The Gun Industry Is Making A Killing

[SecularMotion]

The week after 71 innocent moviegoers were shot with military style weapons in Aurora, Colo., gun sales in that state increased by more than 40 percent compared to the previous week.

Similar trends occurred after the massacres at Columbine High School (36 students shot, 13 killed), Virginia Tech (52 students shot, 32 killed) and many other high profile mass shootings.

But the post-shooting uptick in sales is not just a result of scared civilians taking up arms. This spike is fueled by the National Rifle Association and gun industry merchants who — through misinformation and clever public relations — convince gun owners to buy increasingly powerful weapons before, as they say, Democrats enact gun bans and confiscate all the firearms.

Yet, nothing could be further from the truth.

http://cognoscenti.wbur.org/2012/10/19/guns-and-money-john-rosenthal

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

1. Encouraging isn't it

Three cheers for capitalism.

[derby378]

2. Consider the source...

It's John Rosenthal. Frankly, I didn't expect to hear anything different from him.

[msongs]

3. the purpose of guns is to kill people. that's what they are for. like tobacco, making $ from death n

[Remmah2]

6. Which amendment offers you the opportunity to protect yourself and your family?

Stop or I'll blow smoke rings.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

8. there's a problem

My guns have never killed anyone and the few times I've bought tobacco it's never yielded any money by killing anyone. Quite the opposite. I conclude either your data or your logic (or both) is totally f*d up.

[Eleanors38]

10. So, do you support tobacco prohibition as well? nt

[repiblikensouse]

14. Bzzzzztttt!!! Wrong answer. The purpose of the electric chair is to kill people. The purpose

of the guillotine is to kill people. The purpose of the gas chamber is to kill people. The purpose of the lethal injection apparatus is to kill people. Are you getting the picture here? At some point in time, people sat down and asked, "What is the best way to kill someone?" and they came up with the above mentioned devices - devices whose sole purpose was to kill people(although I guess you could use a guillotine to make cole slaw). Now, I'm not an engineer for a firearms manufacturer, but I'm pretty sure that when they consider designing a new firearm, the first question they ask does not involve how well the gun will kill people, particularly if it is a target rifle, target pistol, or a caliber typically used against large game. In the case of the Smith & Wesson .500 magnum, they wanted to have the most powerful handgun cartridge available, which meant all kinds of safety, engineering, and marketing questions. Can guns be used to kill people? Absolutely, but they can also be used for other purposes as well and they all involve safely and accurately placing a projectile on a target, which tends to rebut your assertion that the only purpose they have is to kill people.

[DrDan]

27. the purpose of guns is to kill . . . animals, people, whatever

all this malarky about shooting at targets ignores the fact that the purpose of this activity is to improve the ability to kill once again . . and more efficiently

[friendly_iconoclast]

33. Then most of them must be defective, or we'd have far more people killed with them...

[DrDan]

57. you did notice "animals" being mentioned, right?

[friendly_iconoclast]

68. I did- but the majority of gun owners (ca. 80%) do not hunt.

[Straw Man]

34. And ...

all this malarky about shooting at targets ignores the fact that the purpose of this activity is to improve the ability to kill once again . . and more efficiently

... all this malarky about fencing and javelins ignores the fact that the purpose of those activities is to improve the ability to kill more efficiently with an edged or pointed blade. Um-hmmm. That's right.

There's target shooting and then there's target shooting. Compare IPSC or IDPA to bullseye or Olympic-style shooting sometime. Then you'll see what a crock of erroneous shit you're peddling.

[Spryguy]

38. Poor comparison...

a fencing foil (or epee' or sabre) is radically different than an actual edged weapon, and due to the rules of the sport and the "springiness" of the weapons, they have very little to do with actual sword fighting.

A target pistol works great for killin' stuff to, and useses identical principals. Shootin' is shootin'.

[friendly_iconoclast]

40. What about archery? You lot never seem to complain about that.

Change the heads on the arrows, and you've now got a deadly weapon.

[Straw Man]

44. Wrong again.

a fencing foil (or epee' or sabre) is radically different than an actual edged weapon, and due to the rules of the sport and the "springiness" of the weapons, they have very little to do with actual sword fighting.

A target pistol works great for killin' stuff to, and useses identical principals. Shootin' is shootin'

You really don't know much about this, do you. A competition free pistol is about the last thing you'd want to use for actual killing: small-caliber low-power round, no follow-up shot, difficult to deploy quickly... That's not what it's meant for.

http://www.pilkguns.com/freepistol.shtml

In any case, the accusation was practicing to kill. Once more I say look at IPSC and IDPA: they might fit the charge. To say that all target sports are rehearsals for violence is as ludicrous as to say that fencing is.

Unless, of course, you have your ideological blinders on. That could explain your confusion.

[ileus]

30. The purpose of SD firearms is to save lives. that's what they are for....

Even when used improperly that doesn't change the reason self defense firearms are designed for.

[DrDan]

47. save lives by taking lives . . . . hmmm . . . where has that logic been used in the past

[Clames]

50. Unfortunately for you point...

...not every SD gun use means a life is taken. Logic, you should try using it for a change.

[DrDan]

55. every SD gun use means a threat was made to take a life.

(see how I did that with no personal insult thrown in?)

[friendly_iconoclast]

69. And the problem with that would be...what, exactly?

Bad, even lethal things can happen to someone you defend yourself against, whether you use a gun or not.

As long as we're discussing actual self-defense and not "They (cut me off/looked at me the wrong way/were too slow in producing the contents of the register/might have been a witness)-
wherein lies the problem? If one is not a practitioner of ahimsa, any self-defense might be harmful or even lethal to the person you are defending themself against. Someone
that dies from a head injury from a fall after being pushed away is no more and no less dead than someone who was shot through the heart.

I myself had a SD gun use (no shots were fired and the only casualty was his underwear, thank God).

By my actions I was sending the message that I valued my life more than that of the other person and was prepared to employ lethal means to defend it.
I had no problem making that decision 30-odd years ago and would probably make the same choice today. Would I feel bad if someone I defended myself against came to harm or died?
Of course I would- but I would still be in the right.

[Clames]

72. Wrong. Personal insult?

Such a delicate flower...

SD gun use means a threat was made but the person who made the threat (read: criminal threat) decided to put his/her life at risk. SD gun use means a threat was made and there is intent to stop that threat. You continue to portray lawful gun owners and those who have justifiably used a gun to defend themselves as murders...

[Straw Man]

60. Logic.

save lives by taking lives . . . . hmmm . . . where has that logic been used in the past

Let's see ... Save life of crime victim by taking life of assailant?

Works for me. Especially if that victim is myself.

[DrDan]

61. does every crime justify the potential taking of a life?

I know there are some here who believe that - even the theft of a ballpoint pen justifies taking a life in the opinion of some here - and that was exactly the crime specified

[holdencaufield]

62. Don't be ridiculous ...

... maybe a nice fountain pen, but never a ball-point.

[DrDan]

64. there is at least one person here who believes that

[holdencaufield]

65. I'm sure there's at least one person here ...

... who believes the Earth is flat. What is your point?

[DrDan]

66. that some here believe taking a life is justified regardless of how minor the crime

[holdencaufield]

67. One is now some?

My -- how things do multiply when you don't have to provide proof.

[friendly_iconoclast]

70. That would speak *only* of the person making such a declaration.

[Clames]

73. Proof?

Can you back up that absurd statement? Of course you can't...

[DrDan]

75. are you saying I am lying?

[Clames]

76. Not yet.

But if you make such a claim you had best provide proof. Otherwise I can speculate either you made that statement up or have taken it grievously out of context.

[DrDan]

79. one thing not necessary is to make up a statement from this forum

it is completely in context and real - I shall look for it in the next day or so

[DrDan]

80. here ya go

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x456527#456534

[Clames]

83. So it's really a problem of you and proper context.

Embarrassingly obvious to anyone that the point was not simple theft of a pen but self-defensive gun use against armed robbery. Nice try but you've failed on two counts now...

[DrDan]

88. self defense?

"I believe people have a moral right to defend private property with deadly force."

and the private property being discussed was a ballpoint pen

[friendly_iconoclast]

77. A link would vastly increase you credibility...

[DrDan]

78. I shall once again look for it and post it once again - it is on DU2

might be a day or two

[DrDan]

81. here 'tis

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x456527#456534

[friendly_iconoclast]

82. Thanks- but one poster does not a forum make...

[DrDan]

87. no doubt - and I think this is an outlier - but there is certainly

at least one that believes this

[Straw Man]

71. Reductio ad absurdum.

does every crime justify the potential taking of a life?

Of course not. I said "save life of crime victim." This implies that said life was at risk.

I know there are some here who believe that - even the theft of a ballpoint pen justifies taking a life in the opinion of some here - and that was exactly the crime specified

If the victim's life is not placed at risk in the commission of the crime, then deadly force is not warranted. That is my opinion: I can't speak for "some."

[glacierbay]

54. That's funny

my duty weapon has never shot anybody. There are many uses for firearms, hunting, target practice, sports shooting, self defense, to name a few.

[krispos42]

4. So lots of people call for banning certain guns after a mass shooting...

...and yet, it's irrational that people want to purchase them before they get banned.

[JackN415]

5. litterally ... n/t

[GreenStormCloud]

7. It is good to see some of American industry doing well. N/T

[4th law of robotics]

32. And as I understand it one that has, on average, decent labor conditions

and provides solidly middle class jobs.

Can't have that.

[Db Owen97]

9. Yet again to SM ....

I am a firearms owner.

and it isn't through misinformation or scare tactics.

It is from taking notes of criminal activity through youtube vids,news reports,and the idea of "Better to have and not need than to need and not have"

[Clames]

11. Places like Stockton, CA convince people to arm themselves.

Bankrupt, huge cuts to police force, not enough jobs, public sector in decline, etc. Funny how the anti-gunners blame guns and gun laws yet California is supposed to be the model by which other states should look to on this topic. The stupidity, it burns...

[ileus]

12. I'm looking for a new fullsized 45 ACP for HD.

I'm having a hard time deciding.

I like the pricing and reliability of the two listed below.

M&P 4" "midsized"

G21



Also in the running are several other 45's CZ, XD, P220

[repiblikensouse]

15. I have an XD in .45. I got it because I liked the trigger pull and the 13 rd mags.

The feed ramp is polished and it has ambi safety and mag release. The guy at Cabela's said quality had gone done on the latest generation of Glocks, so I passed on those. It's only slightly bigger than my old Llama .380, but weighs way more and is a handful with the double stack mag. Probably a little more than I want to carry around all day, but for HD it should work fine - at least good enough to get me to the AK.
If you can, go to a range that rents guns and test out the ones you're considering.

[ileus]

17. A friend of mine tried to sell me a 4.5" XDm last week.

But he still wanted 550 for the puppy....he was trying to finance his new XDs

I had a FDE G20 for a while this spring but sold it because my boss loved it more than I. (I bought it because it was FDE)

I have an M&P 9c that I'm pretty fond of that's why the M&P is on the short list.


What I really want is a Stainless P220 but for 2x the cash...that's hard to choke down.

[Clames]

20. I have two fullsize .45's for HD.

Looking for a compact 9mm or .380 now. And a bolt action rifle in .308. And another shotgun.

[holdencaufield]

21. I would like to recommend ...

... the Ruger Gunsite Scout. I have one and it's quickly becoming my favourite rifle (above my .357 1892 Winchester with the large loop). It is light, accurate and pretty as can be.

Mine is the international version with a slightly longer stainless steel barrel (matted) and no flash suppressor. I have it fitted with a Leupold IER 1.5 - 4x 28mm mounted forward of the bolt. A lot of people hate this configuration but I love it because I can acquire a target very quickly and still keep an eye on the overall situation. For a short-barrel .308 the recoil isn't what you'd expect partly because Ruger has put on a very good recoil pad.

Besides that, it is remarkably well-made and not ruinously expensive -- cost half of my Tikka T3.

[Clames]

74. Looked at the Ruger.

A few times really. Be the third Ruger in my little collection. I really want something closer to full length though. CZ 550 Varmint in .308 or a Ruger American are on the short list.

[rl6214]

23. I've got the XD45, love it

I think I still want a 1911 though.

[holdencaufield]

24. You can't go wrong with a 1911 (Colt or SA)

If you run out of ammo, you could take down a reasonably-sized bear just by throwing it at him.

[trouble.smith]

37. I have owned 6 Glock 21s.

I currently own the G21 C (compensated) model as well as the Glock 30. I seriosuly think the Glock 21 is the finest combat pistol ever made and I will always have at least one of them. It is scary accurate. recoil is nothing. it holds 13 rounds in the stack. It is .45 ACP. It disassembles in seconds into 4 pieces which can then be reassembled in seconds. It is extremely simple to operate. I have never seen one fail to fire. I have seen one dropped from an airplane and fired without incident. the Glock 21 is a combat masterpiece. Don't fight it, just accept it and get one.

[ileus]

84. You've almost talked me into one.

I'm trying to decide G21 or M&P. The looks and the fact I have a 9c make me lean toward the Smith. However.com the glocks extra 3 mean a lot. I ditched my G20 earlier in the year, just too darned costly for a non-reloader to hold on to IMHO.

[trouble.smith]

86. to each his own.

I hear good things about the M&P but I haven't shot one so I can't compare them. I have had nothing but good luck with the Glock 21 though. The plethora of after market accessories is another nice feature of the Glock pistol btw. For example, my Scherer 28 round magazines will fit in both my 21 and my 30. standard magazines are dirt cheap too and as far night sites and rail options go, the sky is the limit for Glocks. there's also drop in conversion barrels which give you the flexibility to shoot different calibers from a single platform. for example, you can shoot 10mm out of a Glock 21 if you want to buy an extra barrel and magazine. The Glock pistol is like the 350 Chevy of handguns, infinitely modifiable, notoriously durable, easy to work on, huge supply of cheap aftermarket accessories. I grew up on 1911's but after my first Glock 21, I have never looked back.

[Db Owen97]

52. Depending on which state you live in (California for example this is a no go)

You might want to check this out this offering from S&W

Not only can you use both flavors of .45 caliber,but you get a third option of using 2-1/2 inch .410 shells.



http://www.smith-wesson.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/Category4_750001_750051_769651_-1_757767_757751_image


A bit costly but worth the added versatility.

[ileus]

85. 45 ACP I didn't know this.

And it's true I don't have a revolver in my collection...

[glacierbay]

59. Glock 21

is an exceptional weapon, I'ts what my dept. issues it's officers, very reliable, comfortable to the hand.

[Eleanors38]

13. More agitprop from a long-time controller...

You know, this business about "misinformation and clever public relations" flies in the face of some hard truths: The Democratic Party has an explicit stance favoring not just a ban of "assault weapons," but an expanded and permanent ban. AG Holder and President Obama are both on record favoring such a ban, as is Nancy Pelosi. And they all made those stands perfectly clear during the President's first term.

I don't know what Rosenthal has in mind about "increasingly powerful weapons" (caliber? Action? Range? Style?), but he is not above using "misinformation and clever public relations."

Most Americans -- most gun-owners -- are not that easily scared, nor are they stupid to the political realities. Whenever a "mass murder" occurs, there are those (mostly, Democrats or MSM commentators) who jump right in with their righteous indignation and propose yet more bans; this time on high-capacity magazines (Virginia Tech -- the most killed in one spot -- was accomplished by an CelebroPunk using conventional pistols with conventional magazines). This kind of political dynamic says to any reasonable observer that the gun-controllers will take ANYTHING they can get. And be back for more.

"Nothing could be further from the truth?" No, the uncomfortable truth stands close by.

[Spryguy]

39. Given that...

if you spport Obama, you should be standing shoulder-to-shoulder with him and support the perfectly reasonable bans on assault weapons and handguns.

[friendly_iconoclast]

41. Hell no- instead, let's remind him what side his bread is buttered on, lest we lose the Senate.

As for 'reasonable' bans, I can only quote the great Mandy Patinkin as Inigo Montoya:

"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

[gejohnston]

42. not quite

partly because there is no such thing as an "assault weapon" and handgun bans are not reasonable.

[Eleanors38]

43. You are incorrect in what I "should" be doing...

I support Obama in spite of his call for the reckless and non-sensical prohibition of a firearm type which most gun-control folks HERE in these threads cannot properly define, nor give rational reasons FOR a such a ban.

It is imagery, symbolism, righteousness and culture war which drives gun-control/prohibition.
BTW, the Virginia Tech punk killed 32 people with pistols and standard mags. Do you wish to ban auto-loading pistols as well? Respectfully, I await your answer.

[Spryguy]

49. Absolutely!

Handguns are easily concealable and result in much death and destruction. Many other, more civilized and less violent countries, have handgun bans.

[Clames]

51. Yeah right.

Let's see you cite some proof to those claims. I'll tell you for a fact that the UK is neither more civil or less violent.

[gejohnston]

53. actually they don't have bans

outside of UK, which was the same as before. Same as other countries you are thinking of. There are some countries that do have bans, they are very violent.

[holdencaufield]

16. Thank goodness ...

... I bought shares early.

[Eleanors38]

45. Wish I had a pisition in Ruger when they went public.nt

[Atypical Liberal]

18. "nothing could be further from the truth". Really? Miss the second presidential debate?

"Part of [the solution] is seeing if we can get an assault weapons ban reintroduced, but part of it is also looking at other sources of the violence." - President Obama

Yeah, it's real far from the truth that "Democrats enact gun bans".

It's part of the Democratic Party Platform, and we've heard it straight from the President's mouth.

[Trunk Monkey]

19. 85% of your posts are in the gungeon

and you clearly support right wing causes such as the Brady campaign

Using the normal DU metric what can be infered from this ?

[SecularMotion]

25. I'm a Democrat who supports the party platform on guns

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

http://www.issues2000.org/celeb/Democratic_Party_Gun_Control.htm

[rrneck]

29. Does the party platform support Democrats? nt

[oneshooter]

36. Do you activly support the Brady Campaign or the VPC?

[SecularMotion]

46. I thought I made it clear.

I support Democrats and the Democratic platform on guns.

[oneshooter]

48. And yet another non answer from Circuler!

[fightthegoodfightnow]

90. BRAVO -PARTY PATFORM ON GUNS SAYS IT ALL

Reading this thread one would get the impression, the majority here represent the Democratic Party's views on guns.

Nothing could be further from the truth!

[gejohnston]

91. are you sure?

there is the party and there is the rank and file. Same is true with any political party.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

92. Yea

.

[rl6214]

22. "Yet, nothing could be further from the truth. "

Yeah, is that why President Obama made the mistake of talking about an AWB at the debate last week?

[safeinOhio]

26. Looks like his numbers are going up.

So, if he wins are you going to admit that mitts sucking up to the NRA hurt him?

[Trunk Monkey]

28. Mitt sending my (and how many more) jobs to China

is what's going to hurt him.

I do have to give some props that there actually are a few voices on the RW gun forums that are trying to remind people that Mittens actually did sign a permanent AWB in Massachusetts.

Unfortunately I don't think anyone is listening

[rl6214]

35. I'd be willing to admit that there are a lot more important things going on in this country like:

'It's the economy stupid'

[4th law of robotics]

31. Presumably those increases in sales can be directly tied to an increase in crime . . . ?

[locks]

56. violence and guns

I started reading this forum because I thought there would be helpful and thoughtful ideas from progressives about how we could work together to control guns and lessen violence. In my long life I have witnessed so much violence, in war and in civilian life, mostly from guns and bombs, that I am disappointed most of the threads are a defense of guns, how great they are in protecting us, and how we can help Democrats join the NRA and buy more, and more powerful, guns! Although I appreciate the posts like this one, most of the responses seem to me to belong in gun magazines and Ted Nugent's TV show, not on a site where Democrats are working together for a peaceful and just world.

[gejohnston]

58. Fewer guns will not make a

peaceful and just world. Just look at the Middle Ages and before. I'm not saying the gun's invention civilized Europe either. Truth is, there are many Democrats, liberals, and even some progressives who participate in the shooting sports. Always have. Scalia and Kagen are hunting buddies. Ted Strickland was backed by the NRA while Kaisach was backed by the Kochs.

http://www.theoutdoorwire.com/story/1305180107xjjb9zkm1tz

[holdencaufield]

63. Legal firearms are for protecting the weak against the strong.

Illegal firearms do just the opposite.

Protecting the weak against the strong isn't just a Democratic principle, it's an AMERICAN principle.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

89. Picture Says It All

[friendly_iconoclast]

93. It also says John Rosenthal doesn't care about distracted driving or factual accuracy.

Not only that, he's an attention whore who doesn't care who he helps:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/12/mitt-romney-nra-courtship_n_1422258.html

Oh well, I suppose "the ends justify any means"...