Gun ownership on the rise among liberals according to a new report

[HARK!]

The Wall Street Journal reported this week that more and more liberals are buying guns, calling it a "surprising" trend among a group of voters that typically support restrictions.

For a piece published Thursday, the outlet looked at new gun ownership data and spoke to experts and several Democratic gun owners to understand what’s behind this trend.

The piece opened with the example of lifelong Democrat and gun restriction supporter Michael Ciemnoczolowski, who recently bought his first firearm.

Ciemnoczolowski, a liquor store clerk in Iowa City, Iowa told the journal that he bought the weapon because he’s worried about "street crime, armed right-wing extremists" and voiced his fear of U.S. politics getting worse.

"Domestic politics have grown increasingly acrimonious," he told the media outlet.

'Surprising': Gun ownership on the rise among liberals according to a new report

A new report from The Wall Street Journal revealed that there's a "surprising" trend of Democratic voters who are "rediscovering" gun ownership.

www.foxnews.com

Sounds like code for gearing up for a civil war. Some of them are already trying to gun down the opposing party.

 

[bèlla]

People are genuinely concerned there might be unrest with this election and they're making provisions and I don't blame them. We've done the same. There's too much contention on both sides and that usually results in innocents getting hurt. If weapons or other items will increase their safety and peace of mind so be it.

~bella

 

[Offline4Better.]

The Wall Street Journal reported this week that more and more liberals are buying guns, calling it a "surprising" trend among a group of voters that typically support restrictions.

For a piece published Thursday, the outlet looked at new gun ownership data and spoke to experts and several Democratic gun owners to understand what’s behind this trend.

The piece opened with the example of lifelong Democrat and gun restriction supporter Michael Ciemnoczolowski, who recently bought his first firearm.

Ciemnoczolowski, a liquor store clerk in Iowa City, Iowa told the journal that he bought the weapon because he’s worried about "street crime, armed right-wing extremists" and voiced his fear of U.S. politics getting worse.

"Domestic politics have grown increasingly acrimonious," he told the media outlet.

'Surprising': Gun ownership on the rise among liberals according to a new report

A new report from The Wall Street Journal revealed that there's a "surprising" trend of Democratic voters who are "rediscovering" gun ownership.

www.foxnews.com

Sounds like code for gearing up for a civil war. Some of them are already trying to gun down the opposing party.

Ahh, this makes me proud to be a moderate who owns no guns. If someone wants to use guns for hunting, or protection, go right ahead, as long as it is not military-grade. But for myself, I do not want any firearms in my place. My folks do not use firearms either, cos hunting is too much work.

As of July 2024, 45% of Republicans own guns, while 20% of Democrats own guns, according to Pew Research:

Key facts about Americans and guns

About six-in-ten U.S. adults (58%) favor stricter gun laws. Another 26% say that U.S. gun laws are about right, while 15% favor less strict gun laws.

www.pewresearch.org

Now, phaser ownership (set to stun for safety) would be kinda cool. My inner Trekkie always shows, brother.

 

[Richard T]

I think this is a good consequence for those that support the 2nd amendment as an individual right. Once you have a gun, I would hypothesis that you will be far less likely to want restrictions in the future that would take away your ownership. In a brief glance I do not see anywhere that data has been analyzed to test this.

 

[Laodicean60]

I believe all this extremism talk and fear started during the Trump administration. The looney toons started acting out more during this time and the media amplified the message of civil war till now, so I can understand the fear on the left and the reason they are buying guns to prepare for the perceived civil war. This is good for the NRA. :/



npr.org October 31, 2018

https://www.npr.org/2018/10/31/662216598/another-civil-war-pessimism-about-political-violence-deepens-in-a-divided-nation

 

[ThatRobGuy]

"owning guns" and "favoring restrictions" aren't mutually exclusive.

Many of the democratic gun owners I know are of a mindset in the theme of:
"Having a Glock around for self defense is okay, hunting rifles are fine, but we don't want the public to have AR15's, and we want magazine capacity restrictions"

 

[Offline4Better.]

"owning guns" and "favoring restrictions" aren't mutually exclusive.

Many of the democratic gun owners I know are of a mindset in the theme of:
"Having a Glock around for self defense is okay, hunting rifles are fine, but we don't want the public to have AR15's, and we want magazine capacity restrictions"

I agree with you, and I am not a gun owner. Your democratic gun owner friends are sensible people.

By the way, Glocks are apparently made in Austria, a country with a much lower gun ownership rate (30 guns/100 people) compared to the US (>100 guns / 100 people).

Source:

Home | Small Arms Survey

For over 20 years, the Small Arms Survey has provided impartial, evidence-based, and policy-relevant knowledge on all aspects of small arms and armed violence to governments, policymakers, researchers, and civil society.

www.smallarmssurvey.org

 

[Laodicean60]

but we don't want the public to have AR15's, and we want magazine capacity restrictions

My sons are part of the public and own this weapon and have more respect for human life than some of the nut cases in our country. I believe handguns have killed more people than AR's and how many rounds does a Glock hold, it too can kill multiple people if in the hands of a criminal or a lunatic.

 

[RileyG]

People are genuinely concerned there might be unrest with this election and they're making provisions and I don't blame them. We've done the same. There's too much contention on both sides and that usually results in innocents getting hurt. If weapons or other items will increase their safety and peace of mind so be it.

~bella

I agree. As long as they are safe and responsible, I have no problem with anyone owning guns legally.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

People are genuinely concerned there might be unrest with this election and they're making provisions and I don't blame them. We've done the same. There's too much contention on both sides and that usually results in innocents getting hurt. If weapons or other items will increase their safety and peace of mind so be it.

It's multi-faceted, and both factions seem to want to only acknowledge the facet that confirms certain biases.

For instance, some on the left will suggest that "Democrats buying guns is due to the political unrest caused by Trump/MAGA, it shows how much Trump has destabilized political discourse in this country"

Some on the right will suggest "Democrats buying guns due to fears of violent crime" (and then attempt to attribute the violent crime to Democrats' own policies)

There's a certain measure of truth to both. I think there likely are some democrats buying guns for both of those reasons.



Although, it should be noted, that in a few other articles talking about these polls, they acknowledge certain social/stigma limitations, that could mean that the increase of democratic gun ownership may not have been as steep as reported.

Meaning, some of the democrats who are now acknowledging being gun-owners in the most recent polling, may have very well been gun owners all along, but just didn't feel comfortable "fessing up" due to the stigmas about guns from their peer groups making it a "taboo". But having the "socially acceptable" reason (in eyes of their peers) of "I'm worried about fascist MAGA violence" may be getting some people to admit "Yes, I have some guns at home", when they would've otherwise said "no" back in 2010 because now they have a "reason" they can give that they think would be better-received by their friends.


A progressive person saying "I carry a Glock in case I'm in a bad neighborhood and someone tries to rob me" wouldn't have been well-received by their peers, and would've likely been met with lectures about "privilege" and "implicit bias", and perhaps even ostracization. However, saying "I feel like I have to carry one in case some extremist in a MAGA hat tries to attack me" isn't going to get them shunned.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

My sons are part of the public and own this weapon and have more respect for human life than some of the nut cases in our country. I believe handguns have killed more people than AR's and how many rounds does a Glock hold, it too can kill multiple people if in the hands of a criminal or a lunatic.

I have an AR as well, I don't personally buy into all the stigmas about them.

I was just explaining that attitudes on gun restrictions isn't an "on-off switch", but more like a "dimmer switch" with varying levels of support for the different forms of gun control.

 

[RileyG]

"owning guns" and "favoring restrictions" aren't mutually exclusive.

Many of the democratic gun owners I know are of a mindset in the theme of:
"Having a Glock around for self defense is okay, hunting rifles are fine, but we don't want the public to have AR15's, and we want magazine capacity restrictions"

Well said.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

Some on the right will suggest "Democrats buying guns due to fears of violent crime" (and then attempt to attribute the violent crime to Democrats' own policies)

Or, as in the OP, "they're gearing up for civil war".

 

[bèlla]

It's multi-faceted, and both factions seem to want to only acknowledge the facet that confirms certain biases.

That's evident in this thread and others and misses the point. People are concerned about their safety and that's heightened because of the election. That's what's changed. You didn't wonder if election results would spark a riot or something worse a few years ago. We saw things like that on television. But now it's our reality.

I agree there's a lot of people who own guns who don't admit it. Whether it's for political reasons, stigma, or the element of surprise. I think the argument will meet its end as crime increases. Some areas are dealing with that more than others.

A channel I watch on occasion just experienced an attempted break in. He's in California and they're dealing with a lot of challenges including squatting. Fortunately he wasn't hurt and had protection. These are hard questions we need to consider for ourselves with the understanding we can't dictate that for others.

~bella

 

[dogs4thewin]

Or, as in the OP, "they're gearing up for civil war".

Well sadly I would not be shocked if they are doing so rightly.

 

[bèlla]

I agree. As long as they are safe and responsible, I have no problem with anyone owning guns legally.

Nor do I because I'm practical. Humans do things we'd never imagine. Admitting that doesn't make you bad. It allows you to prepare accordingly.

~bella

 

[RocksInMyHead]

Well sadly I would not be shocked if they are doing so rightly.

The OP's implication was that liberals were planning to instigate said civil war. Calling it "code" suggests that it's being done covertly, and he goes on to state "Some of them are already trying to gun down the opposing party," which is false.

 

[Laodicean60]

The OP's implication was that liberals were planning to instigate said civil war. Calling it "code" suggests that it's being done covertly, and he goes on to state "Some of them are already trying to gun down the opposing party," which is false.

I didn't read your implications in the article but for self-protection maybe because crime in certain areas is noticeable and I don't blame them. The "civil war" that came from the right years ago is still being regurgitated by the media, after all it makes good clickbait.

 

[RileyG]

Nor do I because I'm practical. Humans do things we'd never imagine. Admitting that doesn't make you bad. It allows you to prepare accordingly.

~bella

Well said.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

I didn't read your implications in the article

The article didn't imply it - the OP did with his commentary. Read the final two sentences of his first post.