Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

spin

(17,493 posts)
Sat Mar 2, 2013, 07:08 PM Mar 2013

Is the skyrocketing sale of firearms driven by fear or is it simply human nature? ...

Before I start I wish to point out that this post is not arguing for or against currently proposed gun legislation but merely addresses the reasons for the increased sale of firearms. While I am personally opposed to a new Assault Weapons Ban, I feel we can make much needed improvements to our current gun laws and I do support many of the ideas proposed by Obama and gun control groups such as improving the NICS background check system and requiring it for all sales .

Let's imagine that a movement to ban high performance cars gained popularity in our nation. Perhaps an organization named CARV (Citizens Against Racing Vehicles) would be formed.

CARV would legitimately point out that many tragic accidents occur because of excessive speed and that high performance cars are bad for the environment and wastefully consume gasoline.

Next imagine that the mainstream media decides to support CARV and numerous experts appear on news programs to discuss the level of tragic accidents that have occurred because some drivers with V8 Mustangs and Corvettes were exceeding the speed limits. The news media would show clips of NASCAR sprint race cars with 850 hp engines traveling at 200 mph to illustrate how dangerous high performance cars are.

The real goal of CARV is to ban all V8 and V6 engines but the organization realizes that this is impossible unless accomplished in small steps. So they propose a ban on the future sale, transfer and repair of any car with a V8 engine that has certain cosmetic features. For example a V8 engine that is rated at over 150 hp in a car with only two doors, a spoiler or low profile race tires. CARV also suggests that all new cars have a governor installed to limit the top speed to 90 mph which is 5 mph higher than the highest limit in some rural counties of Texas.

CARV would rightfully point out that there is absolutely no reason to for any civilian to own a car that can exceed the highest speed limit by 30 mph. Of course the military, law enforcement and emergency services would be allowed to own fast vehicles as such organizations do have a legitimate reason for performance vehicles.

A rash of truly tragic traffic accidents occurs which involve Mustangs and Corvettes that have over 400 hp. The news media gives each accident 24/7 coverage for seven days. People are greatly disturbed by these accidents with good reason and support grows for CARV.

A law is proposed in Congress that incorporates the suggestions of CARV. Of course the Sports Car Club of American is strongly opposed to the legislation and starts lobbying Congress. This group points out that many people own high performance cars for sporting purposes and that in a true emergency traveling above the speed limit may save lives. It also mentions that many cars contain V8 engines and would still be available and would go just as fast as a car with a V8 engine, two doors and a spoiler. The membership of the Sports Car Club of America doubles overnight.

I would predict that the sale of Corvettes and Mustangs with powerful V8 engines would skyrocket. People who have little reason to own such cars would suddenly decide to buy one while they still had a chance. Accidents involving such cars might also increase as their new owners have little experience with handling extremely powerful cars.

Some bans work and some fail. Much depends on the culture of the nation where they are proposed. The United States has an extremely strong gun culture and I feel that the increase in gun sales is largely due to this fact. Our nation also has a strong distrust of our government unlike many other nations. Many people truly believe that the civilian ownership of firearms is an effective deterrent to the rise of a future tyrannical government.

It is simple human nature to develop an interest in something that is suddenly banned. The consumption of alcohol increased during the Prohibition Era and more people use illegal drugs today than did prior to our War on Drugs.

I personally find the increase in firearms sales disturbing as I feel that many people who lack basic firearm safety training and some who will have severe mental problems in the future are buying weapons that they have little use for merely because they wish to own one before the sale of such weapons is banned.

Both sides of the gun control issue are suggesting that we live in extremely violent times but this is far from true. In fact violent crime and also gun crime is approaching an all time historical low. Perhaps if both sides would simply admit this and the groups that favor gun bans would stop using the word "ban" we might see the number of firearms manufactured and sold to civilians in our nation decreasing.

When I grew up in the 50s and 60s the only people I knew who owned firearms were hunters, target shooters and collectors. The unintended consequence of the gun control movement is has been the skyrocketing sale of firearms we see today. I personally would like to see firearm ownership decrease to the levels that existed in the 50s and 60s. I see no realistic way to accomplish this but I do feel that the suggestion of banning weapons is detrimental to this goal.

I believe that the majority of gun owners wish to see a further decrease in the level of violent crime. They do largely support laws that will help insure that only honest and responsible people own firearms and the enforcement of existing laws.

The goal of my fictional organization I call CARV should be to reduce the number of accidents caused by drivers in high performance cars. I feel its effort to ban certain cars would backfire as badly as the efforts of our current gun control groups to ban certain firearms.

I remember in the late 60s and early 70s that many more drunken drivers were on our roads than are today. Due to the efforts of groups such as MADD (Mothers Against Drunk Driving) we have made headway in addressing this problem but MADD didn't try to ban whiskey but instead worked to improve laws and penalties against those caught driving while intoxicated. While drunken driving is still a problem in our nation, the roads are much safer today.

Perhaps those who favor gun control should learn a lesson from the success of MADD. Our nation would be much better off and see a dramatic drop in gun violence if we merely improved and better enforced existing laws and launched a TV campaign to promote this approach.

















24 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Is the skyrocketing sale of firearms driven by fear or is it simply human nature? ... (Original Post) spin Mar 2013 OP
President Obama: Best gun salesman ever. dkf Mar 2013 #1
It amazes me that in the current economy that so many firearms are selling ... spin Mar 2013 #4
He was showing me the texts he gets from a local gun shop dkf Mar 2013 #9
People failed to utilize their rights for way too long... ileus Mar 2013 #2
This is one right I don't want HockeyMom Mar 2013 #5
I see another motivation: The middle finger... Eleanors38 Mar 2013 #18
Good post, I agree completely with the "Screw You Attitude". MicaelS Mar 2013 #20
Thanks for that 2-edged compliment! Eleanors38 Mar 2013 #21
Can't it be a combination? Bay Boy Mar 2013 #3
I think it is fear HockeyMom Mar 2013 #6
As I pointed out in the OP both sides of the gun control debate ... spin Mar 2013 #12
That would largely depend on what you define as fear. ... spin Mar 2013 #8
I would guess Control-Z Mar 2013 #7
One thing that led me make this post ... spin Mar 2013 #10
There's also no constitutional right to own a vehicle n/t Pullo Mar 2013 #11
They aren't thumbing their nose at slaughtered children. razee Mar 2013 #15
It's economics as a function of human nature. rrneck Mar 2013 #13
The problem is that those unfamiliar with guns do not realize that gun bans ... spin Mar 2013 #24
Fear Comatose Sphagetti Mar 2013 #14
Its fear. They are afraid they won't be able to get them in the future jmg257 Mar 2013 #16
I've learned by living in Florida to be careful of rattlesnakes. ... spin Mar 2013 #17
To Expand on the MADD Example av8r1998 Mar 2013 #19
When Hostess announced they were going out of business kudzu22 Mar 2013 #22
You reminded me of the toilet paper scare of 1973 ... spin Mar 2013 #23
 

dkf

(37,305 posts)
1. President Obama: Best gun salesman ever.
Sat Mar 2, 2013, 07:19 PM
Mar 2013

A friend of mine has been buying gun after gun and is thrilled at the increase in values. It's better than investing in stocks.

spin

(17,493 posts)
4. It amazes me that in the current economy that so many firearms are selling ...
Sat Mar 2, 2013, 07:27 PM
Mar 2013

for such inflated prices.

Realistically few people have good reason to buy many of these firearms. I can see why a person might wish to own an AR-15 or a similar style weapon if they planned to use it for hunting, target shooting or lived in a very rural area where it might be appropriate for self defense.

I would be hesitant to buy one hoping to see the value increase dramatically. The AWB ban is unlikely to pass and the price of such weapons may return to far more reasonable levels in a year or so.

I believe in the "buy low, sell high" approach to investing. Now is probably a bad time to buy an assault weapons as an investment.

 

dkf

(37,305 posts)
9. He was showing me the texts he gets from a local gun shop
Sat Mar 2, 2013, 07:40 PM
Mar 2013

Announcing what is coming in and showing prices of several thousand dollars each...

I was laughing because at the end of the text they mention they are open at 8:30 sharp...like they would be gone lickety split.

He says its not a laugh they've been selling out in 5 minutes.

Next day he tells me it took 3 minutes.

And it's not just the federal laws but local laws.


ileus

(15,396 posts)
2. People failed to utilize their rights for way too long...
Sat Mar 2, 2013, 07:22 PM
Mar 2013

then along comes a threat to what they've always took for granted, and assumed would always be.

Nothing strikes fear into the hearts of people like the government saying "you can't"


 

HockeyMom

(14,337 posts)
5. This is one right I don't want
Sat Mar 2, 2013, 07:28 PM
Mar 2013

My choice. I could care less if the "government said I can't". I have never done anything in my entire 64 years just because "I can".

 

Eleanors38

(18,318 posts)
18. I see another motivation: The middle finger...
Sun Mar 3, 2013, 02:47 AM
Mar 2013

Economics/soeculation; fear of government over-reach; inability to maintain parity in firearms self-defense; some kind of primal reaction -- all of these play a role. But there is something else seen in the long lines at gun shows: A very pointed Screw You to government restrictions, a very visceral eye poke to hateful critics, and a desire to make a pointed counter-point to those wanting to reduce arms access. You want less? We'll buy more. Even if we don't "need" more.

Gun shows are now the theater where gun-owners no longer mind being seen.

In fact they want to be seen.

MicaelS

(8,747 posts)
20. Good post, I agree completely with the "Screw You Attitude".
Sun Mar 3, 2013, 09:28 AM
Mar 2013

That what drives many of the purchases. People are simply not going to to tolerate being told what to do by Prohibitionists, and as a consequence they buy more guns.

I'm going to bookmark your post for future reference, and I may quote you in the future.

spin

(17,493 posts)
12. As I pointed out in the OP both sides of the gun control debate ...
Sat Mar 2, 2013, 08:17 PM
Mar 2013

ignore the fact that violent crime and gun crime is nearing an all time low in our nation.

It's harder to sell large quantities of firearms or to gain strong support for weapon bans if people realize that our nation is not awash in violence.

I will totally agree that the NRA publishes a lot of propaganda. Obama was actually quite fair to gun owners and actually signed pro-gun rights legislation during his first term but the NRA didn't show any thanks for his efforts and continued to portray him in a terrible light in the last Presidential election while supporting Mitt Romney who is hardly a strong supporter of gun rights.

There is in my opinion little honesty in the gun control debate in our nation and both sides are guilty.

spin

(17,493 posts)
8. That would largely depend on what you define as fear. ...
Sat Mar 2, 2013, 07:38 PM
Mar 2013

Some assault weapon buyers probably do fear our current government will turn into a dictatorship or a total breakdown in our society with rampaging gangs terrorizing unprepared citizens. A very few may fear Zombies.

Most are concerned that our government will pass laws that will limit the purchase of assault weapons. Is this actually fear?

I might worry about a double dip recession but do I fear it?

Control-Z

(15,681 posts)
7. I would guess
Sat Mar 2, 2013, 07:33 PM
Mar 2013

that most of the types who feel the need to thumb their nose at slaughtered children don't have the money it would take to do the same over a car. And since a car's main purpose is for transportation/traveling at varying speeds, not to kill living things, the analogy really doesn't work, imo.

spin

(17,493 posts)
10. One thing that led me make this post ...
Sat Mar 2, 2013, 08:06 PM
Mar 2013

was that my son in law was a passenger in a high performance car that was being driven by an idiot who was weaving in and out of freeway traffic at speeds averaging over 95mph with top speeds of up to 140 mph, endangering everybody in his path. The trip they were on was over 250 miles.

My son in law was worried by the experience as he is a professional truck driver and felt the driver was totally lacking the skill necessary to drive at that speed.

After hearing about this incident I thought for a while that it would be a good idea to find a way to limit the speed of a car to no more than 90 mph. Then I realized that proposing such legislation would cause the sales of high performance cars to skyrocket.

I feel the best solution to fools like this driver is better traffic enforcement and stiff penalties and not banning high performance cars or limiting the top speed of a car. The driver had been pulled over in the past but he had merely flashed his TSA badge and was never arrested.

razee

(23 posts)
15. They aren't thumbing their nose at slaughtered children.
Sat Mar 2, 2013, 11:08 PM
Mar 2013

They are thumbing their nose at those that are using the slaughtered children as a window of opportunity to advance their own agenda.

rrneck

(17,671 posts)
13. It's economics as a function of human nature.
Sat Mar 2, 2013, 08:18 PM
Mar 2013

It is a form of hoarding for various reasons. For a few it's fear of the government, for some it's a political statement, and a powerful one at that since they are putting their money where their mouth is. For most it's the desire for profit. They expect certain guns to become scarce because of a ban, so they stock up to resell them.

Anyone familiar with guns knows that banning certain types of guns is an exercise in futility, especially after the last AWB.

spin

(17,493 posts)
24. The problem is that those unfamiliar with guns do not realize that gun bans ...
Sun Mar 3, 2013, 03:34 PM
Mar 2013

are as you say, "an exercise in futility."

jmg257

(11,996 posts)
16. Its fear. They are afraid they won't be able to get them in the future
Sun Mar 3, 2013, 12:18 AM
Mar 2013

So they get them while they can. Even with no need to.

Shows why grandfathering is a bad idea when trying to ban something.

Getting stuck with a few that are suddenly illegal to possess as the value plummits would change the 'get em now' attitude real quick...and help make a bigger difference in whatever it is trying to be accomplished.

Whether it was certain cars or certain guns, stop screwing around - no should mean no.

spin

(17,493 posts)
17. I've learned by living in Florida to be careful of rattlesnakes. ...
Sun Mar 3, 2013, 02:20 AM
Mar 2013

Do not provoke a rattlesnake. Angering a snake will result in one response — you become its target. Remember — a snake is defending itself from attack in such a case and if you poke it with sticks, throw stones at it, kick at it or do silly little jigs around it, you are asking for trouble. And worse still, there may well be a difference in the venom between an angered rattlesnake and one reacting quickly in self-defense — the toxicity may be increased, whereas a surprised rattlesnake may only bite without injecting venom (possible, not certain). Whatever the strength of the venom, an angered rattlesnake will be more likely to keep striking.

Leave the snake alone. Many people are bitten in the process of trying to heroically rid the world of one more bothersome snake. Apart from the snake not being bothersome, the snake is going to bite you to try and defend itself. Live and let live — back off and let it have its space to slither away. And be warned — there is a reason for the saying "as mad as a cut snake" — an injured snake is a very, very dangerous foe.
http://www.wikihow.com/Avoid-a-Rattlesnake-Attack


Now I will agree that if our government ever passed a law to ban and confiscate firearms or even just assault weapons, most honest owners would decide the best approach would be to comply. I would fit into that group as I am far too old and smart to attempt to take on the government.

However a small percentage of gun owners in our nation would decide to resist forcefully. Consider that some of these "patriots" have received extensive military training and have experienced combat because of our nation's recent tendency to engage in warfare at the drop of a hat. Imagine the havoc that 1000 or 5000 terrorists could inflict on our nation and its infrastructure.

Add to this the fact that many police officers in our nation would be unwilling to enforce confiscations and would refuse to aid the federal government and also many of our military would be unwilling to shoot fellow Americans simply because they owned banned firearms.

Instead of decreasing the level of violence in our nation, we might suffer a period of unprecedented and needless violence especially if an effort was made to ban and confiscate all firearms. We might also see some states such as Texas decide to secede from the union.

Recently a former cop went on a revenge killing spree in LA and terrorized California for nine long days and the police knew exactly who he was. Imagine the amount of damage an individual who was not known could cause and then multiply it by perhaps 5000.

In the end the government might win and manage to disarm all civilians or perhaps just eliminate the ownership of all assault weapons, but would it really be worth all the effort and all the problems?

A little known fact is that the level of gun violence and violent crime in our nation is currently approaching an all time low. Why don't we simply improve and better enforce our existing laws? If we do so we might reach the point where gun violence is extremely rare.

In fact ending our failed War on Drugs would probably reduce gun violence far more than imposing another Assault Weapons Ban. Improving our mental health care system could significantly reduce the number of tragic massacres in our nation as many of the recent shooters have waved red flags which were totally ignored prior to their running amok.

But realistically discussing the possibility of a national gun ban and confiscation is a foolish waste of time as it is simply not going to happen anytime in the near future. Most political experts feel the new Assault Weapons Ban is dead in the water. Some states might try to accomplish this but they will likely run afoul of the Supreme Court. I predict we will see major improvements to our NICS background check system such as requirements for the states to input data to the system on a more timely basis. I also see an excellent chance that a background check will be required for the sale of ALL firearms which would effectively close the "Gun Show Loophole."

What I "fear" is that many good Democrats will lose close elections in red states even if they have high ratings from the NRA because some in our party support gun bans and a few wish for gun confiscations. This might happen at the local, state and national levels. This might endanger all the good we have been able to accomplish in the last four years.



 

av8r1998

(265 posts)
19. To Expand on the MADD Example
Sun Mar 3, 2013, 07:53 AM
Mar 2013
I remember in the late 60s and early 70s that many more drunken drivers were on our roads than are today. Due to the efforts of groups such as MADD (Mothers Against Drunk Driving) we have made headway in addressing this problem but MADD didn't try to ban whiskey but instead worked to improve laws and penalties against those caught driving while intoxicated. While drunken driving is still a problem in our nation, the roads are much safer today.


Right, but ...
In it's original form, MADD made great strides in taking existing laws and improving enforcement, punnishment and creating a deterant. Drunk driving used to be a big joke, portrayed in movies and on TV in a comical sense. If you got stopped for DUI the worst that happened was you spent the night in the drunk tank sleeping it off.

MADD helped to make the punnishment more severe, more "inconvenient", and more expensive.

So now, you have both a civil and criminal component of DUI. (The criminal component is rarely charged, the civil penalties are pretty harsh, and easier to prove) Here in CT you immediately lose your license and spend the night in jail. In the best case you attend alcohol treatment classes, get a 90 day license suspension, and it goes on your DMV record for 7 years. You can't rent a care, and you get spanked by your insurance company. DUI since the 80's has been villified culturally, and these measures have worked.

But ....
A number of years ago, there were still some fatal drunk driving accidents.
So they reduced the limit to .08.
Has it worked? I don't know, but I really doubt that people, when drinking are cognizant of whether they are .08 or .1.

But there were more accidents, so now it's zero tolerance for anyone under 21.

But... yes there were still more accidents, so there's an enhancement for DUI with a "child" in the car.

As we keep adding more and more laws, there is a diminishing return, mostly because people who will STILL drive under the influence will do so anyway, and no amount of additional sentencing will change that.

As an analogy, look at NY's "Safe Act"
For decades, posessing a handgun in NYC outside of one's home has been restricted to the priveleged few. Namely retired LE, and Chuck Schumer. (Yes, he is a NYC permit holder)
But there was still gun crime. So they banned the sale of Hi Cap magazines.
But there was still gun crime, so they changed the limit from 10 to 7. They believe this will work because people who commit gun crimes will go turn in their Pre-Ban hi cap magazines. They also say you can HAVE 10 round mags if they were owned before the ban, but you can only load 7 in them. I guess people who commit gun crimes will download 3 rounds, right?

So where's the analogy?
The guy who's going to have 3 drinks and drive is STILL going to have 3 drinks and drive.
And the guy who's going to use a gun to rob a liquor store is STILL going to use a gun to rob a liquor store.

It is the ones who will follow the law that will be affected.
More and more laws have an ever-diminishing impact, and contraband laws never work.
Just look at Prohibition and the war on drugs.

kudzu22

(1,273 posts)
22. When Hostess announced they were going out of business
Sun Mar 3, 2013, 02:45 PM
Mar 2013

everyone raced out to buy Twinkies. Not because they especially wanted an armload of Twinkies, but because they'd never be able to get them again. If there were serious debates about banning blue jeans, everyone would run out and buy 20 pair, and probably in sizes that they haven't yet reached. Impending scarcity drives demand far higher than it would otherwise be. So it is with gun bans.

spin

(17,493 posts)
23. You reminded me of the toilet paper scare of 1973 ...
Sun Mar 3, 2013, 03:31 PM
Mar 2013
The Toilet Paper Shortage of 1973

If anyone can remember, the early 70’s everything was in short supply especially oil. When Americans heard the word shortage, they would jump out and purchase these items since they knew what it was like standing in line to get gasoline for their cars.

Well, whether you believe it or not, there was a toilet paper shortage in the United States in 1973. The entire episode started with a Johnny Carson Tonight Show monologue. On December 19, 1973, the writers for the show had heard earlier the federal government was falling behind in getting bids to supply toilet paper and that it might be possible that in a few months the United States could face a shortage of toilet tissue. They took the words of this Wisconsin congressional representative, Harold Froehlich and decided to add a joke for Carson for the evening show.

Carson did in fact use the joke in a monologue stating, "You know what's disappearing from the supermarket shelves? Toilet paper. There's an acute shortage of toilet paper in the United States."

Much to the amazement of not only the show but of toilet paper factories across America, 20 million people that watched the Carson show that evening ran out in the morning and bought as much toilet paper as they could carry. By noon on December 20, 1973, practically every store in America was out of stock. Many of the stores tried to ration this valuable paper but they could not keep up with the demand no matter what they did.
thelongestlistofthelongeststuffatthelongestdomainnameatlonglast.com/trivia74.html

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Gun Control & RKBA»Is the skyrocketing sale ...