Ignore the lies.....Gun sales are UP and growing....

[Logical]

The Violence Policy Center as always is full of crap. Gun sales are up and growing. And will continue to grow.....

The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) keeps track of the number of background checks made when someone buys a gun. Although a check does not correlate directly with a sale - a single check could involve the purchase of multiple firearms, for example - the figure is a reliable indicator of trends. Last year's 14.4 million checks represented an all-time high. In fact, the numbers have increased year after year since 2002, and there is no sign of slowing down. Checks are up 11 percent this year.

To meet the demand, gun factories are running overtime. From 2000 to 2009, the number of firearms manufactured and offered for sale in the United States increased 45 percent while the population only increased 9.1 percent. ATF reports 38,611,108 brand new guns were put on the market in the last decade, but even that figure tells only half the story. ATF estimates an additional 2 million used guns trade hands each year.

As the number of guns per capita increased, the violent crime rate has fallen - down 6.2 percent last year, according to the FBI. With murders down, the left had to come up with a way to pretend there are fewer guns. Otherwise, the public might draw the obvious conclusion that the repeal of useless gun-control restrictions like the so-called assault-weapons ban has only made us safer. National Rifle Association (NRA) spokesman Andrew Arulanandam suggested groups like the VPC have been feeling left out as gun rights continue to advance in state legislatures and the courts. "The political reality in this country is that it's bad politics to be on the wrong side of the gun issue," he told The Washington Times. "The NRA is the mainstream, and these other groups are the fringe and they find themselves on the outside looking in."

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/apr/27/gun-grabbers-grasp-at-straws/print/

[lawodevolution]

1. But it's the gun accumulizers

[rl6214]

18. WT F is a "gun accumulizer"?

[lawodevolution]

19. Ask Hoyt or jpak

[jpak]

65. FYI "gun accumulizers" are paranoid gun and ammo hoarders that fear a black president

It is no coincidence that gun and ammos sales skyrocketed after Obama's election.

Evan as the number of homes with guns and individual gun ownership declined

yup

[Atypical Liberal]

72. Do you think...

Do you think it is more likely that people are buying firearms because President Obama is black or because he campaigned on re-instating an Assault Weapons Ban similar to what we had the last time a Democrat was in office?

[Hoyt]

71. It's those fueling increase of guns -- adding to their weapons cache in endless attempt to feel safe

from god know what. Fact is, most gun sales are to the same old gun obsessed.

[HockeyMom]

2. Republican husband thinks there is going to be revolution

The Muslims are going to be attacking us in the streets. He is buying more guns to "be prepared". In fact, he is going to a gun show today to sell one gun and buy another. He has told me about people, usually at the these gun shows, who are doing the same thing. There is a certain kind of ammo that he cannot get anymore. Hoarding, he says. So, he is also trying to buy the casings and powder to make his own. He never talks about protection from robbers breaking into the house, or on the streets. He doesn't even carry although he has a CCW. The Muslims aren't here yet? Personally, I think the man is getting senile.

Anyway, thought you might "enjoy" what and why Republican gun owners are doing what they do. Are Democrat gun owners doing the same in fear of a revolution? Or are Faux viewers drinking the cool aid?

[geckosfeet]

4. I am protecting myself from people like your husband.

I have my concealed carry permit but don't have anything small enough to carry.

But my 92FS is close by at home.

[Sadena Meti]

11. Get a snub nosed .38 special hammerless revolver. Charter Arms make good ones.

Use 102 grain brass jacketed hollow point +P power ammunition. Remington Golden Sabres.

[geckosfeet]

31. I am thinking 9mm something. Got to research a bit more.

[RSillsbee]

68. I am very happy w/ my S&W 6906

very concealable, carries 12 rounds http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=366662

[Starboard Tack]

37. How about a life?

[geckosfeet]

42. How about making sense? If you got something to say - well - this is a message board.

[iverglas]

73. damn it's hard to follow a subthread, eh?

Poster 1 says:

"Get a snub nosed .38 special hammerless revolver."

Poster 2 says:

"How about a life?


I'll bet you've heard the expression "get a life" ...

[GreenStormCloud]

58. Those of us who carry do so to be able to protect our LIVES. N/T

[Starboard Tack]

62. Ah, now I get it! Silly me

[rl6214]

22. I carry a Taurus millenium in 9mm

They also make it in .40 and .45, is very reliable and compact enough to carry while wearing anything.

[Sadena Meti]

25. Tarus also maked high caliber revolvers with very small frames, like .454 Casul. Bear stopper.

[geckosfeet]

32. Wrist breaker too. I want something I can comfortably use at the range occasionally.

[Starboard Tack]

38. Had me a neighbor who used to drive one of them rust buckets

[Sadena Meti]

10. What ammunition can't he get?

What ammunition can't he get? It seems very unlikely except for old collectible rifles, which are not very useful in self defense. Cabela's (store, not website) has almost every caliber known to man, in many brands and types. You can even get .32, .25, .38 (not .38 special), you name it.

[rl6214]

23. For a while I couldn't find any .223 or 7.62x.39 anywhere

Supplies are now plentiful.

[Sadena Meti]

24. You've got to be kidding, those are the two most available rifle ammunitions in the world!

M-16 and AK-47, not to mention the hundreds of knock offs.

[Starboard Tack]

39. You might wanna try some

3.1415926535897932384626433832795028841971693993751058209749445923078164062862089986280348253421170679
8214808651328230664709384460955058223172535940812848111745028410270193852110555964462294895493038196
4428810975665933446128475648233786783165271201909145648566923460348610454326648213393607260249141273
724587006606315588174881520920962829254091715364367892590360011330530548820466521384146951941511609...

Hollow Point infinity grain. Supplies are endless.

[GreenStormCloud]

59. Too small. N/T

[Logical]

13. He sounds paranoid to me. Most gun owners are not! N-t

[Sadena Meti]

27. Very true. At the range, there's plenty of cross-talk...

During cease-fires (while targets were replaced) people would talk to their neighbors about the guns they brought today, their opinions about various ammunition, and even give you a verbal inventory of their entire gun collection.

Very open, not paranoid.

[rl6214]

21. Sounds like you've got some preconcieved ideas about gun owners

and a somewhat nutty husband. I've been going to gun shows for 25 years and have never encountered anyone like that. They have been worried about supply, which was low on ammo and some rifles when the wars started buy nothing against muslims and "being prepared".

The gun shows I have been to are not all "republican gun owners".

[Sadena Meti]

28. Politics of Gun Shows

"The gun shows I have been to are not all "republican gun owners"."

At all the gun shows I went to they were circulating petitions to recall the Democrat governor (Doyle) who was anti-gun.

There were also far too many flags and banners. Too nationalistic, too right.


There was also always an "urban" element there looking for the no paperwork cash and carry sellers.

[Starboard Tack]

36. Does he know you hang out with them

Muslim lovin' gunfiscators? You're a brave woman.

[eallen]

75. Guns are becoming a political accessory. Personally, I haven't bought one in decades.

My own suspicion is that a lot of guns are bought by people who have never shot one, and likely never will. In some right-wing circles, they have become a fashion item. Sort of like Doc Martin boots were for a slice of time and among a particular crowd.

I suspect the trend to level off, for the simple reason that a well-made gun lasts for a long, long time. I still shoot the first pistol I ever shot, which was my father's side arm, milled in 1943, carried through the muck of various Pacific Islands, still working well, and still current as far as design and function go.

:hippie:

[jaxx]

3. The rightwing is shifting their birtherism to gunism now.

The NRA is now going to make up things Obama 'might' do, never saying what he has not done. Namely taking away the guns. Same old crap. Nobody wants the damned guns, but you'll never convince the NRA about that....who would send them money if they did?

Speaking of fringe....the moonie times? LOL

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Upton]

7. "Nobody wants the damned guns"

They don't? Apparently, you haven't informed Josh Sugarmann executive director and VPC founder..

"We recoil in horror and search for explanations, but we never face up to the obvious preventive measure: a ban on the handy killing machines that make crimes so easy."

http://www.saf.org/pub/rkba/general/SugarmannEditorial.htm

As several public health organizations have noted, the best way to curb a public health problem is through prevention--in this case, the banning of all handguns from civilian hands.

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/The+NRA+is+right%3b+but+we+still+need+to+ban+handguns.-a05010444

[jaxx]

14. Let me know when this Sugarman guy sits in the Oval Office.

PBO does not want the damned guns. The two fringes...all or nothing...are just going to keep on acting up and blaming it on the WH. No way.

Why people support either group is their business and their money. Both should understand the need for regulation and licensing, along with the non-need for big clips. It's just common sense.

No, I don't own a gun.

[rl6214]

30. Common sense to one is the start of laws that will get progressively

worse over time. You give up 30 round mags in the first law passed, the next year it is 19 round mags that are taken away, the year after that it's nothing over 12 rounds and then after that it's 10 rounders.

[Sadena Meti]

35. Except they don't make you turn in the high capacity magazines, they still circulate.

[Starboard Tack]

40. Oh no! Not back to 10 rounders!? Tell us it ain't so!

How do we get to have fun with only a 10 rounder? Lordie Lordie, it's the end of times.

[jaxx]

43. That is an assumption that I don't see happening.

People aren't worried about normal gun usage, like hunting or target shooting. Large clips are not necessary for either. I think the NRA plays on people's fears, and embellishes any sensible changes into "they're gonna take your guns away". Send money.

[cleanhippie]

8. Sorry to say, jaxx, but there are MANY right here on DU that want all guns confiscated.

I wish it were not true, but it is.

[jaxx]

16. I have yet to see anyone say take away the guns.

People hunt, they always have. People own guns, they always have. People have not always been able to conceal carry....not since they cleaned up the old west. Nobody cares if people own guns.

[cleanhippie]

20. Look, I agree with you.

But to say "nobody cares if people own guns" is just not a true statement. I could rattle of 10 names right now whose posts show that they would, if they could, have all guns removed from the hands of the public. DU rules do not allow for this, so I can only tell you to peruse the threads, just from the last week, and you will easily find those whose views I am talking about.

[jaxx]

45. Do they actually say remove guns from the public?

I honestly don't read the gun forum, only catch some posts on the latest posted area. Sometimes I post, not often because I'm on the wrong side of the fence most of the time. However I do not want to see lawfully owned guns taken from anyone. The 2nd amendment says people can have them, the rest of it I'm not so sure of, but that's a wide argument.

[cleanhippie]

50. While the specifics vary, the desired result would be the same.

There are many here that want one of our primary rights to be curtailed in some fashion, at best to make it more difficult to exercise that right and at worst to remove that right entirely.

[rl6214]

33. Take a look at the gun laws in California

They DID take away guns out there. Take a look at the California Assault Weapons Control Act of 1989

[jaxx]

46. I can see armies having assault weapons.

That's what they were made for, not general consumption.

[spin]

49. There's a big difference between the weapons the military uses ...

and the weapons that were banned during the assault weapons ban.

Assault weapon

***snip***

Perhaps the largest area of confusion surrounding this term is the difference between a machine-gun, assault rifle and an assault weapon (non-military definition). A machine-gun is universally recognized as a fully automatic weapon, while the current statutory definitions for assault weapons describe them as semi-automatic.

A key concept in defining the military assault rifle is the ability to provide a large volume of fire through fully-automatic or burst fire modes. Every nation that uses the term assault rifle refers to a rifle with said capability. A semi-automatic rifle does not have the capability to lay down large volumes of fire required for modern military assault operations and has not been defined as an assault rifle by any nation. The term assault weapon is more encompassing and fluid than the term assault rifle and leads to confusion that these semi-automatic weapons are fully automatic or would be used by militaries in assault operations.emphasis added

Further, the National Firearms Act of 1934 specifically addresses fully automatic weapons, and the private ownership and usage of them is extremely regulated. To add to the confusion, the media often refers to these semi-automatic rifles as military-style assault weapons.<5> Military assault rifles are also designated under the heading of assault weapon systems by several countries but are capable of full automatic fire creating more confusion.<6>

There is also the perception that firearms that fall under this category can be easily modified for fully automatic fire. This is not the case since the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) regulations for manufacturers place certain restrictions on firearm product design to comply with the provisions of the National Firearms Act (NFA) of 1934 and the amendments to the McClure-Volkmer Act of 1986 that pertain to machine-gun ownership. These regulations require that semi-automatic firearms sold in the United States be especially difficult to convert to fully automatic operation. While it is theoretically possible for a skilled machinist with extensive firearms knowledge to perform such a conversion, this scenario contrasts sharply with claims of "easy convertibility." The few fully-automatic firearms which police seize in the United States are overwhelmingly illegally-imported weapons, rather than converted semi-automatics.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_weapon

[Euromutt]

76. Interestingly, no army does

In very broad terms, an "assault weapon" is a variant of an individual weapon originally designed to be capable of selective fire (such as a submachine gun http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Submachine_gun or an assault rifle http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle), but re-engineered to be capable only of semi-automatic fire (i.e. one shot with each pull of the trigger). Armies do not use "assault weapons"; they use the original, automatic fire-capable designs.

In fact, in military parlance, an "assault weapon" is a man-portable weapon used by infantry destroy enemy fortifications, such as satchel charges, flamethrowers, bangalore torpedoes and certain types of rocket launcher. Stuff that, under the National Firearms Act, is classed as "destructive devices."

[onehandle]

17. Yes. So 'many' at DU call for gun 'confiscation' everyday.

:eyes:

[Upton]

26. Then you haven't been paying attention..

for example, what is stuff like this supposed to mean? "Isn't it time we seriously reconsidered the Second Amendment?"

[Starboard Tack]

41. What does repealing/amending 2A have to do with confiscation?

Classic NRA alarmism.

[jaxx]

48. People aren't going to repeal the 2nd amendment.

This is a discussion board where unfortunately everything and it's brother is throw out there for consumption. Maybe they'd like to now and then, but they know it won't happen. I don't like concealed carry, if people have to tote a gun let them tote it on their hip in full sight. But I'm not going to get my way...and I know it. Still I will fight it in my state, IL. Not their right to own a gun, but that well regulated militia right to bear stuff.

[RSillsbee]

69. What does "Make 'em scarce" mean to you? NT

[rl6214]

29. You look at the stance Obama has had his entire career

being VERY anti gun and the anti gun platform of the DNC and the fact that the Dems controlled the House, the Senate and the presidency and you can see why there WAS a strong feeling that strict gun laws were going to be enacted. Especially since Biden was a driving force behind the previous failed AWB. You just know any new AWB would be much stronger in eliminating weapons like the AR15 and the AK clones.

With the Presidents recent comments on the constitutionality of gun ownership I think some of the angst has subsided BUT with Biden leading the recent talks concerning the "sensible" gun laws in the wake of Rep Giffords shooting, I think a lot of it still remains. Only time will tell if in his second term the Pres decides to take stronger action, as many in the gun community think he will.

[jaxx]

44. The President isn't going to take guns away.

This what iffing does no one any good, it only stirs up the fervor. Sensible gun laws are needed. There are millions of guns in this country, some legal, some not. Sensible gun owners know they can't vouch for every gun owner.

[jpak]

66. Yup!

:toast:

[msongs]

5. obama's election was a huge sales benefit for the gun crowd nt

[jaxx]

47. And they have been proven wrong.

That was the rightwing stirring up crap. Now it's another election time and here we go again.

[spin]

51. Imagine how many more votes Democrats might get ...

if Obama and the party promised that they would not push, pass or sign into law any bill that called for registration, banning or confiscation of firearms and instead would try to improve and enforce existing gun laws to make it more difficult for criminals and those who have been adjudged as having severe mental issues to obtain firearms.

If Obama has no intentions of signing such legislation, he should simply say so. That alone might make a big difference in the next election.

It is true that such a promise might anger the very liberal portion of our party but Obama already receives a lot of criticism from them.

The are far more important problems that our country faces than gun control and we are on the right side of those issues. Why should we allow the Republicans to own the vote of many of the 40 million plus gun owners. We shoot ourselves in the foot over and over again in election after election.

[jaxx]

54. I had forgotten about this:

<..> “I know that every time we try to talk about guns, it can reinforce stark divides. People shout at one another, which makes it impossible to listen. We mire ourselves in stalemate, which makes it impossible to get to where we need to go as a country,” Obama wrote. “However, I believe that if common sense prevails, we can get beyond wedge issues and stale political debates to find a sensible, intelligent way to make the United States of America a safer, stronger place.”

As for practical policy suggestions, Obama had a few: enforce laws already on the books, including proper implementation of the National Instant Criminal Background Check System; push for greater state-to-state coordination; and “make the system faster and nimbler” so that those conducting background checks have the best available data. The president also left open the door for more reforms in the future, saying that this moment should only be the “beginning of a new discussion on how we can keep America safe for all our people.”

<..> “Actually, I like this,” emailed Jim Kessler, a former director of policy and research at Americans for Gun Safety. “There will be a knee-jerk reaction among some who will say, “Why no clip ban?” But I think on both substance and political grounds, a high-capacity clip ban is the wrong way to go. There were roughly 12,000 gun homicides last year, and I’ll wager that less than 10 were caused by bullets 11 through 30 in someone’s magazine. The problem is bullets 1, 2, and 3 –- not 11, 12, and 13."

“The Obama focus seems to be on shoring up a background system that is the lynchpin of the nation’s gun laws,” Kessler added. “A better system that more accurately and quickly weeds out ineligible buyers may not be sexy, but it reduces crime. And there seems to be some indication that the president is seeking to expand background checks to some other sales that have been previously exempt –- perhaps gun shows. That’s a heavy lift in Congress, but that’s the right direction.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/13/obama-gun-control-arizona-shooting_n_835103.html

[jaxx]

55. PBO's article on guns after the Giffords shooting.

http://azstarnet.com/article_011e7118-8951-5206-a878-39bfbc9dc89d.html

Now, like the majority of Americans, I believe that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to bear arms. And the courts have settled that as the law of the land. In this country, we have a strong tradition of gun ownership that's handed from generation to generation. Hunting and shooting are part of our national heritage. And, in fact, my administration has not curtailed the rights of gun owners - it has expanded them, including allowing people to carry their guns in national parks and wildlife refuges.

[spin]

56. So Obama is not opposed to RKBA, why not go all the way ...

and promise to veto any bills that would register, ban or confiscate firearms that landed on his desk.

He could promise to do this if the NRA would be willing to sit down at a table and work with him to better regulate the private sales of firearms and to improve other existing firearm laws.

He could take the offensive and put the NRA on the defensive for a change. If the NRA refused his offer he could attack them as part of the problem and not part of the solution.

Together the NRA and Obama might implement effective ideas and pass laws that would make a difference.

[jaxx]

57. That doesn't sound productive to me.

It sounds like the very NRA who beats the President up constantly and lies about what he says would hardly be a partner in progress. The NRA gets no kudos from me.

[spin]

63. That's why it's a good idea ...

The NRA is constantly on the attack against the President as being in favor of draconian gun laws. Obama has shown no signs of favoring such laws, although some in his administration have. If anything the President has been pro-gun. He signed a bill into law allowing concealed carry in national parks.

I suggested that first Obama promise that he would veto any bill landing on his desk that involved registration, gun bans or confiscation. Then he would invite the NRA to a meeting to discuss ways of improving existing laws.

If the NRA refuses Obama's offer to sit down and work on effective laws they can be blamed as part of the problem and not part of the solution. This would be a win for Obama and for Democrats. If the NRA does sit down and some effective laws result, it's a win for everybody including our nation.

[Sadena Meti]

12. This only measures gun sales with background checks.

There are plenty of legal and illegal ways to get firearms without a background check. You can buy from a private seller, cash and carry, no ID. You can buy from private sellers at gun shows, again cash and carry, no ID. You can also use a shill buyer, someone with a clean record buys 10 handguns and then sells them on the black market.

Gun control is a joke in this country. It's not worth getting upset about it. It will never mean anything. Waiting periods? Not for cash and carry. Smaller clips? You can still legally own, buy, and sell the old ones. Licensing? Only affect gun store sales and legit gun sellers.

There is no remedy.

[spin]

53. I disagree ...

It is not impossible to open up the NICS background check system to private sellers on a voluntary basis or even require a background check for private sales.

Presently, 17 states regulate private firearm sales at gun shows. Seven states require background checks on all gun sales at gun shows (California, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Oregon, New York, Illinois and Colorado). Four states (Hawaii, Maryland, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania) require background checks on all handgun, but not long gun, purchasers at gun shows. Six states require individuals to obtain a permit to purchase handguns that involves a background check (Massachusetts, Michigan, North Carolina, Iowa, Nebraska, Minnesota). Certain counties in Florida require background checks on all private sales of handguns at gun shows. The remaining 33 states do not restrict private, intrastate sales of firearms at gun shows in any manner.<14><15>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_shows_in_the_United_States

The penalties for straw purchase of a firearm need to be stiffer. I would suggest that a person who engaged in this activity should be held responsible for any crimes committed with the weapon he purchased for another person. For example, if the weapon was used in a murder, the straw purchaser should be changed as an accessory to murder.

[Smokewagon]

15. Just another comment

On the background check statistics. Some states don't run a NICS background check on persons holding a valid concealed carry permit, wishng to purchase a firearm. Texas is one of those.

[Sadena Meti]

34. I serious doubt the veracity of this.

I've had reason to become familiar with the National Firearms Act on more than one occassion. The background check is FEDERALLY mandated, which means States have to do it, on EVERY firearm purchase through a licensed dealer.

You may have got your information from a case of cash and carry or a curios and relic sale. But all FEDERALLY licensed dealers MUST conduct a background check.

[gejohnston]

52. That might be apples and oranges

National Firearms Act relates to title two weapons, that are regulated under it. The feds do the background checks that take awhile. NICS is used for title one weapons only.

[GreenStormCloud]

60. FALSE.

The other poster is correct. In Texas, and some other states, if you have a CHL or that state's equivalent then the NICS check is waived. I have personally purchased guns from reputable gun stores and used my CHL instead of the NICS check.

[Straw Man]

61. +1

The Feds have the prerogative to waive the NICS if they deem the state's CCW procedures to be sufficiently rigorous. They rescinded this privilege for several states a few years ago, but it is still in force in others.

[X_Digger]

70. Here's a link for you..

http://www.atf.gov/firearms/brady-law/permit-chart.html

Note: Notwithstanding the dates set forth below, permits qualify as alternatives to the background check requirements of the Brady law for no more than 5 years from the date of issuance. The permit must be valid under State law in order to qualify as a Brady alternative.

[jpak]

64. Moonie Times Fail - gun ownership is going down, gun sales are going up due to paranoid gun hoarders

who fear Barack Hussein Obama

ans hoard guns and ammo

yup

[Euromutt]

77. I'm going to ask you a question I posed to you and others last Sunday

Originally here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=409492&mesg_id=409613

If, hypothetically, the Washington Times ran an impassioned op-ed piece decrying the amount of gun violence in American society and the loosening of gun laws, as USA Today did two weeks or so ago (regarding which you started this thread http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x406138), would you reject its message on the basis of the source alone?

Or would you hail it as an encouraging sign that even some right-wingers are turning against gun rights?

[iverglas]

78. if pigs could fly ...

Euromutt would be reading my post!

[RSillsbee]

67. The Violence Policy Center as always is full of crap.

You could have ended this thread right there and been 100% accurate

[iverglas]

74. I must be slow this morning

Otherwise, the public might draw the obvious conclusion that the repeal of useless gun-control restrictions like the so-called assault-weapons ban has only made us safer.

It may be obvious, but the causal relationship is eluding me. Can anyone explain how repealing the "assault weapons ban" has made you safer?

I'm also quite unable to understand how a rise in "the number of guns per capita" makes the violent crime rate fall.

Do people find that having six guns in their home has enabled them to resist intruders better than they were able to with only four? Has having a pistol in each pocket enabled someone to resist a mugger better than having only one?


If it actually is the number of firearms per capita, and not (or to a far lesser degree) the number of firearms owners, that is increasing, what exactly is the effect this exerts on crime rates?

I'm sure someone will be able to explain this.