The cycle of fear that drives assault weapon sales

[Starboard Tack]

The cause of gun control in the US is lost unless we address the underlying anxiety that makes people feel safer armed.
The future of guns in our society may be better understood if we knew more about what they mean to people and why people buy them.

Fear is a major factor for many firearm purchases. Recent trends in gun sales suggest that many citizens are becoming more fearful: Gallup poll data suggest that Americans are more fearful, at near-record high levels, about big government, compared to big business or big labor. This fear overlays the long-term public fear of crime and terrorism.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/mar/02/cycle-fear-assault-weapon-sales

For those interested in how others view the madness, read the comments. For those not interested, have a wonderful day.

[bossy22]

1. the fear being that they won't be able to get one

When it comes to the gun issue, i find journalism deteriorates...quite significantly

When you start talking about about bans and sort ofcourse you are goig to see an increase in the amount of to-be-banned weapons purcahes- people feel that its "now or never" to own them. It's not necessarily some fear of a "tyrant government" or criminality.

[raidert05]

4. +1

People I would have never expected to want to own a firearm are going out and buying hand guns and shot guns....not because they think tyrannical government will reign down upon them but if they ever have a legitimate need for one they may be so expensive and hard to get they won't be able to get one...

[frylock]

7. thus creating a self fulfilling prophecy

[Eleanors38]

17. Yet, there are ebbs in gun purchases, prob. when there us little talk of bans.

[AtheistCrusader]

42. post assumes they would then misuse them.

Otherwise, it wouldn't contribute to anything other than the manufacturers bottom line.

[Pullo]

6. +1

Want to sell "assault weapons?" Just start talking about banning them, and watch the sales go through the roof.

Its as though the antis are secretly in bed with gun manufacturers and the NRA. Their clumsy proposals do more to sell vast amounts of firearms than anything else, while galvanizing gun rights activists.

[av8r1998]

2. People own firearms for many reasons

But "fear" is rarely one of them.
The only "fear" I see surrounding firearms is reserved for Hoplophibic gun grabbers, and gun owners panic buying in advance of Hoplophic and nonsensical laws which won't work.

[Mopar151]

9. Dude, look in a mirror

Why else do gunners NEED to pack heat in public? I know it's fear, 'cuz fear is an illogical/irrational emotion - the only reason, IMHO, why someone NEEDS to have an accessible weapon in the home, in spite of the fact that it is 20 X more likely to hurt someone in the home.

[bossy22]

20. its not about NEED

i'd say most people don't need to carry a firearm- in fact most cops don't need to carry a firearm. It's a choice. You try to build this strawman that "we are too afraid of leave our houses with out our guns" and it just isn't true. I have a fire extinguisher in my car, am i fearful that my car will go on fire? no not really, i have it just in case.

also the 20x statistic has been disproven many times over. I think Kellerman himself admits that after he revised his research the number was 2.7x, and that still is under dispute (since not all defensive use is recorded).

and the question can go the other way as well- why are you so fearful of people carrying handguns with a permit? The general statistics don't support such a fear.

[Mopar151]

26. I am fearful of those who carry loaded firearms in a public place.

It has to do with knowing several people like this well, and personally, over a significant period of time. I have heard the pornographic glee with which they describe the optimum mix of Black Talons, Hydra-Shocks, AP, tracers hot-loaded in the XL clip of their Magnum.
"Assault weapons" (poor choice of terminology, but it stuck) generally don't scare me in the hands of legitimate, careful owners - but too many crazies know where to steal one, or how to buy one regardless of law.
And there are too many private arsenals and armories out there poorly secured, and endangering both the public and fire/ems/hazmat/police who may encounter them when their integrity is compromised. How may THOUSAND rounds do you need to keep on hand? There were once 30,000 rounds in my house, and a seriously disturbed former co-worker admits to 16,000.

[bossy22]

30. stastically you shouldn't be

It has to do with knowing several people like this well, and personally, over a significant period of time. I have heard the pornographic glee with which they describe the optimum mix of Black Talons, Hydra-Shocks, AP, tracers hot-loaded in the XL clip of their Magnum.

First off, there are always outliers. There are doctors out there that are licensed who really have no clue what they are doing or make mistakes that even a 2nd year medical student wouldn't make. Secondly, I don't know who you talked to, but no one uses black talon (they haven't been made since the early 1990's IIRC), Tracers (would destroy the gun barrel) and Hot-loaded (could blow-up the gun) in their defense guns. Again, ofcourse there probably is someone out there who does but they are not the norm- just like there are people who use cars to race- but there isn't a large movement to restrict all automobiles to 85 mph top speed.

And there are too many private arsenals and armories out there poorly secured, and endangering both the public and fire/ems/hazmat/police who may encounter them when their integrity is compromised. How may THOUSAND rounds do you need to keep on hand? There were once 30,000 rounds in my house, and a seriously disturbed former co-worker admits to 16,000

This is a difficult question to answer and one the media likes to throw around. They like to use big numbers like "he had over a thousand rounds of ammunition at home". The truth is that it really depends on the ammunition. For example 22 L.R. (A very very common calibre- if not the most common) is primarily sold in packages of 500 rounds. You might think that is alot, or that such a package must be quite large, but in reality it is the same size as a standard brick on the outside of your house (which is why they are commonly referred to as a "brick of 22&quot . So if you stick 2 bricks side by side of each other, thats what 1000 rounds would look like. It's really not that impressive right? Personally I have about 4000 rounds of 22lr, which fits nicely into a small shelf in my gun safe. Many times gun owners will buy in bulk for savings.

Also, as a member of the emergency services (fire and EMS), the thing i'm most afraid of is not bullets, but cars. More firefighters and EMTS are killed by cars then are killed by bullets. I get pissed when gun control proponents use us to promote their goals. I've heard everything from, "having large stores of ammunition in a house could kill firefighters in a house fire" (though in reality, unless all that ammunition is loaded into a gun, all it does is make a loud pop- nothing more. The movies over-dramatize it.) to "assault weapons need to be banned because of what happened to the firefighters upstate" (which would have happened even if the guy had used grandpas hunting rifle, might have been a bit worse because most hunting calibres are much stronger than a 223 and would have made swiss cheese out of car doors and other places one would hide for cover)

[Common Sense Party]

41. "I am fearful..." Of course you are. The vast majority of the gun control issue is all fear-based.

Then you try to project those fears onto sane, responsible gun owners.

Your illogical jiu jitsu does nothing to change the fact that you are scared, not me.

[Mopar151]

43. If you think those are sane.responsible gun owners......

Then how do you explain the actual sane, responsible, skilled gun owners I know?

[Eleanors38]

3. Cycle of fear seems to leave out governments' efforts to ban

Another consideration: The massive lines at gun shows may be the way many gun-owners talk back to government bans and to how gun-owners are characterized.

[rrneck]

5. Pretty thin gruel

Gun sales spike largely for economic reasons related to scarcity. Democrats have a reputation for regulating guns in general and scary black rifles in particular. If they didn't have that reputation, the panic market would disappear.

Altheide is indulging in the same sort of disaster capitalism as anybody buying an AR15. He's trading on the culture war that surrounds the issue. He's speculating about how other people feel about something and targeting his market for confirmation bias. He's feeding at the same trough as Bushmaster and the NRA.

It's always about money. Always.

[ileus]

8. I've never been scared of any firearm I've bought.

Nor have I bought any firearm out of fear.

Kind of like fear doesn't sell dirt bikes or SUV's.....fear doesn't drive sales of any item.

The #1 motivator behind firearm sales is a wonderful selection of fine firearms there for any budget.

Got 150 buy a Hi-Point

Have 1500 get a Kimber

What other item can you buy and have so much fun with for generations and generations?

[Mopar151]

10. Good tools...... n/t

[oldhippie]

14. They are tools. nt

nt

[sarisataka]

11. The cause of gun control would be better served by

dropping the preconceived notion that all/most/many guns are purchased from fear of crime/terrorism/Obama.

The only fear involved, which the article brushes off as"paranoid narrative about government control of weapons and losing constitutional freedoms", is the fear that such weapons may become unavailable or possible totally outlawed. To say it is a paranoid narrative when their are multiple state and federal bans being enacted or discussed is completely ignoring reality.

The control side attitude is 'I don't get the attraction so it must be fear' is such an oversimplification of the pro-gun side as to preclude a start to conversation. To use the term of the article, then it is a self-fulfilling prophecy as any attempt at discussion which is opposed by the pro-gun side is simply written off as another fear. Whether smug or fearful becomes irrelevant as the status quo remains...

[jimmy the one]

12. Assault rifles, a compulsion to warriorhood

Assault rifles in america are bought generally for one or both of two reasons. Either the pretext of fear, or to assuage a machismo ego.
There is no 'real' fear by ordinary americans of having to use an assault rifle to get the better of any criminal or gang, except to weak pathetic minds like wayno's. Who really falls for wayno's idiocy, except weak pathetic minds?
-- There is no real fear of needing an assault rifle by ordinary americans, cause they realize most 'lesser' rifles, most handguns, a shotgun or even a looks real fake gun will do the trick in protecting their homes, as much or better than an assault rifle would.
Ordinary americans fear the carnage an assault rifle can do, either intentionally or unexpectedly, more than they fear the consequences of not owning one.

The rationale that 'fear' drives their purchase is true, yet not a real fear but a pretext of fear, a 'fear' excuse rather than a reality.
Combine this with a machismo ego reaching for an ideal or a grand standard, to achieve ultra modern state of the art firearm technology, obtaining some high level gunskill which will preclude bad things from happening to them at the worst extreme, & voila, you've got a potential assault rifle buyer.

the links: .. One gun industry analyst has observed that gun sales speak to the fact "that there are a lot of young men in the US who will never be in the military but feel that male compulsion to warriorhood."

Tom Diaz (see 'who's who in gunnutville'): “It speaks to the fact that there are a lot of young men in the U.S. who will never be in the military but feel that male compulsion to warriorhood,” says Mr. Diaz, the author of “The Last Gun,” a forthcoming book on the industry. “Owning an assault weapon is a passport to that. ”http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/03/business/the-ar-15-the-most-wanted-gun-in-america.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1&

Exactly, they want to own military style firearms, without ever having to serve one, single, day, in a militia, or army - so as to pretend they are just as good.

[sarisataka]

13. Interesting analysis

I think it's B.S. but that's just me.

Historically rifle sales have closely matched the current military rifle. Today there is a larger number of vets who are familiar with the platform. Were I to buy a 'assault' rifle I would choose an AR due to extreme familiarity and I know it is far more precise than the AK. I would have no fear, nor machismo fantasy.

I do not doubt there are some that do buy them to feel like they are somehow 'military' but I think it is an extremely small number. After vets I think the biggest amount of buyers are those who look on it as an investment or feel that if there is so much of a push to ban them, it must somehow be better than other rifles. Lastly is purchases by those who want to look tough.

[jmg257]

15. I tend to think the guns being 'vetted' by the military allows a buyer

To feel they are getting the best bang for their buck. Confirmed quality. Official 'seal of quality' by those who spend alot of time and money deciding such things. Ongoing development cycle. Surplus parts and ammo. Historical value.

People want the best.

[sarisataka]

16. I think what you say is a true perception

in the military we always liked to remind newbies that their weapons were made by the lowest bidder

[Eleanors38]

18. Fear and pre-occupation with sexual identity is an obsession with gun-controllers...

Historically, the civilian population takes up the arms style and action the military had in the LAST war, then modifies that arm with bells & whistles. The big change in this dynamic is the military's advance to full-auto, while the civilian population had reached stasis with WW II (and earlier) technologies: Semi-auto fire.

If I were a couple of decades younger, I would probably choose an AR 15 "lower" and 2 "uppers:" One for using relatively inexpensive .223 ammo, one for larger & more powerful rounds for big-game hunting. Screw the fear & machismo crap, I'll take economy and flexibility any day.

[Starboard Tack]

25. "I'll take economy and flexibility any day"

Economy and flexibility to do what? Kill as many people as possible at less cost? Why would you want to do that if you weren't driven by fear or machismo?

[Eleanors38]

28. In another time on DU I would have a chance of successfully alerting...

on a punky statement like that. But wife-beating questions are mild stuff, now.

Re-read the thread, please, and try to understand. If you cannot/will not understand, small cheap caliber upper (y'know, for target practice & home defense), large powerful caliber (hunting). That beats buying 2 complete rifles.

It should be obvious that on DU the reservoir of "fear" and unseemly preoccupation with sexuality is more than hogged by gun controllers like yourself. You do more harm than good for your outlook, unless demonizing folks is more important to you.

[Starboard Tack]

33. Except the OP is about the cycle of fear that drives folk to buy assautlt rifles

Hardly a weapon you would need for target practice, home defense or hunting anything besides humans. You are the one who seems preoccupied with the sexuality of guns. You won't see those comments from me, nor am I against gun ownership for sport, hunting or home defense.
You could buy 2 excellent rifles for the price of an AR-15.

I have no idea what your "punky statement" or "wife beating" comments are about.

[beevul]

39. Thats why police need them.

Because their job is to "hunt humans".

How come, in the face of police calling them "patrol rifles", and DHS calling them "personal defense weapons", none of you on the anti-ar-15 brigade utter so much as a peep?

[Starboard Tack]

44. Police do not need them, except in special circumstances

If you ever read my posts on the subject, you would know that I object to a regularly armed police force. And DHS is a joke.

[Jenoch]

47. I still cannot believe you wish to disarm LEOs.

[Eleanors38]

45. Re-read your statement, tack. nt

[benEzra]

50. Umm, the AR-15 absolutely dominates centerfire target competition in this country...

Hardly a weapon you would need for target practice, home defense or hunting anything besides humans.

Umm, the AR-15 absolutely dominates centerfire target competition in this country. The only disciplines it *doesn't* dominate are those in which it is too physically small to dominate (I'm thinking F-class benchrest here). It not only is a target rifle in its many iterations, it is the top selling centerfire target rifle in the United States.

The AR also dominates centerfire recreational shooting, and the rimfire variants are making inroads on the ubiquitous (and functionally identical) Ruger 10/22.

As far as home defense goes, it's a centerfire .22. With JHP in the 50-62 grain weight class, it penetrates less in wallboard than either shotgun 00 buckshot or 9mm JHP, while giving better precision and less recoil than the shotgun, and far more more precision than the handgun. So, yeah, it's a darn good alternative to a 12-gauge, assuming you go with a 16" barrel and not a 20" or 24" long-range barrel. And it's easier to mount a light on an AR than it is to mount one on my old Mini-14.

As far as hunting, the AR isn't widely viewed as powerful enough for most deer hunting unless you step up to a bigger caliber upper than .223, and the power of the rounds it can feed is limited by the AR's small magwell. 6.8mm Remington or 6.5mm Grendel would make pretty good deer calibers, as would the .30 Remington AR, but the overwhelming majority of AR's are chambered in .223, a coyote and prairie-dog round in the hunting world.

What it's *not* commonly used for is "hunting humans." Rifles are the least misused of all weapons in the United States, as you well know. And to this day the worst mass shooting in U.S. history used an ordinary 9mm and a backpack full of low-capacity magazines, as I recall.

You could buy 2 excellent rifles for the price of an AR-15.

Prior to the current ban-fueled buying frenzy, you could get a Smith & Wesson AR for $600. I'd love for you to show me "two excellent rifles" you can buy for $600 total. You could hardly buy a bare-bones Ruger Mini-14 for $600, never mind two higher-quality rifles. Heck, even a cheap-cheap Remington 770 at Walmart is, what, $450?

You've been spun, and hard.

[bossy22]

21. and this is why the debate goes nowhere

because people like you try to label gun owners as some "fearful immature children" who are living in a different reality. You do the debate no good with your comments.

[jimmy the one]

22. moi l'raison

sari: After vets I think the biggest amount of buyers are those who look on it as an investment or feel that if there is so much of a push to ban them, it must somehow be better than other rifles.

Surely you must realize the ridiculous logic in those buying for your latter reason? do people go out en masse & purchase things banned by the govt? in general? no of course not, they tend to think the govt is banning them for a valid reason.

Eleanors38 Fear and pre-occupation with sexual identity is an obsession with gun-controllers...

Which nra certified psychiatrist said that?

el: Historically, the civilian population takes up the arms style and action the military had in the LAST war, then modifies that arm with bells & whistles. The big change in this dynamic is the military's advance to full-auto, while the civilian population had reached stasis with WW II (and earlier) technologies: Semi-auto fire.

The m16 was developed in good part to provide a lightweight semi-auto & automatic rifle which used lightweight .223 bullets rather than larger calibers, so that infantry could carry lotsa ammo with less energy drain while marching or on patrol.
Explain to me why this rationale is needed in american communities? where do ordinary americans go 'on patrol' for extended time periods where carrying an m16 would offset carrying a concealed handgun or open rifle? (hunting is disallowed since several states already disallow m16 clones for hunting.)

el: If I were a couple of decades younger, I would probably choose an AR 15 "lower" and 2 "uppers:" One for using relatively inexpensive .223 ammo, one for larger & more powerful rounds for big-game hunting. Screw the fear & machismo crap, I'll take economy and flexibility any day.

deny it all you like, you & sari think it's a cool & macho thing, if you indeed own or plan to purchase an assault rifle. And that's giving you benny of the doubt.

bossy: and this is why the debate goes nowhere because people like you try to label gun owners as some "fearful immature children" who are living in a different reality. You do the debate no good with your comments.

I"m the reason, the guncontrol debate goes nowhere? for calling gun owners 'fearful immature children'?
Observe how I labelled gun owners 'fearful immature children':

There is no 'real' fear by ordinary americans of having to use an assault rifle to get the better of any criminal or gang, except to weak pathetic minds like wayno's. Who really falls for wayno's idiocy, except weak pathetic minds?
-- There is no real fear of needing an assault rifle by ordinary americans, cause they realize most 'lesser' rifles, most handguns, a shotgun or even a looks real fake gun will do the trick in protecting their homes, as much or better than an assault rifle would.
Ordinary americans fear the carnage an assault rifle can do, either intentionally or unexpectedly, more than they fear the consequences of not owning one.

I'm the reason the guncontrol debate goes nowhere, & not other people twisting about what I say?

[bossy22]

24. assume

sari: After vets I think the biggest amount of buyers are those who look on it as an investment or feel that if there is so much of a push to ban them, it must somehow be better than other rifles.

Surely you must realize the ridiculous logic in those buying for your latter reason? do people go out en masse & purchase things banned by the govt? in general? no of course not, they tend to think the govt is banning them for a valid reason.

It's not as ridiculous as you think. The 1994 AWB is still fresh in many minds and its "Story" is told to many gun owners who were too young back then. When the ban went into affect, the price of certain items (pre ban guns and pre ban magazines) skyrocketed. So its not too crazy for the same people to assume that a new ban would have a similar affect (even though the new law would prevent resale). Also, there are solid arguements out there against the AWB so i'm not quite sure we can give the government a "Blank check" on validity.

One of the key problems with this whole issue is the definition of an "assault weapon" (not an assault rifle as you state, they are significantly different classifications). Assault weapon is (as you probably no) an arbitrary term that has no singular definition. it can be defined narrowly or so broad to encompass pretty much all semi-automatic and repeating (pump action, lever action) firearms. So when you make a comment that "a handgun/rifle/shotgun is as good or better than an assault weapon" without actually stating a definition of an assault weapon the logic of the comment fails. The problem is that you can yell all you want that "an AK-47 is not a good home defense weapon" and you probably correct, but the proposed law doens't just ban an AK-47, it also bans semi-automatic shotguns that hold more than 5 rounds- which happen to be EXCELLENT for home defense.

[Eleanors38]

29. Wow! A veritable air- burst of crap!

Uses for civilian .223: Target practice, long-range and rapid-fire, with relatively low cost & little recoil. Serves well for home defense, too.

Add in hunting. In Texas and other states you can even use the .223 for deer hunting, though a larger round may be preferable.

All clear, now? I did that with far more economical language.

Why your curious pre-occupation with sexual identity? You keep pushing it like an inquisitor.

[sarisataka]

32. And to think I wasted my time at the VA for a psych eval

deny it all you like, you & sari think it's a cool & macho thing, if you indeed own or plan to purchase an assault rifle. And that's giving you benny of the doubt.

I carried/used the M-16 and M-4 in several variations, along with nearly everything else that goes bang and can be carried by an individual. I have also used the M-2 so know exactly where the 5.56 falls on the cool and macho scale. Any desire to ever own an AR will not be due to teen age fantasies of being a bad ass.

I own one rifle chambered for .223, it is a bolt action Ruger. I use it for varmint hunting when I go to the Dakotas. I like to keep my skills up by shooting prairie dogs at >500m. If I wished to offer a most comprehensive varmint control service, an AR-type rifle would be a very practical addition to my collection. As it is, I hunt lands of ranch owning acquaintances for camaraderie and in memory of absent friends.

[jimmy the one]

36. ruger mortis

sarisataka: And to think I wasted my time at the VA for a psych eval

I use it as my primary medical care center, the one good after-thing of military service, but so far nowt to do with psychiatrics.

I carried/used the M-16 and M-4 in several variations, along with nearly everything else that goes bang and can be carried by an individual. I have also used the M-2 so know exactly where the 5.56 falls on the cool and macho scale. Any desire to ever own an AR will not be due to teen age fantasies of being a bad ass.

Your post reeks macho machismo. Reread it. Your error is limiting macho to teen fantasies.
You shot 'nearly everything else that goes bang'? well la dee dah aren't you the new rambo, eh? I only got to shoot the m16 once at the navy target range (I qualified as marksman btw, with the 45 pistol, macho me for a moment).

I own one rifle chambered for .223, it is a bolt action Ruger. I use it for varmint hunting when I go to the Dakotas. I like to keep my skills up by shooting prairie dogs at >500m. If I wished to offer a most comprehensive varmint control service, an AR-type rifle would be a very practical addition to my collection. As it is, I hunt lands of ranch owning acquaintances for camaraderie and in memory of absent friends.

.. for all you say above you think that crap justifies keeping assault rifles legal? an AR15 to add to your COLLECTION? allowing the most powerfully lethal rifles just so YOU can shoot varmints? in the dakotas? to have a more comprehensive 'varmint control' when you're out killing prairie dogs? when a ruger 22 short rifle using 22 longs in a ten rd clip could accomplish essentially the same thing?
.. thanks for providing ample evidence of what I surmised previous. I tentatively agree you don't own guns out of a real paranoid fear, but I certainly DO think you own them out of ego assuaging machismo.

[sarisataka]

37. Perhaps tone does not come through ...

in text

You shot 'nearly everything else that goes bang'? well la dee dah aren't you the new rambo, eh? I only got to shoot the m16 once at the navy target range (I qualified as marksman btw, with the 45 pistol, macho me for a moment).

Check my avatar, I was on the other side of the fence in S' Diego {Navy- not just an adventure, it's a job}. We were expected to be proficient on many different weapons. A statement of fact. I did not consider it macho then nor do I now any moreso than being able to operate a washing machine. I do take pride in the skill I developed but it is probably less important to me than the skills I have in building model railroads.

I never said my reasons were the country's justification for keeping such rifles legal. I believe making them illegal would be useless.
-My collection- rather small, single digits actually...
-the most powerfully lethal rifles- um... not by a long shot {bad pun, it was unintentional}
-varmint control- I help out ranchers who are having the dogs overrun the range. They cattlemen are smart enough to know the dogs serve an important purpose in cultivating the grazing so do not wish to annihilate them with poison, as many do. The scarcity of predators (bad animals, bad bad kill kill- until you realize they had a purpose there too) lets the dogs get out of control; a weekend hunt ever couple years thins the population to a sustainable level.
-22LR- excellent round, quite enjoyable to plink or hunt with. Yet if I wanted to make a living at it I would take the rifle that carries thirty rounds and can hit easily at 300m without a scope over a rifle with ten rounds that has trouble at 100m with a scope. As I hunt for recreation the 22lr with ten or a BA .223 with five is plenty.

I certainly DO think you own them out of ego assuaging machismo

If you consider challenging myself to meet or exceed a skill level I had twenty years ago machismo then you are correct. It is an ego boost to be able to maintain hand-eye coordination and body control as time is slowly taking its toll on endurance and flexibility.

[Eleanors38]

46. Pop psychology: The cheap seats of intellectual inquiry. nt

[av8r1998]

23. Whenever people react based on emotion rather than fact....

Or when they try to get people to change their minds on an issue,
they try to inject "Fear" (or in the case of anti-2A people, some sort of sexual inadequacy) into the equation....
On the pro-2A side of the debate, the word "Hoplophobia" (irrational fear of weapons) gets thrown around, whilst the anti-side insists they have guns because of a "fear" and then suggest the fear is irrational, or in many cases, racially motivated.

Think of the word "Homophobe" That word didn't exist in the vernacular until the Gay Rights movement started.
It was effective, if technically incorrect at the time, and what I mean by that is a phobia is an irrational fear of something that makes you want to avoid it.... someone with a fear of heights will avoid high places - not ban tall buildings.

"Homophobes" want to ban Homosexuality the same way that "Hoplophobes" want to ban guns. They fear or dislike the THING OR BEHAVIOR, therefore nobody shown OWN the thing or ENGAGE in the behavior.

That's not a "Phobia"..... it's an attitude problem.

[benEzra]

48. A perfect case in point.

Assault rifles in america are bought generally for one or both of two reasons. Either the pretext of fear, or to assuage a machismo ego.

That perception is *exactly* why the gun control lobby keeps shooting itself in the foot on the subject of rifle bans.

Dude, I shoot an AR and two 9mm's competitively (local USPSA), and the smaller of the 9mm's is a Smith & Wesson Lady Smith. I'd love to hear your "machismo" take on that.

The AR-15 platform is the most popular centerfire target rifle in the United States not from "the pretext of fear, or to assuage a machismo ego", but because it is far and away the best small-caliber centerfire carbine on the market. Period. Compare a Ruger Mini-14 and a Smith & Wesson AR, which are identical in terms of capacity, caliber, rate of fire, and tell me why for the same money you'd choose a less-accurate, less-ergonomic, less-configurable, less-durable, less-weather-resistant gun for the same price. Show me another single gun you can use for F-class benchrest, IPSC/USPSA, .30-caliber deer hunting, .22LR squirrel hunting, *and* as a less-penetrative, lighter-recoiling stand-in for a 12-gauge in the HD role simply by swapping components with no gunsmith required.

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2013/02/ar-15/all/

Exactly, they want to own military style firearms, without ever having to serve one, single, day, in a militia, or army - so as to pretend they are just as good.

Heh. My AR is a Rock River, in a configuration that has never been used by any military on this planet. It no less "civilian" than a Remington 700 deer rifle (aka "M24/M40 Sniper Weapons System&quot or a Winchester Model 70 (military-style Mauser derivative that served as the standard-issue USMC sniper rifle in Vietnam). FWIW, I own one and only one military rifle, and that one is a bolt-action made in 1905 that helped kick both the Soviets and the Nazis out of Finland. My 9mm's are both Smith & Wessons.

The gun control lobby made a huge miscalculation when they assumed, based on the arguments put forward by Diaz et al that you repeat upthread, that "black rifles" are fringe guns mostly purchased by Walter Mittys, and acted accordingly. The AR is the Winchester .30-30 of my generation (Gen-X) and subsequent, and will undoubtedly surpass the total sales of the Remington 870 within a few years. Face that fact or not, it's no loss to me, but it might keep your side of the argument from stepping in it quite so badly.

[jimmy the one]

49. mosin nagant, a good pole vault

I wrote: Assault rifles in america are bought generally for one or both of two reasons. Either the pretext of fear, or to assuage a machismo ego.
ben ezra wrote: Dude, I shoot an AR and two 9mm's competitively (local USPSA), and the smaller of the 9mm's is a Smith & Wesson Lady Smith. I'd love to hear your "machismo" take on that.

Another denier, your post reeks of gun machismo as well.

to wit, ben ezra posted: The AR-15 platform is the most popular centerfire target rifle in the United States .. because it is far and away the best small-caliber centerfire carbine on the market. Period. Compare a Ruger Mini-14 and a Smith & Wesson AR, which are identical in terms of capacity, caliber, rate of fire, and tell me why for the same money you'd choose a less-accurate, less-ergonomic, less-configurable, less-durable, less-weather-resistant gun for the same price. Show me another single gun you can use for F-class benchrest, IPSC/USPSA, .30-caliber deer hunting, .22LR squirrel hunting, *and* as a less-penetrative, lighter-recoiling stand-in for a 12-gauge in the HD role simply by swapping components with no gunsmith required.

Now how many ordinary gun owners are even gonna comprehend what you are driving at above? maybe ten percent would even care, & this would tend to the far right extreme. You threw some on 'centerfire ammo', then lost another segment on the ruger/S&W contrast, then you lost maybe 75% of gun owners on your diversion into benchrest, ipsc, & comparison with a sg routine. How many gunowners have a personal gunsmith? I never did, not too many do, walmart doesn't count.
IN FACT, in good part, people who'd understand you above would be ex army/marines & some law enforcement, not the ones I was talking about who would never have to serve a single day in the militia or military.

I wrote:Exactly, they want to own military style firearms, without ever having to serve one, single, day, in a militia, or army - so as to pretend they are just as good.

ben ezra: FWIW, I own one and only one military rifle, and that one is a bolt-action made in 1905 that helped kick both the Soviets and the Nazis out of Finland. My 9mm's are both Smith & Wessons.

Yeah, & you're not machismo eh? is that a mosin nagant, or I think that was russian made, doubled as a good pole vault (pole for vaulting, not for vaulting poles).

[benEzra]

51. Finn M39 on a 1905 Izhevsk receiver still bearing the Romanov crest,

Yeah, & you're not machismo eh? is that a mosin nagant, or I think that was russian made, doubled as a good pole vault (pole for vaulting, not for vaulting poles).

"Machismo" is a noun. The adjective form of your insult would be "macho", would it not?

In any case, on the macho-vs-geek spectrum, I'm very much at the geek end (technical writer, Perl wonk, Guild fan) and very proud of it.

Yes, a Mosin...a very nice Finn M39 on a 1905 Izhevsk hex receiver still bearing the Romanov crest, rebarreled and converted to M39 configuration in 1942 at VKT in Jyväskylä. A fascinating piece of history, in my opinion, and not your garden variety M1891. Best group so far is 1 3/8" at 100 yards, which isn't too shabby for a rifle that's 108 years old.

How many gunowners have a personal gunsmith? I never did, not too many do

Neither do I. That's one reason the AR is so popular. You can rebarrel, change caliber, change stocks, free-float, install a match trigger, install optics, install a light, install a sling, change length of pull, and anything else you'd want to do yourself without every having to pay someone else to do it for you. That's a key difference between an AR and (say) a Mini or a Remington 7400.

IN FACT, in good part, people who'd understand you above would be ex army/marines & some law enforcement

Knowing what the hell you're talking about when it comes to firearms, firearms law, and the shooting sports is not a radical position. Distressingly rare, perhaps; radical, no.

People who'd understand what I said would be target shooters, competitive shooters, and people interested in the technical aspects of guns and shooting, instead of just bleating about what a gun looks like or how well it kills Bambi or what kind of noise it makes when you cycle it or what Cletus on TV says about it.

People who understand things like sight offset, ballistic coefficient, muzzle energy, how momentum affects recoil, and such. The people who know the difference between a rimfire and a centerfire cartridge, or know how to use a ballistic table. *Those* are the people who understand why a non-automatic civilian centerfire .22 isn't some uber-superweapon. It's a rifle, period. A non-automatic rifle, and a small-caliber one at that.

Bottom line, you're fighting to outlaw the most popular civilian target rifles and HD carbines in the United States and you don't even seem to realize it. But you're in good company, far too many legislators are laboring under the same misconception, and it is going to hurt the party in 2014.

[jimmy the one]

55. the romanovs & otma

ezra: Yes, a Mosin...a very nice Finn M39 on a 1905 Izhevsk hex receiver still bearing the Romanov crest, rebarreled and converted to M39 configuration in 1942...

This explains my uncertainty: The Mosin Nagant is a historic Russian military rifle but a number of other countries, including Finland, produced their own variations of these guns, as well.

Evidently was also used by the russians to push back the finns past the mannerheim line in 1940 winter war (border war, karelia iirc): .. rifle was used on both sides of the Winter War and the Continuation War during World War II.

.. previous was used by tsar nicholas in the bolshevik revolution ~1918 (after withdrawal from wwI) by his white russians, as well as trotsky/lenin (having some ukrainian blood, I sometimes wonder which side I would've aligned with if alive then - tsarists, lesser of 2 evils, tho tsar nich was a good person imo, & had OTMA = 4 loverly russian daughters, rasputin be damned).

wiki: During the Russian Civil War infantry and dragoon versions were still in production, though in dramatically reduced numbers. The rifle was widely used by Bolsheviks, Black Guards and their enemies, the White Russians (Tsarists were white russians - counter-revolutionary).

OTMA = 4 dottirs = Olga, Tatyana (my favorite), Maria, Anastasia; he & they needed a few mosin nagants in siberia a few years later, when they were all murdered at the same time:

[rl6214]

19. Yeah, I call bullshit

[Starboard Tack]

27. Of course you do.

[kudzu22]

31. That's funny, I always thought that the cycle of fear drove efforts to ban guns.

Incidents like Newtown, while tragic, are statistically insignificant when it comes to child safety. Yet because of the media saturation of the event, every parent in the US is now deathly afraid of their child being next. Their fear drives the effort to disarm the population.

[Starboard Tack]

34. There is no effort to disarm the nation.

That mythical effort is what drives the fear. Did you read the OP?
BTW, why don't you tell the parents of Sandy Hook that their losses were "statistically insignificant".
They don't want to disarm you either, so don't be afraid to tell them how safe those AR-15s are and kids being killed by them is insignificant, statistically that is.

[ileus]

38. My kids still love shooting our AR's....even my 8&10 yo's know

firearms don't kill people, that Newtown and most all other mass shootings are works of mentally ill, not the handy work of an innocent operator abused mechanical device.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

35. Perhaps you could comment on...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172112645 and especially post #11.

re: "...anxiety that makes people feel safer armed."
Claiming there is such an anxiety and that it is universal enough to explain all firearm sales doesn't mean there is such an anxiety or that it is in any way universal.

[Starboard Tack]

58. Fear sells. Always has.

All gun purchases are not made from fear and neither are all gun regulations. Unfortunately, extremism on both ends is fed by fear and only serves to polarize, which in turn increases the overall fear factor. Those who propose banning all guns are as big a part of the problem as those who think it's a good idea to carry a gun in public on a regular basis.
I doubt that anyone has suggested all firearm sales are based on fear.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

61. Fear sells to the fearful.

- There will be some deceptive propagandist pushing the fear meme about the other side to attack their ideology.
- There are also fear mongers just trying to sell more guns or more anti-RKBA legislation.

It would be a welcome change to discuss the facts without having to listen to those just pedaling fear. Those who listen to that, no matter which side they espouse, are endangering rights.

[Jenoch]

40. I wonder how important it is

to read about the so-called fears of Americans from the British?

[Starboard Tack]

59. Apparently, it is not important to those who don't wish to learn about themselves.

Those who only see themselves by only looking in the mirror have a very limited view.

[gejohnston]

60. what kind of mirror is it?

a normal plane mirror? I doubt it. Is more likely either a convex or concave mirror. Looking at another culture or outlook using your own cultural reference and imposing it on the people you are "studying." These opeds are more like the point of view of missionaries than anthropologists. In order to understand something, you have to accept it on its own terms and on their own level.

[Jenoch]

62. It was a rhetorical question.

Thanks for your participation anyway.