Musings on
"The Obama Effect"
Whats behind the rise in gun sales?
On November 11, 2008 history was made. For the first time
ever, an African-American was elected President of the
United States. The outcome of this election was greeted with
enthusiastic celebrations not only in the U. S. but world
wide. For a full week after the event, that aspect of the
story remained headline news for the various media outlets
with discussions of how far this country has advanced since
the civil rights movement. It is indeed quite remarkable
to consider that just 30 years ago such an outcome would never
have been conceived of but is a reality today.
During the campaign, Senator Obama's team deliberately steered
away from the issue of gun control, however groups both for and
against most deffinitely made it a priority and, as usual, the
truth was only a passing concern for many on both sides of this
debate. Both camps spent many millions of dollars trying to
convince people to support their favored candidate. In the
end, it is my oppinion that while this was not an insignifant
part of the election, that it probably didn't have a
significant impact on the outcome of the election. Votes were
not universally cast for or against gun control and the Obama
camp did a pretty good job of downplaying and just simply
avoiding the issue during the campaign. People cast their
votes based much more on Iraq and Afghanistan, the economy,
and general dissatisfaction (or outright anger in some cases)
with the direction the country had taken in the past eight
years under President Bush.
At the end of what proved to be the longest and perhaps the
hardest fought Presidential campaign in American history (much
to the irritation of many members of the public), it was
Senator Obama and congressional Democrats who finaly emerged
victorious. So, wether we wanted it or not, Barack Obama
is now in a position to decide many gun control issues. But
what that really means and, given the economy and world
turmoil that abounds, wether he will be willing or able to get
anything pushed through remains to be seen.
Of course, people are often suspicious and untrusting where
government is concerned so the day after the election, almost
from the moment the doors opened, the buying frenzy
began. This was very quickly termed "the Obama
effect" by the media.
These various media outlets reported that sales had risen more
than 300% in the week following the election. If it could be
classed as a tatical weapon, a magnum, or a
semi-automatic handgun, shops sold record numbers, sometimes
selling several at a time to the same person, some of whom, it
has been reported to me, were actually buying their very first
gun. An air of "get it while you can" settled in
with a hint of gloom and doom in the background.
It wasn't only the guns that were selling like mad, ammunition
sales also rose through the roof. Many of the hunting
cartridges were seemingly unnaffected by this surge but if it
was a handgun round or went in anything that could be classed
as an assault rifle under the old ban, it vanished from store
shelves almost as fast as the store owners could put it
out. People began stocking up anticipating higher prices and
supply shortages and it deserves mention that the irony is
that this hoarding has created these very conditions. During a
visit to one of the local sporting goods stores, I was told a
story by one of the gentlemen minding the gun counter that the
previous morning, he had placed 3,000 rounds of .223 out on
the shelves. Within half an hour, a man walked into the store
and bought 3,000 rounds of .223. Conversations with
representatives from other stores showed that this was a
common occurance.
Strangely, the shortages even apply to the lowly .22LR,
something that as far as I am aware never before has been a
target of legislation or restrictions directly. Unless you are
willing to accept the absolute bottom of the rung in quality,
you can't find these rounds for sale. (I know, I had to go to
five stores just to buy my favored round for my little Ruger
Single-Six, a gun which hates the cheap rounds.)
That Left Turn at Albequerque
But a question arises: is this run on the gun shops foresight
or is this merely panic buying brought on by paranoia? More to
the point, how much of this is a result of publications from
groups such as the National Rifle Association and how much of
this was a result of a pit in the stomach of those whose concern
derrives from other sources? After trying to resume my normal
firearms activities in the weeks following the election and
observing that store shelves were not being replenished and
even being denied range time because I couldn't find bullets
to buy, indicating that demand was in no way slowing, I began
considering the issue.
The NRA printed a flyer during the campaign citing 10 points
they claimed Obama would change if he were to become
President. FactCheck.org analyzed this flyer and found that
there were some points on which it was correct, some on which
it seemed to be dead wrong, and some which were either
misleading, unsupported, or on which they could find little
information at all. Wether you accept that this site is
impartial or not and regardless of wether the assertions by
the NRA are correct or not, it shows that there are vagueries
in any political campaign. It just goes to prove the old
addage that no one ever lets facts get in the way of a good
argument.
But lets not forget the other side of this issue. There have
been many advertizements by gun control advocates that all but
ignore the facts. It only takes a few moments cruisin' the web
to find reports of groups either ignoring statistics,
misinterpreting them or outright falsifying them. Such is
supported by the writings of Benedict D. LaRosa of The Future
of Freedom Foundation in an article he wrote in 2002 titled,
"Can
Gun Control Reduce Crime?"
Gun control vs. gun rights has got to be one of the most
emotionally charged issues in American politics and the
advocates on both sides know it, they feed on it. In both
camps, you find just as much propeganda as you do fact. Both
camps argue that those on the other side are afraid of
everyone and everything around them, painting the picture that
their positions are based not on rational thought but basic
fear. There are many who believe only what their chosen group
tells them to believe and nothing else. Further, in the
extreme, there are those who allow their vote to be swayed by
political endorsements from one side of the other and don't
even look at the candidates or the issues themselves. Fear and
paranoia are the order of the day when it comes to this
debate.
Gun rights groups (remember that there are several and
further that the NRA can often be the moderate on that side of
the aisle) have created an atmosphere of near panic
among their core supporters with statements such as
President-elect Obama will be rival Bill Clinton as the most
anti-gun President in history, trade publications with adds on
their websites stating, "prepare for the storm in
2009," and so on. Even the editorial in February's
Guns & Ammo has Richard
Venola calling for his readers to (re)join the NRA as a
protection against what may come, only adding fuel to the
fire. (C'mon, Richard, even though I do agree with your cracks
about MTV and "continued on page 76", isn't it
possible you're overstating the rest just a little? Worthy
cause or not, is it really necessary to use G&A's pages to
stump for the NRA?) This atmosphere is only strengthened by
the cries from the other side of the aisle for everything from
simple registration databases to an outright ban of everything
that goes bang, 2nd ammendment be damned.
So what exactly do we know that soon-to-be President Obama
will support? Well, at the least, he is on
record as supporting registration of all guns and gun owners,
he has supported in the past a national ban on concealed
carry, however he also supported legislation to allow
retired law enforcment agents to carry a concealed weapon even
though local laws banned concealed carry, and the statement
was made during the campaign that, "I think it is a
scandal that this
President [Bush] did not authorize a renewal of the assault
weapons ban." But on the other hand, he is also on record
as supporting the right of sportsmen to hunt and fish. In the
same breath he also stated that he has no problems with dads
teaching their kids – future hunters – to shoot,
and that citizens have the right to lawfully buy and carry
guns and to use those weapons to protect their homes and their
families.
It must be remembered, though, that some of the
claims by gun rights advocates are based on things Barack
Obama said or did 15 years ago. In my history, I've personally
been on both sides of this issue, and pretty firmly at
that. People change. Shouldn't we allow him that opportunity
too?
While President-Elect Obama received a majority of votes, one
thing he made sure to mention quickly after the election was
that it was not a landslide, rather, a great many
people voted against him. He stated that we must recognize
that this fact meant that while the people had chosen change,
they had through their vote also signaled that they did not
desire a radical shift in public policy. The future President
took time during his acceptance speech and several times
afterwards to reassure the public that he did not intend to
take a hard left turn, just simply to get back on course.
On the surface, it seems that Barack Obama is not a radical
leftist democrat but that he is in fact closer to the center
than virtually any member of the republican party leadership
has been in the past several years. So what does this mean for
gun control/gun rights? Well, frankly, it's very hard for me
to see a clear picture. My current impression is that he is
not about to risk alienating gun owners who could well cost
him not only re-election in 2012 but also congress in 2010. We
can't judge as to wether or not this is supported by his
history in the Senate since, for all intents in purposes, he
really doesn't have a history and thats part of the reason he
got elected. With no old arguments to bring back, he appeared
to have a clean slate.
Is he a centrist or isn't he? What I see is a man who has
changed his oppions on more than one issue in the past but who
did so only over time, not overnight. To me, this indicates
someone gaining experience and knowledge of the issues, not
someone who touts only what the public wants to hear. So he
seems closer to the center than to the left from where I
stand. If he's not a centrist, it sounds at least like he
generally wants to try to govern from the center.
Various political commentators as well as members of the press
have questioned, though, wether President Obama, once he is
innagurated, can indeed govern from the middle. Citing the
nearly overwhelming Democratic majority in Congress, they
postulated that even if he wants to govern from the center,
congressional and party leaders may not let him.
It is intersting, though, that seemingly all of the arguments
are directed at Obama himself. To me, the concern is not so much
Mr. Obama (with all the other messes he has to deal with, I
just don't think it's high enough on his agenda), rather, the
concern for me is congress. Lets not forget that there is now a
virtually veto-proof majority in the Senate and if the Senate
had achieved a 66 member majority, it wouldn't matter what the
President said anyway since they could just simply force the
issue. As it stands, they need only to get one or two Republicans
on their side to be able to block a fillibuster when legislation
that the Republican party doesn't like comes forward. The
Democrats now also hold a sizable majority in the
House. That means there is virtually no opposition to any
measure the Democratic party can rally behind. Or, to put it
another way, the checks are out of balance.
As President, Barack Obama can sign off on many
directives but to fundamentally change the law requires
support from the legislature and he knows this. No, it's not
the President-elect that worries me, it's congress. When
you have that kind of majority, the centrists start to lose
their voice and the radical elements float to the
surface. It's that prospect that I fear.
So whats the cause of the panic? Is it foresight or just
simple paranoia? From conversations with folks at the counter,
the prevailing oppinion is that it's a bit of both. For my
part, I feel that more of it is paranoia.
Many people feel, myself included, that almost without a doubt,
the assault weapons ban will be returned. It seems very
probable that there will be limits placed on magazine
capacities on a national level. Likely, there will be new
restrictions and regulations governing ammunition production
and sale though it remains to be seen just how severe. It is
conceivable that we may
see entire classes of weapons and accessories no longer
available for recreational purposes with further restrictions
on those that can be used for home defense and personal
protection. That says that certain purchases such as what the
industry classes as tactical rifles are deffinitely
foresight. (And there are doubtless those who bought only to
try to use these as an investment should prices go up as a
result of new laws.)
How much is paranoia? I'd venture that it is probably a 70/30
split. What I am hearing out of the future President doesn't
generally alarm me, I mean, most of it is expected and not
overly concerning. Yeah, I'm gonna be unhappy about some of it
but we can't always have things the way we want them. But if
you keep abreast of the various gun publications, the staff at
many of these would have you believe that the world
is about to come to a swift end. Of the gun shops I do
business with, I have observed that there is deffinitely a
different air in each shop I enter. The more conservative
shops all seem to hold the gloom and doom perspective while
the other shops are only slightly worried.
So, at the end of the day, is Chicken Little right?
Only time will tell.
For the Record...
Before wrapping up, I should take a moment to ensure that a
few things are understood about myself and my own positions. I am
not a member of the press, nor do I represent any group. I am
a gun owner and in fact own several however I am not an NRA
member. I am presently a holder of a concealed carry permit
and carry as often as I am permitted to do so. This editorial
does not represent anyone's views but my own and was written
solely because, "It seemed like a good idea at the
time." I will also admit that my name is on the list for
an M4, assuming the manufacturer can get it to my local shop in
time but I did not otherwise participate in the frenzied
buying. Oh, and I voted for the other guy.
|