Yeah, especially with that “unwitting” qualifier, I don’t find this to be that problematic. As long as I’ve been paying attention to the issue, gun owners have been freaking out about gun control and rushing to buy guns and ammo, and the manufacturers have been capitalizing on that, and it happens whether Democrats pursue gun control or not. Okay, then?
Increasing the number of guns in America an extra 15% in 5 years is worse than failing.
What’s foolish about stocking up on something you want that might become scarce? Particularly if you make said item so so popular that no one dare outlaw it? At the current rate of sale, “assault weapons” will soon be as untouchable as handguns in America. Gun owners voting with their purchases is really turning out to be a clever response.
If the democrat party didn’t pursue gun control the buying would almost certainly go down, but it seems you all just can’t help yourselves.
Why do you think that Democrats pursue gun control legislation?
Anti-succeeding, then, maybe? Regardless of the terms, I think we both agree they’re doing a bad job of it.
Because the point of the argument is predicated on that thing not becoming scarce. You’re pointing out the foolishness of gun control advocates who are failing so spectacularly to enact additional regulation on gun ownership that in fact their efforts are having the opposite effect. If that’s the case, then logically speaking, you’ve just pointed out that there isn’t a risk of scarcity. Quite the opposite. There’s only risk of scarcity if the gun control advocates managed to get their way, which you’ve already shown isn’t happening.
It is entirely dissonant an idea to on one hand go “Haha, look at those people trying to stop me doing what I want, they’re acting foolishly and just drive people to do it more!” and on the other go “There are serious risks that i’ll be stopped doing what I want, and i’d better get lots of it done before I can’t.” You can’t point and laugh at foolish, counteractive behaviour and at the same time act as though it’s cunning, effective behaviour.
If gun control advocates act foolishly - if their effects are to increase gun ownership, not decrease it - then saying “Shit, i’d better by stuff when I can” is not only buying into the scam but massive cognitive dissonance. If gun control advocates deserve scorn for just how badly they’re screwing up their plans, then people who buy guns/ammunition because of a perceived risk of losing the chance are being tricked out of their money.
I imagine reasons differ for different democrats. Primarily I think that they think the world would be better if guns were lessened in number, effectiveness, with an ultimate goal to outlaw them outright.
And why would they think that such a world would be a better place?
That’s a good term.
Maybe super-succeeding is a good term for that.
Not sure what you mean there. What behavior am I both laughing at and calling foolish and cunning/effective at the same time?
Not really, gun laws in America could have gone as they had in England or Australia, but in hind sight they didn’t. I’m not sure freedom advocates have won the war yet, but they won a major victory, which in hind sight appears to be turning out way better than I would have expected a year ago.
The people who bought the guns and ammo wanted it more than they wanted their money, so they bought what they wanted. In doing so it just looks like they won bigger than expected, making the AR15 the most popular rifle in America in the process. Not sure why you think that deserves scorn.
Probably because they don’t read much history and don’t think things through very far, and likely nobody took them shooting so they could see how much fun it is.
I’m not a mind reader though, so maybe you should tell me.
I think “People who want more gun control” is far too large a group to speculate meaningfully on their motivation. I was simply curious what you think.
Most of the people pushing for gun control lately are Republicans, and their motivation is that they want to create a scandal for Obama out of Fast&Furious.
You’re on the one hand pointing out the foolishness of gun control advocates in getting what they desire, that in fact they’re working to cross-purposes. While at the same time, you’re saying that it’s wise to stock up on guns that you might not normally purchase because there’s a risk that you might not be able to in the future due to stricter gun ownership laws. You’re effectively treating gun control advocates as foolish (causing in fact higher gun ownership through their actions rather than lower) and cunning (that there is a good chance they will be successful in increasing gun ownership regulation in the near future).
So, in hindsight, those who bought those guns believing that in the future they’d no longer be able to do so were wrong, no? They were mistaken in that belief.
I’m not saying it deserves scorn. Saying that they wanted those guns and ammo more than their money doesn’t tell the full story, because the point being made originally is that gun control advocates are actually driving people to buy more guns. That is to say, that the threat of future gun regulation drove up those sales. It’s like having a sign at your shop window declaring 50% off - someone who might not have bought originally might well wander in and get something, because they think it’s a limited time offer. But if it turns out that that supposed 50% price off is actually just their regular price, then that’s however much money you wouldn’t have been parted with otherwise. Or if I sell you a gun based on it being a one-of-a-kind relic that’s actually easy to find anywhere. You’re spending money that you wouldn’t normally spend, except for the inducement.
If someone went out and bought a gun, with the understanding that there was a chance that it might be banned or somesuch and that they needed to get one now if ever they were to get one, then they’ve acted foolishly, given that the risk factor isn’t real. So not real, in fact, that those who tried to make it real are deserving of mocking for the total ineptitude of their failure.
Don’t get me wrong, i’m certainly saying that gun control advocates unwittingly pushing up gun ownership is a pretty massive negative result for them. It’s just illogical to say at the same time that “There’s no risk, because our enemies are doing our work for us!” and also “There’s a massive risk, therefore buying now was a wise decision”. So really the people i’d say are most deserving of scorn would be the gun sellers, given how they’re bilking both other parties out of what they want.
OK, what is your motivation?
I don’t have one. I’m not in favor of more gun control.
Again I’m not sure what you mean. Gun control advocates didn’t get what they desired, not this time at least.
If you will want them in the future and their is a risk you might not be able to, then yes, it would be wise to buy now.
Yes, I think gun control advocates are foolish.
Huh? Why would gun control advocates be cunning if they want to get rid of guns and end up increasing ownership?
I think most bought knowing the future was uncertain. That’s not a mistake. Good try though.
Who said their’s no risk? A year ago at this time it looked like there was plenty of risk, but the democrat party overplayed their hand and blew their opportunity, and in the process helped make the focus of their derision (the AR15) one of the most desired guns in America. Such that the “assault weapons” are not so much the low hanging fruit they hope to ban first on their way down the slope towards their ultimate goal.
They were just in the right place at the right time and sold us the exact guns we all wanted to buy. Why does that deserve scorn?
To be clear: my sympathies are entirely on the side of those looking for more gun control, not your “freedom enthusiast” perspective. I just don’t see another gun control bill as meaningfully addressing the situation.
OK, so what’s your motivation?
True, in the current climate another would only put more guns on the street. FWIW I think there are a number of measures that could be done to improve gun safety and lessen access to criminals. But gun control advocates seem more concerned with outlawing guns they don’t like than actually saving lives, so no freedom enthusiasts trust them enough to give and inch, as everything seems to be a wedge in which they hope to use later gain miles.
Right, they were foolish in their attempts.
But as pointed out, there was no risk. There was anti-risk, if anything, because, as you say;
They wouldn’t be! That’s the point - that if one is true, the other isn’t. If gun control advocates are foolish people who set back their cause, then there isn’t a risk.
Why is it not a mistake to buy based on a situation you believed would occur that did not then occur? It’s not just an assumption. These are people who were prepared to put their money where their mouth was - people who not only believed that there was a significant risk, but that the risk was significant enough that it was worthwhile to buy guns now because there was a reasonable chance that they wouldn’t be at some point soon. They were wrong - spectacularly wrong, in fact, given the spectacular failure of gun control advocates.
So there was no risk, was there? That was a misjudgement of the situation and of gun control advocates. It was an incredible misjudgement, in fact, because the exact opposite happened.
Because if you weren’t going to buy absent an inducement, and that inducement didn’t exist, then you were fooled. And more than that, because you were fooled out of your money, if you weren’t going to buy absent that perceived risk. Scamming you out of your money seems worthy of scorn, even if I wouldn’t buy what you were buying.
I mean, do you feel that, in retrospect, it was a wise decision to make purchases based on a situation that not only failed to come about, but failed so incredibly? I mean, if I put £1000 on a terrible football team to win a season, and they not only fail to win but crash and burn in a laughingstock manner, it seems like my judgement of the whole situation must have been incredibly inaccurate. I’d be a poor judge of both the situation and of my own ability to make judgements, given the cash i’ve put down.
To a large extent, the motivation of pro-gun and anti-gun people is the same – they want a nation and world that is freer from the fear of and reality of violence. That’s not the whole of it, but the part where the motivations are the same is what gives room for a great debate.