I’ve spent much of the past six months interviewing people across the United States in the leadup to the [New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen] case—part of research for a book I’m writing about the cultural and racial effects of U.S. gun laws. Although I uncovered a wide range of opinions, these interviews have given me a greater appreciation for the ways that high-level political games become grounded in the ostensibly “organic” political instincts of everyday Americans.
Among conservative white gun owners in the South and Midwest, I found there is often reflexive support for the idea that northern and urban gun-control laws should be overturned. This was true even for many interview subjects who had never been to the cities in question—and particularly so when I explained that the case centers around gun laws in New York. “New York—well that says it all right there,” a Tennessee Uber driver in his fifties told me. “Hell yes I would want to carry my guns in New York [should I ever go there],” said a Michigan real estate agent in her forties. For these and other conservative interviewees, gun laws in cities like New York represented symbolic northern affront to their notion of uninfringed liberties (“It’s my constitutional right to carry anywhere I want”)—and in places where they imagine they would need to defend themselves against threats from racial others (“I might get carjacked!”).
But I also found a surprising current of pro-gun sentiment among a not insignificant minority of people who identified as liberal and who lived in the very cities in question—especially among people under forty. “Criminals have guns, so why shouldn’t we?” a thirty-seven-year-old white woman art dealer in Brooklyn told me. “Why should police have all the guns?” asked a twenty-six-year-old Black male programmer from Manhattan. A thirty-three-year-old white woman realtor from Boston explained that “hopefully this will make it easier for my friends and me to take shooting classes.”
These types of replies reflect an almost perfect storm of factors that have hardened, enhanced, or shifted attitudes toward guns in 2020 and 2021. The COVID-19 pandemic ushered in near-apocalyptic levels of anxiety and mistrust. In the early months of the pandemic, guns and bullets flew of the shelves as quickly as Purell and toilet paper—spurred by then President Donald Trump’s alarmist rhetoric that urged supporters to “save your great 2nd Amendment. It is under siege!”
Gun sales then rose by over 300 percent in the aftermath of the May 2020 killing of George Floyd and the protests that followed—both among protesters concerned about police violence and among white people with deep fears of racial protest. Not missing a beat, the NRA ramped up efforts to sell more guns to communities of color. When they stood on their St. Louis lawn waving guns at passing protesters, Mark and Patricia McCloskey became the clown-car villains of the left—but heroes of the castle-doctrine right. All the while, gun manufacturers retained unprecedented immunity from lawsuits, and (thanks to the Trump administration) expressly pro-gun justices [presided] over ever-more courthouses across the country—including the Supreme Court.
Evidence suggests that even people from groups that have historically been the strongest supporters of gun control began packing heat as a result of these cultural shifts. Ranks of liberal and Democrat gun owners grew exponentially in 2020 and 2021. Washington Post columnist Karen Attiah describes the “allure” of guns and gun groups for Black women “feeling a need to protect ourselves in an anti-Black and misogynistic society.” Armed Black self-defense—the very thought of which was once a rationale for white anxiety, Black oppression, and stricter gun control—has witnessed a revival as a viable movement of people who are “Black and up in arms.”
The confluence of these factors has led even many supporters of gun regulation to question its utility or, worse, to despair that gun control is a “lost cause.” “What are we even doing? America feels like it’s moved on from this issue,” a GVP organizer and activist in Nashville told me, even as shootings and deaths spiked in the city.
— Jonathan M. Metzl in The Supreme Court Is Poised to Put Politics Ahead of Gun-Violence Prevention
Nice article. But… it seems to have a slight undercurrent of confirmation bias although that doesn’t change the conclusion in this case
RE: “For these and other conservative interviewees, gun laws in cities like New York represented symbolic northern affront to their notion of uninfringed liberties (“It’s my constitutional right to carry anywhere I want”)—and in places where they imagine they would need to defend themselves against threats from Racial others (“I might get carjacked!”).”
The only thing “Racial” concerning firearms is without doubt “Gun Control” and its history confirms it. A sicko diabolical history that should not be forgotten. Gun Control and its baggage is the primary reason to Defend The United States Constitution and specifically The Second Amendment. Unfortunately the history that exposes Gun Control Rot is often nowhere to be found especially by authors who have to run around asking questions like a hyper comic book reporter working at the Daily Planet.
As for any bigoted minded moron who thinks the shadowy image they created in their mind of an attacker being Black could be a colossal mistake. Such narrow minded individuals are setting themselves up to become a b*tch for some white perp, etc.
Let’s cut the chase…It is no more complicated than the following Jonathan M. Metzl…
1) The Second Amendment is one thing.
2) The criminal misuse of firearms, bricks, bats, knives, vehicles, etc. is another thing.
3) History Confirms Gun Control in any shape, matter or form is a racist and nazi based Thing.
Work for 2-3 hours in your spare time and get paid 1200 0n y0ur bank acc0unt every week…
Get m0re inf0rmation 0n f0ll0wing site… WorkJoin1
“…a slight undercurrent of confirmation bias.”
I’d go much further: this article is a hot mess, full of weird racial innuendo, misleading information, and outright falsehoods. Honestly, it’s hard to understand what the author is going for – maybe he’s having a sad because more people (and no longer just icky middle aged conservative guys) are buying guns?
If you want to go back to demonizing gun nut boomers (and only gun nut boomers) like in the good old days, stop fueling your brave new world with law enforcement overreach, pandemic hypocrisy, arson, murder, and lies.
Stop pretending the rise in gun ownership amongst all demographics is complicated and confusing – it’s not. At all.
By the way, people need to go read the full article in the link. The presentation here at TTAG is not showing the whole picture the complete article presents.
I think the author’s bio says enough:
I sensed the writer was a sneak running around to get the results he wants. Injecting race where race has no business being injected in a book concerning firearms raised a red flag. Notice how the writer runs around looking first for skin color and second comes their opinion.
If the writer was anywhere near a neutral supporter of Gun Rights as he wants to dupe people into believing he would have been up front and properly included race by mentioning the long diabolical racist history of Gun Control. And he would have made it clear the party back then behind race based Gun Control was the democRat Party which is also the same party behind today’s Gun Control Rot.
Beyond the racist history of Gun Control race has zip, nada, nothing to do with firearms. There are no Negros Pick Up Your Gun At The Backdoor signs displayed at Gun Stores anywhere in America.
“Jonathan Michel Metzl (born December 12, 1964) is an American psychiatrist ”
IE – an useless oxygen thief
‘New York State Rifle & Pistol v. Bruen may give the right—and its politics of racial resentment—a major win, but at the cost of gun control laws known to prevent shootings.’
That’s as far as I made it. There’s no need to go wading in it when you can smell the shit from a mile away.
Kinda of like the statists saying: “racism and classism is not only okay when we do it, it’s righteous.”
“There’s no need to go wading in it when you can smell the shit from a mile away.”
Best comment all week (so far)…closely seconded by Shire-man’s righteous quote.
Hope you don’t mind that I’m ‘appropriating’ your phrases.
Horse PUCKY! Gun Control Laws do not prevent any crimes. They are in fact an infringement on the rights of legal gun owners. Can you point to ONE life saved by a “gun control law”?
Any criminal who wants a gun can get one as easy as buying a donut at Dunkin and he doesn’t have to go to the gun store. The corner illegal gun dealers will supply the criminal at a price. Just how does the “gun control laws” stope the corner illegal gun dealer?
So, Trump was president in 2005, when the PLCAA was passed?
Of course, by ‘unprecedented’ he means ‘granted the same protections as every other business from liability due to the criminal misuse of their products’. Thinly veiled propaganda piece here.
You have just tried to criminalize legal lawful use of a firearm in self defense. Your position is pure unadulterated FICTION!
You appear to have missed the ‘criminal misuse’ part.
You need to take more care when reading. The comma is before the parenthesis, so it applies to the judges, not PLCAA. Trump is certainly responsible for nominating a lot of originalist and constructionist judges, who would be likely to uphold PLCAA and reject silly arguments like negligent marketing. It’s probably his most significant and long lasting achievement as President, which the author is trying to denigrate.
If you apply the rules of English grammar, the part in parentheses AFTER the 2nd comma clearly indicates it’s referring to the direct object. If you slept through that class, all is forgiven.
Bottom line, the writer attributed the increase in the number of pro-gun justices to President Trump’s work in filling an all-time historic number of judicial vacancies.
But LOLbertarians still keep saying “TrUmP iS AnTiGuN bEcAuSe He sAiD tAkE tHe GuNs FiRsT”, without regard to the fact that he was doing a rope-a-dope on the Dems. Trump’s actions in filling the courts with pro-gun justices then directing the BATF on bumpstocks was intended to get gun cases in front of those judges so that pro-gun decisions would be issued and thereby settle the argument over the 2nd Amendment once and for all.
He was playing 4-D chess while the other side thought it was a game of checkers…
‘…against threats from racial others (“I might get carjacked!”).’ – Way to inject race where none is mentioned. As if white midwesterners care what the color of their carjacker’s skin is.
These liberal propagandists (i.e. ‘journalists’) are so desperate to invoke racism. Protests? They burned the police station to the ground. The veil was lifted. The cops can’t protect you, they can’t even protect their own station. When the sheriff turns tail and runs what do you expect the townspeople to do? They’re going to run to get their guns. Race has nothing to do with it, which is why minorities were flocking to the gun stores.
“…are so desperate to invoke racism. Protests? They burned the police station to the ground.”
Every time a Leftist relative of mine invokes Trump’s ‘insurrection’ I pull up the pic of that police station in flames with a ‘protester’ (actually, an insurrectionist) with arms raised over his head in triumph and say to him “There were police inside when that was set on fire. That is what an insurrection looks like, a real, violent attack on authority, with attempted murder”…
So it is alarmist to preserve, protect and defend the U.S. Constitution, which Donald Trump swore an oath to? The NRA sells guns? This tells me everything I need to know about the author.
Ummm…OK. The world is going to he!! Praise the LORD & pass the ammunition. Went shooting with my buddy yesterday at Point Blank. He got better & so did I. He hated his Sig 365. I thought it was great. I would put a Handall Jr. on it.
The only thing “Racial” concerning firearms is without doubt “Gun Control” and its history confirms it. A sicko diabolical history that should not be forgotten. Gun Control and its baggage is the primary reason to Defend The United States Constitution and specifically The Second Amendment. Unfortunately the history that exposes Gun Control Rot is often nowhere to be found especially by authors who have to run around asking questions like a hyper comic book reporter working at the Daily Planet.
As for any bigoted minded moron who thinks the shadowy image they created in their mind of an attacker being Black could be a colossal mistake. Such narrow minded individuals are setting themselves up to become a b for some white perp, etc.
Let’s cut the chase…It is no more complicated than the following Jonathan M. Metzl…
1) The Second Amendment is one thing.
2) The criminal misuse of firearms, bricks, bats, knives, vehicles, etc. is another thing.
3) History Confirms Gun Control in any shape, matter or form is a racist and nazi based Thing.
were you moderated? i realize it didn’t cost me extra, but maybe you can type the same thing over and over once an article instead.
(said the shite poster).
not disagreeing.
Some pure *gold* in the article :
“But I also found a surprising current of pro-gun sentiment among a not insignificant minority of people who identified as liberal and who lived in the very cities in question—especially among people under forty.”
Someone needs to pass that along to David Hoggg and others convinced they have a lock on the youth. Those under 40 in sewers of Leftist Scum like NYC want guns, and they want them very badly.
With any luck with the case about to be heard at the SCotUS, those in NYC just may get to finally exercise their civil rights… 🙂
Mr. Metzl is clearly suffering from severe heartburn over the potential restoration of human and civil rights in America’s bastions of “progressive” racism. We can only hope that the Supreme Court will soon exacerbate his unfortunate condition.
That Jonathan M. Metzl is a snarky little putz, isn’t he. His bias won’t even allow him to write a clear sentence. His reference to a ‘not insignificant minority’ is about as clumsy as it gets. Does he mean a “significant minority?” If so, why not just write that?
Well, we know why.
Either way, it’s more people than he’d like who want guns.
All that serious work, all that effort to try and convince Americans guns are bad, *wasted*.
And *that*, really burns his scrawny ass… 😉
Currently there is legislation in PA legislature for constitutional carry. There is also legislation to strengthen an already pretty good preemption law. Fingers crossed.
If you’re riding a commuter train in Philly, a gun might be useful.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/riders-watched-woman-was-raped-septa-train-no-one-called-n1281695
no mention of the fact that he is here illegally.
The system needs racist, doesn’t matter what color, as long as I hate them and they hate me.
Unity in the United States, bad for business.
Growing up in NYC and surrounding areas, it was always a given to me that only the police and the mob carried guns. It wasn’t until I took a job in CA that an ex LAPD officer got me into shooting.
Talk about an addictive hobby.
The political platitudes on gun control all sound good on the surface. The problem is what lies beneath. While the claim is usually about preventing crime, public safety, protecting children, or preventing suicide, the reality is none of those issues will ever be affected by denying the rights of people to keep and bear arms.
The whole concept is to attempt to keep certain people, usually racial, ethnic, or political groups from having weapons or being able to protect themselves from the depredations and discrimination whoever the ruling class/group is at the time.
Those who would commit a violent crime, or use a weapon to coerce others to act, will find a way of arming themselves. And, as we have seen with the recent incident in Norway, a gun is not needed to commit murder, or cause mayhem.
And, if someone wants to commit suicide, and is serious about it, they will find a way. Where I grew up, nearly everyone had a rifle or shotgun. And yet, the most common method of suicide was hanging. Japan is highly restrictive on gun ownership. And the suicide rates are higher than here.
Then there is the save the children thing. Going to the CDC and FBI numbers, more children die in swimming pools than by playing with unsecured guns. Perhaps we should outlaw pools.
Then comes the issue of gun shops and dealers. With the expense of getting and keeping an FFL and the state and local business licenses, very few licensed dealers are going to knowingly sell guns to those who are prohibited. Or allow an obvious straw purchase. Just not worth the potential cost. And then there is the notion of forcing businesses to fortify their buildings and storage areas, etc. well, people get into bank vaults too.
At some point, the gun control politicians and anti gun groups will have to stop blaming the victims, or the hardware and start putting the blame where it belongs. On the criminals committing the crimes.
My prayers are with Larry Vickers in his battle with cancer and the BATFE.
As usual the comments run the gamut from good to bad and some totally off topic (like ‘work’ spam).
Academics can (and do – like this guy) use ‘research’ to try to ‘prove’ their point. The reality is very simple: 1) the anti-gun crowd wants to ban – or at least limit – the ownership of guns by Law Abiding Citizens. They have been using the same old ‘its for the children’ etc arguments since day one. 2) Law Abiding Citizens resist the draconian attempts at control, and rightly so.
Almost all of the ‘studies/research’ is just a means to polish the credentials of those doing them. And yes to some extent that applies to both ‘sides’.
“and in places where they imagine they would need to defend themselves against threats from racial others (“I might get carjacked!”)”
And there it is. Why make it about race? It’s not about race at all. More people = more crime. I mean, you’re more likely to get carjacked in New York City than in rural Ohio, are you not?
‘Washington Post columnist Karen Attiah describes the “allure” of guns and gun groups for Black women “feeling a need to protect ourselves in an anti-Black and misogynistic society.”’
it’s not an anti-Black society that Black women have to be afraid of. Rather, it’s Black society, specifically Black society in big, blue cities.
“The Supreme Court Is Poised to Put Politics Ahead of Gun-Violence Prevention” seems to me to be better reworded as ‘ I’m afraid the Supreme Court is poised to put the Constitution ahead of my constitutionally prohibited policy preferences.’
Subverting the Constitution is what would be political.
The full Metzl article repetitively, obsessively, pathologically links everything about guns to race. The article’s main utility is in exposing for others to see how warped the minds of the modern “progressive” Left have become: they live in a mania, a moral panic, about race and cannot help themselves but to return to race. It’s some kind of weird psychological myopia that needs to see blacks as victims and whites as evil. According to form, Metzl—who writes with little precision and much elision, short of detail and with innuendo and unfounded assertion about other people’s motives and inner thoughts, and as though a stray tendentiously, sparsely rendered factoid is always dispositive for his side in the argument—is in the main horrified that he will no longer be able to disparage gun owners as stupid white nationalist racists, since many other groups have now seen the light and realize the importance of 2A not just for others but themselves.
He apparently sees reality through a thick, coke-bottle-like racial lens and continually returns to his refrain of how this or that law, circumstance, fact, or possibility will hurt black people. The focus is so obsessive as to be concerning: is this person sane? Should he (if he is) be working as a professional psychologist, with a well-demonstrated antipathy toward certain groups (such as say suburban, heterosexual white males, and a jarring idol-worship of others (such as black people, which thoughts and behaviors—putting blacks on a separate pedestal from everyone else—are just as demeaning to blacks as any garden variety racism? Reading the article, one gets the impression that the only importance of the upcoming judicial decisions that may invalidate state laws is how they will affect blacks, and that all arguments proponents of treating 2A like a regular amendment (and not a special one that judges get to nip and tuck at because supposedly it doesn’t really mean what it plainly says) and basing law on its perfectly clear instruction that “the people” have a right to keep and bear arms is all just code for a big race issue where whites only possible reason for wanting guns is because they are scared of blacks.
It’s a horrible article, poorly reasoned, obsessively focused, and quite unfair and racist in that inimitable Leftist style. It’s only useful as a window into the crazed modern Leftist mind, which has filled the empty spot in its soul vacated by traditional religion, wisdom, and morality with a monomaniacal fervor for their new god of identity politics, and the woke catechism it imposes across all culture, like a scythe in the cornfield, razing to the ground all facets of our civilization in its compass, leaving nothing but empty nihilistic dread in its wake.
What motivates the rank-and-file of the gun control campaign is fear of the street thug, fear of the gangbanger.
They feel that if there were gun control laws, the state could more easily deal with the street thug and the gangbanger. Not enough evidence that a street thug committed a mugging? Get him for possessing a handgun without a permit. Not enough evidence that a gangbanger gunned down a bunch of kids in front of a school during a drive-by shooting? Get him for possessing a thirty-round magazine.
More and more of them are realizing that the people pushing gun control do not want to keep them safe from the street thug and the gangbanger.
http://ethicsalarms.com/2021/06/05/san-franciscos-hard-lesson-in-unethical-ethics/
I was shocked by the anti-gun bias in this piece. Then I re-read the title, and realized it’s an example of the horror felt these days by the left.
Comments are closed.