One of the main points of the story is that the pro-gun bloggers are far more numerous than their anti-gun counterparts.
No matter where you look on the Internet these days, bloggers are mucking it up, taking on the big bad “mainstream media” with a mad mix of polarization, cheerleading, and snark. But just as lefty bloggers got the word out about the promise of Barack Obama during last year’s election, the rightosphere is pulling out its big guns, too. And in few places is the keyboard jockey scene as fast-growing or as influential as the world of firearms and Second Amendment rights.
While their standard battle stance is from an underdog position, the pro-gun forces are, for now at least, winning the battle for hearts and minds, even gun control advocates concede.
“If you compare the pro-gun activity in the blogosphere versus the pro-gun-control activity, the scales have just tipped tremendously in their favor,” says Josh Sugarmann, founder of the Violence Policy Center in Washington, which advocates for more gun control in the US. “There’s much more engagement, more involvement, and they clearly have more free time than people on our side of the issue do.”
What's your opinion? Is it simply that the pro-gun position is usually a very personal one while the anti-gun stance is often not? Aside from people who hate guns because of the loss of a loved one, the anti-gun folks are largely involved in an academic exercise. Could that account for the differences?
Do you think it's interesting that the convention was held in a city with a very high murder rate and one which has recently been named in the supposed Mexican smuggling scheme?
Please leave a comment if you'd like.
"Aside from people who hate guns because of the loss of a loved one, the anti-gun folks are largely involved in an academic exercise. Could that account for the differences?"
ReplyDeleteI have seen zero evedence of the later "academic exercises", and far more of emotional appeal, and a desire to avoid reality at all costs. This goes for this blog and all others.
Some recent support of my above statements expanded here:
http://weerdbeard.livejournal.com/501850.html
http://weerdbeard.livejournal.com/505948.html
http://weerdbeard.livejournal.com/504873.html
We all have personal accounts, but true honest and ethical accedamia has ONLY been exibited by the Pro-rights side.
The fact that there are such a limeted number of people who are willing to avoid reality on their own, or people who accept payment to do so shows the discrepency of the numbers, nothing else.
Thanks for the link Mike.
ReplyDeleteAs far as "academic exercise" I think Mike needs to google the names David Hardy and David Young. Both accomplished lawyers and 2nd Amendment scholars. Both were at last years NRA convention.
Dave Hardy came again this year. He's one of the funniest and most intelligent people I've had the pleasure to meet.
Dave Kopel was also in Phoenix, though I didn't get to speak to him much.
I was surprised to actually hear Sugarman admit he's getting his butt handed to him. Do you know why that is Mike? It's because the anti's have virtually NO grassroots support.
Just read this article, and it outlines some misinformation Sugarmann mentioned in the linked piece:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.examiner.com/x-2879-Austin-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2009m5d19-Violence-Policy-Center-admits-defeat
"It’s curious that Sugarmann forgot to mention that he has nothing but “free time,” except that his time is paid for quite handsomely by the Joyce Foundation: In 2007, he made $132,894 in salary plus another $3,987 in benefits."
People like Mike W. and myself do this for free. Hell with ammo prices today teaching somebody how to shoot comes out as a loss to me.
Not to mention how much Mike W. paid for his flight room and board in Pheonix.
So our time costs US money, while his time PAYS him more than my family's anual income.
More reality getting in the way.
"Not to mention how much Mike W. paid for his flight room and board in Pheonix."Yeah, that and the paid time off I had to use. I'll be in the hole for the next month.
ReplyDeleteOf course the drinks and constantly eating out didn't help. I carried ~90% of the time. The only time I didn't carry was when I was having a few beers.
Odd how few people were shot at the convention dispite the "Gun Availability" that MikeB always babbles about.
ReplyDeleteIt's almost like he's totally wrong, and is just denying reality.
Of course I've PROVEN that, but what do I know, I must be wrong. ; ]
The cities chosen for the convention are done so years in advance. When Phoenix was booked, no one knew at the time who the current administration would be and that they would make up the Mexican 90% nonsense.
ReplyDeleteNext year will be in Charlotte followed by Pittsburgh.
“There’s much more engagement, more involvement, and they clearly have more free time than people on our side of the issue do.”
ReplyDeleteYup. My time spent writing about gun rights is free...Unlike his time which is bought and paid for.
The pro-gun position is supported by facts, logic and the constitution. The antis are supported by emotion and the Joyce foundation.
I wrote something on this a while back.
ReplyDeletehttp://daysofourtrailers.blogspot.com/2008/10/blogging-community.html
Bitter and Sebastian both talk about how many of the gun bloggers have formed an online community that works together and supports eachother to further enhance our rights as firearm owners and how it would be to ours and other firearm rights supporters advantage to be a part of this community. I couldn't agree more. It is one of our greatest strengths.
Because this community goes beyond just the internet. It crosses over into the real world.
Examples: Just last weekend I drove to Indianapolis to get together with other bloggers and friends. The regular poster Kaveman (who needs to start his own blog) contacted me the other day to ask if I would like a subscription to Guns & Ammo since he had a gift subscription available. Coming up in a few weeks is the Gun Blogger Rendevous III.
We get together to meet and enjoy eachothers company while sharing similar interests.
We have places where we get together with other firearm enthusiasts: Ranges. Shops. Shows.
We teach our children the shooting sports while spending quality time together.
In other words. We enjoy ourselves.
The anti's have nothing to compare that with.
There are no anti-gun shops. No anti-gun ranges. No anti-gun shows. No anti-gun magazines.
There is no quality time in teaching your children be afraid or just leaving them in ignorance.
What they have in common when they get together is fear... disgust... even hatred. Not exactly things to build strong, lifelong friendships on. Oh, they may find they have other interests in common, but most of the time it will just be the negative emotions that brought them together in the first place.
We are a community. They only want to disrupt that community.
That is our strength.
"There are no anti-gun shops. No anti-gun ranges. No anti-gun shows. No anti-gun magazines."
ReplyDeleteWell they have their goofy news letters and places like the Huff-Po for "Magazines"
and they do get together in their marches, protests, lie/die ins.
Of course you'll never see Helmke and Sugarmann and Bryan Miller all in the same room as they're technically separate entities and they aren't like bloggers that do it for fun and the personal reward, they have people who sign their checks, and unlike groups like NRA, GOA, GPFO et al actually have MEMBERS that pay the bills, are involved with polls and proxies, but also will leave if they get put out by the management.
So essentially my point is the pro-gun side is real people, the anti-gun side is just PRETENDING to be real people.
One thing that comes up a lot is the idea that the anti-gun bloggers and writers are paid for it and the pro-gun guys aren't.
ReplyDeleteDoes that make a difference really? I don't see that it necessarily does. Probably the best known anti-gun folks were of that opinion before they got offered any Joyce Foundation money. Or are you trying to say they're nothing more than hired guns, so to speak?
On the pro-gun side, the fact that you're not paid for the most part is proof of nothing as far as good intentions and veracity go. You could be genuinely so concerned for the preservation of your rights that you can't see the whole picture yourselves, or you might see the whole picture and lie and cheat to keep the rights. Some of you could be so unscrupulous that you agree deep down with what we say but only care about keeping your precious guns even at the cost of so much trouble for others, hoping it will never touch you personally.
Mike W. said that he carried a gun in Phoenix except "having a few beers."
ReplyDeleteIs that how careful you are? Good for you, man. Are the others like that too? What's your honest assessment of that? I'm thinking about those scenes on The Wire where the cops get falling-down drunk even though they're carrying. Did you see any of that in Phoenix?
You do know "The Wire" is a work of fiction, right?
ReplyDeleteAlso police are often held to a different standard of laws than citizens.
http://massbackwards.blogspot.com/2006/06/yeah-heres-shocker.html
(sorry I couldn't grab the original story)
Two cops are drinking, they get shitfaced drunk. Host cop tries to stop his buddy from driving home, buddy draws his service pistol and shoots Host Cop in the leg and drives off.
So here we have assault with a deadly weapon, possessing a firearm while drunk, public intoxication, disturbance of the peace, negligence, and drunk driving.
What was his "punishment" he was dismissed from the police force. No criminal charges were filed.
Try that as a normal citizen ANYWHERE.
MikeB,
ReplyDeleteOne thing that comes up a lot is the idea that the anti-gun bloggers and writers are paid for it and the pro-gun guys aren't.No, what we say are there are many anti-gunners that are paid and very few pro-gun folks that are paid for their time. Bryan Miller gets paid for his efforts - The Pennsylvania Soccer Mom Melanie Hain wasn't being paid.
It is the difference between grassroots and astro-turf.
We recognize that many anti-freedom folks like you are UNPAID memembers of the "lobby" just like us.
Or are you trying to say they're nothing more than hired guns, so to speak? If you take money from a group, you had better deliver what they want. If you continue to get money from that group isn't that because you've delivered what they want?
People who take money from the Joyce Foundation create an inherent bias in their work. As opposed to people like John Lott, who took no money from either side.
Which would you trust more?
On the pro-gun side, the fact that you're not paid for the most part is proof of nothing as far as good intentions and veracity go.
ReplyDeleteFor my part, anyway, the significance of that fact is mostly helpful in gauging consensus, not sincerity. The anti-gun spokesmen, in general, are well paid for their time and do little else (and have the ear of a sympathetic traditional media), while the main thrust of the pro-gun movement is ordinary people so dedicated that they squeeze in as much advocacy as they can manage around their day jobs. The big anti-gun organizations try to make it look like there's a more-or-less even split in American opinions on guns, or even that they're in the majority, but in fact they're really a small minority backed by a lot of money and media contacts.
In this precise case, though, it's mostly the staggering irony of Josh Sugarmann, who gets paid $130,000 a year to do nothing but advocate against gun rights, saying that his ordinary-people opponents, who have to work around day jobs and often pay significant out-of-pocket expenses to advocate for gun rights, have "more free time". The man wouldn't know a kettle if it was hanging in front of his face.
Also note the extream difference on the paid advocates for both sides.
ReplyDeleteWe have the VPC, Brady Camp, Ceasefire ect, all of the "members" of these groups could fit into a standard New England One-Room-Schoolhouse. We're talking less than 100 people, and the vast majority of those people are paid for their time.
Meanwhile just the NRA alone boasts a membership of nearly 4 million
http://www.nraila.org/About/
There were 64,329 Members at the convention alone.
http://www.thebitchgirls.us/2009/05/facts-from-the-nra-convention-2/
Now all these people PAY THE NRA to advocate for them. Also long standing and life members are allowed to vote on who the board of directors are, so they also CHOOSE their advocates.
The anti-gun side gets their pay from Political groups like the Joyce Foundation, and hosting celebrity parties
http://www.bradycenter.org/donate/events/2006/losangeles/
(Note the upper right photo. Sylvester Stallone and Bernie Mac (now deceased) were gun owners and owned guns that have been called for in bans by the brady campaign. Like you, MikeB, these people don't feel the laws and policies apply directly to them)
So what you have on the Anti-Freedom side is essentially an oligarchy where a handfull of people dictate the policies of the group, and with no democratic processies like Board Meetings and member proxies the people who write the bigger checks have a bigger say.
Meanwhile the NRA operates like a Democratic Republic where even a basic member who has simply paid their anual dues for 5 years (I belive that's about $100 over 5 years, and there are programs where that can be discounted) has as much say as Celebrities like Tom Sellack who donates millions of dollars in cash and valuble collector's items to the group every year. One vote per eligable member, and these people have a say in the policies.
And that's just the NRA, I haven't even mentioned GOA, JPFO, Pink Pistols, Second Amendment Sisters, and the countless State 2nd Amendment groups, like my Massachusetts Gun Owner's Action Legue (GOAL).
In short the Anti-freedom groups are nothing short if illigitimate.
Mike W. said that he carried a gun in Phoenix except "having a few beers."
ReplyDeleteIs that how careful you are? Good for you, man. Are the others like that too? What's your honest assessment of that? I'm thinking about those scenes on The Wire where the cops get falling-down drunk even though they're carrying. Did you see any of that in Phoenix?You see Mike, I see carrying a gun as a responsibility, not just a freedom I enjoy. It is irresponsible, not to mention highly illegal to carry while intoxicated. In AZ it's illegal to even carry into an establishment that serves alcohol, even if you don't have a drop.
So basically, when I was somewhere where alcohol was served I couldn't carry anyway and decided I'd enjoy a few drinks with friends. It's not being "careful" it's being a law-abiding citizen. I personally hate the law about carrying where alcohol is served, but I abided by it even when it inconvenienced me.
Everyone is that careful because we actually respect the law and choose to abide by it. I did not see a single act of public drunkeness at any of our events. Not only that, but EVERYONE was very polite and courteous, even on the packed exhibit floor.
In fact, Dan Pehrson of PAFOA talked to a few PHX cops who said they love the NRA convention because there are NO issues whatsoever. There was not a single incident the entire time. Only 2 people were asked to leave, 2 kids who were misbehaving on the show floor.
"Everyone is that careful because we actually respect the law and choose to abide by it."
ReplyDeleteUnlike MikeB who openly admits to having NO RESPECT FOR THE LAW.
It's too bad you don't want to talk any further about something you have no reservation to sharing with strangers across multiple websites.
How'd you get your illigal guns? Where are they now? Why did you choose to have a gun illigally?
I won't bother asking because I know you committed other crimes while in posession of those guns.
Of course people like Mike W. should share responcibility for illigal actions of people like you....but people like you should face no punishment for ignoring the law....and the laws should be stronger so you'll just ignore them more.
Weer'd - I must say it was refreshing. I open carried one day and nobody cared at all. That's not always the case in Delaware.
ReplyDeleteYou know I've never actually open carried. It's 100% legal in New England...tho try it in Connecticut, Rhode Island, or Massachusetts you'll likely get arrested, but never charged for some trumped up BS charge, and your May Issue permit will be revoked.
ReplyDeleteStill when I'm in New Hampshire or Maine I'm usually carrying pocket or shoulder. I GUESS I could always take off my cover coat for the shoulder carry, but #1 that would seem a bit grand-standing given how big and unique a shoulder rig is, and #2. If I'm shoulder carrying it's usually cold enough that that cover garment is usually needed weather protection of some sort.
There are 2nd Amendment groups and Libertarian groups that often hold Open Carry litter pick ups, where people gather with optional concealed or open weapons and clean up a community as a form of community outreach and also to put a positive face on open carry.
In New Hampshire they go over VERY well.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=olP_kwsEZ6w
NH is a VERY gun-friendly state.
So if, as MikeB faithfully believes, more guns = more deaths, why weren't there any murders at the NRA convention where hundreds of people were carrying?
ReplyDeleteYeah, using Mike's logic the NRA convention should be really fucking dangerous.....
ReplyDeleteIt's almost as if MikeB doesn't know what he's talking about....
Mike W. said, "Yeah, using Mike's logic the NRA convention should be really fucking dangerous.....
ReplyDeleteIt's almost as if MikeB doesn't know what he's talking about...."I admit I have a lot to learn, but to say I don't know what I'm talking about is wrong. And to conclude that from this premise, "why aren't there shootings at the NRA convention, then," is an example of you playing dumb just to break balls.
When one of you says something like this and I don't respond, you start repeating it, then others pick up the theme, you say it over and over. This is not a slick debating tool, this is feigning confusion in order to interfere with my argument. You do this instead of really arguing. It's a shabby trick and it indicates that you know you have a weak position and you need to grab at every straw, however thin, you need to pick at every tiny point, however off topic. It's why some of you so quickly resort to name calling and personal attacks.
Here's the deal. I'll explain what I guess I should have explained a long time ago before you all got so hung up in this theme of, "duh, if more guns means more gun violence, what about the NRA convention?"I see it like this. There are many places where there's little or no violence and lots of guns, for example the NRA convention, all police stations, all gun shops and shooting ranges, the entire state of North Dakota, as someone pointed out, Bob S.'s house, as he pointed out, and other places.
Then there are places where the gun violence takes place, inner cities, the homes of drug dealers and rappers, and other places. Let's call these group A and group B. Group A is the places where there are lots of guns and little gun violence and group B is where there are lots of guns and lots of gun violence.
Almost all the guns in group B come from group A. This is called the Theory of Gun Flow.
Proof, I hear you asking for? I have provided some basic stats from time to time, you called them biased. I pointed out that although they come from the Brady gang or the Violence folks, which to you makes them invalid, ultimately the numbers come from the ATF and the CDC, which to me make them very valid.
Furthermore, and perhaps more simply to the point. The statement that more guns means more gun violence is not meant to apply to every single place individually. It applies to the country as a whole.
Japan has a lot of suicides and few guns. Pump about 10 million guns in there and what do you think will happen? Less suicides or more?
MikeB,
ReplyDeleteYou were good up to this point:
Almost all the guns in group B come from group A. This is called the Theory of Gun Flow. Mostly, Those guns AREN'T coming from group A, they are coming from the friends and family of Group B. People who know it is illegal to give convicted felons firearms but they do.
Those guns are coming from people who know it is illegal to conduct a straw purchase for the people in Group B.
Now a portion are coming from Group A -- but Group A isn't GIVING those firearms to Group B - people in GROUP B are STEALING those firearms.Now, show me how your rules are going to stop people from knowingly breaking the law to arm Group B.
When one of you says something like this and I don't respond, you start repeating it, then others pick up the theme, you say it over and over.There are parts fo the debate that you seem to completely avoid--you say we need more restrictions, but you won't say which ones. You seemed to eventually agree that the assault weapons ban as written was nonsense, and did little or nothing to solve the problem. Confusingly, after that you continue to repeat Brady Campaign press releases calling to ban them again.
ReplyDeleteMany gun laws are like the assault weapons ban. They have a nice emotional title, and look good on the surface, but when you dig into the details don't really do anything useful.
You talk about places where there is gun violence, and places where there isn't. You then change to PEOPLE--which is exactly what we've been saying. Group A isn't going to be violent unless attacked. Group B will be violent, regardless of the tools they have.
I don't care very much if Group B shoots each other--it is when their violence moves to Group A that I care. I want Group A to be able to defend themselves against Group B.
Find some proposals that affect Group B more than group A, and I'll at least listen. Virtually all of the proposals from the Brady Bunch add restrictions on us, while doing nothing for Group B.
If you were to suddenly put 10 million guns into Japan without a gun culture, 9 million of them would remain unsold. There would be more gun suicides, fewer suicides by other means, and the overall rate would remain stable. Accident rate would increase until a gun culture developed.
Part of the reason I trust pro-gun sources is of course that I'm pro-gun. The other and more convincing reason is that when I dig into numbers and sources to see what the numbers actually represent, I generally find that anti numbers are deceptive, even when they are the technical truth. I've asked to be shown where pro-gun numbers do that. The most I've seen is claims that some of Lott's numbers overstate the benefits of concealed carry on crime rate.
So explain this 'flow' MikeB. Who's purchasing/stealing the guns and providing it to the criminals?
ReplyDeleteWho's responsible for these actions?
That's the problem Third, MikeB is fundamentally opposed to personal responsibility.
ReplyDeleteIf someone steals my gun I'm responsible for the "gun flow" from good guy to bad guy. It's not the fault of the guy stealing my property, it's the fault of all of us who own the damn guns.
Mike and Third, 1. Theft accounts for some. 2. People going bad accounts for some. 3. But by far it's the unregulated private sales of guns that's the problem. The so-called "gun-show loophole" allows a continual untraceable flow of guns into criminal hands.
ReplyDeleteWhy wouldn't you want to stop this? The first two we can't do much about, but the third one is totally preventable with proper legislation and oversight.
"The so-called "gun-show loophole" allows a continual untraceable flow of guns into criminal hands."
ReplyDeleteYou're right. It is 'so-called'. Where's your evidence? You saying so doesn't really mean anything.
Is someone breaking the law by purchasing? Illinois has licenses required to own firearms yet Chicago, where guns are effectively banned, has 5x the murder rate of the rest of the state. Why? Who's breaking the law already and not being punished? Will more laws that don't get enforced make more difference?
" The so-called "gun-show loophole" allows a continual untraceable flow of guns into criminal hands."
ReplyDeleteHow so Mike?
IT IS A FELONY for a criminal to possess a firearm. It is a FELONY for him to sell / transfer a firearm to someone else, or to receive a firearm from someone who is not a prohibited person.
Despite multiple felonies occurring, such illegal transactions happen on the black market daily among criminals. Closing the so called "gun show loophole" will not in any way impact the black market sales already taking place.
Let's say a guy buys a gun from an FFL dealer, fills out all the forms and goes through all the background checks and everything. So far so good. But when he sells the gun to someone else or gives it away, there need not be any record of that transaction. That's the problem. That's exactly where the guns are flowing from the good guys to the bad guys.
ReplyDeleteNot in every case, I realize that, but in too many.
How do you impose "record keeping" on the ILLEGAL BLACK MARKET SALE OF FIREARMS BETWEEN PROHIBITED PERSONS?
ReplyDeleteIT IS ALREADY A FELONY MIKE.
Banning private sales is supposed to do what exactly to impact black market sales THAT ARE ALREADY ILLEGAL.
No answer Mike? It's a simple question.
ReplyDelete