gun control. The Brady group is simply using this a publicity tool to keep their gun control agenda in the media. No press is bad press in their view.

I usually check out their site at least once a month and nothing surprises me from them. The "please donate 1 dollar for every person killed at VT" was just about as disgusting as you can get.

 

[SwampYankee]

I think this is a good point to remind everyone that we don't do political discussions, especially not on subjects like abortion, gay marriage, etc. Subjects such as those guarantee a swift thread lock.

Discussions of how politics can affect the law, as is obviously the case with gun control, are generally OK, but are subject to heightened scrutiny from the mods.

Mike, I only used the word abortion as an analogy to the gun control issue. My point was that the issues are very similar: the sticky politics of both have caused the majority of legislators to refrain from making new laws or changing old laws. In fact, in either case you can probably tell which side a legislator stands on but with few exceptions, will they rarely publicize it. I certainly would not begin or engage in an abortion discussion on TFL, however, the use of the word in of itself should not be forbidden.

 

[Tom Servo]

Yes, let's not forget that the democrats strategy was to run more "gun right's friendly", moderate candidates in some of the more conservative states to gain control of congress

Actually, that was a happy accident for us. Emmanuel was given an edict to get Democrats, any Democrats, into seats.

It turned out that many of those folks were somewhat pro-gun, as well as having other conservative tendencies. They make up something of a fifth column in the legislature that I don't think was intentional.

 

[carguychris]

It turned out that many of those folks were somewhat pro-gun, as well as having other conservative tendencies. They make up something of a fifth column in the legislature that I don't think was intentional.

I think it was completely intentional. The Democratic leadership made a concious, pragmatic decision to herd moderates into their party. The good news for the party leadership is that they now have a paper majority in Congress. The bad news for the party leadership is that they haven't quite figured out how to keep the moderate wing and the left wing happy at the same time. The left wing is now in the beginning stages of a revolt, as shown by the Brady press release.

My hunch is that this fragmentation may lead to some gun-control measures being proposed by the left-wingers, but IMHO the administration is going to work hard to quash their efforts to keep the moderate wing happy.

 

[USAFNoDak]

I specifically recall hearing Howard Dean say that the democrats needed to do a better job convincing gun owning, truck driving southerners, who sport confederate flags and NRA stickers on their trucks, that they can trust the democrats. I believe it was a conscious decision to sacrifice gun control in order to take control of congress so they could push through other progressive plans, such as health care reform. The Brady's don't like it, but they've been marginalized to quite a degree. They will squawk like a geese, but it will be hard for them to get any real attention to their wants. Great, says I.

 

[SwampYankee]

I believe it was a conscious decision to sacrifice gun control in order to take control of congress so they could push through other progressive plans, such as health care reform.

I agree completely. Gun control is the Democrats version of the lesser of all evils. And I am a Democrat, although I can't really speak for Obama or the Congress of the United States. I'm so conflicted....

 

[Tom Servo]

I believe it was a conscious decision to sacrifice gun control in order to take control of congress so they could push through other progressive plans, such as health care reform.

Of course, that didn't work out too well.

The party has become fragmented, and they're turning on themselves. After this week (Scott Brown, the Citizens United case), it's going to be very difficult for them to pass anything big, much less gun control.

 

[USAFNoDak]

Graphic Deptiction of Drop in Crime vs. Increased Gun Sales?

Has anyone seen a graphic on the decrease in violent crime overlayed with the increase in gun ownership over the past 10 years or so? I believe violent crime, as a trend, has been declining since 1991. I'm not sure if gun ownership has been trending to increase during that same amount of time.

A graphic depiction of both trends would be a powerful tool for us gun rights folks if indeed the two are heading in opposite directions. If anyone has seen such a graph, please provide a link to the source. I would love to have that in my bag of tools when debating the "more guns equals more crime" folks.

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Need to watch it on simple graphs. The crime drop has also occurred in states and cities with very tight gun control.

It's been discussed on TFL. Double Naught Spy might have analyzed that - give it a search.

The criminologists are very careful to co-vary out other factors. Usually, the economy and drug wars drive the crime rate. So you need to prove a gun improvement on top of that.

However, the counterpoint is that the increase in firearms purchases and passing of shall issue laws haven't caused a noticeable increase in crime.

The antigun argument would be that increased ownership should act against the overall drop - subtle isn't it.

 

[USAFNoDak]

Glenn, I agree that simple graphs don't give us the whole picture. However, if someone comes up to you and says "Our violent crime rate is so high because of all of the guns we have in America", it would be helpful to reply: "Not necessarily. More guns is not necessarily a causal effect of more violent crime. As a matter of fact, look at this graph of increasing gun ownership and decreasing violent crime rates in the USA since 199?. It doesn't appear to support your claim".

That's what I was looking for. I don't go to the flip side of the antis and claim that more guns equals less crime, even if the numbers, on their face, would seem to support that. However, as you mention, there are other factors. We should be able to refute the "more guns equals more crime" arguement. A graph of increasing gun ownership vs. decreasing violent crime rates would be a good tool for that purpose, IMHO.

 

[nitetrane98]

Even the most fervent 2A supporters seem to have gone from the hyper, pre-election, hyperbole about what BO was going to do if elected, to that of a bull staring at a new gate, and then to sleeping with one eye open in regards to what BO is doing.

With mid-term elections historically going against the ruling party, I think the last thing they want is to "energize" the status quo 2A supporters into a full, "By god , where's my checkbook? They were right, that SOB is going to try and take away my guns." frenzy. Kinda of a "Let sleeping dogs lie." affair. Right now they have enough on their plate trying to quell the rebellion among their own supporters.

The Brady bunch is simply trying to rally their troops. Typically, any faction deems their support of a candidate to be crucial. "By god, we got him elected and we can take him out." Rarely is it true.

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Yep, I think we can refute the argument that there would be an increase in crime nicely with such a graph.

The causal relationship is tricky. Not everyone, even gun friendly researchers, buy into Lott's more extreme claims.

Good points.

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

A graph of increasing gun ownership vs. decreasing violent crime rates would be a good tool for that purpose, IMHO.

USAFNoDak. Yes for simple arguments maybe. However, (I majored in criminology in college BUT am not a criminologist!) crime is a complicated thing to explain as to causation.

I think there are many factors to consider and as Double Naught has shown in other posts like here: http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3512270&postcount=1 you will have a hard time convincing someone who knows what they are talking about concerning crime to make such a simple claim. I would tread easy and arm yourself more with real facts. More work but better for us progun folk to debate.