For Og’s sake, man, you’re not even close. He wants to ban a few guns, but he has never even hinted at taking away all guns, or taking away the right to own guns, or repealing the SA, or stealing puppies from little kids. What is so hard to understand about that?
What do you call pusing an assault weapon ban? The gymnastics required to draw your conclusion could win you gild - are you at Rio pet chance?
How about “pursuing (pushing?) an assault weapon ban” ? It’s a tad distinct from “continually talking of banning guns”, unless you’re so hypersensitive on the issue that any talk of regulation is equivalent to calling for bans.
Or if you happen to believe that “assault weapon” = “gun”, which I don’t. I actually prefer anyone using the term to supply their definition.
Well, that was less artful, but not completely unartful.
Sorry, you must have missed the other thread where it was argued that if someone only wants to ban some guns, that doesn’t mean they want to ban guns. That sort of logic is what I was referring to and what you seem to insinuate. As long as he isn’t looking to ban everything, at least he’s not looking to take everything. Right?
Here’s the deal, he and she both support banning firearms based upon cosmetic features. Firearms used in less than one percent of all homicides and less than knives and blunt instruments annually. That makes them both bad for gun owners. Anyone who supports such a ban does not do so from a logical perspective. Instead they are looking to score cheap points with their base.
If they were really serious about curtailing firearm violence, and I mean for reals, they would introduce legislation to ban handguns. They are the source of the overwhelming majority of firearm deaths. Yet they don’t do that. I Wonder why?
Well, those typos are embarrassing. That’s what I get for replying from my phone.
Are you saying talking about an assault weapon ban isn’t talking of banning guns? I see it as definitional. It may not fit the narrative you prefer but the reality is it is accurate to say that pushing assault weapon bans is pushing to ban guns. Not all guns, but guns. *He doesn’t want to cut off all your fingers, just some of them! *
It’s shorthand, and the term that is used in the law. If you don’t it, take it up with the legislature. Until then, it’s an accurate descriptor because the law defines what it is.
Let me get this straight - you think that the idea of the Obama administration trying to increase existing gun control leading to people believing they are more likely to increase gun control in the future is unreasonable? Keep in mind, CA just passed a law to confiscate many of the magazines I own.
Realistically - I don’t think Obama would push to do a nationwide confiscation of everyone’s guns everywhere. So what? That’s on one end of the spectrum of gun control. There are lots of terrible outcomes well before that end of the spectrum arrives. Just because folks who support gun control aren’t openly supporting something that is super awful, doesn’t mean that they get a pass when they support something that is less awful.
It’s one of those dog whistles I hear tell about. Just like when Republicans say ‘I oppose him based on policy issues’ they really mean ‘I hate that n*gger’. In the same way, when Obama says he supports the right of individuals to keep and bear arms, he is really saying that he will nominate justices for the Supreme Court who oppose the right of individuals to keep and bear arms.
It means different things to different audiences.
Regards,
Shodan
If that’s true, you’re defining “gun” and “assault weapon” identically, which I don’t agree with and, frankly, I was under the impression gun-rights proponents tended to sneer at low-information gun-control advocates who think “assault weapon” is a meaningful term.
Well, at least you acknowledge the distinction when convenient. But seriously… “fingers” ? If you’re going to use hyperbole, I suggest you find someone more easily impressed by it.
No, that’s not what I think. It’s also not at the “banning guns” level, let alone the “continual talking” about same.
Well, some of us like to talk about the realistic aspects of the issue and leave the rhetoric to others.
Well, we’ll end up disagreeing on what “awful” means, but it’s an arbitrary line anyway, so no big deal.
Personally, I think the Americans will have to undergo a generational change, maybe two, before any significant changes are made on the issue. Legalizing drugs would probably be a better start than trying to define and restrict some arbitrary type of firearm.
Assault weapons are a subset under the umbrella of guns. Do you disagree? They are not identical, but in the Venn Diagram that contains both guns and assault weapons, the circle that is assault weapons would be completely contained within the circle that is guns.
And really, I wouldn’t sneer at anyone who doesn’t understand proper terminology. I’m glad to explain the detail and nuance to anyone who is interested. The only ones that I would sneer at are those that would purposely use inaccurate language to obfuscate real issues or in an attempt to confuse people into supporting something that they may not otherwise support. For example, when bullets are labeled as “cop killer bullets” I would sneer. Using the term “assault weapon” because that is what is codified into law and has a specific definition is entirely appropriate.
And yes, let’s legalize drugs. I’m all for it.
Yes, and all dogs are mammals but not all mammals are dogs, so if someone describes restrictions on dogs, it’s not appropriate to say they want to ban mammals.
As far as I can tell, you just described your own behaviour.
I have no problem with using the (admittedly arbitrary) term when appropriate. Jumping from that to “guns”… isn’t.
Those reasons hardly lead to the conclusion that you want them to:
“Hillary/Obama support bans based only on cosmetic features, and only on guns involved in less than one percent of homocides, and do it only to score cheap political points; therefore, they want to ban all guns.”
“They never ban handguns; therefore, they’re trying to ban all guns.”
Care to explain?
It’s reasonable to think it’s possible. It’s not reasonable to assume it’s an automatic done deal. That’s paranoid.
It’s also reasonable to think that if the first controls work, there’ll be no political will or reason to enact further controls. You don’t seem willing to entertain that possibility even though that’s how things usually work. Speed limits didn’t lead to the banning of all cars.
That’s outside the boundaries of “Obama’s taking all our guns OMG!!”, but you don’t get a pass either for predicting doom and gloom when there’s nothing to suggest it.
No one, not even Obama, believes an AWB would have much of an effect on the homicide rate or gun crimes in America.
I think we need to reset. I never said they want to ban all guns. If I led you to believe that is what I thought, then my bad on that. Clinton and Obama have made it clear what they feel needs to be banned regardless of their use in criminal activity. My point is that is politics, not problem solving and getting back to the OP, not good for the gun owner.
JXJohns, I was expecting you to respond to my point. Does this other stuff have something to do with it?
I suspect it would have an effect on spree killings, but that’s another topic. Even if your comment is true, how do people get “he’s gonna take away all our guns” from that?
I don’t think people generally are getting “he’s gonna take away ALL our guns” from that. I think it’s a straw man argument that you and others have made up. I believe that most RKBA folks believe BHO and HRC want to ban the purchase of some guns.
Sorry, I’ll try again.
“They never ban handguns; therefore, they’re trying to ban all guns.”
I never said that nor do I believe it.
“Hillary/Obama support bans based only on cosmetic features, and only on guns involved in less than one percent of homocides, and do it only to score cheap political points; therefore, they want to ban all guns.”
I never said that nor is it accurate.The last part anyway…
So now what?
I am saying that it was easy for a small investor to invest in gun manufacturers in 1994, per your original claim. Furthermore, the changes in transactions costs and barriers from 1994-2008 were essentially trivial relative to the effort involved in stock picking. That’s for the small investor.
All of this is mostly irrelevant though. In common with many stocks, eg Smith and Wesson is mostly owned by institutions. 72%: https://www.google.com/finance?q=NASDAQ%3ASWHC&ei=BleuV6GWA4WPigLq3b-4CQ
I’d allege that the fundamentals of the gun business (its profitability and perceived future profitability) affected market caps far more than etrade. I see that Smith & Wesson’s PE is below the S&P average (17.6 v 25.3) That doesn’t seem like a stock that is benefiting from a rush of suckers. Gun sales drove gun profits drove market cap. That said, I see that S&W has done amazingly well since late 2011. Huh.
All of this is pretty tangential though.
Yes, ownership of stock in the US has shifted heavily from individuals to institutions (including all types of mutual funds and ETF’s) over the last several decades. So the original comment was some combination of irrelevant or the wrong way around. There’s no reason to believe any significant stock moves over the long term because of the way individuals feel about it if institutions disagree. But to the extent that might be true for even limited periods, it’s more likely to be true the further back you go, because individuals used to be bigger direct holders of stocks in general than they are now. If the original point was just about the ease of individuals making a profit concentrating in gun/ammo stocks, yes that was as you say marginally more difficult and expensive in '94 than '08, but I don’t see what that has to do with anything actually.
The stocks have exploded upward because investors as a whole have concluded that their business prospects have semi-permanently improved in an environment where the Democrats once again talk actively about wanting increased national gun control. This in contrast to the period after the Democrats got burned in the Congressional elections following the original ‘assault gun’ ban, where they basically stopped talking about gun control, for the rest of Clinton’s term and in the Bush years (during which they were pretty quiet when that ban expired).
Again as to why potential gun buyers increase or accelerate their purchases, it’s quite ridiculous to say this is baseless just because Obama doesn’t spell out a desire for comprehensive restrictions beyond an ‘assault gun’ ban. The fact that the Democrats push for AGB is a very straightforward reason to buy one of those now if you think you’ll ever want one. And though the specifics beyond that are murky, it’s again highly common now to see references in the left media/net sphere praising the UK etc approach to guns. Many on the left would like to see something similar in the US, that’s no paranoid fantasy of ‘gun clingers’, even if it’s unlikely to be politically feasible in the foreseeable future. But again, if it’s buying stuff you might want to buy eventually anyway, why not buy it sooner if gun control is being debated, again relative to the late Clinton/Bush years when it had seemed to have virtually disappeared as a topic?
I’m talking about the belief that Obama wants to take away all your guns and wipe out the Second Amendment. If you personally don’t believe that, good for you, but I don’t see what Obama’s supposed political motivations or the failure to ban handguns has to do with that belief.