The Truth About Gun Sales

[ellisonz]

Josh Horwitz
Executive Director of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence
Posted: 1/9/12 07:38 AM ET

The media has been awash this holiday season with stories about a "dramatic increase" in gun sales in the United States. CNN, for example, declared, "December holiday shoppers were not just interested in buying the hottest electronics and toys--they also were purchasing record numbers of guns." USA Today claimed, "Along with millions of Kindles, Angry Birds and gift cards, Santa left a record number of guns under Americans' Christmas trees." Reuters gushed about "16.5 million queries from firearms sellers" in 2011. Even "The Last Word" host Lawrence O'Donnell talked of a "100%" increase in gun sales over the holiday season.

The source of these stories? Reporters, as always, were being pitched to by the gun lobby--specifically the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) and the National Rifle Association (NRA). Here's the funny thing, though. The gun lobby doesn't actually provide any gun sales data to the media. The NSSF (the trade association for the gun industry) and the NRA have this data--because gun manufacturers have to understand what their dealers are selling in order to produce the proper amount of product and maximize profits. But the gun lobby has blocked public access to this information for decades. Instead, they offer reporters data on background checks run through the FBI's National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS).

----------

How much longer will the combination of lazy (or sensationalist) reporting, along with the NRA's desire to prop up its gun industry benefactors, lead to widespread misinformation about the state of gun sales in America? We can all appreciate that reporters need stories, and "sexy" material brings ratings, but it's time to correct the record. If Microsoft or Ford tried to send a reputable news outlet information on some tangential metric and pitch it as "sales data"--while simultaneously blocking access to the real figures--they would be laughed at and deemed backwards. It's time to hold the gun industry to the same adult standard.

Or, as the "Industry Insider" columnist in the NRA's own American Rifleman magazine recently put it, "Unlike other industries that can be analyzed, quantified, objectified and measured, the metrics of the gun business are largely unknown. It's amazing how mysterious the industry is when you think about it."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/josh-horwitz/the-truth-about-gun-sales_b_1193498.html

The gun lobby is a lot of smoke and mirrors designed for the production of fear.

[PavePusher]

1. You should have read the comments

All Josh's questions/­accusation­s/assertio­ns are answered and discredite­d here: http://www­.examiner.­com/gun-ri­ghts-in-st­-louis/csg­v-demands-­informatio­n-from-gun­-industry-­not-from-h­older

Reminds me of the blind men and the elephant parable. All he has to do is open his eyes.

Link problems: Copy and paste, DU doesn't seem to like that hyperlink...

[burf]

3. You gotta remember,

with the ATFs track record of handling guns in four Southwestern states, Josh might be on to something! //sarcasm//

[ellisonz]

5. "Kurt Hofmann , St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner"

Who similarly posts: "Honor Martin Luther King by defeating racism inherent to 'gun control'" - http://www.examiner.com/gun-rights-in-st-louis/honor-martin-luther-king-by-defeating-racism-inherent-to-gun-control

Good thing we have people such as Kurt to explain to use that when Martin Luther King Jr. said: "Nonviolence is the answer to the crucial political and moral questions of our time — the need for mankind to overcome oppression and violence without resorting to violence and oppression" - He didn't really mean it. Martin would have been okay with you owning 5-10-heck-why-not 20 assault rifles.

I'm sorry - but your source is crap.

That you and your fellow gun enthusiasts are able to produce a counter-argument is no surprise.

Even the NRA's own blogger concludes that these numbers are not scientific: http://www.americanrifleman.org/blogs/gun-business-defies-analysis/

[PavePusher]

7. The evidence about gun control and racism has been posted many times.

Refute the facts if you can.

[X_Digger]

8. Need we go through this *again*??

"Finally, I contended that the debate over the question of self-defense was unnecessary since few people suggested that Negroes should not defend themselves as individuals when attacked. The question was not whether one should use his gun when his home was attacked, but whether it was tactically wise to use a gun while participating in an organized demonstration." Martin Luther King, Jr., Where Do We Go From Here: Chaos or Community? Chapter II, Black Power, Page 27, Harper & Row Publishers Inc., First Edition, 1967.

"As we have seen, the first public expression of disenchantment with nonviolence arose around the question of "self-defense." In a sense this is a false issue, for the right to defend one's home and one's person when attacked has been guaranteed through the ages by common law." Martin Luther King, Jr., Where Do We Go From Here: Chaos or Community? Chapter II, Black Power, Page 55, Harper & Row Publishers Inc., First Edition, 1967.

[ellisonz]

11. And so we need all the guns we can get...

[X_Digger]

22. And so we need all the books|votes|protests|religions we can get..

You still haven't provided a good answer for why a person who owns five or ten guns is inherently different than a person with two.

[ellisonz]

26. Theft.

An estimated half-a-million firearms are stolen every year. One of the posters in this thread has been a victim of theft. Furthermore, it allows the arming of extremists and provides fuel for the unregulated secondary market. Firearms are not toys, do you agree?

[beevul]

34. Unless they're prohibited persons via due process of law...

Unless they're prohibited persons via due process of law...

Like it or not, in America, yes virginia, even extremists are allowed to own and buy guns.

We should not curtain the rights of people for their political beliefs.

If you disagree, I guess you won't mind us taking a closer look at free speech abuses by extremists...the anti-gun kind, and moving to place much tighter limits on such things. Surely you wont argue against reasonable common sense proposals, right? We'll even call it "The Reasonable Fair Common Sense Rational Sensible Harmless Benign Speech In The Gun Debate Act Of 2012". With a name like that its got to be really worth supporting, right?

"Extremism" is all in the eye of the beholder, is it not?

Your usage of the word "extremists" in this context is generally perjorative, and serves no other purpose.

As to your "unregulated" secondary market, I think the word you meant is "unsupervised", since the secondary market is most certainly regulated in the sense that scores of laws apply to it.

You have every right to lobby states - which have the authority granted them by we the people - to "supervise/monitor" the secondary market. And we who do not wish it, and most likely outnumber you who do by a significant factor, have a right to lobby to make sure you don't succeed.

At the federal level, fuggeddaboudit.

I doubt there are are any significant number of people who would really be interested in allowing federal government to exercise power that:

A. It has not been granted;

B. Is reserved to the states, or the people;

C. It would most likely be in violation of the law, federal as well constitutional, if it were to exercise.

[X_Digger]

37. By what legal precept do you justify that?

What legal principle supports limiting a right based on the possibility of becoming a victim of theft? (And that's setting aside the moronic notion that a person with five or ten firearms is more likely to be the victim of theft than someone with two.)

That has to be one of the most daft ideas I've heard.

[PavePusher]

42. I became a victim of theft by following laws you support....

and now you blame me for the problem.

That's rich.

[Atypical Liberal]

49. Why blame the victim?

This is like blaming a woman who is more attractive than another for being a victim of a sex crime.

[ileus]

36. So this is a real gun shop ad right?

[Jean V. Dubois]

12. If by "assault rifles" you mean semiautomatic rifles with military styling,

just what would you propose as an upper limit to ownership?

5?

3?

1?

None?

[ellisonz]

13. Seperate liscensing...

...with increasing costs for multiple weapons - no more than 3 sounds about right unless you're a legitimate collector.

No new production. Restrictions on features that can be added on, certain types prohibited entirely from circulation. Limits on magazine sizes, no legal sale of extended clips. Close the private sales loophole. Increased penalties for violation.

[Dr_Scholl]

14. Restrictions on features that can be added on?

What the hell does that mean?

[ellisonz]

15. ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_assault_weapons_ban#Definition_of_assault_weapon

[PavePusher]

19. How about, in your own words, you tell us what you want to ban, regulate and licence...

and why, how and what effect you think it will have.

[ellisonz]

20. I think that should be subject to expert consideration.

I think I'll sidestep that trap: http://www.democraticunderground.com/11727993

I answered his question about what was meant.

[PavePusher]

23. I'll take this as an admission of ignorance....

And will refer back to it whenever you dish out steaming spoonfuls of it.

[X_Digger]

24. Thanks for admitting that you need an expert opinion.

Somehow, needing an expert opinion hasn't stopped you from putting your foot into your mouth before, why stop now?

[ellisonz]

27. I didn't put my foot in my mouth.

I just chose to refer to previous debate on the topic. Thanks for feeling the need to level every zinger you can!

[X_Digger]

38. You mean like when you tried to insert your own definition of 'assault weapon' then link to wiki?

Then proclaim, "Backed up;".

Yeah, backed that foot right up past your lips.

[oneshooter]

21. He dosen't know enough to say what he wants to ban/control.

Just that he "believes" that "something" should be done, but will leave up to "others" to decide what and how.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[Dr_Scholl]

46. That worked out great in 94...

not

[rl6214]

29. Sounds about what the most extreme of the anti gun zealots wants

and the main reason that most gun people are against the "sensible" gun laws. All you ever see is they want more and more and more restrictions but are never willing to give anything back.

[E6-B]

31. Ha! Do that and Newt Gingrich becomes president for life.

[Jean V. Dubois]

40. While it's amusing to debate such far-reaching proposals,

will you grant that there's virtually no chance of that agenda passing in the foreseeable future?

A limit on the number of firearms one can own? Not going to happen.

[Travis_0004]

41. There is just one problem with this idea. The second admendment.

I own more than 3 guns, the reason is different guns have different uses.

I compete in 3 gun competitions, which require, 3 guns. On another weekend, I go skeet shooting with friends. A shotgun for 3 gun, does not work well for skeet shooting. If I want to teach somebody young how to shoot, I own a .22 rifle and pistol. I see nothing wrong with owning multiple guns. Just like people need different shoes for different occasions, people need different guns. And all my guns are in a safe that is bolted to the floor, so while not impossible for them to get stolen, it wouldn't be easy. One could rob a gun store much easier than breaking into my safe.

I even own a rifle, with a very short barrel. Do I need it, no, but its a lot of fun, so why not own it. (And yes, its registered with the ATF, so I can legally own it.)

[SteveW]

44. No longer "gun show loophole," but "private sales loophole?"

This has been discussed here before very extensively. Perhaps you weren't around?

The issues we covered:
1) State powers (to regulate "private sales&quot vs. federal powers;
2) Cost of implementing a "universal" NICS system; undue tax burden on gun-owners may be unconstitutional;
3) The demonstrated willingness of gun-banners to corrupt a universal NICS system, thereby creating government registration;
4) Status of entity serving as a NICS clearinghouse (private? government? NGO?); and
5) Responsibility of record-keeping by individuals (length of time, custodian ship, etc.).

Some of these problems may be manageable, but there was little input from gun-controller/banners. Perhaps because they saw such a scheme as inadequate within their hard-line prohibitionist outlook.

[Atypical Liberal]

50. Your ideas are non-starters.

Seperate liscensing

You are never going to see licensing in this country on any large scale.

with increasing costs for multiple weapons - no more than 3 sounds about right unless you're a legitimate collector.

I and every other gun owner in this country will fight this, but out of curiosity, what constitutes a "legitimate collector"?

No new production.

Non-starter.

Restrictions on features that can be added on,

Such as?

certain types prohibited entirely from circulation.

Which types?

Limits on magazine sizes,

What size?

no legal sale of extended clips.

What is an "extended clip"?

[liberal_biker]

51. Won't happen

Ever.

About the only thing you might get is an increased penalty for violating existing laws, but even that is doubtful. The rest of your ideas are DOA.

[SteveW]

43. So King didn't apply for a CCW? Didn't have armed guards around his house? nt

[X_Digger]

2. Riiiiiiiight. Keep dreaming.

Josh isn't even good for a laugh these days.

http://www.atf.gov/statistics/

The question is, is Josh just stupid, or is he intentionally misleading?

[Glassunion]

4. Yes

[ileus]

6. it's all a vast gunwing conspiracy! I knew it!!!

[DonP]

9. I'm surprised Josh didn't do the opposite ...

... and claim gun manufacturers were actually producing way more guns than they claimed to and selling them off the books out the back door and on street corners to the drug cartels and gang members in major urban areas.

Claiming they aren't really selling as many as they claim is just stupid, since every new gun or used sold through an FFL has to undergo a NICS check and they keep good track of how many of those they do.

But Josh is just such a credible spokesperson it's hard to ignore his insights. Who to believe the FBI who actually runs the background checks, or a guy who gets paid by a huge corporate foundation to bad mouth guns and gun owners? Hmmmm? <sarcasm off>

[spin]

10. The article presents no proof that only existing gun owners are buying guns...

The writer does mention GSS data:

The number of Americans who own firearms has been steadily declining over the past 30 years. According to the General Social Survey (GSS), the most respected source of data on social trends in the U.S., just 20.8% of Americans owned a firearm in 2010. This is down substantially from the 1980 figure of 29%. GSS data also soundly debunks another specious claim that the gun lobby circulates to the media--that gun ownership among women is on the rise. In reality, gun ownership among American women has remained flat over the past three decades, with 10.5% of women reporting owning firearms in 1980 compared to 9.9% in 2010.

Just what is the GSS?

General Social Survey

The General Social Survey (GSS) is a sociological survey used to collect data on demographic characteristics and attitudes of residents of the United States. The survey is conducted face-to-face with an in-person interview by the National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago, of a randomly-selected sample of adults (18+) who are not institutionalized. The survey was conducted every year from 1972 to 1994 (except in 1979, 1981, and 1992). Since 1994, it has been conducted every other year. The survey takes about 90 minutes to administer. As of 2010 28 national samples with 55,087 respondents and 5,417 variables had been collected. The data collected about this survey includes both demographic information and respondent's opinions on matters ranging from government spending to the state of race relations to the existence and nature of God. Because of the wide range of topics covered, and the comprehensive gathering of demographic information, survey results allow social scientists to correlate demographic factors like age, race, gender, and urban/rural upbringing with beliefs, and thereby determine whether, for example, an average middle-aged black male respondent would be more or less likely to move to a different U.S. state for economic reasons than a similarly situated white female respondent; or whether a highly educated person with a rural upbringing is more likely to believe in a transcendent God than a person with an urban upbringing and only a high-school education.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Social_Survey

While this may be a well respected survey, it does involve face to face contact and many people who are surveyed may be less than honest in answering certain sensitive questions to an interviewer that they don't know. Many gun owners wish to keep the fact that they own firearms secret from strangers. Some would even prefer that their close friends and neighbors didn't know that fact depending on the region of the country where they live. Also many gun owners have a significant amount of distrust for the government and fear the possibility that their firearms might be confiscated in the future. Consequently they would not want to reveal information that they fear might be obtained and used by the government they distrust. (I know this is an unrealistic fear but I also know many gun owners who feel this way.)

Therefore I feel the GSS has some value but it is limited on the accuracy of just how many people own firearms.

My daughter worked for the Census last year and often had difficulty getting people to reveal how many people lived in their home. The Census sent forms to everybody and many people simply refused to fill them out. The questions on those forms were far less sensitive than a question asking if an individual owned firearms.

Some conservatives were fired up by some politicians who had a negative view of the Census and posed a challenge to my daughter who was sent to their homes to gather data. Often doors were slammed in her face or she felt people answered dishonestly.

EXCLUSIVE: Minn. lawmaker vows not to complete Census
By Stephen Dinan The Washington Times Wednesday, June 17, 2009

Outspoken Republican Rep. Michele Bachmann says she’s so worried that information from next year’s national census will be abused that she will refuse to fill out anything more than the number of people in her household.

In an interview Wednesday morning with The Washington Times “America’s Morning News,” Mrs. Bachmann, Minnesota Republican, said the questions have become “very intricate, very personal” and she also fears ACORN, the community organizing group that came under fire for its voter registration efforts last year, will be part of the Census Bureau’s door-to-door information collection efforts.

“I know for my family the only question we will be answering is how many people are in our home,” she said. “We won’t be answering any information beyond that, because the Constitution doesn’t require any information beyond that.”
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jun/17/exclusive-minn-lawmaker-fears-census-abuse/

If it's difficult to find out how many people live in a home, image the problems with asking a person, "Do you own firearms?" I asked my daughter what she thought the response would have been if she had been required to ask that question. She laughed and replied that she was glad that she didn't have to.

[ileus]

16. The truth is they sold a shiteload and it makes some peeps mad.

[E6-B]

17. You want to know? Get a warrant. You seem to have a problem with the 4th Amedment too.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/josh-horwitz/the-truth-about-gun-sales_b_1193498.html

Many companies in the firearms industry are privately owned, so there are no quarterly statements

[PavePusher]

18. Do Publicly traded companies have to reveal that info to anyone but stock-holders? n/t

[E6-B]

30. Many companies in the firearms industry are privately owned, so there are no quarterly statements

I guess you missed it.

Once again:

Many companies in the firearms industry are privately owned, so there are no quarterly statements

[PavePusher]

33. Slow down friend, I did get that part.

I was asking specifically about the publically traded companies.

I think we're on the same side here.

[rl6214]

25. "Josh Horwitz Executive Director of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence "

Seriously?

You think you could find a little more biased "source" for your "facts"?

And you guys bitch when someone posts a link to an NRA source!

[ellisonz]

28. HuffPo ain't exactly Townhall.com...

...without so much as an excerpt.

[gejohnston]

32. no but it is not exactly

the Times of London either.

[SteveW]

45. HuffPo always keeps a warm place for gun-controllers to do their business. Weird. nt

[ileus]

35. So has anyone produced numbers to show the #'s reported in the media were lies?

[aikoaiko]

39. The anti-gun lobby is a lot of smoke and mirrors designed for the production of fear.

Fixed it for you.

[ileus]

47. still no link to actual number's of firearms sold???

[Atypical Liberal]

48. I don't want my GOVERNMENT tracking firearm ownership, so it follows that the press can't do it.

The NSSF (the trade association for the gun industry) and the NRA have this data--because gun manufacturers have to understand what their dealers are selling in order to produce the proper amount of product and maximize profits. But the gun lobby has blocked public access to this information for decades. Instead, they offer reporters data on background checks run through the FBI's National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS).

First of all, I don't know why it is assumed that the NRA would have this information.

But that is really beside the point.

Yes, it is correct that it is hard to get information on who owns firearms. I like it that way. I don't want the government having lists of who has bought and owns which firearms. So logically, if the government can't even know that kind of information, the press can't know it, either.

All we have are the number of background checks performed. That gives a pretty good indicator as to overall firearm sales.

That's already more information than I want the government to have.