Good News for Some, Bad for Others

Gun maker stocks took a big hit after Trump's win.

Dodge City and Marshal Dillon

" The school-age population of Dodge City is 70 to 80 percent non-white, mainly Latino." That's from James Fallows writing about the impact of immigration to work in meat-packing plants in western Kansas.

Funny, I was thinking about Dodge City, which I've never visited, but I've spent many hours there. I was born early enough that we only had radio for entertainment, so the late 40's and early 50's I'd come home from school and listen to radio, also on the weekends.  I remember fondly "what evil lurks in the hearts of men, the Shadow knows", Sergeant Preston, Amos 'n Andy (I still think it was better than its historical reputation.  Around supper time there was "Our Miss Brooks" (an early feminist serial, IMHO, and One Man's Family.

But in 1952 Gunsmoke came on the air and quickly became a favorite.  Then late in the 50's we got TV and could see Matt Dillon, Kitty, Doc, Chester, and the others.  I recommend the wikipedia entry; the show was both very popular (the longest running show) and sometimes very liberal.  I wonder what today's historians are making of it.

Of course the Dodge City of Gunsmoke was different than the Dodge City of the 1880's, and different than today's Dodge City.  Things change.

Oh, and Marshal Dillon: he believed in strict gun control, no guns in town.

Gun Control and Civil Sanctions

Some, like Conor Friedersdorf and Kevin Williamson, have problems with the no-fly list, saying it penalizes people without any legal process or chance of redress.  There's also the FBI terrorist watch list, which apparently overlaps no-fly but is different. In a different area, we have the sex offender lists. IMO all three lists deprive people of abilities they'd normally have. The right says that denying guns to people on such list is denying them their Second Amendment, Constitutional right, which is wrong.

I think Friedersdorf and Williamson have a point: there should be a legal process for review and possible challenge when people lose, possibly for the duration of their life, some abilities.   I think that's true even for sex offenders, who have already gone through a legal process. People can grow and change, people can be convicted in error.

The Senate is to vote on the issue in this coming week--several proposals, none of which are likely to pass.  I've not studied the issue, but I think, provided there's a review process at some point, it's reasonable to deny guns to those on those lists.

And having said that, I don't think such a restriction would do much to avert mass shootings.  Even Mateen would have passed that test, since he wasn't on the FBI list when he bought his guns. 

I like the New York gun laws, including the requirement for friends to sign onto the application for a permit, but even with those laws Jiverly Antares Wong killed 13 people just a few miles south of where I grew up.

Technological Advances and Mass Shootings

Tyler Cowen asked why the increase in mass shootings over the last 50 years or so.  He elicited a lot of comments.  I suggested there was a gain in available firepower over the years.  That in the 1960's you saw a lot of revolvers.  Even pistols didn't have big magazines.  And rifles were mostly hunting rifles.  So a shooter had more difficulty in getting a lot of shots off in a short period of time.  One of the most deadly mass shooters in our history was the Texas man, who used a rifle from a library tower, quite different setup than our usual scenario these days.


I got some push back but nothing which convinces me.  The changes in the weapons which are available don't cause mass shootings, but they make them more feasible.

Seems to me back in the 50’s, most handguns were six-shooters and often revolvers (harder to reload?). So I think technological trends have enabled more mass shootings. My impression is that most people who fire guns, whether in the military during war, police, or people committing crimes, often have to fire many times to inflict wounds and death–multiple bullets for one hit. So the increasing ability to fire a lot of bullets has likely increased the number killed and wounded in any one event. And perhaps the ability to do so has increased the likelihood of doing so? - See more at: http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2015/12/what-is-the-best-theory-for-the-rise-in-mass-shootings.html#comment-158820760

Seems to me back in the 50’s, most handguns were six-shooters and often revolvers (harder to reload?). So I think technological trends have enabled more mass shootings. My impression is that most people who fire guns, whether in the military during war, police, or people committing crimes, often have to fire many times to inflict wounds and death–multiple bullets for one hit. So the increasing ability to fire a lot of bullets has likely increased the number killed and wounded in any one event. And perhaps the ability to do so has increased the likelihood of doing so? - See more at: http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2015/12/what-is-the-best-theory-for-the-rise-in-mass-shootings.html#comment-158820760

Seems to me back in the 50’s, most handguns were six-shooters and often revolvers (harder to reload?). So I think technological trends have enabled more mass shootings. My impression is that most people who fire guns, whether in the military during war, police, or people committing crimes, often have to fire many times to inflict wounds and death–multiple bullets for one hit. So the increasing ability to fire a lot of bullets has likely increased the number killed and wounded in any one event. And perhaps the ability to do so has increased the likelihood of doing so? - See more at: http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2015/12/what-is-the-best-theory-for-the-rise-in-mass-shootings.html#comment-158820760

Seems to me back in the 50’s, most handguns were six-shooters and often revolvers (harder to reload?). So I think technological trends have enabled more mass shootings. My impression is that most people who fire guns, whether in the military during war, police, or people committing crimes, often have to fire many times to inflict wounds and death–multiple bullets for one hit. So the increasing ability to fire a lot of bullets has likely increased the number killed and wounded in any one event. And perhaps the ability to do so has increased the likelihood of doing so? - See more at: http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2015/12/what-is-the-best-theory-for-the-rise-in-mass-shootings.html#comment-158820760

Seems to me back in the 50’s, most handguns were six-shooters and often revolvers (harder to reload?). So I think technological trends have enabled more mass shootings. My impression is that most people who fire guns, whether in the military during war, police, or people committing crimes, often have to fire many times to inflict wounds and death–multiple bullets for one hit. So the increasing ability to fire a lot of bullets has likely increased the number killed and wounded in any one event. And perhaps the ability to do so has increased the likelihood of doing so? - See more at: http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2015/12/what-is-the-best-theory-for-the-rise-in-mass-shootings.html#comment-158820760

Seems to me back in the 50’s, most handguns were six-shooters and often revolvers (harder to reload?). So I think technological trends have enabled more mass shootings. My impression is that most people who fire guns, whether in the military during war, police, or people committing crimes, often have to fire many times to inflict wounds and death–multiple bullets for one hit. So the increasing ability to fire a lot of bullets has likely increased the number killed and wounded in any one event. And perhaps the ability to do so has increased the likelihood of doing so? - See more at: http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2015/12/what-is-the-best-theory-for-the-rise-in-mass-shootings.html#comment-158820760

Bad Gun Shops

A seemingly simple proposal on which many could agree: clamp down on the 5 percent of gun shops which sell 95 percent of the guns later used in crimes.

But, as one of my mantras says, "it's complicated".  I read another piece on the lawsuit against Badger Guns in Milwaukee (sold a gun to a "straw buyer" who turned it over to someone who shot two cops).  Too lazy to look it up, but probably the Times. I believe Badger Guns is now under new management, though the owner is related to the old one.  That's the loophole, one which FSA experiences with enforcing payment limitation: identity is often fluid, not fixed.  Today's gun dealer is tomorrow's bystander, even though common sense says there's a continuity there.  But the law does not incorporate common sense.  Common sense tells us a lot of bad things and we wish to do no bad.

The Persistence of Historical Patterns

Mississippi was a major source of the guns which the Chicago police department recovered (third ranking state after Illinois and Indiana). Mississippi was also a major source of the black population of Chicago during the "Great Migration".

Gun Nuts Should Use Puritans, Not Hitler

Politico has an article where the Anti-defamation League warns against using Hitler in the context of the current debates over gun safety.  That's fine, but one does need an extreme example in any political argument, so I'll offer one: the Massachusetts Puritans.  I'm reading Bernard Bailyn's Barbarous Years which is interesting.  He observes that in the early days of the Bay Colony, when there was a raging conflict between Wheelwright and Hutchinson and the leaders of the colony (I'm sure that was covered in your history class--Anne Hutchinson being the first prominent woman protestor), the leadership took the step of confiscating all the arms possessed by the 60-70 people who supported the dissidents.

So instead of using a photo of Hitler, use one of the standard pictures of a Puritan, like John Winthrop, the man who used "city on a hill" before Ronald Reagan.

Your Cell Phone or Your Rifle: A Choice

A mental experiment for those who believe the Second Amendment is important in protecting freedom.

Suppose, for sake of argument, a leftie President has purged the military of all right-thinking people and is obviously plotting a coup to establish a dictatorship.  It's time to take to the hills.  Now, you have a choice: you can only take one of the following with you, and your choice applies to every member of the resistance:  your cell phone or your rifle?

To me, that's a no-brainer given the scenario and reasonable assumptions for what's not described.  A cell phone would be much more useful in organizing resistance than a rifle, however large its magazine.

Why There's People Talking Past Each Other?

Via MonkeyCage, here's a map showing school shootings in the US over the last 15 years. Not sure of the criteria, looks to be a rather low bar.  But two things struck me:

• a lot more shootings than I would have thought because it's not limited to mass shootings
• the wedge of states with none:  Montana, the Dakotas, Wyoming, Nebraska, Kansas look to have no shootings.  I'm guessing, but I'd suspect these states are mostly rural and mostly retain the hunting culture I grew up in, a culture where kids went deer hunting when they were old enough, having a 30.06 rifle was a mark of maturity, and handguns were things brought back from WWII.  I suspect it's also an area with strong NRA representation. 

Guns

Not much to say except this: I'd like to see Congress focus more on the ATF.  Last I knew they hadn't had a permanent director for about 6 years, basically because NRA has enough clout to stall Obama's nominees and Obama hasn't had enough interest to try to push one through.  But that's no way to run a railroad.

Further, IMHO, it's ridiculous that they're prohibited from maintaining a database on gun purchasers--they have to destroy the data which is submitted for background checks. Given everything which is available on the internet and all the cross-checking which the government is now trying to do, such as e-Verify and the erroneous payments thing, this is ridiculous.

Set up an advisory board for the ATF database, stick an NRA rep on it, and they'll be in a position to blow a whistle if there's abuses.

Guns and Laskas

I should hat tip someone but I forget who.  Jeanne Marie Laskas used to write for the Post, and I always enjoyed her work. In this GQ article she explores an Arizona gun shop and its world.  It's honest.

Surprise of the Day: Fewer Gun Owners

While the US has gotten much more permissive on issuing permits to carry guns, what's surprising is that gun ownership has declined very significantly in the last 40 years.  That's from John Sides at the Monkey Cage.  Once you stop to think, we've become a more suburban nation over the years, and suburbia doesn't hunt and often doesn't have guns.