What The Left Won't Tell You About The Boom In U.S. Gun Sales

[friendly_iconoclast]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/frankminiter/2012/08/23/what-the-left-wont-tell-you-about-the-boom-in-u-s-gun-sales/

note: Yeah, I know it's Forbes and there's a lot of lib-bashing in this- but apparently they are now an Approved Source here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/117259858

What The Left Won't Tell You About The Boom In U.S. Gun Sales


As gun sales surged in early 2009 the going joke among employees of gun manufacturers was that President Barack Obama was the “greatest gun salesman of all time.” The trouble with this backhanded complement, however, is Left-leaning news outlets have since used it to avoid something that really scares them.

As ABC put it, Americans are buying more Glocks and Berettas simply because they fear “a second Obama administration might restrict gun ownership.” Their reporting conveniently stops right there.

...But the thing is, the surge is gun sales didn’t begin in 2008. Over the last 10 years (from 2002 to 2011) there has been a 54.1 percent rise in the number of NICS checks and the increase hasn’t all taken place since 2008. In 2005 there were 8,952,945 NICS checks. In 2006 the number topped 10 million. In 2007 NICS checks pushed passed 11 million. In 2008 NICS checks passed 12 million, and then hit the 14 million mark in 2009. They increased slightly (4 percent) through 2011...

...Other Gallup polls are even more interesting. The number of women gun owners in America has gone up from 13 percent in 2005 to 23 percent today. Also, the number of Democratic households with firearms in their homes skyrocketed from 30 percent in 2009 to 40 percent today...

[DanTex]

1. LOL. What the "left" wont tell you?

You have something against the "left" that you want to share with the group?

[Paladin]

3. Remember: RKBA Is A PROGRESSIVE Cause.

In a pig's ass, it is.......

[rDigital]

4. So you're saying freedom of speech for the KKK to spew venom

is a progressive cause, but keeping firearms for personal protection from people like the KKK isn't?

[friendly_iconoclast]

7. Apparently, the 40% of Democrats (per the Gallup quote) that have guns at home...

...aren't "true" Democrats.

[OriginalGeek]

33. Uh oh

I hope my vote for Obama this year counts as much as the true Democrats!

[friendly_iconoclast]

8. When will you destroy YOUR guns to demonstrate how 'progressive' you are?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=1165633

Or are your deadly weapons somehow more progressive than other people's deadly weapons?

[shadowrider]

11. Ain't the search function great? n/t

[friendly_iconoclast]

15. Didn't need the search function for that one- I remembered it *quite* it well.

They were most upset when I pointed out that their 'Elmer-friendly' firearms were in fact identical (save for finish) to various current-issue military weapons...

[DanTex]

14. Yes, and the gun nuts posting in here are DEMOCRATS!

[friendly_iconoclast]

16. If the Democratic Party is in fact democratic, it appears you'll just have to adjust to it.

Unless, of course, you believe that demonizing 30-40% of Democrats is somehow a winning strategy...

[DanTex]

17. You mean the 30% that oppose a woman's right to choose?

[friendly_iconoclast]

19. We were talking about Democratic gun owners, remember? *Do* try and keep up.

I guess you're one of those lefties that George Orwell wrote about in "The Road to Wigan Pier":

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2008/05/obama_and_orwell.html

...Orwell also rails against the condescension many on the left display toward those they profess to care most about. Describing a gathering of leftists in London, he says, "every person there, male and female, bore the worst stigmata of sniffish middle-class superiority. If a real working man, a miner dirty from the pit, for instance, had suddenly walked into their midst, they would have been embarrassed, angry and disgusted; some, I should think, would have fled holding their noses."

Real working-class folks, he says, might be drawn toward a socialist future centered around family life, the pub, football, and local politics. But those who speak in its name, he says, have a snobbish condescension toward such quotidian pleasures—even condemning coffee and tea. "Reformers" urged the poor to eat healthier food—less sugar, more brown bread. And their audience balked. "Would it not be better if they spent more money on wholesome things like organs and wholemeal bread, or [raw carrots]?" Orwell asks. "Yes it would, but the point is that no ordinary human being is ever going to do such a thing. The ordinary human being would rather starve than live on brown bread and more carrots … a millionaire may enjoy breakfasting off orange juice and Ryvita biscuits. An unemployed man doesn't."

And so, Orwell ruefully concluded, the snobbish socialists succeeded in depleting their own ranks. "The ordinary decent person, who is in sympathy with the essential aims of Socialism, is given the impression that there is no room for his kind in any Socialist party that means business."...

[DanTex]

21. Oh, because it seemed you were saying that liberals need to be accepting of centrist Dems that...

...hold right-wing views. That's sure what it sounded like...

Unless, of course, you believe that demonizing 30-40% of Democrats is somehow a winning strategy...

I feel the same way about Dems that are gun fanatics than I do about pro-life Dems, or Dems that believe that global warming is a hoax, and so on. But when people post right-wing articles about what the left is getting wrong, those people are probably not Dems to begin with...

[friendly_iconoclast]

22. You seem to have missed the part in the OP where I condemned the left-bashing in that article.

Also, you have nowhere demonstrated that it's axiomatic that "gun owner = anti-choice".

For all the apparent sincerity of your stereotypes, they're exactly that- stereotypes.

[DanTex]

23. I'm not saying that pro-gun = anti-choice.

I'm just saying that a sizeable minority of Dems might be gun nuts (although only a small percentage of gun owners are as fanatical as you are), and a sizeable minority are anti-choice. I feel the same way about both of groups. This all came up because you defended your right-wing OP by pointing out the 30% of Dems hold the same viewpoint.

[friendly_iconoclast]

25. In what way do believe I'm "fanatical" ? (and BTW, I do not own a gun and are pro-choice)

I have to say that you seem blind to your own stereotyping. If you could be arsed to read the entire article and not just the excerpt, you'd see that the author (for all his stereotyping) does
have a valid point in that the sharp rise in gun sales began during Shrub's presidency and before Obama was widely known.

You might have disputed the polling about the popularity of gun control, the rise in gun ownership amongst women, and the 40% of Democrats that own guns- but you did not.

Instead, you declared (in effect): "I, DanTex, deem this right-wing", apparently because 'no true Democrats' own guns...

[DanTex]

27. I'm not really interested in some gun propagandist's take on polling statistics.

The source of gun ownership data considered most reliable by social scientists is the General Social Survey, which has shown a steady decline in the 90s, and a smaller decline in the 2000s. Of course, the gun nuts don't care much about scientific validity or that kind of thing, they just look for whatever numbers they can find to support their case. Nothing new here.

Oh, and it's not me that deems this right-wing. The author does that, very clearly, in the title. Or didn't you notice...

[friendly_iconoclast]

28. If gun ownership is down as you claim, and crime has declined like the FBI says...

...why don't you lot try being a little more accepting towards gun owners? Or is that just too much "normalization of deviance" for you?

If there are more guns in the hands of fewer owners- and there undoubtedly are more guns about, also per the FBI:

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/nics/reports/080112_1998_2012_Monthly_Yearly_Totals.pdf

not resulting in an increase in violent crime, where does the problem lie?

[DanTex]

29. The problem is that we have some 10X the gun violence vs the rest of the...

...industrialized world.

And since when am I not accepting towards gun owners?

[rDigital]

31. Industrialized World? The slimiest slight of hand that phrase is.

Also gun violence, sure we have more guns than anyone else that is to be expected in pure math terms, but what about violence and murder in general? The UK blows us out of the water in violent crime. Russia is quite industrial, they sure made a lot more ultra high-tech nukes than we did. Some of the most advanced aircraft and submarines in the world were made by the Russians.

Russia also happens to have no legal civilian handguns, but 3x time the total murder rate of the United States.

"Industrialized World" such a clever and convienient term. Lies through clever obfuscation, but with a little research it's not that hard to find the truth.

Accepting towards gun owners? You have nothing but venom for us and contribute nothing but insults to RKBA conversations.

Better turn off those lights, pal.

[friendly_iconoclast]

35. Apparently, he hasn't noticed the cars and TVs made in "non-industrialized" Mexico.

Or the rather nice jet airliners made in Brazil, for that matter:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embraer_E-Jet_family

[DanTex]

36. As every social scientist understands, when performing international comparisons...

...you need to compare among nations that are similar, measured according to things like the human development index. Because the US and Mexico are so different, you don't gain much insight by comparing their statistics, as opposed to comparing the US to Canada, UK, Japan, France, Australia, Germany, etc.

I am continually shocked at the very elementary things that I keep having to explain to pro-gunners -- it's not like this is some radically complicated idea that you need to have a graduate degree to understand.

[gejohnston]

39. every social scientist and anyone who is half educated

understands when performing international comparisons the differences in culture and history plays a greater role than anything else including economics. That plays a greater role than human development index. While the US is certainly different than Mexico and Canada, it is more different than Japan and Singapore. On that level, Canada is closer to Australia and New Zealand than the US.

I am always amused at the very basic things that has to be explained to anti gunners--it's not like this is some radical idea that you need a graduate degree to understand.

[DanTex]

43. Just not the ones that publish in peer-reviewed journals...

[friendly_iconoclast]

55. Nice try at backing and filling. BTW, what's 'scientific' about imprecision in language?

You're not quite the scientist you purport to be as you used "industrialized" instead of "high HDI".


Real social scientists would take 'industrialized' to mean (aside from the obvious G8 countries)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newly_industrialized_country

or G20 nation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G20_industrial_nations

or "G8+5" or G13 nation

or the BRIC nations (Brazil Russia India China)

[gejohnston]

32. And since when am I not accepting towards gun owners?

Are you serious? When have you?
gun nut, yahoo, gunner equals climate change denier-racist-uneducated-paranoid

[friendly_iconoclast]

34. Really. Did he think we haven't noticed his bigotry?

[DanTex]

37. Gun owners and gun fanatics are totally different.

Plenty of gun owners are progressive, intelligent, and reasonable people. But they aren't pro-gun ideologues pushing right-wing propaganda about "what the left won't tell you about guns", they don't dismiss mainstream science as "anti-gun bias", they recognize the importance of gun control as a public safety measure, etc.

I have nothing against gun ownership per se. I have a problem with pro-gun extremists who oppose common-sense gun control measures based on paranoia and pseudoscience.

[gejohnston]

40. hate to break it to you but

David Hemenway is not mainstream science. If you can list 15 studies by 15 different people published in criminology journals that support your view, you would have a greater chance of selling the science. You dismiss peer reviewed studies published in respected criminology journals as "pro gun propaganda" if they disagree with you, what makes you so much better?

There is no such thing as common sense, but most of the measures proposed are based on propaganda and pseudoscience, just pseudoscience you like.

As for the Forbes article, which I doubt you read, it makes valid point based on empirical data. The trend started in 2005, but that fact does not fit in the "gun owners are racist paranoids" meme pushed by media and some on the left. If it comes from a partisan source, it is propaganda.

[DanTex]

44. Sorry, you don't get to decide what is mainstream science.

The peer-reviewed journals and universities decide that. We've been over this before. There are one or two relatively obscure pro-gun contrarians whose work has been refuted several times over, but the mainstream science falls heavily on my side. Not just in criminology journals, but in economics journals, and public health journals, and so on. That's why it's the gun nuts and the gun bloggers that are always complaining about "bias" and about how bad peer review is.

[shadowrider]

45. * Yawn *

[gejohnston]

49. you don't decide that either

None of them have been refuted, one gets an award from his professional society and and is the department head of a university. Wright is also a department head of a university. Quite frankly, a critique by Marvin Wolfgang carries a hell of a lot more weight than Hemenway or you for that matter. Some of the lame counters is hardly a refutation. Your recitation of what they claim without giving a basis for that point or why it is valid might impress someone with a eighth grade education, but that is it.
Hemenway et al are more prolific, but their quantity does not equal quality. Mainstream science does not send out press releases.

That's why it's the gun nuts and the gun bloggers that are always complaining about "bias" and about how bad peer review is.

You don't actually read any gun blogs do you? Can you find one example?

[SQUEE]

24. Enough purity tests

and pie slicing, soon you are the only one allowed to be in your little party.

[friendly_iconoclast]

26. Oh, there's plenty here at DU that are hot for a purge of us "NRA plants" and "crypto-RWers".

To which I can only reply "Yeah, just look at what the same attitudes have done to the Republicans..."

[DanTex]

38. So imagine this.

Let's say a group of DUers with extreme anti-abortion views congregated in the abortion forum. Their views were so extreme that they could hardly find any prominent progressives or even moderates supporting them, so instead the continually posted links to FOXNews and WashingtonTimes, maybe an article titled "What the left won't tell you about abortion", etc. Mainstream medical or scientific studies wouldn't support their views, so instead they would post right-wing pseudoscience about the horrors of abortion, claiming that the medical establishment was overrun with "pro-abortion bias".

They claimed to be "pro-life progressives", but, curiously, they seemed to spend a lot of their time bashing elected Democrats. They would call pro-choice Democrats things like "baby killer", and whenever some red state Republican further cut back on abortion rights, they would celebrate. Many of them were proud members of groups like National Right to Life, which openly sides with the Republican Party and regularly accuses Obama of really just wanting to kill as many babies as he can. Periodically some of these anti-choicers would cross the line and get banned, but then they'd usually just come back under a new username. And if you checked on anti-abortion forums on the internet, you'd find people there bragging about their trolling exploits on the DU abortion forum.

So then I come around and point out that, in effect, this is right-wing trollery. That doesn't mean that you can't be pro-life and still be a Democrat, but it's something else entirely to push anti-abortion extremism on DU. And then suppose that, in their defense, the anti-choicers point out that 30% of Democrats identify as pro-life, and accuse me of a "purity test".

Now replace "abortion" with "gun control".

[Missycim]

41. Well the difference is

Owning a gun is stated in the BOR and is also a progressive value. WHile I am pro-choice, I dont see it in the top 5 rights in the BOR.


Which by the by, self defense is more of a natural right (then even abortion or free speech) then any other right we have and if that means using a firearm so be it.

[DanTex]

42. That's your opinion. Shared by Antonin Scalia, Grover Norquist, Ted Nugent, etc.

Just because you say something is a progressive value, doesn't mean that it is. It's just an opinion. I'm sure that the "anti-choice progressives" will claim that "right to life" is a progressive value, and if they get another right-wing supreme court justice, they might have a 5-4 supreme court decision just like the gun fanatics have.

I don't see any real way that "pro-gun progressives" are any different that "pro-life progressives". Though, I admit, people can have a generally progressive point of view with one or two right-wing opinions

[Missycim]

46. I can see

that logic isn't your strong suit but you can pigeonhole others with the best of them.


Let me and others know what a "true progressive" is so we can conform to your views.


You are one arrogant person, I sure hope its some kind of trolling you're doing and you aren't like this in real life.

[shadowrider]

47. He's apparently "enlightened" and knows better than us proles. n/t

[Missycim]

48. I contiune to think

that there are some in the very forum that do certain acts to try to get people banned, I can't see them as being this stupid and it not be some kind of act.

[DanTex]

51. LOL. You, calling people stupid? That was awesome!

[Missycim]

52. Well what then explains

your shtick?


I can't believe you believe such nonsense you spew most of the times, you were once pretty evenhanded, even though you were against most pro-RKBA ideas. Now its just name calling and shtick. Well I am off to my Dads, take care and have a good day.

[friendly_iconoclast]

53. Ted Kennedy allied with William Koch to oppose a windpower project. So what's your point?

http://www.cnn.com/2010/TECH/04/29/cape.wind.ceo.profile/index.html

Gordon's opponents have come from the left and right. They have ranged from one of the most powerful senators in the nation's history -- the late Sen. Ted Kennedy -- to billionaire fossil fuel heavyweight William Koch. "I'm for wind energy," Kennedy famously said. "But we ought to do it right." The Kennedy compound in Hyannis Port will have a view of the 130 wind turbines, located several miles from the shore.

Koch, founder of the Oxbow Group and a resident of the Cape, sits on the board of Gordon's nemesis, the Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound. He's reportedly contributed more than $1.5 million to try to stop Cape Wind. Koch and his Oxbow Group have accused Gordon of duping the region, saying the Cape had better prepare for skyrocketing electricity prices. The price per kilowatt hour offshore is far higher than on land.

"This will only benefit one individual, and that's the developer himself, Jim Gordon," said Brad Goldstein, Koch's chief spokesman. "Jim Gordon can try to wrap himself around wind all he wants. That dog will not hunt here."

[friendly_iconoclast]

54. And then we have Rupert Murdoch with Michael Bloomberg pushing for immigration reform:

http://www.boston.com/businessupdates/2012/08/14/murdoch-bloomberg-back-immigration-overhaul-boston-session/cL8XbzXSW9VEmCMMZ0ZT3I/story.html

Murdoch, Bloomberg back immigration overhaul in Boston session

By Todd Wallack, Globe Staff

Media titan Rupert Murdoch and New York City’s mayor, Michael Bloomberg, came to Boston Tuesday evening to help press their case for making it easier for immigrants to legally come to the United States and to establish a path for existing illegal immigrants to gain legal residency.

Murdoch, chief executive of News Corp., and Bloomberg, a billionaire who started his own company before going into politics, are two of the cochairs of the Partnership for a New American Economy, a national coalition of mayors and business leaders lobbying for “sensible immigration reform.”

In a panel discussion, Murdoch argued that there is a desperate need for engineers and other skilled professionals that the United States can’t supply internally. And he said he was appalled that the United States doesn’t automatically grant work visas to people who graduate from US universities with advanced degrees, instead of forcing them to apply for restrictive H-1B visas.

“I think we are in a crisis in this country,” said Murdoch, who was born in Australia and later became an American citizen...

Looks like your ire about dodgy fellow travelers is more than a little feigned...

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

56. Well Pal...

...if "pig's ass" describes your world, then yes.

[apocalypsehow]

59. Pretty brazen, isn't it? They're not even bothering to hide it anymore. n/t.

[socialindependocrat]

2. And we can assume what from these statistics?

As time goes on there will be a greater acceptance of guns in the U.S.?

That women in New Hampshire feel the need to protect themselves from the local sheriff?

[friendly_iconoclast]

5. I don't know about your first question, but the second just might be true.

Why should Dominionists (as that sheriff seems to be) be the only ones armed?

[4th law of robotics]

57. There's an article about 11,000 untested

rape kits they just found in Detroit.

Apparently women can't count on the law to do anything if they are raped.

So yeah, defending themselves might not be such a bad idea.

[gejohnston]

6. Maybe the "greatest gun salesman" award should go to Brownie

for doing a heck of a job for fucking things up. Or is it just a coincidence?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_Katrina

[shadowrider]

9. Katrina..Hmmm. Isn't that where cops went around confiscating guns that the anti's insist

will never happen with registration?

[Reasonable_Argument]

12. Yep

Infact they passed a law after it happened to prevent them from disarming people like that in the future.

[friendly_iconoclast]

13. And done by the order of Democrat Ray Nagin, sadly...

[shadowrider]

18. Wait. I thought we were supposed to blame everything involving Katrina on B*sh. n/t

[friendly_iconoclast]

20. Oh, there was plenty of blame to go around for *that* clusterfuck.

I liked Spike Lee's "When The Levees Broke" very much (even bought the DVD set). One definitely gets the idea watching it that almost everybody in authority down there had their thumbs
planted firmly up their asses...

[friendly_iconoclast]

10. I think Ray Nagin and Eddie Compass share the credit for that, but yeah, Brownie's a contender...

[Dr_Scholl]

30. The number of hunters increased 9 percent in 5 years.

As a hunter, I find that to be very good news.

[4th law of robotics]

50. But but all gun owners are racists who just bought guns because a black guy won

that is the established mantra.

How can something so often repeated be false?

[Remmah2]

60. When I drop by the local purveyor of fine blue steel.

Quite a few minorities shopping (black, hispanic, asian), some of them husband and wife teams making joint decisions. Those looking at handguns had their handgun permits on the counter.

Maybe they were making straw purchases to ship to Mexico.

[spin]

58. Most of the media has pushed for strong gun control for years. ...

The media has been willing to exaggerate, mislead and even lie to its readers and viewers in order to promote strong firearms legislation and gun bans such as the assault weapons ban. It also has strongly opposed victim rights laws such as 'castle doctrine" and "stand your ground." This might be due for the fact that many in the media live in areas that have little knowledge of firearms and where the laws are unfriendly to RKBA.

In an attempt to explain their failure to influence its audience the media will use any excuse it can come up with rather than admit that its propaganda has failed. Therefore it blames its failure on the fact that Americans fear that Obama's administration plans to impose draconian gun laws.

But to be fair the NRA and conservatives have attempted to scare Americans into believing that the Obama administration and the Democrats in Congress are planning to impose another assault weapons ban and then even more gun bans and restrictive gun laws. Once again this tactic involves deceit, lies and propaganda.

It is true that as an Illinois politician, Obama was a proponent of strong gun control. That is hardly surprising in a state largely run by King Richard Daley of Chicago. However since Obama became President he has largely been very friendly in gun owner's rights and has received an "F" grade from the Brady Campaign.

It is also true that some very liberal politicians in the Democratic Party have pushed for much stronger gun control. This may be their true personal view and it does play well to the liberal Democrats in the areas they represent. However the NRA and conservatives rarely point out that many other Democrats in Congress strongly support RKBA. For example another Assault Weapons Ban would face an uphill battle ever getting passed not only because of Republican opposition but also because many Democrats would simply refuse to support it.

It is my opinion that Americans are not as stupid as the media and the NRA assumes. Our citizens have the ability to detect bullshit no matter who is pushing it.

It the NRA was truly successful in scaring Americans into believing that Democrats wish to disarm them, than why doesn't this organization have far more than 4.3 million members? Remember that there are an estimated 80 million gun owners in our nation!

If all the propaganda from the media has any real impact than why does the Brady Campaign have only 50,000 total members? (source: http://blog.joehuffman.org/2010/05/28/BradyCampaignMembershipNumbers.aspx)

It is my opinion that firearm sales in our nation are up because many new and improved firearms are reaching the marketplace. Evil looking assault style black rifles are becoming popular because they are very accurate, reliable and adaptable. Small compact pistols are best sellers because of the advent of "shall issue" concealed carry and because they are very light and easy to carry. Gun ownership is increasing because many women are deciding that guns are not just for men.

America is a firearm friendly nation and has a strong gun culture. Love it or hate it, this is the fact and unlikely to change in the near future.