Expect supplies of guns and ammo to get very tight

Travlin
By Travlin on Mon, Jul 2, 2012 - 12:35am

If you are thinking about purchasing a gun then sooner is likely to be better than later.  If you have less than a year’s supply of ammo, now is a good time to stock up.

About this time in 2008 sales of guns and ammo started rising and accelerated rapidly after President Obama was elected.  By December there were serious shortages of all popular calibers of ammo  Prices rose rapidly and by February 2009 shelves were usually empty, and largely stayed that way for over a year.  When a Walmart store got a new shipment they rationed purchases to 3 or 4 boxes to prevent one person from taking the entire shipment and reselling it at a much higher price.  Some calibers, like .380, were not available in any stores, or even online, for nearly a year.  Some guns, especially rifles like ARs and AKs, followed a similar pattern.

This was driven by increased demand because people feared Obama’s anti-gun record.  Unofficially, he was known as the gun salesman of the year, and it took a good two years for supplies to catch up.  I don’t want to argue politics here, but this was a clearly observable phenomenon.  Current chatter is that if he wins a second term he will feel free to pursue anti-gun policies.  I'm not saying that is correct, but it is a common perception. So another shortage is likely as the presidential race heats up, especially if Obama wins.

Travlin 

33 Comments

Doug's picture
Doug
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 1 2008
Posts: 2736
Quote:This was driven by

Quote:
This was driven by increased demand because people feared Obama’s anti-gun record. Unofficially, he was known as the gun salesman of the year, and it took a good two years for supplies to catch up.  I don’t want to argue politics here, but this was a clearly observable phenomenon.  Current chatter is that if he wins a second term he will feel free to pursue anti-gun policies.

You may not want to be political, but I don't know how you can avoid it with this kind of statement.  Could you be specific about "Obama's anti-gun record?"  It may (or may not) be true that a lot of guns were sold in the wake of Obama's election, but that wasn't because of anything having to do with Obama.  It was due to the constant (for the last 30 of 40 years) drumbeat from the NRA that every politician left of Attila the Hun is a threat to gun owners.  In the meantime, handgun laws have loosened enormously:

rtc.gif

This NRA campaign of disinformation has been very profitable for gun dealers, but is largely based on ignorance of the masses.  That's not to say that I'm anti-gun (I own a few myself) but the kind of inflammatory rhetoric that comes from the gun nuts is largely BS and could be dangerous.

Dogs_In_A_Pile's picture
Dogs_In_A_Pile
Status: Martenson Brigade Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 4 2009
Posts: 2485
A Matter of Perspective

Travlin -

None of what you experienced occurred in SE Virginia.  There was an initial rush to buy ammo, but there was never an instance where I couldn't find what I was looking for.  The only exception was S & W .32 semi for my Beretta PSF Model 1934 and that was more because .32 is not a commonly found round in this part of the state.  .22, .357, .380, 9, 40 and 45 were all reasonably priced and easy to find.  I don't recall any issues with any firearm shortages either - the only time I had to wait was when the local gun shop sold out of their M/LE discount allotment.  It was either wait for a re-order or pay full price, but it wasn't like the gun was unavailable.  I just had to decide if I wanted to pay $399 for a S&W M&P 40 or pay full price - so I waited.

I heard from friends in the Charlottesville area that 40 and .45 ammo was hard to find - but that wasn't an issue for me.  It may be that SE Virginia was the 5 CEP outlier, but we just didn't see here what you did.  My gut says it happened in some places and they got all the press because everyone knows 2nd Amendment issues are hot button these days.

MarkM's picture
MarkM
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Jul 22 2008
Posts: 755
Texas

had the same experience as you describe, Travlin, both guns and ammo.  Mebbe wes jus gots mo bubbas.

Xsabers's picture
Xsabers
Status: Member (Offline)
Joined: Dec 7 2011
Posts: 1
Really??

Doug your question, " Could you be specific about "Obama's anti-gun record?" is either witty sarcasm or overtly Democrat dogma.

He's supported Chicago's gun bans.

He's appointed anti-gun Supreme Court Justices.

He was a Director at the rabidly anti-gun Joyce Foundation.

He supported legislation in IL that limited handgun sales to one a month.

He supports the reinstatment of the Clinton "assault weapons" ban.

Then, of course, there's Fast and Furious.  His administration's plan to facilitate the shipping of US guns to Mexico, knowing they'd be used in crimes on both sides of the border, in order to "create" evidence to support more rigid gun control.

Travlin, we're seeing the same thing in the Northwest.  Ammo, if you can find it, is going up in price.  AR 15s THE sport/utility rifle are also hard to come by at a reasonable price.  There are a few around a grand each, but that's stretching a prospective buyers' budget.  The thing that makes this really interesting is that this current trend is being created by "gun people".  When the general population gets nervous and decides to go by a gun "just in case", and they notice a shortage, then the frenzy will really start.

I really believe that with a gun and ammo should come training as a priority.  22+ years in the Army have shown me that training survives stress when "knowledge" doesn't.

Dogs_In_A_Pile's picture
Dogs_In_A_Pile
Status: Martenson Brigade Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 4 2009
Posts: 2485
MarkM wrote: Mebbe wes jus

MarkM wrote:

Mebbe wes jus gots mo bubbas.

Thanks for the belly laugh.

Bubbas........must be Texan for "coastal rednecks".  We got 'em too, just not as many.

slash2's picture
slash2
Status: Member (Offline)
Joined: Dec 20 2010
Posts: 2
Xsabers wrote: I really

Xsabers wrote:

I really believe that with a gun and ammo should come training as a priority.  22+ years in the Army have shown me that training survives stress when "knowledge" doesn't.

I can't agree more with this part of your comments Xsabers. My father, a career cop, once told me "son, don't point anything at another person that you don't want shoved up your a**". Anyone who thinks they will be safe just by virtue of owning a firearm runs the risk of having it figuratively "shoved up their a**".

Without the training and practice of using a firearm under stress, a gun can become a liability rather than an asset. A novice, or even an experienced hunter might very well be able to protect themselves with a gun if they are lucky, but more likely, without having trained and practiced its use in a stressful self defense situation, there's a good chance they'll make some silly mistakes when it counts. Recreational shooting, target practice and even hunting do not prepare you for the kind of brain farts you will have if you're suddenly fearing for your life. Like Xsaber said "training survives stress when knowledge doesn't".

robie robinson's picture
robie robinson
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 25 2009
Posts: 611
FWIW

1.1 million hunting licenses sold in texas (assuming each hunter only has one gun, and sufficient ammo) in '08 http://forums.bowsite.com/TF/bgforums/thread-print.cfm?threadid=345100&forum=36.

thats alota bullets. the untrained army of gulfcoast hunters is twice the size of the PLA

robie

Travlin's picture
Travlin
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Apr 15 2010
Posts: 1322
Doug and Dogs

Doug

I enjoy reading your informative posts in the forums.  But I will respectfully decline to discus Obama’s political position on guns.  That is not the point of my message.  Everyone is free to do the research and decide for themselves.  I would not have mentioned him at all if I could have avoided it.  However, the primary buyers of  guns and ammo have strong opinions about Obama.  Rightly or wrongly, that definitely drove a surge of buying that accelerated at a surprising rate for many months.  This was widely discussed on the internet, and confirmed for me by multiple personal observations.

This thread is a reminder that as we enter another presidential election we may see the same pattern again.  Everyone is free to decide what to make of that.

Dogs

While tight supplies were reported nationally, they were not evenly distributed.  However, they were very widespread.  What some found particularly disturbing was that when local supplies dried up they couldn’t get what they wanted online either.  I’ve got to go now, but I’ll see if I can find some old threads tonight from national gun forums so you can judge for yourself.

Travlin

Dogs_In_A_Pile's picture
Dogs_In_A_Pile
Status: Martenson Brigade Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 4 2009
Posts: 2485
No doubt

Travlin wrote:

Dogs

While tight supplies were reported nationally, they were not evenly distributed.  However, they were very widespread.  What some found particularly disturbing was that when local supplies dried up they couldn’t get what they wanted online either.  I’ve got to go now, but I’ll see if I can find some old threads tonight from national gun forums so you can judge for yourself.

Travlin

Trav -

Not doubting the overall data.  We just didn't see it locally in SE Virginia.  I suppose life on the left side of the bell curve isn't always bad.  cool

I suppose a real barometer would be seeing supplies tighten up in our area given the past history....

Looking forward to reading the links.

Doug's picture
Doug
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 1 2008
Posts: 2736
Travlin

I'm not doubting that there are surges in buying, I just question the reasonableness of those who are doing the buying (including myself I suppose).  One encounter I had the morning after Chuck Schumer was elected Senator of NY.  I walked into a convenience store and heard the proprietor loudly declaiming that all our guns would be confiscated shortly.  That was 14 years ago and I'm still waiting with bated breath for the door to be knocked down by jack booted thugs with badges.frown

I know we are in the middle of another surge in buying.  Ruger suspended taking orders because they are so backed up.  From what I hear from a local gun dealer, he is still having problems getting .223 ammo, but other dealers don't seem to have that problem.  So-called assault weapons seem to be readily available, albeit pricey.  Bulk orders are still available at good discounts online.

My biggest objection is to the NRA and the way it tries to gin up a wave of panic whenever a Democrat is running for something.  I have to admit the tactics are somewhat successful.  I see NRA stickers on cars several times a day, but don't know to what extent that actually translates into votes.  Nonetheless, the laws have gotten looser, not tighter.  The NRA can count that as a victory.  I suspect that gun rights, next to Medicare and Social Security, is now one of the third rails of politics.  There are very few politicians who can successfully run with a blatant gun control plank in their platforms.  Even those few will do little because of the blowback they would encounter and the lack of support they would get in the various legislatures.  

So, gun owners, don't worry, you've won.

dshields's picture
dshields
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 24 2009
Posts: 599
Travlin

We do not always agree but this time I completely agree with your points.  I would like to add one additional point.  Self defense.  People believe there may well be a financial emergency after the election out sometime in 2013 or 2014.  They want to be in a position to defend themselves, their food, their females, etc..  If Obama gets reelected or not, I believe there will be a another big push to purchase guns and ammo as the people come to realize there is going to be a serious financial emergency in the next year or two.  If Obama gets reelected it will be even crazier.  When social unrest begins as the class of dependency is deprived of their entitlements due to default or inflation then the state and federal governments will clamp down big time.  At that point it will be too late to purchase the means to defend oneself legally and people will have to move to the black market for these purchases.  Get what you need now.  Do not wait.

Travlin's picture
Travlin
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Apr 15 2010
Posts: 1322
Thread links

Dogs

I didn’t find the mega thread I was looking for, but here are some shorter threads on the topic.  The box with the poster’s name often shows their location, and some mention location in the body of the post.

The High Road – Handgun ammo  http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=424483

The Firing Line  http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=350887

The Firing Line from September 09 with later posts showing continuing shortages.   http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=374491

USA Today article from March 09  http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-03-29-ammo-shortage_N.htm

So remember boys and girls -- Lay in a big supply before the hoarders get it all.  laugh

Travlin

Rector's picture
Rector
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Feb 8 2010
Posts: 332
Who says we are untrained?

I spent a good long time as an infantry officer deployed overseas. Lots of us have similar skills and training at a very high level, with requisite experience to boot. No real hunter in Texas has just one gun, unless you mean on his person right now.

robie robinson's picture
robie robinson
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 25 2009
Posts: 611
My post

was tongue in cheek. Although never military I've burned many times more pounds of powder than the average civilian earning numerous state and a national 1000yd benchrest title. (i love all those moments of inertia, the integration of the differentials, balistics once got me excited)

smile inserted by an untrained redneck

I sincerely hope i'm not misunderstood 

Time2help's picture
Time2help
Status: Gold Member (Online)
Joined: Jun 9 2011
Posts: 382
Training

Xsabers wrote:

I really believe that with a gun and ammo should come training as a priority.  22+ years in the Army have shown me that training survives stress when "knowledge" doesn't.

I couldn't agree more. 

A. M.'s picture
A. M.
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 22 2008
Posts: 2296
Training

Guys, 
This is starting to veer a little from the threads original topic, but I think a bit of drift is healthy. 
As such, I had some thoughts on this that I thought I'd share.

Training has become a huge buzzword in the firearms industry lately. Partially by way of market forces, but predominately created out of a genuine need, there are firearms trainers and training centers everywhere now.

What I want to touch on is not all training is good, and what I think is critically important in training is absolute chaos. *Most* training classes minimize chaos, and you'll find yourself under the instruction of a professional who has something that makes training and tools useful - that something being experience. This is totally acceptable - this training is meant for you to learn fundementals, and that's great!

Experience is no panacea. I know infantry veterans who served overseas who barely pass their rifle quals. Meanwhile, I know civilians who can throw down with a pistol or bare hands with impressive proficiency.

But experience differs from skillset and knowledge in that it can be shared, but not replicated. You can't experience what those infantry veterans experienced by way of listening to their stories. They have a unique charateristic on which they can build skill and mindset. They know how they're going to feel when rounds come in. They can train around that. The skilled civilian cannot. So, as with all things, training requires a balance of experience and application, if it is going to be of use.

Practical application, then, absolutely must be incorporated into your training. Can you get your pistol after being punched, clinched and taken to the ground? Do you want to access your pistol under these circumstances? 

I was in a fight in May, and another mild scuffle in December. Both cases, weapons were an absolute liability. Not because someone was going to shove it up my ass, but because weapons instantly escalate any situation. They change "ass kicking" to "potentially lethal", and that is a big transition. 

They both involved alcohol, and both were managed successfully with solid positioning and clinches. The standing portions in either case (which is where we all practice our shooting, right?) lasted seconds.

If you're not training to retain, reload, clear malfunctions and shoot from supination, and FUT (F'd up tangles), you're practicing for unlikely events. Experience in gunfighting doesn't mean experience in fighting. Experience kicking in doors doesn't prepare you for getting mugged by three or four bangers downtown, after leaving a show. 

So, when you go to train, think long and hard about how you spend your money, and what you want to achieve.

I see such a trend in people going to schools like Haley Strategic Partners, Pat Rogers EAG, or somesuch, taking "Fighting Rifle".
To what end? Are you a tier one operator?
Do you commonly find yourself in rifle fights, or see them as likely?

I recently saw a high profile school, Tiger Swan, say something I've been saying for years: 
There is no Tactics 201. It's all basics. It's mastery of basics. (Paraphrased)

I was tremendously happy, because there is a lot of boasting that comes from "training", but if you read between the lines on this statement, it's a "there is no spoon" statement. Learning the tactics is ok. Mastery of the tactics is great. Acknowledging that Tactics are nothing without skillset and mindset - now that's enlightening, and it's a tool we can use to forge ahead with our training. Mastery of basics is acknowledging the need for a foundation, and in acknowledging that a firm foundation is essential, we can infer that this is what we build upon.

Once you're schooled on the fundementals, your training should be situational as well as tactical. It should incorporate more than just firearms.

"Feel Good" courses that you can take to refine your fundmentals are fine - don't get me wrong - but 90% of what you're learning and applying can be praticed and honed on your own time, and verified at your own range. 

Don't stop learning because you've trained, and don't stop training because you've learned:
Focus not on what you've aquired, but what you're missing.

Cheers,

Aaron

John the Libertarian's picture
John the Libertarian
Status: Member (Offline)
Joined: Jul 12 2012
Posts: 1
Shortage antidote

Now is the time for all good men (and women) to come to the aid of themselves by learning to reload... have been at it for a year... the only caveat is that critical components like primers also suffer during times of ammunition shortages for the afore mentioned reasons (and for which a prudent person can anticipate future shortages)... as an aside, I recently applied to a division of the largest ammunition manufacturer of ammunition in the country and one of their HR people informed me that they have doubled their productive capacity over the last 10 years, and they still can't keep up... but back to the re-loading... best advice: get all the reloading videos you can afford; seek out experienced reloaders for advice on how to get started (though you will find that their advice is similar to gunowners:everybody has their own opininion about best equipment); take time (lots of it) to view videos on youtube- there are literally a plethora of them... [probably best advice is to follow previous suggestions in reverse]...then buy all the reloading manuals you can afford for the different angles each has on the process, especially, critically, safety, safety, safety... finally then as a suggestion from one, better to start with single stage to understand the challenges of each step of the reloading process, and  then proceed to auto progressive later as your skills and ammunition stockpile build.

CaptD's picture
CaptD
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: Jul 2 2012
Posts: 32
Expect to see ammo (and weapons) become "accepted" barter

If times turn tough, then having lead (ammo) may prove to be a much better fiscal investment than either Gold or Silver!

I'd suggest that everyone also research how to store their ammo so that it stays usable as long as possible because it could become very hard to acquire very quickly.

Plan ahead or you will end up being beholden to those that do...

MarkM's picture
MarkM
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Jul 22 2008
Posts: 755
For what it's worth

On Monday, July 30, U.S. Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) and U.S. Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-N.Y.) introduced legislation that would impose sweeping new – and not so new – restrictions on ammunition sales.

http://lewrockwell.com/rep3/ammo-sales-ban.html

Poet's picture
Poet
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 21 2009
Posts: 1840
Don't Worry Too Much About Confiscation... Yet

Thought I'd inject a bit into the discussion here.

Have you seen gun laws at the Federal level become more restricted in the last 4 years? If you have, I'd like to be privy to that information, please.

In the meantime, as a counterpoint, I'd like to present a thought on Barack Obama:

Obama Has Largely Steered Clear Of Gun Debate (July 20, 2012)
"Gun safety advocates have expressed disappointment with the president's actions since taking office, particularly over his failure to fight for the reinstatement of the assault weapons ban. They pointed out Obama signed bills into law that allowed loaded weapons in some national parks and on Amtrak trains and the destruction of background check documents."
http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/20/politics/obama-gun-debate/index.html

It should also be noted that Barack Obama was a Senator from Illinois, he voted FOR an amendment proposed by David Vetter, to to prohibit federal funding for the confiscation of legally held firearms during a disaster. (This was in the wake of Hurricane Katrina.)

I think it's fair to say that it is unlikely that Obama will be able to go against Congress' House Republicans, a conservative Supreme Court that has struck down the D.C. anti-hand gun laws, public opinion, or legislatures and people in all the states that have expanded gun ownership rights, concealed carry rights, and passed "castle" and "stand your ground" rights. Not even in a so-called "unaccountable" second term.

On the other hand, we have Mitt Romney:

Candidates Show Little Appetite For New Gun Control Laws (July 26, 2012)
"[Dan Gross of the pro-gun control Brady Campaign] also noted that Romney supported an assault weapons ban when he was Massachusetts governor.... Asked about his stance in Massachusetts, Romney told NBC on Wednesday that the legislation he signed banning assault weapons 'was backed both by the Second Amendment advocates, like myself, and those that wanted to restrict gun rights, because it was a compromise.'"
http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/26/politics/gun-control-debate/index.html

Was the above news even surprising given Romney's past history?

Who can you trust these days? Where's Ron Paul when you need him? Oh yeah. Shut out by the last-minute-rules-changing RNC and Romney.

Poet

joesxm2011's picture
joesxm2011
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Mar 16 2011
Posts: 241
examine both party's platform language

There have been a lot of people making the argument that since nothing has happened in the past 3 years regarding gun restrictions we don't need to keep an eye out.  Well it seems that this time there is a significant difference in the language regarding gun rights or lack thereof in the platforms of the two parties.

The short version is that the Democratic platform includes language saying that they would like to return to the "assault weapon ban", while the Republican platform has language specifically supporting the right to self defense and the right to obtain and store ammunition without registration.

BTW - The Democrats in my cosy New England state recently attempted to pass a law outlawing standard capacity magazines (the size that come with your pistol when you buy it).  I had to take a day off from work and sit for twelve hours in the state senate hearing room to get my five minutes to talk and defend my right to own a "Glock 19 Assault Weapon Pistol".

If you have any plans to keep any semi-automatic rifles or magazines larger than 10 rounds in your preps you might be interested in what they say.

For those with their head in the sand, in the last round of legislation there was an attempt to include the magazine size limit and an ammo registration rules in other bills totally unrelated to firearms.  I feel that if  someone wants to propose a bill to regulate firearms it should be in its own bill and debated on its merits, not snuck in at night as a footnote to another bill.

Read the language for youself and decide.

Firearms. We recognize that the individual right to bear arms is an important part of the American tradition, and we will preserve Americans' Second Amendment right to own and use firearms. We believe that the right to own firearms is subject to reasonable regulation. We understand the terrible consequences of gun violence; it serves as a reminder that life is fragile, and our time here is limited and precious. We believe in an honest, open national conversation about firearms. We can focus on effective enforcement of existing laws, especially strengthening our background check system, and we can work together to enact commonsense improvements—like reinstating the assault weapons ban and closing the gun show loophole—so that guns do not fall into the hands of those irresponsible, law-breaking few.

http://www.democrats.org/democratic-national-platform

The Second Amendment: Our Right to Keep and Bear Arms  (Top)

We uphold the right of individuals to keep and bear arms, a right which antedated the Constitution and was solemnly confirmed by the Second Amendment. We acknowledge, support, and defend the law-abiding citizen’s God-given right of self-defense. We call for the protection of such fundamental individual rights recognized in the Supreme Court’s decisions in District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago affirming that right, and we recognize the individual responsibility to safely use and store firearms. This also includes the right to obtain and store ammunition without registration. We support the fundamental right to self-defense wherever a law-abiding citizen has a legal right to be, and we support federal legislation that would expand the exercise of that right by allowing those with state-issued carry permits to carry firearms in any state that issues such permits to its own residents. Gun ownership is responsible citizenship, enabling Americans to defend their homes and communities. We condemn frivolous lawsuits against gun manufacturers and oppose federal licensing or registration of law-abiding gun owners. We oppose legislation that is intended to restrict our Second Amendment rights by limiting the capacity of clips or magazines or otherwise restoring the ill-considered Clinton gun ban. We condemn the reckless actions associated with the operation known as “Fast and Furious,” conducted by the Department of Justice, which resulted in the murder of a U.S. Border Patrol Agent and others on both sides of the border. We applaud the Members of the U.S. House of Representatives in holding the current Administration’s Attorney General in contempt of Congress for his refusal to cooperate with their investigation into that debacle. We oppose the improper collection of firearms sales information in the four southern border states, which was imposed without congressional authority.

http://www.gop.com/2012-republican-platform_We/#Item10

eagle1889's picture
eagle1889
Status: Member (Offline)
Joined: Dec 29 2012
Posts: 1
Has Doug had his humble pie yet?

Well here we are, Dec 2012 and smack dab in the beginning of one of the worst runs on guns, ammunition and resulting shortages and Barry Hussein Obama hasn't even been coronated for his second term yet, just exactly as the post from Travlin in July said would happen.

So, is Travlin clairvoyant?  Hardly.  Most except the uninformed or agenda-driven hardcore left knew this was coming if he managed to get re-elected, what we didn't know was he would get such a gift as the tragic Newtown shooting to exploit to launch his pre-plannned second term agenda to gut the 2nd amendment.  Remember his former chief of staff famously quipped "never let a crisis to go waste".  

God help us and this country.

Poet's picture
Poet
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 21 2009
Posts: 1840
First Post Is An Insult Post? Uncouth, Eagle1889

Eagle1889

So this is your very first ever post in the Peak Prosperity community, and your first words are "Has Doug had his humble pie yet?"

Please allow me to welcome you, and also remind you that we expect our regulars to be more civil to one another. Your words and attitude don't sound like that of a newcomer (who would be introducing themselves, and feeling the waters), but seem to be one of our regulars hiding in anonymity so you can spew your political leavings.

It's sad that the Sandy Hook shooting occurred. That, in itself, is a sadness. Additionally, without it, the gun control side would not have the powerful ammunition to push for change - but not until the next inevitable school shooting. Sadly, no "assault" weapons ban or "high-capacity" magazine ban will prevent a school shooting - it didn't prevent the Columbine shooting, and certainly not the school shootings in California (where such bans are still in effect).

Some of the elementary school stabbings in China resulted in multiple (as in more than 4) fatalities - the most recent resulted in 20 injured and no deaths - but likely was due to a dull knife and/or not a true intent to kill. Recently, the City of Los Angeles had a gun buy-back. Two (obviously illegal) rocket launchers were turned in - imagine the horror if it had been pointed at a classroom. So we know gun control won't prevent attacks on schools.

This all points to the real problems: the flawed assumption that no one would attack innocent little children (despite the Amish schoolhouse shooting), so they remain vulnerable, and the sorry state of our society's mental health care system (not enough funding for treatment, but increased funding for policing and incarceration - to the point where some of our biggest mental health institutions are actually jails that happen to house mentally ill inmates convicted of crimes). And perhaps, to a lesser degree. decreasing sense of community, decreasing civic engagement, and decreasing respect for one another in discourse and interaction that we have today.

Let's be civil, Eagle1889. WWJD, right?

Poet

eagle1889 wrote:

Has Doug had his humble pie yet?

Well here we are, Dec 2012 and smack dab in the beginning of one of the worst runs on guns, ammunition and resulting shortages and Barry Hussein Obama hasn't even been coronated for his second term yet, just exactly as the post from Travlin in July said would happen.

So, is Travlin clairvoyant?  Hardly.  Most except the uninformed or agenda-driven hardcore left knew this was coming if he managed to get re-elected, what we didn't know was he would get such a gift as the tragic Newtown shooting to exploit to launch his pre-plannned second term agenda to gut the 2nd amendment.  Remember his former chief of staff famously quipped "never let a crisis to go waste".  

God help us and this country.

westcoastjan's picture
westcoastjan
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Jun 4 2012
Posts: 466
tone it down a notch please

Wow! Way to make a delicate, entrance on your very first post!

I won't speak for everyone else as I have only been a part of this community for a short time, however, we have respect and civility here - it is the reason why we can have good, intelligent debates on touchy subjects, which are by and large without emotion, even with anonymous posters! Imagine that!

what we didn't know was he would get such a gift as the tragic Newtown shooting to exploit to launch his pre-plannned second term agenda to gut the 2nd amendment.

You sir, or madam, are despicable for even making the insinuation of the above quote. I would like to politely suggest that you crawl back under whatever rock you came out from under. When and if you evolve into a higher species capable of civilized discourse, by all means come back and visit.

Until then, you might like to consider the site you are on before you post again...don't let the door hit you on the way out.

Jan, a survivor of a school shooting.

ao's picture
ao
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Feb 4 2009
Posts: 2220
westcoastjan wrote: Wow! Way

westcoastjan wrote:

Wow! Way to make a delicate, entrance on your very first post!

I won't speak for everyone else as I have only been a part of this community for a short time, however, we have respect and civility here - it is the reason why we can have good, intelligent debates on touchy subjects, which are by and large without emotion, even with anonymous posters! Imagine that!

what we didn't know was he would get such a gift as the tragic Newtown shooting to exploit to launch his pre-plannned second term agenda to gut the 2nd amendment.

You sir, or madam, are despicable for even making the insinuation of the above quote. I would like to politely suggest that you crawl back under whatever rock you came out from under. When and if you evolve into a higher species capable of civilized discourse, by all means come back and visit.

Until then, you might like to consider the site you are on before you post again...don't let the door hit you on the way out.

Jan, a survivor of a school shooting.

Jan,

I have to agree with you that it was heavy handed as a first post and also agree with Poet that it doesn't seem like an authentic first post.  However (and please don't be offended by this), I really don't understand your extreme offense at the content of the quoted part of the statement.  I understand that as someone who has been involved in a school shooting, there is understandably a great deal of emotion associated with this occurrence and it is a sensitive issue for you.  But eagle1889 did acknowledge that the shooting was tragic.  And the use, by political figures, of tragedies to achieve political ends is well known and history is rife with such examples.  Sorry if I don't get it but if you can explain it to me in a non-emotional way, perhaps you can help me to understand what you are feeling better.  Again, no offense is intended but I just don't get what you perceive as the insinuation. 

westcoastjan's picture
westcoastjan
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Jun 4 2012
Posts: 466
one word

Hi ao,

Thanks for responding with sensitivity. It is pretty simple. Just one word set me off: "gift". It was a very poor choice of words...

I can understand the reasoning behind this person's position, but all too often words are very poorly chosen and not thought through from the perspective of the receiver. There is no question that everyone with an agenda will try to score points wherever they can, even in the face of tragedy. But the suggestion that a school shooting was a "gift", no matter how it is intended, is highly inappropriate, and for me, highly offensive. There are better ways to score points.

I myself have at times been thoughtless with the written word, in that we always know what our own point of view is, but we do not always step back and think about how the receivers of our messages might be interpreting what we are writing. In this era of such turmoil and volatility, we would all do well to remember that.

In this instance,  eagle1889 made a mistake that was not easily overlooked because it struck my heart. I responded in kind...

Jan

ao's picture
ao
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Feb 4 2009
Posts: 2220
Thanks for explaining Jan. 

Thanks for explaining Jan. 

Doug's picture
Doug
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 1 2008
Posts: 2736
Mythology

As with most politically charged arguments/debates, sets of myths by both sides seem to accumulate.  Before they can be turned into reasoned discussion, it is important to demythologize both sides.  I think this opinion column is a good starting point:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-01-01/debunking-nine-myths-of-the-gun-control-debate.html

So many myths and misunderstandings about gun control, from all sides of the debate, and so little time! Here goes:

 

Myth No. 1: The extremism of the National Rifle Associationand its chief executive officer, Wayne LaPierre, is hurting its cause.

LaPierre’s seemingly unhinged recent performances, first at his no-questions news conference and then on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” have convinced gun-control advocates and members of the news media that he is out of his mind. He isn’t. His appearances were calibrated to appeal to the Second Amendment absolutists who make up the NRA’s base, and to help sell weapons manufactured by companies that rely on the NRA to keep their market as unregulated as possible. The NRA’s tactic is to gin up paranoia among gun owners that President Barack Obama is going to confiscate their legally owned weapons.

Myth No. 2: President Barack Obama is going to confiscate your legally owned weapons.

He isn’t. He is so far from doing that it’s comical to believe otherwise. There’s no constitutional mechanism for him to do so. There’s no practical way for him to do so. And he has no motivation to do so, because he’s on record defending the rights of sportsmen, hunters and -- this is crucial -- people who believe in armed self-defense to own guns. As Vice PresidentJoe Biden said during the 2008 campaign, “Barack Obama ain’t taking my shotguns, so don’t buy that malarkey.”

Myth No. 3: There is no proposed gun-control measure that would make the U.S. safer.

True, there are as many as 300 million guns in the country, with more coming into circulation every day. But some new regulations would help. Closing the so-called gun-show loophole-- which allows many guns to be sold without benefit of a federal background check -- would make it at least marginally more difficult for unqualified buyers, such as felons and the mentally ill, to get weapons. Since 1994, about 1.9 million purchases have been stopped because of background checks. A semi-smart criminal, or a high-functioning deranged person, would still most likely find his way to a gun. But it would be beneficial to place more stumbling blocks in his path.

Myth No. 4: Renewing the assault-weapons ban is the clear answer to making the U.S. safer.

“Assault weapons” are defined as such mainly because they have the appearance of military-style rifles. In my definition, any device that can fire a metal projectile at a high rate of speed into a human body is assaultive in nature. How deadly a shooting is depends as much on the skill and preparation of the shooter as on what equipment he uses. Again, it may be beneficial to ban large-capacity magazines and other exceptionally deadly implements. But we shouldn’t be under the illusion that this will stop mass killings.

Myth No. 5: Only pro-gun extremists want to place police officers in schools.

Before LaPierre took up the cause of armed security protecting students, President Bill Clinton advocated a similar program to assign police officers to schools across the country after the Columbine High School massacre in 1999. “Already,”Clinton said at the time, the program “has placed 2,200 officers in more than 1,000 communities across our nation, where they are heightening school safety as well as coaching sports and acting as mentors and mediators for kids in need.”

Myth No. 6: Columbine proved that police officers in schools can’t stop massacres.

It is true that a sheriff’s deputy assigned to Columbine engaged in a shootout with the two killers but failed to stop them. It is also foolish to draw broad lessons from a single incident. In 2007, at the New Life Church in Colorado, an armed volunteer security officer named Jeanne Assam shot and wounded a gunman who had killed two people outside the church and two others the night before. Assam most likely saved many lives that day. Does this mean that all churches should have armed security officers in the pews? Again, it is difficult to extrapolate from a single incident. But licensed and trained civilians carrying arms do represent one solution to gun violence.

Myth No. 7: Issuing more permits for carrying concealed handguns makes society more dangerous.

There are more than 8 million concealed-carry permit holders in the U.S., and the number grows each year. These are people who are vetted by local law enforcement. They commit crime at a lower rate than the general population. And, by some estimates, they commit crime at a lower rate than police officers.

Myth No. 8: “An unprecedented number of Americans support the right to own a handgun, despite the recent mass killings at an elementary school in Newtown,” Connecticut.

This wording comes from a Washington Post article. It cited a Gallup poll that found many Americans support some gun-control measures, and that 74 percent oppose banning handgun ownership. The problem in the Washington Post story is the word “despite.”Many Americans want to own a handgun, or want to reserve the right to own one, not despite the Newtown massacre -- but because of it, and other such atrocities.

Myth No. 9: Video games are the real culprit.

Some reports indicate that the Newtown killer was a fanatical video-game player, and liked such especially violent games as “Call of Duty.” No studies have proved a strong link between these games and actual violence. This isn’t to say that the games aren’t perverse and repulsive: I don’t allow my children to play them. But you can’t shoot up a school or a movie theater with a video game. Blaming video-game makers alone for such complicated and incomprehensible crimes is a cop-out.

What do all these misconceptions add up to? Simply that we aren’t even close to having a serious conversation about protecting ourselves from death by gun. I wouldn’t mind having a national debate about the morality of the Second Amendment in the 21st century. But we’re not even having a serious debate on the margins.

...

Just a footnote of my own on the video game myth.  My son plays some of those games and considers the whole notion of them resulting in real world violence ridiculous.  He plays on an occasional basis, but his HS friend and college roommate is nationally ranked in one of the games.  He's a terrific kid who, along with my son, are doing very well in college academically and socially. 

True, this is anecdotal evidence, but in this case it works for me.

Doug

P.S. Oh yeh, no reason to eat humble pie, the map I posted is still valid as far as I know.

Travlin's picture
Travlin
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Apr 15 2010
Posts: 1322
Nice job Doug

I’ve found that debating gun issues is generally a waste of time for the reasons you identified in your opening paragraph.  It is much like trying to make people aware of the problems PeakProsperity covers, and the need to prepare accordingly.  People usually cling to their beliefs until something jars them hard enough to question them.

You and I seem to be pretty far apart on gun issues, and I have no interest in debating them.  But I want to thank you for doing a very good job of framing a rational discussion that others might participate in and find helpful.  The efforts of people like you are what make this site so good.

Travlin

treemagnet's picture
treemagnet
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Feb 13 2011
Posts: 344
Here you go.

The best list out there.  www.theburningplatform.com/?p=45712

thc0655's picture
thc0655
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Apr 27 2010
Posts: 532
Funny list

That's a very funny list of reasons to ban guns, treemagnet.  I like the way most of them shine a bright light on muddled and irrational thinking using humor.  Thanks for sharing.

Tycer's picture
Tycer
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Apr 26 2009
Posts: 553
OhhhKayy, I'll bite.

1) You are going to have to explain the extremisms of the NRA for me to address this part.

I can't stand WLaP so I'll pass on that.

2) BHO has publicly stated that the public should not be allowed to own guns. His personal mouthpiece EH stated that civilians have no right to own guns ( which went against a unanimous opinion by SCOTUS). He has voted to ban buns. The gun ban bill proposed by DF includes cofiscation. BHO has voiced support for DFs bill. By eliminating provision for banned guns to be sold or transferred is a one-generation confiscation scheme. The government takes posession of said banned guns at the person's death. His voting record belies his mouth on defending 2A.

3) The gun show loophole is a misnomer, there has never been any requirement by individuals wishing to gift or sell their belongings to ask the governments permission. Registering all firearms is the only way control of transfers can be monitored. Many of firearms that are transferred between individuals have no serial numbers. Serial numbers were not required until the GCA1969. In our current 1.1T deficit, where will they find the money to implement this? The current NICS program for background checks is overloaded at today's level. The infrastructure must be completely revamped to carry the additional load of registering millions of guns. Stumbling blocks? Blocks are sure working to thwart all those pot smokers.

4) The definition of an assault weapon requires it to be a machinegun. No machineguns are included in the assault weapons ban nor were in 1994. Tom Diaz of the VPC defines an assault weapon as any semiautomatic firearm that can accept a box magazine. What number of rounds is low enough? 1? Zero? We did try that with the 1994 gun ban. It failed to affect crime.

What other exceptionally deadly implements are being referring to?

5) When the Federal 1994 Gun Free Schools Act was passed, Utah opted not to restict CCW holders from schools. Never been a problem.

6) skip

7) skip

8) The numbers have not really changed since then.

9) I've never seen any of those games. Is it possible that they desensitize people to death?

Is there really a vido game about Kindergarten Killers?

Doug wrote:

Myth No. 1: The extremism of the National Rifle Associationand its chief executive officer, Wayne LaPierre, is hurting its cause.

LaPierre’s seemingly unhinged recent performances, first at his no-questions news conference and then on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” have convinced gun-control advocates and members of the news media that he is out of his mind. He isn’t. His appearances were calibrated to appeal to the Second Amendment absolutists who make up the NRA’s base, and to help sell weapons manufactured by companies that rely on the NRA to keep their market as unregulated as possible. The NRA’s tactic is to gin up paranoia among gun owners that President Barack Obama is going to confiscate their legally owned weapons.

Myth No. 2: President Barack Obama is going to confiscate your legally owned weapons.

He isn’t. He is so far from doing that it’s comical to believe otherwise. There’s no constitutional mechanism for him to do so. There’s no practical way for him to do so. And he has no motivation to do so, because he’s on record defending the rights of sportsmen, hunters and -- this is crucial -- people who believe in armed self-defense to own guns. As Vice PresidentJoe Biden said during the 2008 campaign, “Barack Obama ain’t taking my shotguns, so don’t buy that malarkey.”

Myth No. 3: There is no proposed gun-control measure that would make the U.S. safer.

True, there are as many as 300 million guns in the country, with more coming into circulation every day. But some new regulations would help. Closing the so-called gun-show loophole-- which allows many guns to be sold without benefit of a federal background check -- would make it at least marginally more difficult for unqualified buyers, such as felons and the mentally ill, to get weapons. Since 1994, about 1.9 million purchases have been stopped because of background checks. A semi-smart criminal, or a high-functioning deranged person, would still most likely find his way to a gun. But it would be beneficial to place more stumbling blocks in his path.

Myth No. 4: Renewing the assault-weapons ban is the clear answer to making the U.S. safer.

“Assault weapons” are defined as such mainly because they have the appearance of military-style rifles. In my definition, any device that can fire a metal projectile at a high rate of speed into a human body is assaultive in nature. How deadly a shooting is depends as much on the skill and preparation of the shooter as on what equipment he uses. Again, it may be beneficial to ban large-capacity magazines and other exceptionally deadly implements. But we shouldn’t be under the illusion that this will stop mass killings.

Myth No. 5: Only pro-gun extremists want to place police officers in schools.

Before LaPierre took up the cause of armed security protecting students, President Bill Clinton advocated a similar program to assign police officers to schools across the country after the Columbine High School massacre in 1999. “Already,”Clinton said at the time, the program “has placed 2,200 officers in more than 1,000 communities across our nation, where they are heightening school safety as well as coaching sports and acting as mentors and mediators for kids in need.”

Myth No. 6: Columbine proved that police officers in schools can’t stop massacres.

It is true that a sheriff’s deputy assigned to Columbine engaged in a shootout with the two killers but failed to stop them. It is also foolish to draw broad lessons from a single incident. In 2007, at the New Life Church in Colorado, an armed volunteer security officer named Jeanne Assam shot and wounded a gunman who had killed two people outside the church and two others the night before. Assam most likely saved many lives that day. Does this mean that all churches should have armed security officers in the pews? Again, it is difficult to extrapolate from a single incident. But licensed and trained civilians carrying arms do represent one solution to gun violence.

Myth No. 7: Issuing more permits for carrying concealed handguns makes society more dangerous.

There are more than 8 million concealed-carry permit holders in the U.S., and the number grows each year. These are people who are vetted by local law enforcement. They commit crime at a lower rate than the general population. And, by some estimates, they commit crime at a lower rate than police officers.

Myth No. 8: “An unprecedented number of Americans support the right to own a handgun, despite the recent mass killings at an elementary school in Newtown,” Connecticut.

This wording comes from a Washington Post article. It cited a Gallup poll that found many Americans support some gun-control measures, and that 74 percent oppose banning handgun ownership. The problem in the Washington Post story is the word “despite.”Many Americans want to own a handgun, or want to reserve the right to own one, not despite the Newtown massacre -- but because of it, and other such atrocities.

Myth No. 9: Video games are the real culprit.

Some reports indicate that the Newtown killer was a fanatical video-game player, and liked such especially violent games as “Call of Duty.” No studies have proved a strong link between these games and actual violence. This isn’t to say that the games aren’t perverse and repulsive: I don’t allow my children to play them. But you can’t shoot up a school or a movie theater with a video game. Blaming video-game makers alone for such complicated and incomprehensible crimes is a cop-out.

What do all these misconceptions add up to? Simply that we aren’t even close to having a serious conversation about protecting ourselves from death by gun. I wouldn’t mind having a national debate about the morality of the Second Amendment in the 21st century. But we’re not even having a serious debate on the margins.

...

Just a footnote of my own on the video game myth.  My son plays some of those games and considers the whole notion of them resulting in real world violence ridiculous.  He plays on an occasional basis, but his HS friend and college roommate is nationally ranked in one of the games.  He's a terrific kid who, along with my son, are doing very well in college academically and socially. 

True, this is anecdotal evidence, but in this case it works for me.

Doug

P.S. Oh yeh, no reason to eat humble pie, the map I posted is still valid as far as I know.

ao's picture
ao
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Feb 4 2009
Posts: 2220
Bloomberg, incrementalism, and history

treemagnet wrote:

The best list out there.  www.theburningplatform.com/?p=45712

Priceless, LOL.

I was going to jump in on this debate earlier but I've been spending too much of my time doing this lately, even composing a long letter on such to an anti-gun friend.  I'd include it here but there's a lot of a personal nature interjected.

Like Travlin, I appreciate Doug trying to bring rational discussion to this topic.  But in answering Doug's post, I need to say only 3 things:

1) Bloomberg (as far as guns, that says it all)

2) Incrementalism

3) History

I'm off to bed.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Login or Register to post comments