« Antigun fanaticism in Australia | Main | Wilmington public housing authority bails out on gun ban »
More evidence of long term trends
I've said that we're probably seeing a long term trend relating to arms and attitudes toward them, and this seems to be the case. NSSF just released its July data on background checks. Unadjusted, the July 2010 figures were up 10% over July 2009, which itself was well into the timeframe when checks were skyrocketing. Adjusted to take out the checks for CCW permits and leave only those relating to gun sales, it's up 4.3% over 2009. I had read that there did seem to be a surge after the last election, focused on guns that could face bans, but that this faded away within three months. What's left is an enormous and sustained increase in new firearms purchases.
Someday historians may correlate that with changes in public opinion poll results, the near collapse of antigun legislative efforts, and even the judicial recognition of the right to arms. Americans historically loved firearms. US presidents were NRA members, government programs recruited and armed competitive shooters. Then in the 1960s that changed; the media in particular pushed the idea that gun owners were a dangerous, selfish, rather oafish lot. Perhaps fifty years later we've hit the end of that cycle?
Update: circulation of the NRA political mag America's First Freedom is up 20% over last year, and its Rifleman and Hunter are also in the top 25 fastest growing publications.
8 Comments | Leave a comment
Well, the elite around here are certainly coveying up in groups of 3 to 6 McMansions behind locked and monitored gates and walls. Or in renovated downtown lofts and condos with more locks, walls, fences, and guards. The elites have NEVER been anti-gun. They have always just been anti-the unwashed masses having guns. Just look at the first Federal gun control statute, the National Firearms Act of 1934: a regular joe has to get CLEO sign-off. Corporations and Trusts (think Standard Oil not grandma's inter-vivos revocable) don't. There was a reason for that. The Congress didn't want the Pinkertons and their ilk to have trouble getting machine guns in areas where the local sheriff might be a pinko union man.
Teach your friends, neighbors and kids to shoot. Make it a party. Have fun and don't be cheap. When 65% of Americans own guns, then the antis will just have to suck wind. Right now, it's less than 50% (of households). Do your part. Don't be a Zumbo.
Time to go on the offensive and start pushing aggressively for "Alaska-style no permit needed" nationwide carry?
I grew up in NYC and before the 60's the mayors seemed to be connected with the people. After that you had people like Lindsey who people described as patrician, nice guy but very Manhattan oriented and never one that would invoke feelings of blue collar/middle class person. After that you had a series of people that catered to the minority victim meme and middle class fleet got going in earnest. The infrastructure all around the city was falling apart, crime was high and the like. It was always difficult/impossible to get a handgun in the city but relatively easy outside the city. Rifles/Shotguns all were easy and commonly carried on subways to and from ranges in the high schools and others with junior clubs often sponsored by the local police department. That changed big time with the 1968 registering of long arms. Things seemed to go down hill fast after that. Was it in part tied to the war in vietnam - those evil guns were killing innocent people? Or the riots that were happening everywhere? Don't know but you had more and more people with no contact with firearms and being very vocal that no one should have them.
As more and more of the upper class left NYC for the suburbs you started to see the anti-gun attitude move to NYS also. Sigh
Rich, the trend against long guns probably got some real traction after the Kennedy assassination in '63. A cheap, war surplus Mannlicher Carcano and cheap surplus ammunition, clearly that was evil incarnate...and an additional push from Charles Whitman at the University of Texas Tower in August of '66...followed by MLK's assassination in April of '68.
...IMHO, in the late 60's these three incidents, plus a few others, generally led to the end of the high school rifle clubs, and more restrictions on long guns.
Thanks much for your perspective, Dave. It's especially appreciated in an era when many people want "my way, right now." Tides turn slowly. So too should people recognize that as part of their perspective on these issues.
But the trend is one that encourages me greatly.
Again, thanks for the post.
Letalis Maximus pretty much hit the nail square on the head. There is not too much to add.
Hunting is on the decline. Most of the guns now purchased are for 'home defense', which I think is fitting and proper. This is different from the trends pre-1960, but more in keeping with 18th century and early 19th century trends.
Those era's were bloody times. Government security was non-existent or ineffective. The initiative for individuals, families, settlements, and towns was defensive for survival against the French, British, highway robbers, and Indian resistance to colonization of the interior.
Are we heading into lawless times again? The longer historic cycle seems to indicate that we are on the cusp of that happening. Working class vs. Elite; ruling class becomes disenfranchised from the electorate. Gerrymandered districts become incapable of producing change as nimbly as required. Participation in elections falls, discontent rises. Will this lead to a bloodless palace coup or to a viscous cycle of pogrom and slave rebellion?
Perhaps the inner-city lawlessness in Chicago and Washington DC is the trend of the future. The Police protect the elite communities and the bourgeoisie fend for themselves.
Will classic, European-style ghettos arise that are no-go arrondissements for the Police? Religious, cultural and economic ghettos may all be treated as chattel for the ruling class.
What will the end game for that rebellion look like? There won't be any "winners", but we'll all be equal again in the eyes of Samuel Colt.