Gun Sales Booming
Again, smart people make plans for the future.
Law enforcement and industry data and anecdotal reports show that guns are selling well this year. In 2008, there were 8.4 million background checks from Jan. 1 to Sept. 28, compared with 7.7 million in the same period last year, a 9 percent increase, according to the FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System.
The increase is also notable because it follows a heavy year for gun purchases, which industry officials and experts link to the Virginia Tech shootings in April 2007 and a burgeoning housing market crisis. NICS checks show a 20 percent increase in April 2007, compared with the previous year.
This year’s jump is a continuation of a trend that began in 2006, about the time the housing bubble popped in parts of the nation, and remained steady last year as the political season began to take shape and the housing crisis grew. It is also a bigger jump than the average annual increases of about 5 percent or less typical since instant background checks began in 1998.
Does stocking up on ammo count?
Posted by Kate on October 27, 2008 at 2149 hrs
interesting… which reminds me, i think its time to pick up that s&w;airweight I had been thinking about…
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 27, 2008 at 2203 hrs
Aren’t a lot of those same “smart people” the ones who told us to stock up on rice and bottled water in December of 1999 because all commerce was about to come to an end?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 28, 2008 at 0139 hrs
no grumps
we take the guns hunting and kill our dinner.
the water is used to boil the rice to go with the rabbit.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 28, 2008 at 0232 hrs
Gun sales booming sounds scary. Do people really need to arm themselves? The thought of having a gun inside my house will make me crazy.
Posted by Bathroom Decor on October 28, 2008 at 0322 hrs
Stock up on ammo and primers, powder, brass and bullets if you reload Obama and the liberty haters in Congress will be trying to make ammo and components so expensive and restrictive that it will be hard to get.
For Bathroom Decor-anyone who needs to ask “Do people really need to arm themselves?” probably shouldn’t. You are a sheep through and through and you will just have to wait for the police to get there and write the report of your beating, murder, rape etc.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 28, 2008 at 0436 hrs
I’m all for preserving my second amendment rights—I’m no gun banner. But you guys sound…a little paranoid. The odds of me repelling a violent attacker in my home with a gun is roughly (I’m not statistician, mind) one in a kagoddamnzillion. The likelihood of my (presumably loaded) gun being stolen and used for nefarious purposes is much higher, as is the likelihood that it will be used to harm a member of my own household.
Your mileage may definitely vary. Perhaps your circumstances are different than mine. But calling people who don’t own guns “sheep” makes you sound like a fucking lunatic who shouldn’t have a gun to begin with.
Posted by scott on October 28, 2008 at 0848 hrs
Scott makes a good point. I have several guns for hunting - but I don’t keep them loaded.
However stocking up on ammo sounds like a reasonable idea to avoid what will be the oncoming onslaught of taxes and regulations on ammo. And ammo has an amazing shelf life.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 28, 2008 at 0916 hrs
The odds of me repelling a violent attacker in my home with a gun is roughly (I’m not statistician, mind) one in a kagoddamnzillion. The likelihood of my (presumably loaded) gun being stolen and used for nefarious purposes is much higher, as is the likelihood that it will be used to harm a member of my own household
The only reason I can agree with your statement is because you state that YOUR odds of repelling a violent attacker are one in a “whatever” and YOUR odds of your gun being stolen and used against you or your familiy are higher.
So I assume that you aren’t capable of handling a gun. You probably know this. You probably aren’t capable of handling sharp objects either, but I’m just speculating.
You must not be capable of educating yourself on the safe use of a firearm and you must not be capable of protecting your family with one. Thats fine. YOUR choice.
But for anyone else who stumbles into this thread, please know that for anyone who wants to be educated in the use and handling of a firearm, guns are used hundreds of thousands of times a year by people to defend themselves and their families safely and scott’s inability to defend himself with a gun or keep it out of the hands of an intruder is NOT something a normal person would need to worry about.
The most conservative of conservative estimates by anti-gun studies put the estimate at 108,000 Defensive uses of a gun per year and objective studies put the figure as high as 2.5 MILLION defensive uses of a gun per year.
So to anyone who is considering purchasing a firearm to protect yourself or your family (JUST like a single young female friend of mine who lives on 70th street in TOSA is considering right now because a month ago a thug from northeast of downtown decided to take the bus down north avenue looking to rob a place and picked HER house because SHE FORGOT TO TAKE THE NEWSPAPER IN!!!) She’s now considering purchasing a gun which I’m gladly going to help her do because she believes she will feel much safer sleeping with a revolver in her nightstand then sleeping by herself. And I’m very confident that unlike scott, she’s a smart girl and she’ll have no problem learning how to be proficient with her new weapon and defending herself next time a criminal decides to head west down north avenue and bust into her hosue at 1 am.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 28, 2008 at 1056 hrs
I’m just speculating.
You’re being a jerk. And you’re wrong: there’s an indoor range a few blocks from my house. And I’ve been there. To shoot real guns! Within the last 12 months! No, I’m not a gun expert, but explaining away my reticence to have one in my house as being too dumb to handle “sharp objects” just won’t wash.
I recognize that some people might profitably keep a gun in their home or on their person—but I also believe very strongly that many people might not. People like myself, whose threat of being a victim of violent crime is relatively low compared to the risks associated with keeping a loaded gun on you or in your home. Dismissing this reality as just me being too incompetent to defend my family makes you sound wingnutty.
Posted by scott on October 28, 2008 at 1108 hrs
I recognize that some people might profitably keep a gun in their home or on their person—but I also believe very strongly that many people might not.
Thats fine. And my comments are clearly aimed at people who might be looking at the prospect of defending themselves who I don’t want to be influenced by your un-educated (on this topic) misrepresentation of the risk of having a gun in the house to defend oneself.
In other words “don’t believe scotts hype”
here’s some citations (since scott isn’t a statistician) for people who might be thinking of getting a gun to defend themselves and their family
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdguse.html
Dismissing this reality as just me being too incompetent to defend my family makes you sound wingnutty.
No scott. your willingness to make statements that have no factual basis makes you sound like an emotional-thinker that lives in fear not logic and reality.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 28, 2008 at 1115 hrs
While I struggle to tamp down my debilitating emotions, perhaps you can explain to everyone what exactly we should be taking away from that link which negates a single thing that I said.
Christ, are you barking up the wrong tree. If you want to get all NRA-apeshit on someone, pick someone who, you know, is against concealed carry or wants more gun ownership restrictions.
Instead, you’re attacking me (and somewhat personally, too) for proposing the radical idea that for some people the risks of keeping a loaded gun might outweigh the benefits.
I’m sorry, but you’re not doing much to dispel the idea that you’re a hardcore “gun nut.”
Posted by scott on October 28, 2008 at 1128 hrs
On to more intelligent conversation…
45acp… have you fired any of the sw airweights?
Over the past couple years I’m looking for a nice compact cc weapon (for when I travel to non-freedom-infringing states of course)
I was thinking of an airweight in 357
I understand they are not good plinking guns running 357 cal thru them.
Not a big fan of the double action only.
Any other good cc guns you’ve come across?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 28, 2008 at 1137 hrs
The day before Y2K hit, a friend and I were loading his truck down for the long haul. When I did not see any food, water, etc., I asked “why”. As he loaded his fully automatic 50 cal (historical military value) and a couple thousand rounds of ammo into the truck, he looked at me and said, “He who has guns and ammo can get food. We’ll take it from someone else.”
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 28, 2008 at 1319 hrs
He’s as nutty as the middle aged housewife I knew who had spent the pervious 10 months dehydrating food for the coming apocalypse.
I swear, some people must really get off on the idea that they could at any moment be thrust into an action movie-type scenario. Hello? Reality calling!
Let me be quick to reiterate what I said before: There are people who probably should own and carry guns. People with dangerous occupations, who live in crime-ridden neighborhoods and other circumstances. But I—and plenty of others—conclude that the risks don’t outweigh the potential benefit.
Posted by scott on October 28, 2008 at 1329 hrs
There are people who probably should own and carry guns. People with dangerous occupations, who live in crime-ridden neighborhoods and other circumstances.
Well, so for certain anyone living in Milwaukee county qualifies as living in high crime area.
“other circumstances”
Does having a vagina qualify as a dangerous circumstance? Because I think any girl that has one is at risk of being assaulted and raped.
Does having money in your pocket qualify as a dangerous circumstance?
Because there are innoncent people here in Milwaukee in recent past that have been murdered for petty robbery on the street.
But I—and plenty of others—conclude that the risks don’t outweigh the potential benefit.
Thats fine. But just don’t misrepresent your opinion as fact nor claim that others would be as helpless and incompetent in the use of a firearm to defend themselves as you say you would be.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 28, 2008 at 1340 hrs
don’t [...] claim that others would be as helpless and incompetent in the use of a firearm to defend themselves as you say you would be.
Yeah, I’m the one being extreme and unfair in my characterization of others!
I think I made myself clear: you seem to overestimate the benefit of carrying a loaded weapon (or having one in your home); you seem to overestimate the number of people for whom this would be good in a cost-benefit analysis; you probably underestimate the risks and problems associated with this kind of behavior, too. I admit: Some perfectly rational people should do it. But most should not. That’s my opinion. Your opinion seems to be that everyone should, and that anyone who believes otherwise is “incompetent” and “helpless.” That pretty much summarize the discussion so far?
Posted by scott on October 28, 2008 at 1348 hrs
Scott you’ve offered nothing but your personal opinion.
I’ve posted links to studies that show how often guns are used defensively. While we could debate those all day surely they are more objective sources of info than your opinion.
You just keep lobbing conjecture with no factual basis. Thats what I have a problem with.
Your opinion seems to be that everyone should, and that anyone who believes otherwise is “incompetent” and “helpless.” That pretty much summarize the discussion so far?
No Scott. My opinion is that anyone who wants to should do it, and anyone who doesn’t shouldn’t do it.
But if someone wants to protect themselves with a gun but they DON’T because they are afraid of “their gun being used against them” they are basing their decision on fear and not logic.
People can do whatever they want. I could give a fuck. But anyone who wants to get a gun for protection but thinks that puts them in more danger (than not having a gun at all because it will get used against you by an intruder) is making a fear-based non-informed choice. The evidence doesn’t support it and your conjecture is just that.
Good grief… If peoples guns were used against them on any kind of measurable level there would be data to support your claims. There isn’t. You can sit here and play word games and mis-characterize my position all you want… OR you could go out and try to find some empirical data to support your fear-based opinion.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 28, 2008 at 1621 hrs
Scott, you’re being an idiot in this thread. Just thought you might want to know, you still have time to “unlink”.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 29, 2008 at 0938 hrs
if someone wants to protect themselves with a gun but they DON’T because they are afraid of “their gun being used against them” they are basing their decision on fear and not logic.
So you have some helpful scientific data about the risks/benefits of having a loaded gun around? So far all I see is you trying to prove one side of it: you can use a gun to defend yourself. No one is surprised about that. But what about the risks? Or maybe you think there just aren’t any—unless you’re an incompetent idiot.
I’m not sure who to trust or what statistics to believe, but one thing I read is that guns kept in the home for self-defense are 22 times more likely to kill a family member than some crazed intruder. (The citation for this is “Injuries and Deaths Due to Firearms in the Home.” Journal of Trauma, but I can’t find a link directly to it.)
Maybe that study is wrong or misleading in some way—but let’s not pretend it doesn’t exist. Let’s talk about the cost/benefit of this kind of gun ownership. Don’t sit there and say anyone who doesn’t keep a loaded .45 under their pillow is dumb.
Scott, you’re being an idiot in this thread.
Good to see that the quality of your contributions remains consistent, Jason.
Posted by scott on October 29, 2008 at 0948 hrs
Christ scott…
So far all I see is you trying to prove one side of it:
You want me to prove my point and yours, which isn’t true or believable???? Are you serious? Thats fresh..
Ya lazy fucker, do your own research if you think I’m wrong. (I use lazy fucker affectionately)
I’m not sure who to trust or what statistics to believe, but one thing I read is that guns kept in the home for self-defense are 22 times more likely to kill a family member than some crazed intruder. (The citation for this is “Injuries and Deaths Due to Firearms in the Home.” Journal of Trauma, but I can’t find a link directly to it.)
Well… You’re on the right track scott. FINALLY you provide something other than your own conjecture, but I will need a citation. “injury and death due to firearm in the home” could mean a lot of things.
Do those statistics include suicide?
Do those statistics include domestic violence?
Because you take out those 2 factors from the studies I’ve seen and ‘true’ “accidental death” by firearm is statistically insignificant.
And I’ll be the FIRST to agree that people with mental health and suicide issues and people with anger issues and a history of domestic violence SHOULD NOT have a gun in their home.
Because those 2 groups of people are the reason for the biggest percent of deaths when it comes to firearm deaths in the home.
For a stable home where there aren’t mental health issues and there aren’t domestic violence issues, the risk of accidental death to to firearm is statistically insignificant.
Unintentional injuries from firearms represent less than two percent of all firearm deaths in the U.S.
http://www.childdeathreview.org/causesAF.htm
In 2005 there were only 789 unintentional shootings in the US.
http://www.ichv.org/Statistics.htm
and by my above cited stats even the most ANTI-GUN of studies said there was 108,000 DEFENSIVE uses of a gun per year (other objective studies show 2.5 MILLION). And YOU scott claim the risk of having a gun outweighs the advantage?
Would you like me to do a comparison scott of the chance of being a victim of a violent crime compared to the number of defensive uses of a gun per year???? (even knowing that most people don’t have a gun) (if they did surely the number of defensive uses of a gun would be way more)
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 29, 2008 at 1203 hrs
You want me to prove my point and yours
No, I simply want you to admit that there ARE risks which a rational person might conclude are too great. (And also that the benefits for many people might be vanishingly small.)
Do those statistics include suicide?
Do those statistics include domestic violence?
Yeah, I’ll bet they do. So what? Those risks just don’t count for you?
I’ll be the FIRST to agree that people with mental health and suicide issues and people with anger issues and a history of domestic violence SHOULD NOT have a gun in their home.
How do you propose that we upstanding, mentally robust, normal people weed out these violent defectives from the gun ownership club? Seriously, of course people with violent criminal histories should be prevented from owning guns, and of course people with serious mental illnesses should be likewise prevented. But you seem to be operating under an “us and them” illusion. They ARE us. They say depression will affect one in six people over the course of their lifetime, for example. And I don’t have any data on it, but I bet there’s a significant portion of individuals who have been so angry at a family member that they were glad there was no gun handy. (Thinking here of marital infidelity, etc.)
Would you like me to do a comparison scott of the chance of being a victim of a violent crime compared to the number of defensive uses of a gun per year????
No. I’d like you to do a comparison of the chance of your gun being used on a family member versus an armed intruder. Suicides, domestic violence and accidents included. When you’ve finished with that, I’d like to know what variability exists; whether people of certain demographics or geographies might have a different set of risks/benefits.
Posted by scott on October 29, 2008 at 1218 hrs
How do you propose that we upstanding, mentally robust, normal people weed out these violent defectives from the gun ownership club?
There-in lies the conflict between feel-good legislation and common sense.
There are no laws that criminals will abide by (by the very definition).
But you seem to be operating under an “us and them” illusion. They ARE us. They say depression will affect one in six people over the course of their lifetime, for example. And I don’t have any data on it, but I bet there’s a significant portion of individuals who have been so angry at a family member that they were glad there was no gun handy.
Ok, we’ve now surpassed any point of having a logical discussion.
I sure hope I don’t have a bad day today and get depressed… That loaded Glock I keep on my bedpost might look really tempting all of a sudden.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 29, 2008 at 1330 hrs
Apparently you’re right: we have surpassed logical discussion. You don’t seem to want to take seriously anything I wrote in my previous comment.
As far as I’m concerned, I won’t be keeping a loaded gun in my house or on my person. Not until someone convinces me that the benefit outweighs the risk. People who simply deny that there is meaningful risk (see: you) won’t sway me.
Posted by scott on October 29, 2008 at 1341 hrs
Good to see that the quality of your contributions remains consistent, Jason.
And yet, it trumps the drivel that you’ve posted in this topic to date. Whoopity Doo!
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 29, 2008 at 1350 hrs
Pardon me while I recover from that insightful, cogent and yet blistering attack on my position in this thread! I better go back to school before I match wits again with the likes of you!
I’m sorry, it’s just getting too absurd in here.
Posted by scott on October 29, 2008 at 1354 hrs
Not until someone convinces me that the benefit outweighs the risk.
Look princess… I don’t consider it my responsibility to try to convince you of anything.
Its your job to decide whats right for you. Its pretty clear to me you’ve come to your conclusions without any research or factual basis and thats fine. Your proclivity to toss out conjecture in this thread and then sit back and demand that someone else prove your conjecture wrong is sickening.
Furthermore its not you I was trying to convince of anything in this thread, rather provide information for people who unlike you approach the subject from an objective position, NOT a conclusion they’ve already arrived at thru igorance and fear and then demanded someone change their mind.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 29, 2008 at 1358 hrs
Its pretty clear to me you’ve come to your conclusions without any research or factual basis and thats fine.
My position is less fact-based than yours? How so? You provided some statistics about the number of times guns are used to repel criminals. I provided a stat which indicates the likelihood of a self-defense gun in the home to be used against a resident of your home. I think it’s fair to say that neither of us has compelling evidence at hand. (That’s not to say that there isn’t any, just that neither of us seem to know where to find it if it exists.) But how do you figure your position (it’s smart to keep a loaded gun in your home unless you’re an idiot) is more fact-based than mine (for some people the risks might outweigh the benefit)?
Posted by scott on October 29, 2008 at 1403 hrs
As far as I’m concerned, I won’t be keeping a loaded gun in my house or on my person. Not until someone convinces me that the benefit outweighs the risk. People who simply deny that there is meaningful risk (see: you) won’t sway me.
And that’s not even close to what you posted or your intent in #7. And that’s why you’re being an idiot.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 29, 2008 at 1407 hrs
What part of it do you think is “not even close”?
Posted by scott on October 29, 2008 at 1411 hrs
scott, xxpilot here is a link to a document complete with footnotes so you can verify his statements that has a wealth of info on guns.
http://www.gunfacts.info/The study scott talks about a gun in the home being used against the homeowner or occupants is mentioned at the above link on page 31.
As with most things in life you must weigh the risk with the benefit,
you are more likely to die driving a car or being treated by a doctor than a gun in your home.If you believe a gun in your home is more dangerous than a meth head looking for a fix then that is your decision and nothing anyone says will change your mind.
I take gun ownership very seriously and hope I never need to use one to defend mine or someone else’s life, most gun owners are not out looking for someone to shoot as a lot of the anti-gun groups want you to believe, we just want the option to protect ourselves as the government is not required to protect you nor are they able.
Remember the police are just historians the crime happens, they file the paperwork, most will never witness a violent crime let alone prevent one.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 29, 2008 at 1704 hrs
What part of it do you think is “not even close”?
The entire post and how you’ve evolved your stance. Prior to your silly argument with xxpilot, you were happy to spouse of on one side of the argument, and completely dismiss the other side (something about “kagoddamnzillion” reinforces my belief). And yet in #20 that’s exactly what you’re complaining that xxpilot is trying to do. Grow up, take your panties off, and learn how to support your point.
Personally, I thought xxpilot did a great service to this board when he said
On to more intelligent conversation…
It completely dismissed what you were saying as irrelevant, and I wish he would have stayed the course. Which is why I didn’t start in until I did…. I thought it was handled very well. This is your bread and butter - stir shit up with statements like “Well that’s not what I read…” and “that not was I was trying to say…” or “that’s not what I meant…” or “what about the children” bullshit - and then run away.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 29, 2008 at 1935 hrs
Jason, spare your tough talk. You’re not half man enough to talk that way to my face, so don’t bother with it here.
As far as my “evolved” stance, I wish you’d point out exactly what you mean. I began with the same thesis as I ended with: the risk/benefit analysis works out against keeping a loaded gun in your home for many—though not all—people. I hardly think this is a radical notion and arguing so vehemently against it, even to the point of getting personal about it, has exposed some here as the gun zealots they must truly be.
Posted by scott on October 29, 2008 at 1941 hrs
btfsc
Thanks for the source and taking the time to post it.
the risk/benefit analysis works out against keeping a loaded gun in your home for many—though not all—people.
No its not scott, and all the documentation has been hand-picked for you in the link btfsc posted. And if you really wanted to have fact instead of your feeling you could read the link. Its what you’ve asked for. now that its provided to you, you ignore that post and bail yourself out argueing with Jason.
Anyway… I know your mind isn’t about to be changed and you don’t want to know the truth, but thats a great link for any objective readers of this thread and thanks again btfsc for posting it.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 29, 2008 at 2128 hrs
As a person who does not like guns and probably will never own one, I would never want to say to someone they can’t own one.
I can think of circusmstances that you would not have a loaded gun around for protection- small inquesitive kids come to mind.
However to say that guns are not needed for protection, especially in urban areas is farfetched as well. Here in Vegas, in the past 2 years at least 10 people who broke into homes and businesses have been killed by homeowners and business people and that is a good thing.
To the best of my knowledge, no one has been killed with a stolen gun, though it is possible.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 29, 2008 at 2256 hrs
Jason, spare your tough talk. You’re not half man enough to talk that way to my face, so don’t bother with it here.
Oh wow, you caught me. I’m so red faced right now. If we (us conservatives here) were all at a bar or friendly place, you wouldn’t say any of the shit to us that you do here, because we would either ignore you or move elsewhere. So why don’t you find some sand to pound?
I agree with you Dan, with children the equation certainly does change. For me, I’d have my firearm locked up, and when that happens, is there even much value in having it at all for protection?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 30, 2008 at 0746 hrs
Scott, you really disgust me… I wasted way to much time in this thread documenting my positions, and then guys like btfsc take the time to provide documentation and even spoon feed the pages that will provide statistics that address your mind-wanderings and now you fall silent.
You’re not interested in knowledge or equitable debate…
You’ve done this before, but this pattern of yours is shameful. You troll around and as soon as the light is shined and you would look like a fool trolling anymore, you disappear.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 30, 2008 at 0957 hrs
go ahead take my guns i will run you over with my 1ton truck what are they going to to ban trucks
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 11, 2008 at 2307 hrs
FWIW Scott, I at least provided some documentation. The problem is that “middle class” has no standard definition. A $200k salary in Manhattan is squarely in the middle class. But in Podunk fly-over country - eh. it’s probably considered wealthy. You can buy drastically more or less with that money depending on where one lives.
Such is the folly of a national income tax in the first place for a country of this size. But that another whole topic altogether.
Posted by David on November 26, 2008 at 1308 hrs
Oops, wrong thread. Ignore my comment.
Posted by David on November 26, 2008 at 1308 hrs
Total Entries: 19654
Total Comments: 129831
Most Recent Entry: 02/10/2012 02:32 pm
Most Recent Comment on: 02/11/2012 04:55 pm
Total Members: 9751
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 103
Total anonymous users: 1
Most Recent Visitor on: 02/11/2012 06:49 pm
The most visitors ever was 538 on 12/01/2007 02:11 pm
Protected and licensed under a Creative Commons License (some rights reserved).