The massive increase in gun sales (and attendant boost to gun manufacturers’ market cap).
Thanks. The internet and political organization have definitely changed, and that’s a plausible explanation for the difference in reaction. I think that we could add increased political polarization to the mix, too. There used to be more moderate voters, who had an opinion somewhere on the gun control/gun right spectrum, but it was either not very important to them or didn’t align with a particular philosophical stance.
I’m not saying that anyone who opposes Obama is racist, or that anyone who disagrees with Hillary is sexist. But there’s certainly a racist/sexist component to the opposition. So, the question is, how large is that component?
And I agree with you that most attempts at weapons bans have been foolish political showmanship unlikely to accomplish any of the stated goals of gun control, but I also think that the prevalence of guns in our society has seriously major net negative effects, and I wish there were a politically tractable way to reduce them. But there doesn’t appear to be. So it goes.
Then I would say that the ability to organize and communicate more effectively with the internet has driven that more than anything. Anyone in the community was already mass buying in the lead up to the 1994 AWB. There was a large market for “pre-ban” stuff. But what there wasn’t was an ability to communicate that to the people that weren’t already part of the gun community.
And really, how did you invest in gun manufacturers in 1994? e-trade wasn’t even a thing (it existed, but not with widespread adoption). There were built in barriers that prevented what is now easy to do.
In my circles (local clubs and statewide organizations) that component is minuscule. A definite case of hating the message regardless of who is delivering it. Whether that holds water nationwide is anyone’s guess.
An example locally: A State Senator had stated that he will be introducing legislation in 2017 to ban the sale and possession of Assault Weapons in the state of Iowa. Naturally, most pro gun folks are against this as not only have there been very few people killed by any rifles or shotguns in this state, there have been no recorded instances where actual AW’s were used. As you can imagine, our groups are ready to fight this the minute that it introduced.
It makes sense that there is significant opposition, correct? Political showmanship and all that? Now I will add to the mix that the state senator is also openly gay. Does that change anything? No. Will we branded homophobic because of our opposition? Count on it.
I believe you that you’d oppose the legislation regardless of the sexuality of the Senator involved.
But it’s also plainly true that there’s quite a lot of overlap between the pro-gun and anti-gay sets of beliefs. So, statistically, you are not a representative sample.
Look, whenever there was a mass shooting and the polls said the majority wanted some kind of gun control, Obama came out for some mild controls. He’s a politician, bowing to the will of the people.
Yes, he’s a politician - no one said he wasn’t. This line of discussion is about objecting to a politician’s politics without being racist. Because objecting to Obama’s push for gun control isn’t racist. Insinuations that it has to do with his melanin is insulting and asinine.
As for prohibited persons - expanding the list to include those on the no fly list, those on the terror watch list, those on rep payee status.
And there’s the proposed and scuttled M855 ammo ban mentioned in post #16.
When exactly did Obama threaten to take everyone’s guns away, and how did that become a common theme among the gun crowd? There isn’t an ounce of truth in it, but it’s been used to justify shopping sprees for guns and ammo. Hence, “Obama is the best gun salesman ever”. Best medical insurance salesman, okay, but he hasn’t done anything to sell more guns.
Discount brokers started to appear during the 1970s. Charles Schwab and others offered automated telephone trades. Also, mutual funds could invest in gun manufacturers.
This is a narrow point, but US capital markets have always been very deep.
When exactly did anyone here say that Obama threatened to take everyone’s guns away and how did thinking that’s what the pro-gun crowd thought become a common theme among the gun control crowd? Strawmanning is fun!
Obama supports more gun control than we have now. He supports banning weapons based on how they look. He supports expanding the list of prohibited persons. When there is a threat of an assault weapon ban, more weapons of that type are purchased. Go figure.
Yes there were ways for non-institutional investors to get into equity markets previously. Are you disputing the point that in 2008 it was much easier for consumers to invest in equities than it was in 1994?
I don’t know that the common theme is that Obama is going to “take everyone’s guns away”. I believe that’s called a straw man, but many gun owners recognize that he very much wants to halt the sale of .223 caliber black rifles and the standard magazines that they use. Is it any surprise that people go out and buy the thing in case Obama succeeds in banning their sale? Hence, “Obama is the gun salesman of the year”.
The post right above yours includes a link to a slideshow with 17 times that Obama has advocated for stricter gun control. To claim “there isn’t an ounce of truth in it” seems obviously wrong. Did you mean something more narrowly-tailored than I read your post to mean?
I agree Esox’s point is basically silly in the extreme terms he used ‘no truth’ and ‘used to justify gun buying sprees’. Who needs an ‘excuse’ to ‘justify’ buying whatever gun/ammo they like? Such buying accelerates when those buyers think their right to buy might be circumscribed further than it has been. That’s a pretty simple and obvious explanation for the market outperformance of gun/ammo maker stocks in recent years.
The acceleration of gun/ammo sales hasn’t been limited though to ‘assault guns’ and ammo they fire, it’s been more general. Clearly a lot of people think there’s some risk of gun control beyond federal ‘assault gun’ ban or restrictions along the lines of ‘no fly’ lists etc. Not all of that comes from Obama, a fair point though again a straw man to say Obama is the reason to begin with. ‘He’s the best gun salesman ever’ is a quip, not really meant to say he’s the sole embodiment of gun control.
Some is fear of tighter state regulations which might be ‘grand fathered’ as such laws often are (and which have occurred in some states, though others have further loosened gun control during the Obama years). And some of it is the general buzz in the left media/internet-sphere where it’s very common to read people proposing comprehensive gun bans. And a president at least generally friendly to gun control is in office, who speaks frequently on the need as he sees it to move in the direction of tighter gun control. A lot of politics is about what direction do you want to move, or else status quo is fine. Nobody can ever predict how far they’ll get to where they really want to go, and also standard for politicians who want to change things a lot (in general Obama is one, it’s again unfair to him to say he’s a status quo guy) not to advertise how far they really want to go.
I meant no legislation, in the sense that no actual laws were enacted.
And it was pretty stupid for everyone to just go nuts and buy up every round they could find each time that Obama made a gun shape with his fingers, or said “Bang” or that there was a shooting, or anything like that.
There had been plenty of attempted (and passed) legislation in earlier administrations, as well as a bunch of heated rhetoric about gun control, but there never was the blind, foolish panic that happened during Obama’s term.
Never in this thread, as far as I know, but I wasn’t replying to anyone in particular, just ruminating on the question in the OP.
Let’s ask gun owners themselves:
Note that they didn’t think Obama just wanted to ban a certain kind of gun, but take away their right to own a gun. Would you agree that 62 percent is more than just straw?
For prime manure-laden straw, take a whiff of this:
From which orifice do you think the writer pulled his “fact”?
I’m well aware that Obama and Hillary have proposed more gun control. I want to know how that gets translated to “Obama/Hillary wants to repeal the Second Amendment/take away the right to own guns”. Not just some guns, and not just advocate more controls, but actually repeal the Second Amendment and not allow any guns. There’s your strawman if you’re looking for one. (See the numbers above in my reply to Bone.)
To reiterate, yes, Obama and Hillary want more controls, but there isn’t an ounce of truth to claims that they’re going to repeal the SA and take away the right to own guns. So my question still stands: When exactly did Obama threaten to take everyone’s guns away, and how did that become a common theme among the gun crowd?