Verdict
By Mitch Berg
Support for the anti-rights “gun safety” agenda is a mile wide and an inch deep.
Support for gun rights is a mile wide and a mile deep.
Although Mayors Against Illegal Guns’ efforts helped defeat GOP gubernatorial candidate Ken Cuccinelli, no one seriously expected him to win. However, of the 67 Virginia House of Delegates candidates endorsed by the National Rifle Association and targeted by Bloomberg’s group, 65 won, according to the Washington Examiner.
That’s about a 3% win rate for the splashy anti-rights group – or alternately, 97% for the good guys.
It’s been a tough year for the splashy, big-bucks rights-grabbing group:
After December’s Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre, the group got behind President Obama’s call for sweeping gun control legislation. But negotiations between U.S. Sens. Pat Toomey, R-Pa., and Joe Manchin, D-W.V., yielded a mere milquetoast background check proposal.
Still, the Mayors Against Illegal Guns website reported that the group got firmly behind the bill and aired a new series of ads campaigning for its passage. When the measure came for a Senate vote, it went down in flames.
It wasn’t just legislation:
The group then tried to prevent the recall of two anti-gun state senators in Colorado. Although a reported $2 million was spent to support the lawmakers, both lost their jobs, according to Reuters.
About 10% of the mayors are voting with their feet:
Some 95 key members of the group that targets and criticizes lawmakers backed by the National Rifle Association are losing their title of “mayor.” According to an election review of Bloomberg’s membership list of about 1,000, three quit the group, 69 retired from their jobs, and 23 were rejected by voters.
And that doesn’t even count the ones that have left office for, er, other reasons.
And I bet Michael Bloomberg would call this next factoid an “unintended consequence”, if he were honest enough:
As for that Virginia election, the number of state lawmakers the NRA rated “A” actually grew from 63 to 65 as a result of Tuesday’s election.
More of this.
November 13th, 2013 at 7:50 am
Time for one of the lefty commenters here to come in and reference the “study” which “proves factually” that a gun in the home is more likely to (insert your own situation here).
Because there are a few problems with this study. One is that the “conclusion” is stated differently, depending on who is writing. I have read that it “proves”:
-that you are more likely to shoot a family member
-that you are more likely to kill a family member
-that it is more likely to cause an accident, etc
You get the idea; the conclusions of the study are not stated accurately, and vary widely.
The second problem is that it was a poorly constructed study. Conducted over only one year, in only one county in the US. But it also did not control for murder. Why is that important? Because the conclusion of the study was stated along the lines that you will be more likely to shoot someone you know (the word family is not in the conclusion) than defend yourself. Well, murder, or attempted murder, is definitely shooting someone you know. Lousy study all together.
Mitch, do remember the name of this study or the authors? I would like to read it again.I have the main thrust of it correct, but I would like to be able to cite it.
Anyone here familiar with it? Was done in 1972 I believe.
November 13th, 2013 at 7:51 am
PS: Apologies for the doggone length of that post.
November 13th, 2013 at 10:45 am
kinlaw;
I believe that I speak for almost everyone when I say that there is a huge difference when comparing Doggie’s lengthy posts with almost anyone elses, as follows:
1. Hers are 99.99% fact free
2. Those of us that actually read hers, are dumber for having done so.
November 13th, 2013 at 3:15 pm
Manchin’s involvement in the issue has always struck me as odd. What’s his goal? I realize that he’s probably worried about President Obama’s war against coal, but getting involved in the pro- side of the gun control issue seems a bit out of his league and beyond the scope of his constituents’ expectations.
November 14th, 2013 at 12:45 am
Mitch:
Lets not forget that most of the bills are supported by Democrats who went out and said Obamacare was a great bill. The retort I will start throwing out when a Democrat is talking that this is great idea just interrupt, “Um weren’t you the person who said Obamacare was great so I don’t think you know what you’re talking about on guns (or insert issue) to be taken seriously.”
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN