Liberalizing Gun Control

[jongle]

As most are aware, the US Supreme Court will opine within the next couple of months on the issue of the "right to keep and bear arms". At issue is Washington DC's draconion law, which amounts to a virtual ban on carrying concealed. Your friendly, retired lawyer is willing to accept a modest wager on the outcome, which, I predict, will state that the 2d Amendment confers on private folks the right to keep and bear, subject to reasonable regulation by the states.

At the same time, we are seeing a liberalization of state gun laws with respect to CCW. Last time I checked, 48 of the fifty states have some kind of CCW program, and many have changed them of late to reflect the Castle Doctrine. Many have adopted "shall issue" as opposed to "may issue" standards.

My sense, without any supporting data, is that there is an unspoken understanding that there are not enough LEOs to "protect us", that interpersonal violence is on the rise and that local revenues are falling off. You can't expect any pol to openly advise folks to get and carry, and take self defense classes, but the recent trend suggests this.

I don't recall growing up anyone bringing guns to class, let alone opening fire on the class. And when I was in college, there were no instances of college women being abducted and shot. There didn't seem to be instances of little kids being kidnapped, molested and killed, either, and now it happens frequently.

I ramble; sorry.

But I am curious as to what your sense of all this is.

[DefensiveCarry.com]

[Kerbouchard]

My take is it was happening when you were growing up, also. The difference is the media's outtake on it. If it bleeds it leads.

Before Internet, you didn't hear about a school shooting within minutes of it happening. If you weren't local to the area, there is a good chance that you would never hear about it.

I don't believe it's happening that much more, it's just over-sensationalized, and you get more news from more locations which prior to our current technology would have slipped under your radar.

With todays technology, instant updates, online forums, and the Internet bringing almost limitless information to you at a click of the mouse, its inevitable that you would be subjected to more news then what was possible even 20 years ago.

In the last 20 years or so, we have also criminalize things that were common place before. If a gun is found on campus today it makes headlines. 20 years ago having guns on campus or in a H.S. parking lot was normal.

So part of it is more things are illegal and sensationalized, and the other part of it is you have access to more of what is going on.
Just my .02

[Cakewalk]

At the same time, we are seeing a liberalization of state gun laws with respect to CCW. Last time I checked, 48 of the fifty states have some kind of CCW program, and many have changed them of late to reflect the Castle Doctrine. Many have adopted "shall issue" as opposed to "may issue" standards.

That fact alone shows that the mainstream media and all it's anti-gun rhetoric is severely out of touch with the general population in America. It's my feeling that the majority of citizens are a much more tolerant of people who carry a gun for protection than the media projects.

[PackerBackerToo]

You can't expect any pol to openly advise folks to get and carry, and take self defense classes, but the recent trend suggests this.

Montgomery, AL Mayor Bobby Bright did in '05:

WSFA 12 News Montgomery, AL |Mayor Bright suggests crime solution: Buy a gun

[Janq]

...Before Internet, you didn't hear about a school shooting within minutes of it happening. If you weren't local to the area, there is a good chance that you would never hear about it...

Thats a common comment and statement that over the past decade I've seen stated often but it's not true.
Before the internet with e-mail and websites toward reporting of all manner of happenings amongst the media there was fax (been around since the late 70s), and Teletype before that (IIRC dating back to the 40s), along with telephone (circa 1800s), and telegram via Western Union has been around just as long. Then of course not to forget the extremely powerful means of radio including commercial and shortwave as well, both of which were used to disseminate information quickly to regions around the world.
News of events such as the shootings of MLK, RFK, JFK, Malcolm X, and others in key modern history were reported by the above means in real time with same day and even same hour timeliness. Same goes for results and activities world wide large and small.

The internet is just the latest version of what we've long had in modern history toward communication and sharing of information quickly and accurately beyond immediate ground based borders. In the days before the internet folks were just as informed toward day to day events and goings on, if they had interest toward as much, via newspaper, radio, TV, and newswire too.

- Janq

[Kerbouchard]

Yes, events such as the moon landing, presidential assasinations and other key history moments were spread rapidly, and in 'almost' real time. A whacko shooting somebody at the local Dairy Queen in Nowhere, Texas were not.

Yes, sensational items did get nationwide coverage in the days of yore, but I still stand by the fact that we have 'sensationalized' a great many more things, and I still say that 20-30 years ago, you would not have heard about a home invasion that took place 2000 miles away.

If you look at the numbers, our violent crime rates are decreasing, but if all you judged by was the nightly news, then you would think we are being overrun with crime(which we still are, and have been for many years now, but that's a different thread)

Western Union or the telephone do not have the same efficiency of transfering information as the internet.

Since information is available at faster speeds, in larger quantities, it allows more information to be shared.

If more information is shared at faster speeds, and the % of violent information remains constant, it would follow that more information that is violent in nature would be available.

[Janq]

Yeah but home invasions that go on at *.US do not normally now make national news anyway, so to that end it's moot.
The home invasions and school related incidents that do make national news today tend to be big deal type events and big deal type vents were making national news too pre-internet.

As to efficiency WU and the telephone works just fine and has and by results still does today. See cell phones and 9/11 or Katrina or *.event.US resulting in cell service in a region being locked up with calls nearly immediately thereafter.
If anything the internet has allowed for easier and more pervasive retention of data for post event review on the order of years and decades. Information that prior used to stored on microfiche if deemed relevant for archival purposes or stored in a box somewhere as hardcopy to which a human finger wouldhave to ping it manually and directly.

- Janq