The NRA 2008 Firearm Salesman of the Year...

Post Reply New Topic

In the 1980s when I was there it was quite a problem.

To get back to the OP's original point, Obama's anti-gun stance is driving record gun sales, particularly of the dreaded semi-automatic rifles and high capacity magazines, so what is so great about his stance? He'll never get any legislation through, even Nancy Pelosi, no friend of firearms, went out of her way to distance herself and the House Democrats from the AG when he brought up renewing the AWB, it's too much of a political hot potato in this country.

Incidentally, black powder firearms can be sold practically over the counter in the US, and are even available by mail order. As the owner of a small machine shop that does a lot of firearms work, I've often thought that if I had less of a conscience that an improved black powder design that was easy to load and made with a low cost polymer frame might have a certain "urban" market niche, since it could be sold cheaply with no background checks or paperwork... Too much of a Lex Luther move even for me, though it's fun to think about what the press reaction would be.

But don't you agree that there should be licensing or anything similar? I mean over here in the UK if I were to say wish to purchase a gun, then I would have to go through record checks and all similarities, don't you think that atleast that way the most stable kind of people can purchase a weapon that can potentially end lives far quicker than I knife and requires far more to defend against?

Purchasing a firearm in the states requires that the purchaser undergo a background check and fill out lots of paperwork already, and carrying it in public in most states requires an even more thorough set of background checks and more paperwork, including getting fingerprinted. Most of the guns used in crimes are stolen or otherwise acquired through illegal means, since if someone's planning on committing a more serious offense, breaking a few more laws doesn't really matter to them. The black powder thing is sort of strange, firearms that don't use metallic cartridges or are of a certain age are considered "curios and relics" or replicas thereof, and fall under a different and far less stringent set of laws. Since I've never even heard of a crime committed with a black powder weapon in modern times, I don't see any pressing need to change the laws.

Clinging bitterly to guns and religion now, aren't we?

Where I live, Montana, I've been noticing my more right wing friends "stocking up" so to speak. There was also a silent protest held at my school where students opposing the "gun free" zone law of my school carried empty gun holsters on their hips. I appreciated the peaceful non confrontational nature of their protest, but not what they were advocating. I got nervous around guns when my father, a highly trained Navy SEAL, used them, and I am sure to be a total wreck knowing that my classmates are packing heat.

1980s NYC, it is my impression, bears little resemblance to what it's like now. The murder rate in 1990 peaked at around 30 murders per 100K people. In terms of total murder rate, that would make it about 5th in the nation today among cities with more than 250K people. That's not counting other kinds of crime, which I cannot find numbers on right now. Crime in the United States has dropped off quite markedly since around 1990.

I've heard that too, I recently read The Bonfire of the Vanities, and the NYC described in it (circa 1987) sounds truly horrifying, and looking at the crime stats for the 80's tends to back up that picture. There are a number of theories about what caused crime to drop throughout the 90's, everything from the "broken windows" theory of policing to legalized abortion preventing people who where likely to become criminals from being born, but no one really can fully explain why the crime rate dropped so far so quickly. What no one is claiming caused the drop is gun control, NYC in particular has always had very strict gun laws, and all they've ever done in to disarm the law abiding populace and make them into easier targets for the criminal class. The mid 90's was when many states went to "shall issue" concealed weapons licensing, and though I don't fully buy into the John Lott "more guns less crime" theory, it does tend to put to rest all of the scaremongering that went on in the media about a return to the wild west and respect killings in the streets. My own state (Washington) has been "shall issue" since the 50's, and we've never really had a problem with violent crime, and CPL holders are among the most law abiding people out there.

To a large degree I agree that crime is more dependent upon the quality of judgment than the quantity of guns. But is it possible to control the quality of judgment? Both parents and school are a factors as well as aberrant social factors like gangs. Even the most vigorous gun advocate must admit that people with poor judgment and subject to violent emotions are more a public danger with than without guns. So what do we do about judgment?

That's probably one of the oldest questions in human history. And I don't think anything can be done, short of a incredible amount of Big Brother-level 24/7 surveillance. Honestly, if we can't pre-screen people and figure out who will end up being criminals right now, we can't pre-screen folks to find out who'll snap later.

We already do instant background checks by SSN, anyone who's been convicted of a felony, adjudicated mentally defective (read not guilty by reason of insanity or forcefully committed) is out. People who signs of intoxication are out, etc.

I'm 100% dead-set against using psych-profiles to determine who gets a permit. Simply because there are BP/AS people who are responsible, and NTs who get into fights every Friday night at a bar. Using physical characteristics to determine who's worthy of owning firearms is ret*d.

More gun sales means more money for the NRA lobby!

Crime, particularly violent crime, too an enormous plunge in the late 90s and remained low into the 2000s.But unfortunately, its been slowly making a comeback. No thanks to the recession AND violent mexican drug gangs.

Last edited by Haliphron on 04 Apr 2009, 11:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.

We start by teaching basic common sense again for starters.

It's a nice idea, like teaching logical judgment, teaching intelligence, teaching emotional stability, teaching the proper assessment of interpersonal intent.

We haven't (at least in the USA) been very successful at teaching reading and mathematics which are exceedingly simpler and more direct. How do you propose to go about teaching the far subtler subjects where social prejudices and under financing are rampant?

Not quite. Most gun owners are not NRA members. Its a shame.

But I will say that more guns sales has lead to a massive increase in interest in a basic pistol class I teach.... Hardly a full class last year. Now I am totally booked for 2 months and still have more wanting in. I am having problems finding enough ammo for the classes.

Ah no I wasn't talking of black powder, merely firearms in general, I mean here you have to get licensing as I said, then you have to have it in a secure locked up case and all sorts of things, I mean if you have that at the very least you could still technically use it for self defense if you must and it is safer because you don't have to carry it around, unless of course that is deeply necessary, but I don't think that a revolver or pistol is really needed for every day life

One of the basic problems is how you view possibilities. As I pointed out I have been through a few situations that might be considered life threatening by some. I never looked at them that way and never needed a firearm. Perhaps if I had a gun I might have put myself into a situation where I needed one and I don't find that attractive. But situations do arrive spontaneously where a gun could save a life. It's never happened to me. I do not prepare for being struck by a meteor or some space junk falling on my head but I can't deny the possibility. I don't normally carry a flashlight or a crowbar or a small can of gasoline in case my car runs out of gas. I don't normally carry a length of rope in case I have to flee a fire out of a window. I don't wear thick gloves to control a possible vicious dog. I don't carry snake bite anti-venom in case a rattler crosses my path. These are all real possibilities. I don't carry a gun.

You're in the UK, as far as I am aware you can't own a pistol or revolver period, and if you manage to get the license for a long gun it has to be kept locked up at some sort of third party establishment, hardly a practical setup for self defense. Then again, as I understand it self defense is practically illegal over there anyway, with this really draconian interpretation of equal force and all. Whether a gun is necessary for everyday life is a personal decision that everyone should be free to make for themselves, not have it made for them by what is rapidly becoming a police state. Why is licensing necessary when anyone purchasing a gun already undergoes a background check to make sure that they are legally eligible? Why is registration always pushed when the very people that use guns for crime are the ones that won't register their guns? Registration is very useful down the road when someone decides that the populace can't be trusted with weapons, but is practically useless as a crime fighting tool, same as licensing.