NYT: Some Inconvenient Gun Facts for Liberals

[LAGC]

FOR those of us who argue in favor of gun safety laws, there are a few inconvenient facts.

We liberals are sometimes glib about equating guns and danger. In fact, it’s complicated: The number of guns in America has increased by more than 50 percent since 1993, and in that same period the gun homicide rate in the United States has dropped by half.

Then there are the policies that liberals fought for, starting with the assault weapons ban. A 113-page study found no clear indication that it reduced shooting deaths for the 10 years it was in effect. That’s because the ban was poorly drafted, and because even before the ban, assault weapons accounted for only 2 percent of guns used in crimes.

Move on to open-carry and conceal-carry laws: With some 13 million Americans now licensed to pack a concealed gun, many liberals expected gun battles to be erupting all around us. In fact, the most rigorous analysis suggests that all these gun permits caused neither a drop in crime (as conservatives had predicted) nor a spike in killings (as liberals had expected). Liberals were closer to the truth, for the increase in carrying loaded guns does appear to have led to more aggravated assaults with guns, but the fears were overblown.

One of the puzzles of American politics is that most voters want gun regulation, but Congress resists. One poll found that 74 percent even of N.R.A. members favor universal background checks to acquire a gun. Likewise, the latest New York Times poll found that 62 percent of Americans approved of President Obama’s executive actions on guns this month.

So why does nothing get done? One reason is that liberals often inadvertently antagonize gun owners and empower the National Rifle Association by coming across as supercilious, condescending and spectacularly uninformed about the guns they propose to regulate. A classic of gun ignorance: New York passed a law three years ago banning gun magazines holding more than seven bullets — without realizing that for most guns there is no such thing as a magazine for seven bullets or less.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/17/opinion/sunday/some-inconvenient-gun-facts-for-liberals.html

Pretty spot-on article... the author goes on to point out that more than 10 percent of murders in the United States, for example, are by intimate partners. Most risky is right after a violent breakup when a woman has won a restraining order against her ex. One "common sense" solution that both Democrats and Republicans might be able to agree on is temporarily prohibiting the subjects of these restraining orders from possessing a gun, which has been found to reduce these murders by 10 percent.

Other approaches that could win bipartisan support deal with working more with gangs to support high-risk children and reduce delinquency and adult crime. "If the left can drop the sanctimony, and the right can drop the obstructionism, if instead of wrestling with each other we can grapple with the evidence, we can save thousands of lives a year."

I would agree.

[Wilms]

1. Important paragraph, here...

So why does nothing get done? One reason is that liberals often inadvertently antagonize gun owners and empower the National Rifle Association by coming across as supercilious, condescending and spectacularly uninformed about the guns they propose to regulate. A classic of gun ignorance: New York passed a law three years ago banning gun magazines holding more than seven bullets — without realizing that for most guns there is no such thing as a magazine for seven bullets or less.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

6. It's sort of hard to seriously describe the antagonizing as "inadvertent"

[Wilms]

7. I have the same quibble.

I do consider that the antagonizers major experience of gun owners are images of the over-the-top types and, yes, the serious crimes and damage guns are involved with. They may not know any of the actual-for-real responsible gun owners...or they do but don't realize because the acquaintance doesn't advertise. And they wouldn't know responsible hunters...who may depend on it to eat reasonably well.

I do. It opened my eyes.

[Warpy]

2. The fact that the author keeps sneering at "liberals" shows what a worthless piece this is.

I know quite a few conservatives out there who think there are too many ignorant, swaggering oafs and too many rap addled wannabes with guns out there. They'd like them restricted to people with the sense to store and use them safely.

[LAGC]

3. To be fair, the author supports universal background checks and regulating guns "like cars."

He just thinks we should stop focusing on distractions like so-called "assault-weapon" ban and unrealistic magazine limits.

More of a "public health" approach rather than "guns are scary so lets ban them all" instead.

[Eleanors38]

5. Re that final paragraph: Were you interviewed for that piece?

[Kang Colby]

4. Imagine being a battered spouse for a moment....

Pretty spot-on article... the author goes on to point out that more than 10 percent of murders in the United States, for example, are by intimate partners. Most risky is right after a violent breakup when a woman has won a restraining order against her ex. One "common sense" solution that both Democrats and Republicans might be able to agree on is temporarily prohibiting the subjects of these restraining orders from possessing a gun, which has been found to reduce these murders by 10 percent.

A restraining order is backed by the weight of the court, and moves at the slow speed of justice. A 20 gauge shotgun has 2000 foot pounds of energy at the muzzle and moves at 1500 feet per second. Which would you rather have if you were a battered spouse?

Mic drop.

[Paladin]

8. A big wet kiss for the NRA---from the Sunday NYT opinion section.

Twenty years from now, NRA spokesmen will still be pulling up this column as evidence that even the NYT editorialists back their play against gun control. Fuck you, Nick Kristof, and thanks for nothing.