Guns and ammo sales spark jobs boom

[hack89]

Source: CNN

Guns and ammo are selling briskly these days, and that means weapons makers are hiring. Some manufacturers are scrambling to find enough workers.

Mike Weddle, head of maintenance at Dynamic Research Technologies, an ammunition manufacturer in Albany, Mo., says he is adding 10 new hires to his staff of 35. DRT's machine operators make between $10 and $17 an hour -- a healthy paycheck in a region where it's tough to find a job and the cost of living is relatively low.

Jacob Herman, chief operating officer for Red Jacket Firearms in Baton Rouge, La., agrees that finding qualified workers is the biggest hurdle for his business, which has an 18-month long blacklog of orders. Red Jacket, a family-owned company with 30 employees, makes AR15 semiautomatic rifles but has had to stop taking new orders for the time being.

"Finding skilled machinists and advanced skilled labor is one of the biggest problems that we face in getting products out the door," said Herman.

Read more: http://money.cnn.com/2013/03/25/news/companies/guns-ammo-jobs/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

---

A nice economic stimulus.

[otohara]

1. I Would Think The Funeral Business

would be picking up too!

Yay jobs .... I'd kill for one!

[hack89]

4. History would indicate otherwise

the trend over the past 20 years is for gun deaths to steadily decline even as the number of guns in America goes up.

[otohara]

9. Only 30,000 Whew

thanks, I feel so much better hearing that NRA talking point for the millionth time.

[Melon_Lord]

12. Fuck math...

Much more fun to just feel outraged...

[premium]

15. Of which more than half are suicides.

Still, though, too many.

From the CDC:

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/suicide.htm

Firearm suicides
•Number of deaths: 19,392
•Deaths per 100,000 population: 6.3

http://www.firearmstatistics.com/gun-deaths.html

[otohara]

19. Suicide Ruins Families

especially when there's a murder attached to it.

Like my neighbor, who's ex took their 9 year old and blew his brains out before committing suicide.

I grew up with a parent who threatened suicide and tried all sorts of different methods to achieve the end of her life.
Thank God she didn't have a gun and I didn't have to find her in a pool of blood.
Instead, she lived to a fairly old age, I will never forget the mental abuse me and my sister endured
with the constant threats.

[premium]

21. +1000

This country needs single payer, better mental health care services, better gun control laws.
I just recently lost a war time buddy to suicide because of the lack of robust mental health care in this country.

[GreenStormCloud]

34. Do you really think not having a gun made a difference?

People have been committing suicide ever since there have been people.

[otohara]

36. In The Case of My Parental Unit YES

I'm oh so grateful no gun was in our home.

She never succeeded in her quest for death by suicide - the pills weren't enough, the blades were dull, the gas didn't work...a gun however would have done her in and like I said, I'm glad I didn't find her in a pool of blood. I'm glad I didn't have to undergo a lifetime of psychiatric therapy, or live in a foster home.

People who haven't experienced suicide really have no clue - and blow it off like it's no big deal.
Sound familiar, if not look in the mirror.

[GreenStormCloud]

51. Those were cries for help.

Many failed suicide attempts are not true attempts but are intended to fail as suicide but to succeed as a cry for help. It sounds like she did get the help she needed from your family, and that is good. For people who are truly determined to end their own lives, there are many easily available means that are 100% fatal. People have been committing suicide for tens of thousands of years, long before guns were invented.

[SunSeeker]

41. Having a gun makes a HUGE difference--a gun in the home increases your chance of suicide 5 times.

Having a gun around makes otherwise treatable depression far more fatal.

I am a firm believer in people being able to end their life if there is no hope (terminally ill cancer patients in horrible pain, etc.), but it seems the vast majority of suicides are the tragic result of untreated mental illness or depression. Committing suicide due to mental illness or depression is not a choice--it is the mental illness consuming you. Having a gun in the house makes suicide over 5 times more likely.

http://theincidentaleconomist.com/wordpress/more-guns-more-suicides/

And as noted in another DU post, at one point the Israeli Defense Forces changed policy, so that soldiers leave their guns on base rather than bringing them home with them over the weekend. After the change, suicide rates dropped by 40%, mostly attributed to a drop in gun suicides on weekends. In particular, there was no significant change in suicide rates during the week, so it's not the case that the timing of the policy coincided with some other change which made soldiers less suicidal overall. It was a clear case of means reduction.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/117295436 (citing http://gsoa.feinheit.ch/media/medialibrary/2010/12/Lubin_10.pdf )

[otohara]

43. Thank You

something the guns are fun crowd doesn't seem to understand.

[GreenStormCloud]

52. That is a risk for myself that I am willing to accept.

I really don't like it when people want to use the government to protect me from myself.

[MoclipsHumptulips]

57. My teathuglican neighbor

doesn't like the government to promote the general welfare like the Constitution says either.

[GreenStormCloud]

106. Do you also wish to outlaw skydiving, scuba diving, car racing,

rock climbing without equipment, and other dangerous activities. Would not banning those promote the general welfare?

BTW - The Preamble serves solely as an introduction, and does not assign powers to the federal government, nor does it provide specific limitations on government action. Due to the Preamble's limited nature, no court has ever used it as a decisive factor in case adjudication. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preamble_to_the_United_States_Constitution

So your attempt to argue for gun control as part of the preamble fails. The framers of the Constitution obviously thought that an individual right to have guns was in the interest of the general welfare.

[SunSeeker]

64. It is to protect US from your irresponsible choice.

It is the rest of us who have to pay the cost of picking up the pieces when you blow your brains out. Same argument applies for motorcycle helmet laws. It isn't all about you.

[GreenStormCloud]

104. You imply that other types of suicides do not incur social costs.

I submit for your consideration that suicides by pills, jumping from high places, slashed wrists, car crashes, suicide by cop, and other means are just as costly to society at large as suicide by gun.

FWIW - If I should ever get a painful, terminal disease from which I should wish to release myself by death, I will get a bottle of nitrogen, rig up a breathing mask (very easy to do), and pass guietly away. Such a death is cheap, fast, painless, and not messy - be sure to go to bathroom and empty bowels and bladder first.

[SunSeeker]

110. I imply no such thing. All suicides cost society. You missed my point.

And obviously you missed it on purpose.

[hack89]

16. We have cut our murder and manslaughter rate in half in 20 years

how many other countries can make the same claim?

We do need laws like universal background checks and limits on magazine sizes. And a crackdown on illegal gun sales is certainly overdue. And considering that the majority of gun deaths are suicides, a strong push for single payer health care should be a top priority.

Just pointing out that when things settle down, we will continue to see a steady decline in gun deaths.

[otohara]

22. Not Feeling Safe in America

sorry, but these statistics don't make me feel safe. When I read the comments from gun owners on any given gun related story, they are threatening and rude. Nice group of folks they ain't.

When the assault weapons ban ended, didn't murder with those guns go up?

[hack89]

25. You do understand that military style rifles were bought in huge numbers during the AWB?

The rifle that was used at Newtown would have been legal under the old AWB because it only has one "military" feature. CT has an AWB modeled on the original AWB - legally the Newtown rifle was not an assault weapon.

And no - murder did not go up. Rifles are the least common murder weapon out there - in 2011 there were 350 murders by rifles of all kinds (not just assault weapons). Knives, blunt objects and hands/feet kill more people annually than assault weapons.

[otohara]

31. I'm Not Living In A Gun Culture Area

Well, I take that back, I live in Colorado - home of the two worst mass shootings in rooting tooting gun toting America.

Still not feeling safer dude, those gun folks on the right hate liberals and would shoot us all if they had the chance.

[hack89]

37. OK. nt

[jmowreader]

50. Those numbers are deceiving

Rifles are not the weapon of choice for murderers. Most murders involve one or two dead people and quite a few are murder-suicides.

Rifles, however, are by far the weapon of choice for mass murder.

[hack89]

53. That is not true either

handguns are the weapon of choice for mass shootings.

Myth: Restoring the federal ban on assault weapons will prevent these horrible crimes.
Reality: The overwhelming majority of mass murderers use firearms that would not be restricted by an assault-weapons ban. In fact, semiautomatic handguns are far more prevalent in mass shootings. Of course, limiting the size of ammunition clips would at least force a gunman to pause to reload or switch weapons.

http://boston.com/community/blogs/crime_punishment/2012/12/top_10_myths_about_mass_shooti.html?camp=obinsite

Besides Newtown and Aurora, what high profile mass shootings over the past 20 years were done with assault rifles?

Don't forget that the Va Tech shooter used a handgun.

[SunSeeker]

77. Of the 143 weapons used by mass shooters, 48 would have been banned by the AWB of 2013.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/07/mass-shootings-map

You keep downplaying Aurora and Newtown like it is no big deal, like we should not make policy based on it. One terrorist makes a failed attempt to blow up a plane with a shoe, and we all have to take off our shoes at airports forever. But if 20 first graders and 6 of their teachers actually get dismembered by an AR-15, hey that's no big deal...don't let emotional...

It is sickening how the mods let you get away with posting this bogus opinion piece story into "Late Breaking News," where you use it to bring your vile gungeoneer propaganda out of the gungeon and onto the home page of DU.

[hack89]

79. Only 20 were assault weapons - shotguns were used more frequently.

please read before posting.

Newtown could have happened with a handgun - remember Va Tech?

I have no problem with all gun posts being banned from LBN or GD. But Skinner appears to have a different opinion.

[SunSeeker]

82. Way to ignore the point. Newtown could not have happened with an ordinary handgun.

The Va Tech shooter took three hours to kill 33 people--he had to take time to chain doors to lock his victims in their classrooms, preventing people from getting away as they heard shots. Va Tech was a major police/school security management failure. Police responded immediately to the Newtown shooting. But with an AR-15, "immediate" is not fast enough. The Newtown shooter dismembered 26 people in 5 minutes--before the police could even get there.

You just keep spewing gun propaganda. And it would be one thing if you posted in GD, but your "news story" offers no "late breaking news." How many jobs were created in this gun "jobs boom." Hmmm?

[hack89]

83. You could always ignore me

if you find my posts so upsetting. Surely all this agitation isn't good for you. It certainly seems to be affecting your emotional equilibrium.

[SunSeeker]

85. Nice try. If we put you on ignore, we can't be on your jury. nt

[hack89]

86. I meant stop replying to my posts.

try it - it might make you feel better.

[SunSeeker]

87. LOL. I am sure it would make YOU feel better. nt

[hack89]

88. As long as I have been posting here

I have a pretty thick hide. You are nothing special.

[NutmegYankee]

89. He could put you on his Jury Blacklist.

And the result would be the same.

[SunSeeker]

90. I guess the gungeoneers can exploit the rules to stay on DU.

Maybe someday the mods will realize how much gungeoneer propaganda is making DU suck.

[NutmegYankee]

91. What exploitation?

That's exactly how the system should (and does) work. DU was designed with a jury blacklist to ensure that people who dislike each other couldn't misuse the Jury system.

[SunSeeker]

94. It allows gungeoneers to get right wing NRA talking points on this progressive site.

Normally, right wing propaganda is not allowed on DU. I am sure the jury blacklist provision was designed to prevent personality issues from making for less than objective jury results. However, this is not a personality issue. This is a disagreement over whether a gungeoneer can post NRA talking points on a progressive-only discussion site. Gungeoneers are getting right wing NRA talking points on this site by keeping people who have called them on their shit from being on their jury. The average DUer who skips over gun posts might now know enough about that person's m.o. and usually no particular post is going to be so over the top as to require hiding, let alone tombstoning that person.

[NutmegYankee]

95. You need to realize that Democrats as a group disagree on this issue.

Pro and anti gun debaters are just like the Palestinian-Israeli debaters. Very strong opinions on either side that the other is wrong, and both are still Democrats.

[SunSeeker]

99. Really? How many "Democrats" raise George Soros as a bogeyman in their NRA talking points?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2541320

And sure, there are conservadems, but this is not a conservadem site.

[NutmegYankee]

102. That post you referenced didn't make Soros a bogeyman.

It was making a point about fundraising. As I said earlier, it must be shocking that not all Liberals agree with you all the time. Get used to it.

[SunSeeker]

112. It was a right wing talking point that the left has a bottomless ATM in George Soros.

I don't expect liberals to agree on everything; but opposing reasonable gun control is not a liberal position. Get used to it.

And about that OP. You know, the one that purports to just be offering "Late Breaking News." Since the poster of the OP won't answer my question, nor have any of the gungeoneers that are jumping in to his rescue, perhaps you can. How many jobs did this so-called gun "jobs boom" create?

[NutmegYankee]

113. How would I know?

I'm not an economist.

[hack89]

233. You can't be on my jury anyway - your name is on my jury blacklist. nt

[SunSeeker]

239. Of course it is. That is how you stay on this board.

I don't have anyone on my blacklist.

[hack89]

277. I just discovered that feature - Skinner mentioned it yesterday in ATA.

Last edited Thu Mar 28, 2013, 07:36 AM - Edit history (1)

Besides, it just has you and a couple of your friends from the isolation chamber.

I survived years without it - I have a had perhaps 10 posts hidden in the eight years I have been here.

[SunSeeker]

289. Riiiiight. Well, nice to know I'm special after all.

[hack89]

293. I can only block five people

you really think it makes that big a deal?

[SunSeeker]

294. You are offensive enough that plenty of people have you on ignore and can't be on your jury.

And THAT is a big deal.

[hack89]

297. Which is why you and I have this opportunity to interact.

a wonderful thing.

[Common Sense Party]

92. Three hours? Over two hours of which he spent deleting e-mails and disposing of his hard drive.

It took a couple of seconds to shoot the first two victims. Then Cho took a break before going to Norris hall and continuing his massacre. The shootings in Norris lasted 10-12 minutes, at least 174 rounds fired, before Cho killed himself. He was not firing for two hours straight.

Newtown could most definitely have happened with handguns.

[SunSeeker]

97. And he had to go back to his room to reload.

Newtown could not have happened with ordinary handguns. The Newtown shooter completely blew out the school security doors with the AR-15. An ordinary 22 revolver could not have done that. Even if it managed to blow the lock out, it would have required so many bullets that he would have had to stop to reload. The principal came out of her office as soon as she heard the shots on the door, and would have lunged for his weapon (that is what she was doing when he shot her). That is how the Tucson shooter was stopped, by a little old lady who lunged for his gun. Lanza was able to keep on spraying bullets with his AR after disintegrating the security doors, and without missing a beat, disintegrated the principal, then 5 teachers and 20 first graders.

The bullets coming out of an AR-15 are larger and come out faster than what comes out of an ordinary revolver. And an AR can hold a 100-round magazine. If you are talking about a high-caliber semiautomatic pistol with a 33-round magazine, that is the functional equivalent of an AR and should be banned (and would be banned under the 2013 AWB).

But we digress. Since the poster of the OP won't answer my question, perhaps you can. How many jobs did this so-called gun "jobs boom" create?

[GreenStormCloud]

119. AR-15 bullets are fairly small.

The AR-15, when firing a NATO standard SS109 round uses a 62 grain bullet. That is a bit heavier than the 55 grain bullet used in Vietnam. Being a lighter bullet it does have a high velocity.

Pistol bullet weights vary according to caliber. For example, a .45 ACP/FMJ weights 230 grains, while most hollow points of the same caliber weight 185 grains. The lighter weight of the ACP/JHP allows for greater velocity while the cavity in the nose of the bullet allows the bullet to expand in flesh to almost an inch in diameter.

A regular .357 weighs 185 grains while a JHP weights 125 grains.

A hit from a .45 JHP produces an extremely devestating wound, compared to other bullets, due to the large size and the expansion to almost an inch in diameter. The military uses the M-16's 5.56mm round because the far higher velocity gives the rifle a much greater range. The M-16/M-4 can penetrate a steel helmet at 600 meters, while the .45 can't even reach that far. But at close range of inside a room the .45 has much greater stopping power.

Stopping power is the ability to immediately incapacitate a person.

So using a .45 ACP, which has been around since 1911, in the enviroment of a closed room, a person can do more damage with a big-bore pistol then with an AR-15. Magazine capacity is not an issue as pistols are designed to be quickly and easily reloaded. Even a slow person can reload an M1911A1 pistol (designed in 1928) in less than two seconds.

The lady in Tucson was able to lunge for the gun because the gun had jammed. When customers tried to charge the Luby's shooter, he simply shot them.

[SunSeeker]

134. AR-15 bullets are not "fairly small." Geez. You guys are unbelievable.

As pointed out by another DUer, people who aren't shooters might conclude that because these rounds fit through the same barrel, a 5.56 is therefore no more dangerous than a lil' ol' 22. The key here is that the 5.56 can be twice as heavy as .22LR and can travel twice as fast. With kinetic energy proportional to mass and velocity squared, that gives the 5.56 round as much as eight times the energy (close to 2000 Joules) that the .22 packs (perhaps 250 Joules).

That is why Lanza was able to vaporize the security door to the school, and dismember 20 first graders.

And you are wrong about Tucson. See my post #122 in this thread.

[GreenStormCloud]

138. 62 grains is much smaller than 235 grains.

I gave you the calibers and grain sizes. Most handguns use much larger bullets. They have to because the bullets are so much slower from the short barrels of pistols than from the long barrels of rifles.

Most handguns used in rampage shooting are larger calibers, such as 9mm and .45 caliber.

[oldhippie]

232. "...Lanza was able to vaporize the security door to the school ..."

Wow, just wow. Hyperbole much?

[SunSeeker]

240. You're offended by "hyperbole" but not by the fact that Lanza blasted out the doors to a school?

And no, "blasted out" is not hyperbole. That is what his AR-15 allowed him to do. And maybe you're right, vaporize might not have been the right word for what he did to the doors; vaporize more accurately describes what he did to those kids' faces.

[oldhippie]

246. Hyperbole ...

... again. You having fun?

He could have also "blasted out" the glass in the door with a rock.

You could make your case better (to me anyway) without the gross exaggerations. You sound hysterical.

[SunSeeker]

254. It was a security door. A rock would not have "blasted out" the glass.

Seems to me you are the one given to gross exaggeration and hysteria.

And if he had thrown a rock at the door, it would have alerted the folk inside, who would have been alive to call 911 and get out of there. Instead, he was able to spray the door with his AR-15 and blast it or vaporize it or whatever description you prefer that describes what happens when you make it so the security door no longer exists for all practical purposes and you are able to walk right through it.

Don't worry. No one is going to take away your guns. Relax.

[CobblePuller]

214. "And he had to go back to his room to reload."

WTH? Citation, please. At what point in his shooting in Norris Hall did he stop and go back to his room, then return?

The Newtown shooter completely blew out the school security doors with the AR-15. An ordinary 22 revolver could not have done that.

A 9mm pistol (which is what Cho used to do his killing) will very much blow out glass doors. So will a .22 revolver (even though Cho used a .22 semi-auto pistol).

The bullets coming out of an AR-15 are larger and come out faster than what comes out of an ordinary revolver.

They certainly aren't larger than the average revolver, and perhaps 30-50% more mass than a .22LR round, but yes, they are higher velocity. ANY rifle bullet has a higher velocity than most revolvers. Not sure what your point is, as no revolvers were used in any of these incidents.

[SunSeeker]

217. Google VA Tech timeline. nt

[CobblePuller]

299. No, cite to your source. You made the claim, you support it when challenged.

Welcome to adult debate.

[SunSeeker]

300. LOL. I WISH I was having an adult debate.

Instead, I am being being called names by people who apparently can't use Google and who think the "gun grabbers" are coming for all their guns.

Here's how Google works. You go onto Google.com. A box opens up. In it, you type "VA tech timeline." Then you will get a bunch of results that you can see here: https://www.google.com/search?q=va+tech+timeline&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-SearchBox&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=ie7&rlz=1I7AURU_enUS502

The first thing that is listed is the Wikipedia timeline: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Tech_massacre_timeline

It states:

Between 7:15 am and 9:01 am: Cho returned to his dormitory room to reload and left a "disturbing note."

You will find also news sources like this: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/aug/30/highereducation.usa They contain timelines that also note he went back to his room around 7:17 am, after he killed the first two people:
"7.17am: Cho's access card is swiped at his residential building, Harper Hall. He goes to his room to change out of his bloody clothes...."

[CobblePuller]

304. O.K., better. Now I see what you are talking about.

Your initial mention of returning to his room (post 97) seemed to be indicating that he left Norris Hall, the site of the major portion of his shooting, in order to reload. Going back to re-read your post, that's still what it reads like. Unclear communication on your part.

Regardless, as proved by his later actions, this "reloading" was not an issue that affected the outcome.

Thank you for finally clarifying.

[SunSeeker]

305. Don't blame me for your inability to read or use Google. nt

[Lurks Often]

96. Wrong

As an experienced shooter, there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that Newtown could have been committed with a handgun or shotgun.

[SunSeeker]

98. Bullshit. See my above post #97.

[Lurks Often]

100. You don't have the faintest clue what you are talking about n/t

[SunSeeker]

101. Aah, the gungeoneers' favorite evasion line. nt

[Lurks Often]

103. Nope, merely recognizing someone who is ignorant of what they are talking about

and who resorts to "NRA talking point", "RW talking point" or "gun owner talking point" when they are no longer able to discuss things or prove their statements.

[SunSeeker]

111. Same evasion line, but more verbose. Nice try. nt

[ProgressiveProfessor]

152. That post is inaccurate as well

He could have shot his way in with a hand gun just as easily.

[SunSeeker]

157. Bullshit. Certainly not a 22 revolver. nt

[ProgressiveProfessor]

210. Who uses a 22 revolver for anything more than plinking?

Lanza certainly was not carrying one, he had major caliber handguns. They would have easily done as much damage as the rifle

[SunSeeker]

216. A pearl handled revolver was Reagan's favorite.

But I guess he had no interest in mowing down a grade school.

[S_B_Jackson]

225. And you know that George S. Patton had to say about pearl handled revolvers which asked by a member

of the press during WWII? "Only pimp from a cheap New Orleans whorehouse would carry a pearl handled pistol."

[SunSeeker]

244. Patton was in the military; Reagan was a civilian.

They SHOULD have different types of guns. But nice description of Reagan.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

249. It was not a civilian vs military thing in the least

[SunSeeker]

253. Yes it was. Reagan fashioned himself a cowboy.

Patton obviously fashioned himself a soldier. And it appears so do the nuts that buy ARs.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

258. Reagan was an actor...who job it was to fashion himself into roles

Patton was a soldier. So was I at one point.

The AR has been the most popular rifle in the US for quite some time. Do you think everyone who bought one is nuts and imagines themselves a some sort of militia member?

[SunSeeker]

263. The AR-15 is an excellent military rifle, and that is where it should stay.

You're a civilian now. You do not need an AR-15.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

265. The M-4 is an excellent military rifle, the AR-15 not so much

If you want to ban the ARs, there are a lot of other rifles with the same functionality you should try and ban too. Is it your goal to ban any semi automatic loaded with detachable magazines?

I sold all my ARs last week to an FFL. Made a fair amount of money on them.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

227. Indeed, it is the person and their intent, not whatever weapon they choose

[SunSeeker]

243. Their intent determines what weapon they choose. nt

[ProgressiveProfessor]

250. That tends to be more availability IME.

Criminals use what the have not always what they would choose.

[SunSeeker]

252. Not the nuts obsessed with mass murder.

They prepare for the assault, purchasing their assault weapons and/or huge magazines and stockpiling ammo, like the Aurora killer did. Lanza's paranoid "prepper" mom unwittingly already did it for him.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

259. They are a miniscule portion of the criminal population

Mrs. Lanza had neither assault weapons (as defined by the old AWB) or huge magazines. Neither did she stockpile ammo. Her "paranoia" is even questionable when you get past the media meltdown and realize that most of the inside gouge came from one person. She wasn't even really a prepper.

[SunSeeker]

262. Yeah, and the 19 hijackers were a minuscule portion of the criminal population as well.

We don't need a huge number of them for a huge effect on society. And yeah, I am sure Lanza's mom wasn't "really" a prepper compared to some folks. Not like the guy I knew who had an underground bomb shelter stocked with food and guns like that nut who kidnapped that kid off the school bus. But she had a ridiculous stockpile, particularly knowing she had a mentally unstable son. Yet she took him shooting. Thought it would be good for him. Kinda like that sharpshooter who took the PTSD vet shooting and got himself AND his buddy killed.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

264. It wasn't even much of a stockpile

What do you think she had?

[SunSeeker]

266. Google it. nt

[ProgressiveProfessor]

268. I have...and its no where near what you describe

I thought perhaps you had some bad information. What is pretty much universally agreed to is the following

1 AR style rifle
1 Semi Auto Shotgun
1 Shotgun/type unknown
1 Lee-Enfield Rifle (WWII/Bolt Action)
1 Henry Rifle (most likely reproduction/caliber unknown)
1 9mm SigSauer
1 10mm Glock
Nothing on ammunition qty

That is not much of a collection, certainly not one of a nut ball prepper. To look at it another way...

1 modern rifle (AR)
1 current handgun (9mm)
1 older handgun that is somewhat hard to get ammo for (10mm)
2 historical rifles (curiosities/not clear if even fireable)
2 shotguns (not sure what gauges)

For some sort of gun nut, that is nothing, and several things that would be expected to be there are not.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

108. Actually it could easily have

all it would have taken was a few more magazine changes

[SunSeeker]

109. A magazine change is what stopped the shooter in Tucson. nt

[GreenStormCloud]

116. No. The MSM got that wrong. His gun jammed.

He used a 33 round magazine, but fired only 31 rounds. That indicates that the magazine failed to feed the final rounds correctly, causing a failure-to-feed jam. Among gunners it is well known that oversized magazines are less reliable than standard capacity magazines. The problem is that the follower spring is unable to keep a constant pressure on the cartridges, unless the magazine is made much longer to have a larger follower spring. Magazines can be changed quickly, as demonstrated by the VT killer, the Luby's killer, and the Ft. Hood killer, who all reloaded. Jams are much slower to clear, which gave people the time they needed to tackle the shooter.

[SunSeeker]

122. Links? Even the gun nut sites say Loughner was trying to reload, as the FBI said.

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2011/01/robert-farago/giffords-shooter-jared-loughner-used-a-glock-with-extended-clip/

I guess that sweet little old white-haired lady lied when she said she grabbed his magazine out of his hand as he pulled it out of his pocket.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1345622/Arizona-shooting-Patricia-Maisch-stopped-Jared-Loughner-linked-American-Renaissance.html

But hey, you were there, so you must know what happened and exactly how many bullets that nut-job loaded into that magazine.

The OP was purportedly about how guns were causing a "jobs boom" but none of the gungeoneers what to discuss that. No one, not the person who posted the piece of propaganda that is the OP, nor any of his fellow gungeoneer defenders, can answer the simple question: How many jobs were created by this gun "jobs boom"?

But that does not stop you from using this thread as an opportunity to rant off topic about how stupid gun control is, how wonderful guns are, and how ignorant anyone who disagrees with you is.

[GreenStormCloud]

126. The FBI said he fired 31 rounds. The mag held 33 rounds.

The MSM knows very little about guns and routinely gets stories wrong. Even eyewitnesses get confused.

[SunSeeker]

128. It figures. No links. No evidence. Just speculation. nt

[GreenStormCloud]

136. Here are some links for you:

Mueller said the shooting involved a legally purchased Glock 9-millimeter, a semiautomatic pistol. Loughner allegedly fired all 31 bullets in the magazine and was reloading when a woman in the crowd, already wounded, attempted to grab the gun from him. He finally changed the magazine and tried to fire, authorities said, but the gun jammed. Meanwhile, two men from the crowd grabbed him and subdued him, according to officials. http://www.mlive.com/news/us-world/index.ssf/2011/01/charges_filed_against_jared_le.html

Above contains MSM errors, likely due to confusion. The mag held 33 rounds.

Following the Tucson shooting, reports were released that the Jared Loughner’s gun jammed. http://www.psr.org/chapters/student-chapters/blog/gun-violence.html

That is an anti-gun site, so you can't claim it is an NRA talking point.

He was eventually brought to the ground by two bystanders when his weapon jammed.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1345633/Jared-Loughner-linked-white-extremists-American-Renaissance-charged.html#ixzz2Oc64sCkr

I found lots of other references but as they are from gun-friendly sites I know you will close your eyes to them so I didn't bother to link to them. However, sites that are knowledgeable about how guns work are also the best sites for solid information on such shooting as they are able to instantly spot MSM errors.

[SunSeeker]

141. So the little old lady lied when she said she grabbed the magazine?

Your first link (a local Michigan news site, mlive.com) says the old lady tried to grab his gun, but that was on 1-9-11 when the facts were not been clear yet. And that account is wrong, according to the woman's own words.

Your second link is just the Physicians for Social Responsibility website, which just noted there "were reports" of the gun jamming, not that they were asserting the gun jammed or that they had any special knowledge about that--whether or not the gun jammed or Loughner had to reload was not an issue in the blog you cite.

Finally, your third and last link is an early UK Mail story (last updated 4:01 EST on 1-10-11) that just states without attribution that the gun jammed. When they got around to actually talking to the lady, the UK Mail confirmed that she grabbed his magazine (she called it a "clip&quot when he pulled it out of his pocket, per a story last updated at 10:36 EST on 1-19-11:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1345622/Arizona-shooting-Patricia-Maisch-stopped-Jared-Loughner-linked-American-Renaissance.html

The fact that the mag held 33 rounds does not mean it had 33 rounds in it, nor does it negate the fact that the woman grabbed his magazine before he was able to put it in his gun.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

153. No, but she was mistaken

Loughner did have a jam. He tried to clear it and then reload. His inexperience slowed him down.

[SunSeeker]

156. Link?

And yeah, it is too bad he didn't have you to give him a few tips.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

125. And Aurora...

When you use non-standard magazines, sometimes there are problems. You have to factor in experience as well.

I would never trust a non-standard magazines and never use ones that have not been broken in for critical situations. Its a subtlety not many understand.

[SunSeeker]

129. I am sure the future mass shooters out there appreciate your tips. nt

[ProgressiveProfessor]

133. I've taught handguns for years...mostly to GLBTs and women

None to my knowledge have become rude toters let alone mass murderers,

[SunSeeker]

143. Good thing no mass murderers hang out on the internet.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

151. You thing mass murderers hang out on DU?

[SunSeeker]

160. I "thing" that anyone can read DU. DU posts pop up in Google searches all the time.

That is how all these gungeoneers that are infesting this place find us.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

209. Speech recognition can only do so much

As the one recently crowned 'the worst of the gungeoneers" I was invited here by a long term member who hates guns.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

148. 2 mass shootings emloying non-standard magazines and both times there were malfunctions

It seems like there would be bona fide benefit to encouraging their use rather than outlawing them.

From what I'm told 30-rounds is a standard issue magazine because it doesn't fail the way the Rambo magazines do. The Rambo mags almost seem to be the mark of someone NOT well-versed in shooting and operating mostly on self-image (a prime motivator for rampage killers, no?).

[ProgressiveProfessor]

150. The oversize magazines are bling

In the case of the AR and AK, 30 round are the standard standard magazines and work well. They are not considered high capacity or oversize by anyone knowledgeable.

There is all sorts of gun bling, but given the criticality of a firearm, using it anywhere but the range is dumb. As my Harley riding friends say...beware of Chrome, for it is a false god and will not get your but home.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

154. You know, one of the things that drew me to the "gungeon" was the fact

that many of the conversations were technical in nature. Let's face facts, much of what passes for dialogue on the internet is 2 parties cyber-screaming at each other. In the gungoen people used statistics, history, law etc to argue their points and -- at the expense of tweaking the pro-ban contingent -- the more pro-RKBA they present themselves the less likely they were to engage in hyperbole and insult. It's almost as if owning a gun instills a sense of responsibility rather than the reckless power-politics ascribed to them. Weird, huh?

I've very much enjoyed reading your posts, Hack89 and One-eyedFatman (sp?) as well as others I'm sure I've neglected to mention. I've learned quite a bit.

[GreenStormCloud]

190. We enjoy your posts too. N/T

[NickB79]

237. Of course it could have been done with a handgun

He used a rifle with 30-rd magazines, with a dozen extra mags in a bag or pouch of some sort.

There are plenty of handguns that accept 30-rd magazines. Here's a magazine for a common Glock 9mm that holds 33 rounds: http://www.cheaperthandirt.com/product/MAG-242

And the fact that a 5.56mm is more powerful than a 9mm makes no difference: he was shooting little kids. Both rounds would have inflicted lethal injuries to the little ones

[SunSeeker]

238. What you are describing is the functional equivalent of an AR-15...

and would have been banned under the 2013 AWB.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

269. No it is not and it would not have been banned

- Its a handgun, not a rifle
- It shoots 9mm Parabellum, not .223 Remington
- Magazines were being grandfathered.

[SunSeeker]

270. Of Course. Future sales of extended magazines would be banned.

We've got to start somewhere. Then we can set up a buyback program for old magazines.

The point is, if the 2013 AWB were passed, future Adam Lanzas and Loughners and the Aurora killer could not just want into a store and legally buy their brand new AR-15, nor extended magazines that would turn an semiautomatic into the functional equivalent of an AR-15.

It is so weird that gungeoneers think arguing a gun control law is not strong enough is a good argument against that law. Everyone knows if the law was any stronger gungeoneers would be the first to object. All of you love repeating the NRA talking point that the 2013 AWB is all cosmetics, but I have yet to get ANY of you to state how the law should be worded so it wasn't just cosmetics.

Anyway, this is getting boring and its getting late.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

271. DiFi's bill is dead and that is a good thing

Universal background checks, which I have always supported, will and should pass. Enhanced reporting as well.

[Eleanors38]

273. Control yourself. The administrators have opened up GD

to topics involving guns. If you want one-way views with no disagreement, post in the gun-control advocacy group. You can't have ALL of DU turned over to controllers/prohibitionists.

[jmowreader]

120. The Beltway Sniper shootings were done with a Bushmaster

Now here's reality: Mass shootings are EXTREMELY uncommon.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/07/mass-shootings-map

"Since 1982, there have been at least 62 mass shootings..."

(Their chart includes Newtown.)

[GreenStormCloud]

130. And all the shots from the Bushmaster were single shots.

He never used the semi-auto capability or the rapid magazine change ability of the gun. Each time, he fired one shot and stopped. Single shot fire can be done with any gun.

[SunSeeker]

142. The AR-15 is not just like "any gun." It can hit from a mile away.

900 meters maximum-effective
500 meters maximum-practical
1600 meters maximum-possible
2000-5000 meters randomly fired into the air falling bullet

(1 mile = 1609 meters)


And that is obviously what the DC sniper liked about it.

[hack89]

145. Any decent hunting rifle can do that.

.270 Remington is a very popular hunting round. It fires a bullet that weighs twice as much at a higher muzzle velocity.

In many states it is illegal to hunt deer or larger game with a .223 because the round doesn't have the killing power at extended ranges.

[SunSeeker]

220. Then why does anyone need an AR-15? nt

[hack89]

222. Well, you are correct that murders and mass killers don't need them

because they can find substitute weapons that are just as lethal. The rest of us simply like them because they are light, accurate and easy to shoot. I use mine for competitive target shooting - I see no reason to give them up. Fortunately Senator Feinstein agrees with me - her AWB is not retroactive.

[SunSeeker]

247. Thanks for admitting you don't need your AR-15.

Seeing as how homicidal maniacs seem to have a penchant for them and "law abiding gun owners" don't need them, getting rid of them should be supported by all rational people.

[hack89]

278. Followed by all semiautomatic handguns, right?

you know, the weapons that kill about a hundred times more people.

[hack89]

283. Homicidal maniacs have a penchant for handguns

handguns are responsible for 98% of gun deaths. Rifles for 1%. Handguns are used in the vast majority of mass shootings.

Do you want to ban handguns? If not, why?

[GreenStormCloud]

146. Any rifle chambered for .223 can do that.

Range is a function of the cartridge and the barrel length.

The workings behind the barrel determine rate of fire, ease of use, and comfort of person firing the weapon.

The beltway sniper could have used a single shot rifle chamber for .223 and gotten exactly the same results.

[SunSeeker]

167. Then why oh why are you gungeoneers so intent on holding on to your ARs?

Last edited Tue Mar 26, 2013, 01:04 PM - Edit history (2)

You claim they are "same as any gun" and same as "any rifle." Seems if ARs were banned, you wouldn't even miss them. But just the thought of living without your Rambo gun makes you go into spasms.

[GreenStormCloud]

175. Defending against incrimentalism by gun-grabbers.

I don't have a so-called assault rifle, nor do I want one. My interest is in handguns. But if gun-grabbers are allowed to grab one class of guns, soon they will be coming after my guns. So I join with those who do have such guns as a way of defending my own guns. Further, the AWB is bad law in that it is based on cosmetics and not on function.

[SunSeeker]

176. Ah yes, can't have that slippery slope! Kinda like if we allow gay marriage people will marry dogs.

And which is it? Is the AWB going to ban AR-15s or not? You don't want the AWB because it is incrementalism, but you also don't want it because it won't do anything. You can't make both arguments at the same time.

[GreenStormCloud]

177. Yes, I can have both.

My private reason is incrementalism. Gun-grabbers know they can't get all guns at once so they are trying incrementalism. They have even admitted it.

My public argument against the AWB is that it is worthless, feel-good, accomplish-nothing legislation.

Marriage equality is a separate issue. After gay marriage is legalized (It will happen, and that just fairness.) there will be those who will push for polygamy to be legalized. At that point I will have resist any change because polygamy is destructive to society. Look at the societies that allow it. But that is a separate topic.

[SunSeeker]

178. I see, you know when to draw the line when it comes to marriage, but not when it comes to guns.

Wow, can you even hear yourself? And you need to get over this paranoia about "gun grabbers." No one I know wants to "grab" your guns, they (indeed the vast majority of Americans) just want to ban assault rifles and extended magazines. And that is what the 2013 AWB does.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

149. Actually the AR is a poor performer at longer ranger, mostly due to it caliber

There are many rifles more effective at range than it its. Go to a longer barrel and a different caliber, and that would change

[SunSeeker]

166. Yeah, it's amazing the DC sniper managed to hit anyone.

[hack89]

168. But he could have use any rifle and shot those people

there are a lot of very accurate and powerful hunting rifles.

[SunSeeker]

169. But not ones that make you feel like Rambo when you hold it. nt

[hack89]

170. I will have to tell that to my wife and daughter

I didn't realize they harbored Rambo fantasies.

[SunSeeker]

171. I'm sure you're proud. nt

[hack89]

172. Both of them are very smart and successful

I am very proud of my family.

[SunSeeker]

173. Me too. That's why I don't keep guns in the house. nt

[Lurks Often]

180. All of the shots fired by the "DC Sniper" were within 100 yards or closer

hardly a long distance.

[SunSeeker]

182. Only a big black AR-15 gave him that Rambo, military feel.

Gun nut porn.

[Lurks Often]

183. Expected response from you

unable to dispute facts, resorts to anti-gun rhetoric

[SunSeeker]

186. What's your point? That other rifles can shoot straighter than an AR-15?

Then why didn't the DC sniper use a more accurate rifle? Why do gun nuts use AR-15s? Because they make them feel like Rambo. If AR-15s are bested on performance by other (hunting) rifles, then why do gun nuts go into spasms over the thought of banning military style assualt rifles?

[Lurks Often]

189. Merely give you another fact

something your posts seem to lack.

We object to further restrictions on semi-automatic rifles based on cosmetic features that do not affect how the gun works and the belief it will do nothing to prevent crime or the next mass murder.

[SunSeeker]

195. That is not a fact.

The 2013 AWB bans AR 15s and expanded magazines. If it has holes, tell me how the text should read.

[Lurks Often]

203. The fact was that all of the "DC Sniper" shots were within 100 yards.

There isn't going to be a 2013 AWB, so I have no comment about something that will never become law.

[SunSeeker]

215. But you HAVE already commented on the 2013 AWB. And that is not what I am asking anyway.

I am not asking you to comment on the 2013 AWB. You already said it only addresses cosmetics. I am asking you how an AWB that does not just address cosmetics should read.

[Lurks Often]

224. Since I am not in favor of an AWB

why should I write one.

[SunSeeker]

245. But one of your grounds for being against it is that it is "only cosmetic."

So how should it be written so that it is not "only cosmetic." Or is your "only cosmetic" argument only cosmetic?

[Lurks Often]

284. Let's try this again

I am against an AWB because it will do NOTHING to prevent further crimes.

AR-15's have been available to civilians since at least 1970, if not before. Other semi-automatic guns that function the same way and hold 30 rounds have been around since at least the 1950's. This is not new technology, these guns did not suddenly become available, they have been around for 40+ years.

[SunSeeker]

285. What if it was written to close all the holes?

What if it was written in a way to capture all assault rifles, and included a buyback for all old ARs? That would take these things off the street. It would prevent future Newtowns and Auroras.

[hack89]

286. So after you save 250 lives a year, what about the other 30,000 gun deaths?

and how do you plan to stop future Va Techs?

[SunSeeker]

287. UBC, mag limits, education/PSAs on how guns in the home endanger your life. nt

[hack89]

290. So you will ban guns to save 250 lives but not to save 30,000?

but I do support all those things you mention.

[Lurks Often]

296. No it would not

Newtown and Aurora could have been committed by anyone with a simple revolver or common pump shotgun.

Your inability to understand that simple fact makes further interaction with you a waste of time.

[SunSeeker]

301. LOL. Lanza could NOT have done what he did with a "common pump action shotgun."

And you asserting it is a "fact" that he could does not make it so.

[hack89]

306. He could have done it with a handgun. Remember Va Tech? nt

[ProgressiveProfessor]

207. He was quite competent

Though it is mostly the subject of bad fiction, if well trained and disciplined soldiers ever really went rogue, the police would be unable to deal with them. One of the Clancy books covered that to an extent

[SunSeeker]

218. You don't have to be a "quite competent" shooter to commit mass murder with an AR-15. nt

[ProgressiveProfessor]

228. Depends on the circumstances and in many situations handguns would be just as effective

[SunSeeker]

241. Not in THIS situation. Not when you've got 26 people to mow down and only a few minutes to do it.

That is why the military used AR-15s. And that is why Lanza and the Aurora shooter used AR-15s.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

248. Actually in that situation as well

Its really a question of skill.

[SunSeeker]

255. Right, if they just had you as their "Professor."

[ProgressiveProfessor]

257. I leave the advanced firearms instruction to those in the training business

I focus on the basics. Most of my weekend students are first time shooters, typical for the GLBTs and women. Those that wanted more would go on to Frontsight and others places.

[jmowreader]

201. More like 200 meters maximum-practical

A lot of soldiers - people who have been trained to shoot, a class that included the Beltway Sniper - have trouble hitting the 300-meter target on the range. 500 meters is really at the edge of the realm of possibility if you're firing over iron sights.

Given that, 200 meters (over 600 feet, which is far enough away from people who aren't expecting to get shot that you could shoot someone and get your ass out of there before anyone figured out where you were) is a hell of a lot better than the 50 meters you MIGHT get out of a pistol.

[hack89]

144. I know - about 1.5 a year

and remember that mass shooting = four or more deaths.

And handguns, rifles (non-AW), and shotguns were used more frequently than assault weapons. Handguns are the weapon of choice for mass shooters.

[SunSeeker]

242. Yeah, it's nothing. Mowing down 26 people is just one shooting.

That is sick talk you got there.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

260. I didn't read where he said that

[SunSeeker]

261. What do you think he meant by 1.5 a year?

It's cute how you feel you need to come to hack89's rescue. Ask him. I'm "nothing special." He can handle it.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

267. I am not coming to his rescue

I thought your hyperbole deserved pointing out

[hack89]

280. And yet that AWB you support would not reduce that number one bit

lets not forget that it is not retroactive - it does not take a single gun off the streets. Why is Senator Feinstein willing to accept future mass shootings like Newtown?

[GreenStormCloud]

35. You are misinformed.

The AWB did not outlaw any guns, it only outlawed certain cosmetic features on some guns. The gun makers removed the offending cosmetics and continued to sell the same guns.

[otohara]

38. Anything to Make Big Bucks

that's our gun industry. Tweek the gun, re-frame the talking points and Voila.

They don't care who dies, as long as the bucks keep rolling in.

[GreenStormCloud]

107. The gun industry obeyed the law, exactly as it was written.

No citizen is required to attempt to obey what the legislatures may have been thinking. We don't have to read minds. We must only obey the letter of the law. No talking points needed to be re-framed. The congress didn't like bayonet lugs and flash supessors so the took them off.

The gun-banners lost because they didn't know enough about guns to know how to draft the law.

[Eleanors38]

274. Tweak the morality of gun makers all you want,

but it goes to the grossly failed AWB povisions. Anyone (pro-2A or controller) knows this is all symbolism, a scalp to shake at everyone, before the next move: Banning semi-auto weapons -- to clear up those pesky inconsistencies with the last move.

[Bay Boy]

67. The fact that you don't 'feel' safe...

...even though the murder rate is going down is kind of odd.

[otohara]

74. You're A Man

I wouldn't expect you to feel anything but safe.

Have you ever had a group of men talk about raping you in your presence?
It's happened to me twice.

I've had men start jerking off while sitting next to me in a car, two men approached me as a child and pulled out their dicks, as a girl scout ... my friends and I went the the ladies bathroom to find a man swinging his dick around.

So don't tell me what the statistics say, women in this country have no real reason to feel safe at all.

[Bay Boy]

75. You kind of changed subjects there...

...assuming you're not a little girl anymore it means men have been acting like pigs for a long time. I feel awful about that.

[otohara]

76. I'm Just Lucky There Were No Guns

involved ... many women are forced into rape at gun point.

The thing about guns, they don't need to be shot necessarily to be dangerous.
A lot of damage can be done without one bullet being shot.

[Bay Boy]

81. The corollary is

they don't have to be shot to protect someone from a criminal.

[SunSeeker]

114. Guns don't protect women. A gun in the house is more likely to be used on her than an intruder. nt

[Bay Boy]

115. You don't mind regurgitating a lie...

...because it is.

[SunSeeker]

117. Stats prove having a gun in the house ain't gonna protect you; it will kill you.

You're 43 times more likely to be killed by your own gun than by an intruder's. You are unlikely to have an intruder. But you are very likely to get drunk, get depressed, get in a fight with someone in your house, or have your kid find your gun. That's how people get killed. Having a gun in the house makes it far more likely that you'll get your own head blown off.

That's why it is so crazy to suggest you should buy a gun for your own protection. Lanza's mom bought her guns to protect herself, and she was shot by her own gun. Right in line with the statistics.

http://theincidentaleconomist.com/wordpress/more-guns-more-suicides/

Arthur Kellermann and Donald Reay. "Protection or Peril? An Analysis of Firearm Related Deaths in the Home." (The New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 314, no. 24, June 1986, pp. 1557-60.)

[Bay Boy]

131. I know that you know that Kellerman is

discredited. But you quote it anyway?

[SunSeeker]

135. I have not seen anyone "discredit" Kellerman. Where are your stats? Links? nt

[Bay Boy]

158. Serious? You must have had blinders on then...

http://home.comcast.net/~dsmjd/tux/dsmjd/rkba/kellerman.htm

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdgaga.html

There are plenty more but I'm sure you won't believe any of them.


Type of Death No.
Unintentional deaths 12
Criminal homicide 41
Suicide 333
Unknown 3
Total 389
Self-protection homicide 9
As we see from Table 1, a ratio of 389 violent deaths to 9 justifiable homicides gives us the famous 43 to 1 ratio.

====================
Back to me; this completely ignores Joe Biden's advice that firing a couple of shotgun blasts off the
back porch will scare bad guys away. Or in other words, when using a gun in self-defense you don't have to kill anyone to protect yourself.

[SunSeeker]

159. Thank you for confirming Kellerman's accuracy. nt

[Bay Boy]

161. Blinders still firmly on...

...as expected.

[SunSeeker]

165. Project much? nt

[Bay Boy]

162. There is also this:

Table 2. Estimation of Violent Deaths in the Home Not Involving a Firearm

Type of Death No.
Unintentional deaths 0
Criminal homicide 50
Suicide 347
Unknown 0
Total 397
Self-protection homicide 4

This ratio of 397 non-gun violent deaths to 4 justifiable homicides reduces to 99 to 1.
-----------------------------
So now we know that not having a gun in your home is more than twice as dangerous

[SunSeeker]

164. Bullshit, a suicide IS a gun death. You can't take that out of the equation. nt

[GreenStormCloud]

124. It is dangerous to have a violent criminal for a signifigant other.

Happy, loving, law-abiding couple don't suddenly turn violent against each other. In cases of domestic murder, the murderer almost always already has a record as a violent criminal, and the gun is illegally owned. It is extremely rare for someone to commit murder as their first violent crime.

Even in cases where the killer has murdered his wife as his first violent crime, there is almost always a history of spouse abuse on his part.

If the husband is a legal gun owner and has not been violent towards her, she has very little to worry about.

If he has already been violent, or has been convicted of violent criminal acts, then a gun in the house is a severe danger to her.

Anti-gun people never bother to learn the difference between legal and illegal gun owners, but instead they lump us all together.

[GreenStormCloud]

121. That is one reason why my wife carries a gun on her person.

It is a great equalizer. Amazing how looking down the barrel of a gun can make erections vanish like they are being reeled in.

Decades ago, when she was young, a man broke into her home and was going to rape her. She was able to grab her mother's shotgun. He instantly lost his desire and ran away. That was in the 1950's so she didn't bother reporting it to the police.

[SunSeeker]

127. Rape is not about "desire." And your story does not comport with reality.

The statistics indicate your story, if true, is by far the freak occurrence.

[GreenStormCloud]

139. True, rape is not about sexual desire, but is about domination.

When I used the word "desire" I was intending to mean "desire to rape" not "sexual desire". I regret the confusion caused by my word choice.

I do not appreciate you calling my wife a liar.

There are many women who have saved themselves from rape by being armed. Rapists don't want to get killed, and will run away if the woman has a gun and is willing to use it.

[SunSeeker]

140. I didn't call your wife a liar, just that your story does not comport with reality (statistics).

Even if your story was true, it does not change the statistical fact that having a gun in the house does not protect a woman. On the contrary, it puts her life in danger.

[GreenStormCloud]

147. That depends upon if her partner is a law-abiding person.

Anti-gun people always lump together the two classes of gun owners, illegal and legal. The statistics on those classes are radically different.

It is extremely rare for someone to commit murder as their first violent crime. Almost always a murderer has a record of previous violent crimes. That is a fact that has been well known to criminologists for over a hundred years.

When a man kills his wife/girl-friend/whatever there is almost always a prior history of domestic violence. Normal couples don't suddenly erupt in violence.

So if the man the woman lives with is a law-abiding person then a gun in the house can serve to protect her. If he has a history of violent crime, or has been previously physically abusive towards her then she is indeed in danger and the illegally owned gun adds to the danger.

But anti-gunners don't see a difference between legal and illegal gun owners. To people like you, they are all the same.

[SunSeeker]

163. Adam Lanza was a "law-abiding person" until he killed 27 people, including his mom.

You think I am some kind of "anti-gunner" who thinks "all gun owners are the same" and I'm not and I don't. I don't want to ban all guns, I just want reasonable gun controls. And I point out the statistics to spread the truth that guns don't protect you, and hopefully people will choose not to own one--and maybe a life will be saved. Unfortunately, domestic violence, drunkenness, depression and just plain stupidity are all too common. Combine that with a gun in the house, and you have a gun death. What is rare is home intruders. That is why you are 43 times more likely to be killed by your own gun than by an intruder's.

You act like I am some kind of anti-gun activist and I'm not. In fact, I did not even start commenting on gun posts until over the last year; since Sandy Hook, mostly. I came here for a safe place to discuss Democratic politics among progressives without having to deal with Republican trolls crapping on threads like at HuffPo and the like. And after Sandy Hook, the gun stories really started popping up and it got on my radar. Then I discovered the ugly world of the DU gungeon, and all its NRA apologists.

So much for finding a safe site without trolls. It pisses me off, particularly when they post a bullshit opinion piece like this OP as "Late Breaking News," to claim--without any facts--that guns have created a "jobs boom." Then they proceed to use the thread not to talk about jobs but to spew their anti-gun control talking points that belong in the gungeon. Opposing reasonable gun controls is not a progressive position and it is not the majority position in this country. Don't try to marginalize me. Particularly on a site that is supposed to be a safe haven for progressives.

[GreenStormCloud]

174. Walks like a duck, quacks like a duck...

The 43X stat is from the Kellerman study that has many times been debunked. If a burglar brought a gun into the home and killed someone, Kellerman counted that as a gun in the home. Kellerman only counted bodies. If the homeowner scared the intruder out of the house by pointing a gun at him, Keller didn't count that as a gun save - in fact he didn't count any gun saves at all. He did not separate legal from illegal gun owners. He counted suicides.

You are twisting what I said. It is very common for anti-gunners to do that. I said that it is very rare for a person to commit murder as their first violent crime. I did NOT say that it never happens. In fact, rampage killers (Who are less than 1% of murderers) almost never have a criminal record. They are an exception. It still remains that most murderers DO have violent criminal records.

Who made you DU zampolit to determine what is are is not permitted?

[SunSeeker]

221. None of that refutes the fact that you're 43 times more likely to be killed by your own gun.

What the Kellerman study found was that you're 43 times more likely to be killed by your own gun than by an intruder's. And death by suicide IS a gun death. You are no less dead if you shoot yourself than if someone else shoots you. And having a gun in the house makes it 5 times more likely that you will commit suicide. http://theincidentaleconomist.com/wordpress/more-guns-more-suicides/

[hack89]

223. Kellerman refutes that. He now says it is only 2.7 times

he backed down from that 43 times "fact" when his study was shredded in peer review.

While Kellerman has backed away from his previous statement that people are “43 times more likely” to be murdered in their own home if they own and keep a gun in their home, he still proposes that the risk is 2.7 times higher.

Turns out he ignored data that did not support his theory.

Kellermann also was criticized by pro-gun groups for not reporting what fraction of homicides in his sample were committed with guns kept in the victim's home.[13] If few homicides were committed with such guns, it would be unlikely that it was home gun ownership itself that caused an elevated risk of being murdered.

Pro-gun groups also claimed that it was suspicious that Kellermann did not release his data immediately upon publication. SUNY-Buffalo's Lawrence Southwick, among other pro-gun partisans, publicly speculated "that Kellermann's full data set would actually vindicate defensive gun ownership." [1]

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention grants do not require the individual investigator to make data public until there are no more publications to be developed from them. After publishing additional analyses, Kellermann released the dataset to the Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research, the world’s largest archive for social science research [2]. ICPSR released the data for public access on May 30, 1997 [3]

Pro-gun groups claimed, however, that this was only a truncated version of Kellermann’s full dataset, arguing that it omitted his crucial data on whether guns used in the firearm homicides he studied belonged to anyone in the victim’s household,[14] a critical issue in judging the plausibility of his conclusion that owning a gun caused an increased risk of being murdered. This information had clearly been gathered by Kellermann since it was used in another of his studies.[15] Once this information was taken into account, it was found that the effect of household gun ownership on the risk of homicide could not have been more than 6% of the effect that was estimated by Kellermann.[16]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Kellermann

[SunSeeker]

251. Bullshit. "Being murdered" is a different statistic.

Kellerman did NOT say people are 43 times more likely to be murdered in their own home if they own and keep a gun in their home. He/the study's authors said that you are 43 time more likely to be KILLED by your own gun than by an intruder's. And that is a much more relevant statistic to a person contemplating buying a gun for "protection."

Most people die of gunshots that are not considered murder, namely, suicide. And having a gun in the house makes suicide 5 times more likely. That comports with my personal experience. I don't personally know anyone who was murdered by an intruder. I knew one person who committed suicide and one who was shot by accident. That is how people tend to die by gun. If you want to lower your chance of death, you should not have a gun in the house.

But I am not arguing for the elimination of all guns. I am just relaying that statistic to combat the dangerous and false claim that guns make your safer. People should have the facts so they can make rational decisions. But that will hurt gun manufacturers' bottom line, so they squash studies. They, via their lobbyists and the NRA, literally banned the federal government from doing studies on gun deaths. That is why we have no recent data. Which is one of the thing's President Obama is trying to change via his gun control initiatives.

[hack89]

279. "While Kellerman has backed away from his previous statement that people are “43 times more likely”.

I can only tell you what Kellerman said.

[hack89]

282. That was his 1986 study - the one that he eventually backed away from in 1993

I support more studies. Don't have any issues with that at all - as long as they are peer reviewed.

[SunSeeker]

288. He didn't "back away" from it. No one has controverted what he found. nt

[hack89]

291. So why is he now saying 2.7 times instead of 43?

are you actually reading his studies?

[SunSeeker]

292. The 43 refers to deaths; the 2.7 to murders. nt

[hack89]

295. No - try again

perhaps you can post some portions of the actual studies to prove that you have actually read them and are not simply making shit up.

[SunSeeker]

298. I already went through this with your buddies up the thread.

See posts 131, 135, 158, 159, 161, 165, 162, 164, 174, 221. You are the one contending he changed his figure from 43 to 2.7. So perhaps you can give me a cite that shows he now says you are 2.7, not 43, times times more likely to be killed by your own gun than by an intruder's.

[hack89]

307. I gave you the link. Perhaps you should read it? nt

[SunSeeker]

308. I did. It is a Wikipedia page that describes "pro-gun groups' claims" against Kellerman.

As stated on Wikipedia's homepage:

"Welcome to Wikipedia,
the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit."


The gunners have tried to shit on Kellerman via Wikipedia, as is evident from your link. Yes, there is a statement on the Wiki page that "Kellerman has backed away from his previous statement," but it offers no link. Who knows who wrote that onto the Wiki page, but it is not supported. That Wikipedia page does not cite to any articles or writings by Kellerman where he "refutes" his earlier findings as you contend in this thread. You are the one contending he changed his figure from 43 to 2.7. But even your Wiki link shows he didn't. The 43 figure was death of all kinds (suicide, accidental shooting, homicide) whereas his later study, which you and gunners claim somehow "refutes" his earlier study, concentrated on murders. The 2.7 figure is referring to murders, as your Wiki link explains.

As I said before, perhaps you can give me a cite that shows he now says you are 2.7, not 43, times times more likely to be killed by your own gun than by an intruder's. Your Wikipedia link does not do that.

But why do you even care what I think? You said I am "obtuse" and "nothing special." Why are you wasting your Good Friday evening going back to old threads? This thread is so choked with gungeoneer freakout subthreads that it takes forever to open and is a pain to get into and figure out who is replying to who. If you want to keep playing with it, that's up to you. Me, I am going out to dinner.

[hack89]

310. You see all those little numbers in the text?

they are call citations. And that section called references - lots of things to read there.

Stop being lazy.

[SunSeeker]

311. Yes, and there are none supporting your "backed away" statement.

As I said in my post that you are replying to, I did see there is a statement on the Wiki page that "Kellerman has backed away from his previous statement," but it offers no link...no "little numbers"...no "call citations." As I said, who knows who wrote that onto the Wiki page, but it is not supported. That Wikipedia page does not cite to any articles or writings by Kellerman where he "refutes" his earlier findings as you contend in this thread. You are the one contending he changed his figure from 43 to 2.7. But even your Wiki link shows he didn't. The 43 figure was death of all kinds (suicide, accidental shooting, homicide) whereas his later study, which you and gunners claim somehow "refutes" his earlier study, concentrated on murders. The 2.7 figure is referring to murders, as your Wiki link explains.

Now I'll ask for the third time, please give me a cite or "little number" or whatever you want to call it that shows Kellerman now says you are 2.7, not 43, times times more likely to be killed by your own gun than by an intruder's. Your Wikipedia link does not do that.

You're not making shit up again, are you hack? You have been known to do that...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=438151

[Eleanors38]

275. Sounds like the 50s Rolaids ad on T.V.

[spin]

137. Is it possible that some of the rudeness you see from pro-gun posters is a result ...

of rudeness that was first directed at them?

Both sides of the gun control debate have thrown unnecessary insults at each other for ages. Gun control is a very emotional subject. Strong emotion leads to anger and anger to insults.

Fortunately I have a thick skin. I try to understand people who disagree with me and to fairly evaluate their arguments without being influenced by the names they may call me. Both sides of the gun control debate have good points to make and I feel that if both sides would learn to show a little more respect we might actually come up with some good compromises that would lead to improved laws and a reduction in gun violence.

[Eleanors38]

272. I feel safe from crime; problem where you are?

[yellowcanine]

181. Correlation without causation. Maybe gun deaths would be declining even faster if there

weren't as many guns. There would almost certainly be fewer successful suicides. Take some pills to kill yourself - sometimes it works, more often not. Shoot yourself in the head to kill yourself - it usually works.

[hack89]

184. The implication was that more guns would produce more deaths.

that is definitely not true. Gun deaths of all kind have been steadily falling even as gun sales have steadily increased.

My only point.

[yellowcanine]

187. We don't know that they didn't. My point.

If gun deaths are dropping for some social reason (less domestic violence for example), more guns might mean the gun death rate isn't dropping as fast as it otherwise would. So in that case more guns did produce more deaths.

[hack89]

188. But there will still be fewer deaths in absolute numbers

hence the funeral business will not be picking up as the poster I was replying to suggested. My only point.

You are right to suggest that gun deaths are a complex phenomena that defies simplistic analysis. I personally think that a focus on suicide prevention thought universal mental health coverage would reduce gun deaths the most, followed by rationalizing our drug laws and refocusing the legal system on violent offenders.

[yellowcanine]

191. A focus on suicide prevention would include the issue of guns.

Because one way to have less suicides is to have less guns. That is a fact.

Women report having more suicidal thoughts than men do but yet men have a suicide rate four times higher than women. Why is that? One clue - a man is more likely to use a gun.

http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/suicide-datasheet-a.PDF

These are facts the NRA doesn't want to talk about but yet they blather about the need for a better mental health system all the while supporting laws to make it more difficult for medical providers to talk to patients about guns in the home and also trying to suppress medical research on gun violence. It is hard to take them seriously on the mental health issue. It really is.

[hack89]

192. Suicide is a complex thing

Doctors should be able to talk to patients about guns. And there should be more research.

But no gun law in the world will stop suicide unless you are actually advocating for a total ban. Is that what you want? Because there is no way to look into the future and tell who will become suicidal.

[yellowcanine]

194. "No gun law....would stop suicide." False choice.

No one is saying it could be stopped. Less guns available to people contemplating suicide would mean fewer successful suicides though. Look into the future - no. But it is sometimes possible to tell who is suicidal right now. People talk about their suicidal thoughts, they sometimes will reveal if they have a plan or not. And people who have suicidal thoughts and also have a plan are more likely to try to commit suicide.

[hack89]

196. So what specific laws should we pass?

How to you identify people who are a suicide risk and ensure they do not have access to guns without imposing on the rights of the vast majority who will not commit suicide?

NY state has enacted a system whereby mental health professionals can report patients that are a danger to themselves or others and the state will take away their guns. Those patients will also be place in a database to ensure that they cannot buy guns. Is this the type of law you are thinking about?

[yellowcanine]

197. If we could do it without casting too wide a net, yes.

There would probably need to be some review beyond just the medical provider's assessment though. And someone who has already attempted suicide should not be able to get a gun.

[hack89]

198. Since NY is the first state to pass such a law

I am sure they will have to address such issues. As you can imagine, it is controversial in the mental health community. It will certainly be challenged in court.

[GreenStormCloud]

226. There are many other ways of suicide than pills or guns.

And many of those way are 100% lethal, as well as easy to do. People have been killing themselves looooong before guns were invented.

[yellowcanine]

231. Yes of course but pills/poison are # 1 way for women, guns # 1 way for men in U.S.

http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/suicide-datasheet-a.PDF

And guess who succeeds the most....Men. It is not even close.
Men are four times more likely than women to successfully kill themselves even though women think about suicide more often than men.

[GreenStormCloud]

234. Suicide is a risk to myself that I am willing to accept.

If I ever decide to kill myself, taking my guns away won't stop me.

[yellowcanine]

236. What works for you as an individual is not necessarily what works for

society as a whole.

[Socal31]

318. That is not what this country is about, fortunately.

Drinking is not good for society as a whole. Neither is smoking. Gambling. Fast food. My large V8 motors in my vehicles. The drug war. Religion.

The anti-suicide angel on this is new. Nobody wants to see it happen, but who are you to stop someone from choosing? Reading this on a (D) board is mind boggling.

[Comrade_McKenzie]

314. If gun deaths are going down, then no one needs one to protect themselves...

Turn it in.

[hack89]

315. I don't own guns for self protection - so I think I will keep mine. nt

[sakabatou]

2. There's always a panic on guns and ammo when any gun/ammo bill is in the works

It's "They're gonna take my guns/ammo away" line.

BS.

[NutmegYankee]

33. You can't buy 9mm ammo anywhere.

No place can keep it on a shelf longer than an hour before it's sold out.

[doc03]

65. I haven't seen any handgun ammo including 22s for weeks. The nut jobs

were buying it up by the shopping cart load just after Newtown.

[NutmegYankee]

71. Absolute panic out there.

It's so bad that even the primers, powder, and lead bullets are nearly impossible to find.

[doc03]

73. I was at Cabelas yesterday, you should have heard some of the comments about

Obama, they blame him because the idiots bought up all the ammo.

[NutmegYankee]

84. Half those guys would blame the President for a stomach ache

It's just pathetic listening to them sometimes. The payroll tax expiration was blamed on him (they don't have a clue), the price of oil and gas (Hey, I thought the war in Iraq would "keep gas cheap&quot , food prices...

Thank God for DU!

[Bay Boy]

132. And the salesman thank him...

...for all the additional sales of guns and ammo.

[Socal31]

325. Sure you can, if you are willing to pay.

Will be at your door in hours.

[rdharma]

3. Yup! Lots of jobs........

[Nuclear Unicorn]

8. So where are the corresponding numbers showing an increase for these jobs?

[Paul E Ester]

44. Thought provoking graphic...thanks!..nt

[baldguy]

123. And yet they only claim 10.

[geckosfeet]

5. LOUC

Law of unintended consequences.

A job is a job I suppose.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

6. A booming economy?

HA! I kill me.

Seriously though. If the prevelance of gun availability corresponds to an increase in gun violence then we should see a similar arc on gun related crimes, deaths and injuries, right?

I wonder if the proponents of that theory would be willing to stake their legislative claims on this notion?

[hack89]

7. It would be interesting. History says there will be no increase in gun violence. nt

[Nuclear Unicorn]

10. The only thing increasing will be my skepticism that gun control is about saving lives.

[Hoyt]

30. "Unacceptable" gun violence is increasing as most of us mature and become more civilized. n/t

[TheCowsCameHome]

60. We have more than enough gun violence now. n/t

[hack89]

62. Which is why we need universal background checks

limits on magazine sizes, and a crackdown on illegal gun sales. Healthcare reform to address suicides is also needed.

There are things we can do to speed up the decline in gun violence.

[primavera]

199. Not necessarily

If you're already drowning in an ocean of guns, adding a few more bucketfuls may not make an appreciable difference, particularly if, as I'd be inclined to guess, the people out there stockpiling are largely gun nuts who already have significant arsenals: the threat posed by someone with ten guns is not appreciably increased by them owning twelve guns. After all, they can only use one gun at a time to kill people. Whether increased gun sales produces a measurable increase in gun deaths therefore depends a lot of how many of those guns are being bought by first time gun owners who used to pose no threat to public safety and now will. One thing is for certain: adding to the population of armed-to-the-teeth jackasses in this country will not help reduce gun deaths.

[Lurks Often]

204. I think you're guessing wrong

based on from what I am seeing with pistol permit classes here in CT, there are a LOT of new gun owners. Pistol permit instructors who ran maybe one class per month or one every other month are all running at least 2 a month.

Since a pistol permit is REQUIRED to buy a handgun here in CT, that means there are a lot of people who have decided that they want or need a handgun and have started the 2 month process to get a permit.

[primavera]

212. Then we probably will see more gun deaths - n/t

[Iliyah]

11. I have lost all faith in CNN being a good cable news source.

They claimed that guns sales after each horrific event goes up which it does not but goes the opposite direction. Another propaganda tale which the NRA and their allies tell these outlets to say with fake data.

[DonP]

13. I suppose "the NRA and their allies" also tell the FBI to fudge their reports too?

Since the FBI UCR shows a steady drop in crimes committed with guns and violent crime overall.

[hack89]

17. What proof is there that gun sales are declining? nt

[Clames]

46. You are going to have to wait on that answer.

Requires an appointment with a proctologist and an MRI scan to find it.

[Bay Boy]

66. Ok, you say that, but...

...do you have any link to support that?

I've been in a few gun stores lately and it certainly appears that they are busier than usual.

My evidence is anecdotal, what is yours?

[skinnytrees]

211. ummm

you realize that the FBI tracks the number of NICS background checks

its amazingly easy to see if sales spike

you are in strong denial buddy

[bluedigger]

14. So what happens once we transfer all our disposable income into arms and ammo?

I guess the manufacturers can seek foreign markets, but what about the retailers? Guns and ammo are not toilet paper, there is finite demand for them.

[hack89]

18. Ammo has a constant demand as it is a consumable.

there will always be a steady demand for guns as the population increases.

[bluedigger]

20. At some point the market becomes saturated with both, and demand declines.

Otherwise all my closets would be filled with toilet paper.

[hack89]

23. It depends how smart the gun and ammo manufacturers are

if they accurately estimate future demand and don't create a lot of excess capacity, it shouldn't be an issue for them. I suspect that a lot of the current demand is being met by adding shifts and temp workers. As the current frenzy abates and they catch up to demand, manufactures will cut production.

Population growth and people reaching the legal age of gun ownership will ensure some constant growth in demand for guns.

[bluedigger]

24. I thought the premise was that this was a job creator.

As the manufactured fear and hype of the gun lobby fail to sustain growth, employment in the sector will fall back to normal, sustainable levels. Demand bubbles aren't job creators, they are instability creators.

[hack89]

27. There will be growth. There are future customers

and as for ammunition manufacturers - there is no bubble. More guns means the need for more ammo. Due to the present shortages, no one is stockpiling so it is hard to see a drop off in ammo demand.

[bluedigger]

32. "No one is stockpiling".

How can I take you seriously when you say things like that?

If all that ammo that isn't on the shelves is being used up, there should be a corresponding explosive growth in firing ranges, and people lined up to use them. I'm sure you can provide some anecdotal evidence to support that, but I haven't seen it myself. Maybe all those suburbanites collecting modern sporting rifles are firing them up in the backyard...

What I do see is a dystopic increase in hoarding behavior, of both arms and ammo.

[hack89]

39. Those "stockpiles" are not huge amounts.

instead of buying ammo as they need it with a relatively small amount on hand, people are buying several months worth of ammo at once. That increased demand is enough to strain the system. Once things calm down, all those "stockpile" will be shot off in short order and demand for ammo will be steady.

People are not buying years worth of ammo - there is not enough ammo manufacturing capacity in America to meet that demand.

[doc03]

68. Why is it a hot item now is underground ammo storage containers? n/t

[doc03]

70. Was talking to a Cabelas employee the other day he said right after Newtown people

started buying shopping carts of ammo, some spent several thousand dollars on ammo. There hasn't been hardly any handgun ammo
available for weeks now.

[Clames]

47. Maybe if you read the article...

Some of these jobs are temporary and the companies know that, the workers are being hired on contract. In this economy a well paying temporary job is a hell of a lot better than none at all and can be used as a stepping stone to finding more stable employment. Small mom & pop businesses can often expand with the flood of capital.

[MotherPetrie]

26. Wages of death

[TheCowsCameHome]

28. How about homicide investigators and EMT's?

Their field must be experiencing an uptick.

[hack89]

29. History would say no.

gun violence has been steadily declining for 20 years despite increased gun sales.

[otohara]

42. Broken Record

We have a gun killing problem and you seem bent on marginalizing the numbers to make us feel better about 30,000 gun deaths per year.
When the deaths fall to the hundreds vs the thousands PM me. Only then will I feel better about guns.

[hack89]

45. You think more guns = more deaths. Just setting you straight.

I am not marginalizing anything. I support measures like universal background checks, limits on magazine sizes, universal health care that would reduce gun violence.

The point of the OP was to point out an unintended consequence of pushing gun control.

[Doctor_J]

40. Also physical therapists, counselors, lobbyists

trauma doctors, paid pundits, ...

I think Loony LaPete should run with this sales pitch. During the HC debate one of the memes against UHC was that thousands of Big Insurance paper shufflers would lose their jobs. Not kidding. Maybe THIS segment of the Death Industry should build on that success.

[petronius]

48. Pittman-Robertson tax receipts set a new record last year as well,

and ought to do the same this year:

--Snip--

When the final figures are tallied, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service expects to have collected a record $570 million in excise taxes on sporting equipment — or Pittman-Robertson funding — in 2012. That's not only significantly more than the $390 million collected in 2011, it's nearly $100 million more than the previous high of $474 million collected in 2010.

“It's off the chain, it really is,” said Hannibal Bolton, assistant director of the service's Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration Program. “This is the highest increase we've seen, ever.”

--Snip--

Read more: http://triblive.com/sports/outdoors/3336386-74/wildlife-million-gun#ixzz2OZiSYgCB

Hope California has big plans for our share...

[SunSeeker]

49. A fact free propaganda piece. Doesn't even say HOW MANY jobs were ACTUALLY ADDED.

All it offers is the anecdotal story of a guy who says he plans to hire 10 workers at $10 an hour. Yes, the gun nuts are stockpiling AR-15s and the .223 ammo they rain out, but that has not caused a "jobs boom."

[Blue_Tires]

235. +1

[jmowreader]

54. If I made guns I'd work to get financial disclosure laws repealed

To a gunmaker a Democratic president is a fine gift, as gun selling skyrockets when one is in office, for two reasons:

Democrats gearing up to disarm America, which is a lie
and
Democrats make the economy better so people have more disposable income to spend on guns, which is true

Since guns always sell better during Democratic presidencies, if they could get away with it the gunmakers would flood the Democrats with campaign contributions.

[Hoyt]

55. I think we are trying to create "good jobs," not the production of lethal weapons, some of which

will be used by domestic terrorists, bigots, family abusers, intimidators, robbers, cowboy/police wannabes, compensators, mentally ill, so-called responsible gun owners who leave them around for children or who become the next Zimmerman, militia types, scardy cats, and perhaps worse.

[hack89]

56. Fortunately your comments don't apply to the vast majority of gun owners

So I guess the net result is a positive one.

[Hoyt]

59. I think they do -- cowboy/police wannabes, compensators, irresponsible, those who care little for

society, etc., even if we want to exclude the others for the sake of friendly debate. I'd put those employed in the arms trafficking business (including manufacturing, marketing, retail level) right up there with banksters, health insurers, scam artists hiding under guise of doing business, most felons, etc.

I mean, do we really need more of this kind of crud in a effort to improve employment here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=iS9b5Qg3ohk#t=82s


Have to apologize for the ad at the front and the "code words" these bigots use in promoting their guns at their store on the Old Dixie Highway. Not sure it is in this video, but they have a bunch of them with pistols with confederate flags on the handles, and recommendations for the best guns to use if a "brown person wanders across your lawn." In any event, I think we can do without these kinds of jobs in our country.

[hack89]

63. I am reassured with people like you on the pro-gun control team. nt

[SunSeeker]

78. Dude, you gotta think up another evasion line--that one is getting old.

"I am reassured with people like you on the pro-gun control team. nt"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2561839

[hack89]

80. Twice is getting old? Missed that memo. Sorry. nt

[LanternWaste]

93. Bumper stickers are the last recourse of idiots.

Drolly written bumper stickers are the last recourse of idiots. I expected no less from them after Sandy Hook, and even less from them in the here and now.

[TheCowsCameHome]

58. As long as some machinists get hired, the carnage is worth it.

I'm trying to see the bright side of all this gun-loving crap.

So far, no sale though.

[Hoyt]

61. Just coughed up a lung.

[LanternWaste]

69. I like to push the economic benefits, however scarce, of my sacred cows too.

I like to push the economic benefits, however scarce, of my sacred cows too if it has little else positive to offer.

[Robb]

72. How many jobs? 10?

Lame.

[Mopar151]

105. I have friends at Ruger

Wich is runnng flat out. ALL NEW HIRES ARE TEMPS, @$10.50/HOUR. Ruger's management knows this is a bubble, and they don't want to invest in an expanded workforce or plant that will sit idle when the gun hoarders run out of money.

[Hoyt]

155. So, Ruger is using cheap, non-union labor to increase production and profits.

Guess this period will be known for shoddy Rugers.

[Mopar151]

179. Ruger has never been union, or a great place to work.

A few years ago, they supposedly had something like a year's production stockpiled. Bet that's gone....

[Hoyt]

185. Yet so-called Democratic gun cultists buy/accumulate Rugers. That is interesting.

Shows what is most important to those who live by their guns.

[WinniSkipper]

200. And I guess that applies

to all who shop at WalMart. That their pocketbook is more important than their principals? I don't have an issue with that - let's just be honest about it.

So yes - the people who buy Ruger seem to do so even though it is a non-Union shop. Which mean dedication to the product outweighs union considerations. Do you have an issue with that?

[Hoyt]

202. Yes. Dedication to guns is a problem in our society.

[WinniSkipper]

205. But that wasn't your point now, was it?

[Hoyt]

208. That's pretty much my point in all post related to guns. What is your point?

[TheCowsCameHome]

118. Hehe. Here's where the real money is.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022566720

[TBF]

193. Duh - it's always about the $$$. B$27.8/yr ...

http://bulletin.accurateshooter.com/2010/04/economic-impact-of-firearms-industry/

The real question is why the market is there to begin with ... and that answer goes back to fear/education. I won't see it in my lifetime but eventually people will evolve ...

[ileus]

206. I sure hope they get 380,45,40 and 9mm back on the shelves soon.

I'd also like to get some OD pmags for the new AR to match it's furniture.

[Pterodactyl]

213. Good news. Better to have the manufacturing here instead of overseas.

[SunSeeker]

219. The article contains no facts. How many jobs did this so-called gun "jobs boom" create?

I figured you must know since you determined it was "good news."

[Pterodactyl]

302. The article says 10 people are being added to a group of 35 in the company noted.

It also cites backlogs for many months which is great for businesses. You should probably go back and read the article again.

http://money.cnn.com/2013/03/25/news/companies/guns-ammo-jobs/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

[SunSeeker]

303. I did read the article. "Hiring" means he planned to hire, not that he HIRED 10 people.

If he had actually hired 10 people he would have said so. Actual hires are easy to count. Plans to hire are pretty hard to check on the spot. Either way, let's say that guy did hire the 10 workers. Is that a jobs boom? Nowhere in that article does it offer actual numbers added to the economy from gun sales. Do you have any figures?

[Pterodactyl]

309. I did not claim a boom. I merely said it was good.

The current economy sucks and I don't really expect booms any time soon. But it makes a difference in the lives of the workers.

[SunSeeker]

313. What "good news" of a "difference in the lives of the workers" does the article state?

The only facts the article offers is that some guy plans to hire 10 low-wage workers.

[Pterodactyl]

316. You seem angry about something. Are you upset?

I, too, would prefer more concrete evidence of new jobs, but we gotta take what good news we can in these difficult times.

[SunSeeker]

319. I'm just calling out bullshit. It's what us progressives do here on DU. nt

[Pterodactyl]

320. You're right. Any reports of new jobs are suspect to begin with.

[SunSeeker]

321. I tend to go with Labor Dept. jobs reports. CNN factless puff pieces? Not so much. nt

[Pterodactyl]

322. Yeah. I'm glad I still have a job. Not true for some of the folks I used to work with.

[SunSeeker]

323. The economy is slowly improving, but gun manufacturing jobs aren't where the growth is.

Considering our aging population, it should surprise no one that the number one industry for jobs growth is healthcare, showing a huge gain of 350,300 workers out of the total of 1.9 million private sector jobs added last year. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/08/industries-created-most-jobs-2011_n_1190557.html

Republicans crashed the economy and now keep blocking Obama's jobs bills. It is amazing that the economy has recovered as much as it has.

[Pterodactyl]

324. I agree. The slow recovery has been amazing.

I didn't expect the current admin to be able to do anything more. They're doing all they can!

[SunSeeker]

326. What other admin do you believe could have done more? nt

[Pterodactyl]

327. No one, of course. Except maybe John Kerry.

[bowens43]

229. If you legalized slaughtering babies and making hats out of thier skin

that would create jobs too. Are you in favor of that?

[hack89]

230. No. nt

[Eleanors38]

276. No. How 'bout you? nt

[2ndAmForComputers]

317. The last defense of an indefensible busines is "...but it creates JOBS!!!"

See also: tobacco industry.

[pkdu]

256. So much bullshit , it's hard to know where to start ...1. .$10/hr for machinists...

Riiiightt.

2. He many AR15s will these idiots buy?...at some point your IQ has to catch up with your bank account...these are not permanent jobs.

3. This is Gungeon fodder ...send it back to the pit.