Dude. See this graph? Here is “the top”. This spike here is “over the top”. This here is “WAY over the top”. You’re comment is right about there.
I don’t get it
I know that “gun nuts” exist, but have no real idea how many, what proportion, or even how to define it. I also know that there are some morbid minds out there that might very well do precisely what you suggest. Some. Very few.
I don’t think the government is buying up the bullets either. Anecdotally, I would guess that people are hoarding. How was it overreaction other than because you say it is? Its not like we’ve never had an AWB before.
Are you under the impression that Newtown and the rush to stupid regulations wasn’t a watershed moment for the gun market?
I hear you but its not even close, there has been a shortage of .223 since they lifted the ban and there has been a general ammo shortage of ammunition since before Obama was President. But we never used to have Wal Mart RATIONING ammunition (no more than three boxes per day around here). And thats if there is any ammunition. I haven’t seen .223 or 5.56 or 22lr or 9mm or 40S&W in months.
The difference between pre-Newtown inventories of AR-15s and the post Newtown inventory of AR-15s is not even comparable.
Yes! Speaking as someone who goes to a gun store with some frequency (by range has a commeercial gun store in the front) and buys ammo on a regular basis, there has been a run on guns and ammo since Feinstein opened her trap. The walls of guns stores used to be lined with AR-15s and you might not always be able to get the particular configuration you were looking for but you could always buy a lower receiver and build your own. I would always find SOMETHING to buy on the Wal Mart ammo shelf. After Newtown and the way people were talking after Newtown, the shelves were empty and while the guns have come back, for some reason the ammunition has not (like I said, i suspect hoarding).
Yes, yes, we all hate children and want to see them die.:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
It stopped being paranoia after people started giving speeches about banning guns.
Well, ultimately we’ll never really know how much of the shortage was caused by X, but you’re readily admitting that this was going on for a long time and had many causes (the NRA causing pre-election panic, Obama’s very existence, multiple high-profile shootings using AR-15s), and then saying that one legislator many months later was the primary cause. I’m baffled by your conclusion.
Shortages are a self-fulfilling prophecy; when goods start to get scarce, people hoard up when they find stuff for sale, which makes the goods more scarce, etc. You know this and identified the “run” on ammo. Well, the run started back in July, really took off in November (election), and hit critical mass post-Newton (evidenced by my awesome pit thread from December.) What sparked that thread was a friend of mine who’d bought an AR-15 about a year prior and remarked about how it was suddenly worth a shitload of money. He also lamented that he’d run out of ammo for it.
Current shortages of all kinds of ammo are related to that very same run on .223 that started last summer. People who used to shoot a lot of .223 started buying different kinds of ammo, especially more handgun ammo, since they couldn’t shoot their ARs anymore. People who couldn’t find handgun ammo started buying .22LR in bulk, because they were desperate for anything they could shove into a gun. It’s been absolutely nuts to watch. Amazingly, Feinstein and company don’t want to ban .22LR ammo. In fact, they don’t want to ban any ammo at all.
To recap, we can’t point to any specific reason for the run on ammo in the last 9 months, but we can acknowledge a few things about Diane Feinstein’s involvement. She didn’t introduce her bill until January 24th, 6 or 7 months after people started blogging about the ammo shortage, nearly 3 months after forums started blowing up with people complaining about a lack of .223 ammo, and one month after AR-15 prices shot through the roof. I think this leads to a fairly obvious conclusion: the current ammo shortage has nothing to do with Diane Feinstein, and would have happened even if she’d never existed. She simply introduced a piece of legislation (which failed miserably) at a time when ammo shelves were already empty, and her legislation had nothing to do with banning ammo anyway. It’s completely silly to point to her and say, “Ah hah! She’s the one who retroactively caused all of those ammo buyers to act stupid.”
Area firearms instructor accidentally shoots finger.
I wouldn’t have thought a gun pointed at my own hand as a safe direction, but I’m not a certified gun instructor.
I’m having trouble picturing how it even happened. He was holding the gun and holster in his left hand, pulled the trigger and somehow managed to shoot his index finger on that hand?
I think I need a diagram.
He was holding the holster with his left hand, but pulled trigger with his right hand.
It’s all very wibbly-wobbly timey-wimey. All you need to know is that Diane Feinstein’s very existence is enough to cause fractures in the space-time continuum and conniptions in the gun-toting community. She’s a latter-day Frau Blucher. Watch this:
Me: FEINSTEIN!
NRA member: Whinnnnnny!!!
More NRA-style misinformation. The banning was for specific types that are often used in massacres. It is perfectly alright to ban those.
The type of gun banning that you blanketly refer to implies a total ban on all types of guns. That will never happen. So yeah, you’re paranoid, and you’d like people get shot to death to fuel that paranoia.
Look, Yog, the guy gets on my nerves, too. I can relate. But he would like to see people get shot? OK, see this graph…
Yeah, it wasn’t cool when the other side were claming that gun control advocates were gleeful about massacres because it allowed them to pursue their agenda, and it’s not cool now.
I hope we can at least agree that nobody here is in favor of mass murder.
"Authorities in southern Kentucky say a 2-year-old girl has been accidentally shot and killed by her 5-year-old brother, who was playing with a .22-caliber rifle he received as a gift.
Kentucky State Police said the toddler was shot just after 1 p.m. CDT Tuesday in Cumberland County and was taken to a nearby hospital, where she was later pronounced dead.
Cumberland County Coroner Gary White told the Lexington Herald-Leader that the children’s mother was at home at the time.
White told the newspaper that the boy received the rifle made for youths last year and is used to shooting it. He said the gun was kept in a corner and the family didn’t realize a shell was left inside it."
Does anyone want to defend the giving of a special, child-sized rifle to a 5 year old?
I guess that 5 year old was also a responsible citizen until he,too, became a criminal?
Why is there no lower age limit to gun ownership?
A .22 is inappropriate for a five-year old. They should have started him out with a BB gun.
Gun-nut logic:
Twenty 1st graders are slaughtered (on top of the 1,000’s of other gun deaths in this country) and when people say, “we need to do something about this,” it’s a complete knee-jerk overreaction.
But …
When someone says, “we need to do something about all these gun deaths,” gun-nuts run out and start hoarding ammunition in anticipation of the complete and total gun ban and that’s just common sense … no knee-jerk overreaction there, by golly.
Why? I’m sure they gave him training and taught him the Four Golden Rules.
He was a perfectly responsible gun owner, right up until he was not.
Nicely done. Sadly, Damuri Ajashi is preconvinced that Democrats will do themselves irrevocable harm whenever they mention assault weapons. He is an expert on “political capital” despite being able to define or measure it.
His position will not be swayed by evidence that 1) the Republicans in Congress will oppose any and all gun regulations, 2) that public opinion is on the side of the Democrats/people who favor gun restrictions, 3) that the Congresspeople who voted against the recent regulations are suffering dramatic drops in favorability, or, as you have observed, that 4) gun types are always reacting in panic, regardless of the actual broader discussion going on.
His is a truthiness position. He knows this in his gut. Telling facts to his head won’t help.
But know that I appreciated the effort.
Nitpick: Some Congresspeople (five of them according to the one poll). Still, it refutes the point that just because Congress voted against it, there was insufficient public support for it.
Excellent point. I certainly overstated the matter there! Thanks for the catch.
He may not personally get off on it, but he sees it as a means to an end. More gun deaths means more gun sales, and that means more people stocking up. Good for the NRA, good for the gun lobby, good for manufacturers.
Do you think that if the US were perfectly safe, that there were no violent crimes, that guns would be as prolific? People who are paranoid do not care about others. Hell, take some of the most pro-gun people on this board, I don’t see them sympathizing with victims or police after a massacre, their first response is to say how much gun sales will go up and worry about government crackdowns.
What I’d like to see is this stupid crying about how banning certain types of guns, already rarely used by their admission, constitutes some kind of police-state 2nd Amendment violation. You can still have plenty of guns, just not assault weapons. The 2nd Amendment is perfectly intact
The comparison is wrong. Gun control would stop or reduce such massacres. The reason I’m angry is that the policies denied the citizens of the US would be the ones to save them from Newtown or Aurora. I’m not happy when a massacre happens, I’m relieved it may finally wake America up from its gun nightmare and make us all safer by putting together common sense laws. However, the NRA-types are happy because it fills up their coffers with scared morons buying things that contribute to such horrors. One side (the gun control side) is dedicated to making massacres go away and each one (hopefully) pushes America towards that. The other side uses each massacre to line their pockets. You tell me which is a correct way of responding to such a tragedy
Seriously, the only way a sane human being can respond to a Newtown is to take what actually caused it away from people who would do it. Not to make more Newtowns possible by arming teachers and administrators and janitors and students. Maybe someday we’ll get a sane pro-gun person who realizes that we really don’t fucking need all these types of guns, and certainly don’t need assault weapons at all. Those things have as much place in the hands of civilians as a nuclear bomb or a dog that shoots bees out of its mouth when it barks