Liberals: Stop Worrying About Concealed Carry Laws

320px38sp.png
It's Okay to Conceal This
Painting with broad brush strokes, liberals tend to favor stricter regulation of guns (although I do think conservatives tend to go out of their way to demonize anyone who dares "tread" on the newly found constitutional right to bear arms). At all events, concealed carry laws (i.e., you can walk around with a gun) have found success in many state legislatures (here's a cool chart that shows the success of concealed carry laws since 1986).

Liberals -- at least those liberals that I like to call "liberals who give liberals a bad name" (e.g., Keith Olbermann, Chris Matthews, college kids, James Carville, Eleanor Clift, Maureen Dowd) -- are generally against concealed carry laws. Indeed, the dreaded, liberal New York Times issued an editorial called "The Scourge of Concealed Guns."

(Pendantic, tangential, but needed point: yes, the Times editorial board tends to lean left; no one disputes that. This does not mean, however, that their journalism is also liberally biased. This is true of all the mainstream media. They care more about conflict and ratings than they do about pushing any specific ideological agenda. As one prominent political scientist said: "As I've written before, I typically don't believe strong claims about media bias, mainly because good systematic evidence of bias is in very short supply.")

In any event, liberals many times have blinders on when it comes to guns; they let their visceral reactions get the best of the empirical reality. And the empirical reality is this: concealed carry laws are just fine; the people who have concealed carry permits aren't the people who commit gun violence.

Professor Mark A.R. Kleiman, who is very liberal in his politics, has shown in his academic work that a number of ideas that gun control advocates hold dear simply do not pass empirical muster. (Read the following blog posts by Kleiman and you will understand that he is nowhere near conservative: here, and here). Anyways, as Kleiman shows in his book When Brute Force Fails there is little to no evidence that people who carry guns under a concealed carry permit are the people who commit gun crimes. (p. 145, if you're cite-checking). More bad news for gun-hating liberals: the Brady Law never had much effect on crime.

The lesson here is that when facts get in the way of beliefs, it is our opinions that need to change, not our rationalizations.

My Voice Nation Help
22 comments
Puller58
Puller58

Gun control activists either like to fundraise or are too emotionally invested to make sense.

MadMac
MadMac

Was this about concealed carry or about media outlets/pundets? I counted two paragraphs--out of five-ish--rattling about the latter in a piece supposedly about the former. Or is this the writing sample the author intends to submit to "The National Review" or, dare I type it, Breitbart?  

DontCry
DontCry

A pro gun piece by Calvin!? *shocked*

matx
matx

I expect Hair Balls to be news with commentary sprinkled with opinion, but there is no news here, just a lot of opinion and too many parenthesis. 

desirae.alfred
desirae.alfred

@MadMac I think the post is supposed to be from Calvin TerBeek to liberals, and media pundets can be liberals too right?  Or is it because media pundets can own guns too?

calvin.terbeek
calvin.terbeek

@matxI'll cop to the too many parentheticals critiscism (you're right. Ha). But see for news/commentary/empirical evidence:

Professor Mark A.R. Kleiman, who is very liberal in his politics, has shown in his academic work that a number of ideas that gun control advocates hold dear simply do not pass empirical muster. (Read the following blog posts by Kleiman and you will understand that he is nowhere near conservative: here, and here). Anyways, as Kleiman shows in his book When Brute Force Fails there is little to no evidence that people who carry guns under a concealed carry permit are the people who commit gun crimes. (p. 145, if you're cite-checking). More bad news for gun-hating liberals: the Brady Law never had much effect on crime.

DontCry
DontCry

@DontCry  Slow day at the 976 number? You should go ahead and take the rest of the day off, "pennylove".

MadMac
MadMac

You're engaging in straw man tactics.

MadMac
MadMac

@galen @DontCry @MadMac No "gun bravado," here. Tools--guns, hammers, saws, pots, pans--don't equal manhood. But you can keep leaning on your store-bought dick if you want, Boo-Boo.

galen
galen

@DontCry @MadMac  

You've already shown yourself to be a gun-rights puss, conceding this and that. Don't act like a gun bravado, dude.

DontCry
DontCry

@MadMac   Someone cares what you want off the market, Macky boy?  I know I don't.

How many millions upon millions of gun owners didn't blow away anyone, ever, or never will? 

Stupid kneejerk overreaction in a pathetic attempt to punish millions of people over the actions of a few maniacs. Not gonna happen, sorry.

MadMac
MadMac

I don't want your guns, Skippy. I have guns of my own. What most of us would rather is that 20/30/40 round mags and military drop guns not be on the market. I'll go further out on the limb to say we'd kinda like our family/friends/selves NOT to be blown away in a mass shooting. Too much to ask?

MadMac
MadMac

Yeah, you're--you are, correct?--right. I'll get back to work and you can get back to...well, whatever it is you do with all those parentheses.

DontCry
DontCry

@MadMac Gun control isn't about guns, it's about control. 

You can't have our guns, sorry.

calvin.terbeek
calvin.terbeek

@MadMac  

(1) Substanceless ad hominem reply. On the one hand, you say I was attacking an entire group, but when I pointed out I was being careful in how I presented the issue, you respond with a personal attack. Not well played.

(2) I think anyone is who is more concerned about "active shooter" incidents than concealed carry laws should also never fly  because they're worrying about an event that infinitesimally unlikely to happen to them. Poor analogy.

(3) No, you said KO had not been in the political arena for four years. I corrected you. You stand corrected. Tucker Carlson is not on TV anymore, but has a terrible website, can I not call him a small-minded conservative shill (which is he is)?

(4) An Amazon link is standard practice when linking to a book. Should I have linked to the PUP (Princeton Univ. Press) URL instead?

(5) I don't even understand the reference. Either you had read the previous post or you hadn't. I was just informing you where it came from.

(6) Again, substanceless ad hominem reply. It's a blog post. On a small point. You again try and have your analytical cake and eat it too. I can't write on a small issue within the larger gun control debate, because it's just too big of a debate for a small post. That's a circular argument attached to name calling. Again, not well played. Also, it's "your" not "you're."


MadMac
MadMac

1) Your used-car disclaimer is just that and just as meaningful.

2) After Newtown, Aurora, and the Navy Yard, do you honestly think liberals are more concerned about concealed carry than getting gunned down on the job/school/MOVIE THEATER?

3) Your point here is subjective and adds little to your argument. My point on Olbermann--that you ignored--is that he has not been in the political arena in over year and is therefore a non-entity in this debate.

4) Citing? Sure. An Amazon link? Pimping.

5) I should get the home game, huh?

6) Cute pun aside, you're a shot at a huge national debate from a tiny corner in which you feel educated enough to defend. That's second cousin to throwing a rock and hiding your hands.

calvin.terbeek
calvin.terbeek

@MadMac

(1) I said "painting with broad brush strokes," you ignore that.

(2) Are you seriously going to contend that liberals, vis-a-vis conservatives, are not the group more likely to oppose concealed carry laws. Do a quick Google search..

(3) There are liberals who give liberals a bad name. They are the snarky (see Dowd, KO -- who has, btw, been on Current TV within the past four years, so you're wrong on that point) or who tow the company line (see Matthews) that make them no better than a Hannity or Limbaugh.

(4) I'm not pimping the book, I was using academic, empirical work to show that concealed carry laws are not a problem.

(5) the college kids dig was based on an earlier post I did: http://whatthehelliswater.com/2013/11/01/liberals-who-give-liberals-a-bad-name-college-kids-edition/

Inside baseball for non-regular readers.

(6) I wasn't saying that concealed carry is the paramount gun control issue of our time, I was taking a rifle shot and saying this is not an issue to worry about. 


MadMac
MadMac

You attribute opposition to concealed carry to an entire group of people to "make" your argument. Taking shots at the "liberals who give liberals a bad name," is not proving a point or vanquishing liberal arguments for responsibilty and gun control. BTW, in the past year, the only thing Olbermann has discussed on the air was sports.

You want to pimp the book, pimp the book. But don't shill on the weak argument that this book proves some great victory against "college kids" on THE salient point of the gun control debate. Concealed carry takes a deep back seat to many, many other gun control issues.

Now Trending

Houston Concert Tickets

From the Vault

 

Loading...