The PROFITS, My Dear! Gun Makers Cash IN!!!

The BBQ Pit
1

Among the other sad ‘achievements’ of the murderous Dallas sniper–chiefly taking five innocent lives, of course, but also putting an abrupt end to conversations about black-men/law-enforcement-officer interactions, and possibly to the Black Lives Matter movement itself–among these other results of his brutal and homicidal choices, is his signal work in guaranteeing RECORD profits for firearm manufacturers.

There’s no sound sweeter to the ears of the gun industry than those wonderful, wonderful words relayed by Dallas Police Chief David Brown:

“He said he wanted to kill white people.”

If anyone thinks this statement, and the actions that preceded it, won’t lead to record profits for the makers of firearms and ammo, then they aren’t thinking. We’ve been on an upward trend for profits for quite a while, as the excellent graphics in this bloomberg.com article show; it begins with the Orlando mass shooting’s aftermath:

http://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2016-gun-sales/

The article goes on to show historical trends. The pattern is clear: for the gun makers, business is FABULOUS!!!
Watching these violent episodes night after night–America’s love affair with death by gun–one can’t help but think of the costs. Chief among those costs are the tragedies of lives cut short, and for the wounded and survivors, for lives blasted and warped by their close encounters with the Almighty Firearm.

But there are more mundane costs associated with these events, too. Costs of policing, of medical care, of compensating for lost wages.

My question is: why are these manufacturers being allowed to rack up such stupendous profits from a product which imposes such massive costs on society? The federal (and some state) governments do impose some excise taxes on guns and ammo–but why at so relatively paltry a level? (No matter how high it is, it’s not high enough.)

Shouldn’t the manufacture of firearms and ammunition be a bit less profitable? Shouldn’t the taxes on the industry be high enough to compensate taxpayers for the burden we now bear, in paying for the impact guns have on our communities? Shouldn’t the makers have to bear more of that burden?

2

I suspect sales are inflated by transactions with repeat customers, like this guy:

The number of households with firearms is at an all-time low.

3

I know a strongly anti-gun bloke who has invested significantly in gun-makers’ stocks. Smart move; he’s making money.

(“A real killing.”)

4

There was a dip in 2015 (note that the statistics in your source are more than a year old). If you look at the updated (as of 7 July 2016) statistics in the Bloomberg.com article, you’ll see quite an uptick, right after the low point ballyhooed in your source. This could be inadvertent, or it could be a case of selectively grabbing data from a point in time that allows the argument ‘gun ownership is down’. A look at the full data set tells a different story.

5

And it’s going to be a long, hot summer. A safe bet: Lots of exciting incidents will spark gun sales!!!

6

OP is an idiot. Excise taxes would just be added to the price of the product and would be borne by the consumer. Resulting profits of the arms manufacturers would not change. Since that OP seems so intent of penalizing the manufacturers, try again and do some research on your own before bringing lame rants to the pit again.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

7

Speaking of idiots, a question for you: if manufacturers could increase the price to consumers, why aren’t they doing that now? Why wait for an excise tax?

8

Yes. The poster may not be aware of the concept of “demand” (specifically, price elasticity of demand). The terminology may not matter to non-economists, but the basic concepts are useful to everyone, including idiots.

9

Their primary customers are already spending every dollar they can on their products. Raise prices and unit volume goes down, as customers will have to start thinking more carefully about exactly what they “need” to buy, and why. Can’t let that habit get started.

10

This makes zero sense. Unless you’re saying that everyone that buys guns already buys everything they want. Which also makes zero sense.

11

Making sense has very little to do with the gun-buying instinct.

12

From Evan Osnos’s “Making a Killing” article in The New Yorker (June 27) -

“‘You know that every time…there’s a shooting somewhere, sales spike like crazy,’ Paul Jannuzzo, a former chief of American operations for Glock, the Austrian gun company, told me.”

“After the attack in Orlando, shares of Smith of and Wesson rose 9.8% before the market opened the next day.”

13

Is this a “I want a pony” type rant? Or is is a serious question?

There is no general principle of law that allows the government to cap profits being made by a particular business.

That’s why.

14

“Jeffrey A. Lash, of Pacific Palisades, California, died last summer of natural causes, but left behind a stockpile of more than 1,500 guns, 6.5 tons of ammunition and nearly $250,000 in cash.”

-Too funny Fear Itself. 6.5 tons of ammunition. I guess you really can’t take it with you. What a rodeo clown. I wonder if he was a big fan of this turtle turd.

15

Oh, you don’t know the half of it:

16

What I’m really wondering about is the quarter-mil in cash. Did he think that, after a massive societal breakdown, his paper money was going to be worth anything? Or gold, if that was how he had it?

'Don’t kill me, man-with-bigger-gun-than-me! Here’s a pound of gold!"

“I don’t need a dental filling. Give me that can of beans. I’ll hold onto that until the next guy with a bigger gun comes along and takes it away.”

17

I want to know what he thought he was going to do with 1500 guns. You could arm a small town. And honestly, if I’m that paranoid, I doubt I’d want to go handing my guns out. Basically just paints a big target on your back.

18

Actually, the phrases that really drive runs on gun shops are on the order of:

“Let’s tax the gun makers out of existence!”
“Ban sales of ammunition!”
“It’s time to override the Second Amendment and prohibit gun sales”

Same principle as cleaning out supermarket shelves on the report of a major storm approaching the area. Not very logical, but there it is.

19

Yes, you need to buy an AR-15 to keep Obama from taking it away.

:rolleyes:

There were obviously serious mental health issues there. But not enough to keep him from being a “responsible, law-abiding citizen” entitled to his rights.

20

Yeah, right? Even if I could afford it, I would never buy myself 1500 saxophones. Or 1500 poodles.