Before MM gets to it, I have to offer a second post for the day.
Local gun dealers quickly are running out of stock of magazines for Colt AR-15s and AK models and many have seen a sharp increase in the sales of those guns.
“Pretty much anything with more than 10 rounds is in high demand right now,” said Michael Martin, a sales representative at Impact Guns in Salt Lake City. “We had one supplier go from 92 assault rifles to 12 in one day. Our suppliers are just frantically scrambling.”
While many avid gun owners now are buying $3,000 worth of guns, accessories and spare parts instead of the more typical $1,000, they aren’t the only ones stocking up, according to Bunten. He has seen a big increase in people wanting to learn how to use the large assault rifles by signing up for classes at the store.
- Salt Lake City Tribune
Hat Tip: American Conservative
The motivation is, of course, expectations that the congressional Dems will ram through, and Obama will sign, a new “assault weapons” ban. If it’s the same as the old one, existing hardware will be grandfathered in, but manufacturing or importing certain new items (such as standard 30-round mags) will be illegal. This, of course, drives up the price. The price for the civilian Colt AR-15 (which now retails around $1500 and has almost never been used in any crime) shot through the roof when the old ban was approaching, as did that of the civilian version of the M-14 — something even less used in crimes.
So I’d imagine that a lot of the gun folks snapping this stuff up are either guys who always wanted a particular rifle and figure they may never get the chance if they don’t buy it now, or guys who intend to stock up on stuff now and then resell it an gunshows at a profit a few years down the line.
Yeah. My girlfriend’s cousin asked me during election night how long she had to buy a gun. I think a lot of people are concerned about sweeping gun control. In all honesty, if I had the money I’d go get one.
Of course. I still found it amusing. I debated putting the humor tag in.
It’s a pro-life thing, dontcha know.
You guys that mock gun culture have a deep disdain for all things uniquely and wonderfullly American….
For one, your inability to get all giddy at the sight of Sarah wielding the metal proves that you are not real American men, but pansy-reared, Obama supporting, fair trade coffee sippers.
LOL! Oh, Jesus have Mercy!
Nuts.
One of my coworkers has gotten caught up in. “I’m just praying that Obama oversteps his bounds and that there’s a backlash,” specifically commenting on a proposed assault weapons ban. I am somewhat sympathetic to the notion that some of the guns banned by the last assault weapons ban, were technically not assault weapons at all, but logic of gun ownership advocates makes me feel more scared than the people who own the weapons.
There should be a flurry of (fraudulent) leaks from Washington that Obama and the Democrats intend to ban refrigerators, American-made cars, big-screen televisions, digital cameras, and other consumer items. Then everybody would rush out to get them before January 20, and the economy would get a big boost even before Obama takes office.
Happy shooting, everyone.
Look, I have no issue with ownership of handguns and suitable hunting rifles. But assault weapons? Why?
I assume the given reason, Policraticus, is so that if the government ever descends into “tyrrany” they can raise a militia. Incidentally, the ones that worry about the “nanny state” already presume this to be the case.
Sometime I wonder if its just a matter of time…
“Assault rifle” is just an inflammatory term, kind of the opposite of a euphemism. It doesn’t mean that people are planning on assaulting anyone with their AR-15s. It’s the civilian equivalent of the M-16 that the military uses. As I recall, they’re very accurate, and target shooting with them is extremely fun.
It’s the civilian equivalent of the M-16 that the military uses. As I recall, they’re very accurate, and target shooting with them is extremely fun.
Understood. Notwithstanding the loaded term (pun intended), it seems to me that justification for owning one is lacking.
Who needs justification? Target shooting is fun. Do you need “justification” to buy a bow and arrow? A set of darts? A basketball? A bowling ball?
Basketablls don’t have the capability of killing people SB
Nuts!
adam, I think S.B. is aware of the ridiculousness of his comment. Of course you’d have to be an absolute nutcase to think that owning the “civilian equivalent of the M-16 that the military uses” does not require justification.
Darts can kill. So can arrows. More to the point, so can automobiles, which kill probably thousands of times more people than so-called “assault rifles.”
Michael I: it’s not ridiculous at all for me to say that peaceful people who buy a gun for target practice or hunting don’t have to answer to you or me or to any other moralistic busybody. You have fun mocking people on the internet; other people have fun in more peaceful and respectable ways.
And yes, I most definitely am saying that most gun owners are morally superior to Michael I (and probably me) in their choice of hobbies. They’re not hurting anybody, not even in words.
it’s not ridiculous at all for me to say that peaceful people who buy a gun for target practice or hunting don’t have to answer to you or me or to any other moralistic busybody.
Like Poli, I don’t have a problem with guns for hunting. I specifically criticized your absurd statement about assault weapons. Once again, TRY STICKING WITH WHAT I’VE ACTUALLY SAID. People DO have to answer to their communities when it comes to owning weapons. Period. Only a nutcase would think otherwise.
For now, the AR-15 is perfectly legal, otherwise people wouldn’t be openly selling them and talking about it to the newspapers. Thus, they do NOT, in fact, have to “answer to their communities,” if that’s supposed to mean anything more than “pay for your guns without writing any hot checks, and then don’t hurt anyone.”
FYI, saying things like “only a nutcase” isn’t rational. It shows that you have strong feelings, but can’t explain why. Calm down, and take a breath before you engage in even more actions that are more harmful than anything done by these peaceful gun owners.
To clarify, I’m sure these people do have to register their guns, or get a permit, or perhaps take a course in gun safety. If that’s all that Michael I. means by “answer to their communities,” then good. But that’s not what the word “justification” typically means, and it’s not what I was contesting. I was contesting what I saw as the assertion that people should be required (how?) to prove that they are “justified” in buying an AR-15 rather than some other model of gun. That’s all.
And I hope that if Democrats revisit the gun control issue, they do so with more gun literacy, i.e., without getting hysterical just because someone used the label “assault,” as if that were a meaningful classification of guns.
S.B. you think like a pro-choicer.
Everybody is pro-choice about something, and that certainly includes you. As long as people are acting peacefully and having a little harmless fun, I’m generally pro-choice, whether they are going target shooting, or roller blading, or bowling, or building a treehouse, or jumping rope, or doing the hula hoop.
So we have a new assisted-suicide law in Washington that we’re supposed to be appalled by. A similar law in Oregon has resulted in 341 assisted suicides in 11 years.
On the other hand, in the United States, there are 18 thousand suicides a year with guns, and 14 thousand homicides. But if you think guns should be regulated, you are a left-wing lunatic.
David,
I agree with you, but how many of those murders are committed by handguns, and how many by assault weapons? The issue here is over the assault weapons ban. We will probably never have real gun control from either party.
I think that the negative reactions many people have towards guns are partly a function of Chekhov’s principle of drama. Chekhov’s widely followed dictum had it that if a gun is seen in Act I of a play it must be fired by Act III. For people who lack personal experience with firearms, therefore, it is probably the case that they have virtually never seen a gun without soon seeing it used to shoot someone (that most such shootings occur in a fictional environment does little to limit the impact of this). To the extent that one does have personal experience with firearms, these sorts of associations and reactions tend to dissipate.
A gun is a tool. Like most tools, it can be used for a variety of purposes, some good, some bad, many indifferent. It is potentially dangerous, but as Stuart notes, so are many other items that don’t arouse the same sorts of visceral reactions in people. Far more people die every year from swimming pools than from guns, for example (and unlike a gun a swimming pool cannot be used to ward off an attacker), yet no one argues that swimming pools ought to be banned.
[Correction: Turns out I was wrong about the swimming pools. More children die in swimming pool related accidents than die from gun related accidents, but the overall number of gun deaths in the U.S. is quite a bit higher than the number of overall swimming deaths. I had misread a statistic as indicating otherwise. Thanks to David Nickol for pointing this out, and my apologies for accidentally deleting his comment in the course of trying to respond to it.]
The desire to possess assault weapons IS NOT a mere drive toward a certain morally neutral leisure; it is also certain evidence of a deeper moral-pychopathology at play.
Mark,
That’s just nonsense. I know several people who either own or would like to own AR-15s and other such weapons. They are ordinary, decent people, and if you met them you would agree. You are slandering people based on ignorance.
Fear and ignorance.
Actually….take away all the movie connotations and a reasonable person living in a crime beset area would be well served to have one in this sense. You are a black elderly man living alone in Newark NJ on Bergen Street near Chadwick and recently 3 men via a fire escape ladder and a roof entrance entered a two story house near you and strangled a man with an ironing cord for the information for where his last money was hidden but he would not tell them so that his granddaughter would inherit it.
If that man had a multi shot gun like an AT9 with 25 shots….he could have shot at three men in the dark and still had room for error and missing. If he had a 6 shot pistol, he can only make three misses…then he is dead in the end….with an AT9, he could have missed 22 times in the dark with people diving and running. 3 misses is probable….22 is not.
the reason the 2nd admendent was put in there was to insure the population had the means to overthrow the government should in the future it become tyranncal like King George’s British Empire (that is why there is also a clause that allows the people to form militias.) Of course the founding fathers never envisioned the US government having tanks and fighter jets.
I know several people who either own or would like to own AR-15s and other such weapons. They are ordinary, decent people, and if you met them you would agree. You are slandering people based on ignorance.
I know people like that too, and yes, many of them are good, decent people. That does not mean they should have the right to own an assault weapon. Good and decent people do not have the right to everything that they want.
The AR-15 is excellent for assaulting deer and the elusive boar. Quiet and accurate. Also, what the mongol said.
[...] Over at Vox Nova there is a discussion about increased gun sales in California. Donald commented over there saying [...]
Michael I: Without using Google, explain the difference between a semi-automatic “assault” rifle and a semi-automatic hunting rifle.
How many crimes are actually committed with an AR-15? I’ve fooled around with my Dad’s a bit, and if it is paradigmatic of an “assault rifle” it seems like a particularly inappropriate weapon for committing a crime. I guess they can be pretty accurate, but if I wanted to commit a crime as a sniper I’d be more likely to use a hunting rifle like a .350 Remington (I bagged a moose with one at 200 yards, in one shot, the only time I’ve ever been hunting). For close and tense work a shotgun is much better, and a handgun when concealment is necessary. Why the obsession with “assault rifles”, which usually reflect what soldiers carry in wartime and aren’t suitable to most criminal contexts?
I don’t have much sympathy for gun libertarianism in general, but there does seem, to my rather apathetic-on-the-subject eyes, to be an ignorance gap: that is, people who are passionate about regulating guns don’t seem to know much about them.
Of course the founding fathers never envisioned the US government having tanks and fighter jets.
Indeed. Air strikes and artillery barrages against duck guns?
My thoughts – I buy the guns I use for hunting from shops that specialize in hunting supplies specifically, because I don’t want to have to steer past a bunch of military-looking hardware (“Like the Special forces use in Iraq!!!”) just to get a good, practical deer rifle or shotgun. (Speaking of which – can you recommend a good turkey gun, SB?)
There is a segment of gun owners who fetishize guns as a sort of power-object; the military attracts lots of these guys, as I recall. Part of this is the way guns are portrayed in the movies and on television – objects of almost magical power, that not only stop an attacker or win a battle, but defeat evil.
I would say the majority of hunters I’m familiar with view the rifle they use as a tool, as Blackadder says; it’s easier to get a buck with a rifle than by throwing rocks at it.
S.B. – Do educate us. Your intimate knowledge of killing tools would enrich us all.
I knew you didn’t know what you were talking about. Go ahead, use Google, and tell me how many crimes are committed with “assault rifles” compared to much more easily concealed handguns.
(By the way: Targets aren’t living things, and target shooting with an MR-15 doesn’t “kill” anything.)
S.B.
Do describe for me the pleasures of your playing with your MR-15.
Help dispell the “fear and ignorance”
S.B. – I am aware of the debate about what an “assault weapon” is. I don’t know the particulars of the debate. I do tend to think that civilians have no need for AK-47s.
But seriously, do educate us. Your intimate knowledge of killing tools would enrich us all. Feel free to provide NRA links, whatever you think would be helpful for us in discerning what types of assault weapons are best for Catholic families.
Shooting an MR-15 at a gun range (hint: at targets) is fun — in the same way that hitting a golf ball towards a little hole is fun, or throwing darts is fun, or throwing a basketball in a hoop is fun. For whatever reason, humans tend to enjoy the challenge of trying to hit a target. You can grouch and mischaracterize that enjoyment all you want (i.e., as involving “killing” or as involving some sort of odd tendency), but you still haven’t shown that there’s anything wrong with it.
Also, Michael, your reference to AK-47s is evidence that you are unfamiliar with the issue, and tends to explain your emotional opposition to “assault” weapons. No one is talking about automatic AK-47s. I’ll admit that while shooting an automatic would be fun, it would also be dangerous enough (especially in the wrong hands) that heavy regulation is needed. But guess what: automatics are already pretty much illegal anyway, right now.
OK, not to sideline the argument going on here, but SB what do you think of natural law? The idea that things have an intended purpose? I find it hard to believe that they sell AR-15′s specifically for target practice? Doesn’t that give you pause, that the design of the machine indicates killing?
But a gun is an artifact., i.e., its form is its man-made functions.. ;)
And we know that AR-15s were designed to function just as much in target practice as in specialized assault/killing..
SB – You’re using the trope about “liberals argue from emotion, while conservatives argue from reason and logic.” Not really a fair or honest way to make an argument, in my view.
Let me jump in here, as someone reasonably knowledgeable about guns.
An AK-47, even a semi-auto legal one, is a military weapon, and as such was designed to kill people. It would not make a good hunting rifle: for deer, it is not accurate enough on longer shots, and the caliber (7mm or so) is too much gun for varmints or bird hunting – you’d get a wanton waste ticket just for using it, I suspect. The high-capacity magazine is suited (and designed) for laying down suppressive fire on enemy positions, and not for follow-up shots on game. (Anyone who needs 30 follow-up shots on a deer needs either a better scope or to have his palsy treated…)
I enjoy target shooting myself. I have a Remington Model 700 in .270 (about $600) that works great for this. AK47s, AR15s and assorted other “Tactical”-style weapons aren’t really accurate enough to test my skills – groups are greater than MOA at standard target distances. Not bragging there – just making the point that if target shooting is your thing, an AK-47 is an odd choice.
Also, Michael, your reference to AK-47s is evidence that you are unfamiliar with the issue, and tends to explain your emotional opposition to “assault” weapons. No one is talking about automatic AK-47s.
Yes, jerk, we ARE talking about AK-47s.
Chill out, dude. Once again, you’re being more sinful than any AR-15 owner in the country right now.
Notice I said “automatic” AK-47s. You know the difference between automatic and semi-automatic? It’s the difference between a spray of bullets, vs. one bullet per trigger pull. I guarantee you, those are not automatics being sold in that video.
I am getting the impression that the anti-assault-rifle folks here dislike these weapons precisely because they were originally designed for military use, not because they are used frequently or even at all in crimes. So the point to banning them is purely ideological/polemical and has nothing to do with actual gun crime.
Lots of pilots fly old warbird airplanes, because they are, well, just awesome. It isn’t my thing, but some folks are really into it, and I can see why. Drug smuggling over the border, though, usually happens in Cessna 206/208 class machines or similar. I get the feeling that some folks would rather see warbird flying banned than see actual drug smuggling problems addressed. The point is symbolic and ideological: they just think it is wrong that anyone could enjoy such combat-derived artifacts, and puritanically want to see their civilian use stamped out, in this case without even the public health benefits of stamping out smoking and drinking (which kill a lot more people than civilian-owned AR-15’s).
Puritanism with respect to the Other makes a wonderful salve for a guilty conscience.
(Lets see if this version of my comment makes it through moderation. Good grief.)
Matt — I’m not accusing all liberals of arguing from emotion; just the few that are here. You, however, make some good points, and it’s refreshing to see a liberal around here make an argument that’s more sophisticated than “nutcase,” “jerk,” or “moral-pychopathology [sic].”
So say the worst of these guys buying semi-automatic AK-47s . . . say that they’re going out to the range because of some Rambo fantasy. I still think that’s a more innocent hobby than sitting around pondering how to write a snarky and sarcastic comment on the Internet.
S.B. is at it again, I see…
SB – Consider what “buying semi-automatic AK-47s . . . going out to the range because of some Rambo fantasy…” might mean about the men who do this, and about the society in which such they were raised, and why that society makes a habit of glorifying war.
Lots of pilots fly old warbird airplanes, because they are, well, just awesome. It isn’t my thing, but some folks are really into it, and I can see why.
I’m guessing they don’t have bombs hanging from them, though.
Consider what “buying semi-automatic AK-47s . . . going out to the range because of some Rambo fantasy…” might mean about the men who do this, and about the society in which such they were raised, and why that society makes a habit of glorifying war.
No doubt the fact that the Rambo movies are so popular says a lot about all these things as well. Few people, however, would suggest that this justifies preventing people from watching Rambo movies.
No doubt the fact that the Rambo movies are so popular says a lot about all these things as well. Few people, however, would suggest that this justifies preventing people from watching Rambo movies.
What does the popularity of the Rambo movies say about our society, Blackadder? Why does our society make a habit of glorifying war?
LIke the basketball thing, that movie can’t actually kill anyone. There’s a difference between seeking out a movie of questionable morality and a weapon that has all the requirements of killing someone, even if they intend to use it for target practice.
I’m guessing they [warbirds] don’t have bombs hanging from them, though.
They seem to be used in actual crimes at about the same frequency that civilian AR-15′s are used in actual crimes. Which is to say, not.
The thing about banning certain types of guns is, what’s the point? The people who would obey such a law are not the ones who would use the weapon to commit mass murders, anyway.
Does anybody believe that mobsters or drug dealers go through the usual process of passing a background check and observing a waiting period at Joe Bob’s Ammo Shack? All their guns are hot hot hot. Pass a ban on AR15s or other assault rifles and the criminals will shrug it off and continue to get their guns the way they get them now: illegally.
Late returning to the game, but just in the interest of presenting facts for a bit of clarity:
I think I can bring a little bit more of a factual angle to things here as I hold a FFL03 license from the Feds. Although I personally collect WW2 era rifles (thus all bolt action except my M1 Garand) I get the dealer catalogs from all the military surplus rifle importers and generally know the military rifle community pretty well.
First off, for anyone not familiar with the “assault weapon” controvery: An assault weapon is a legal category bassically including rifles with certain military characteristics including: semi-automatic fire (all auto fire guns have been illegal in the US since the ’30s, and you can only get one with a special license from the Feds), bayonette mount, flash surpressor, large capacity magazine, and a couple other things. None of these really have any relevance to committing civilian crimes, and as several people have pointed out assault weapons are almost never, ever used in crimes.
There are several different categories of “assualt rifles” and they have different reasons for popularity. The AK-47 (really a whole family of Eastern European and Chinese variants on the Kalashnikov design) is popular for basically three reasons: It’s fairly cheap (I only know wholesale pricing, but the importers generally list them for 350-450), it’s incredibly rugged and easy to take apart and put together again, and the ammunition for it (a .30 calibre bullet with a .233 size charge behind it) is very cheap and plentiful. Thus, someone on a tight budget can afford to go down to the range and go through 300 rounds, while US made hunting and target rounds often cost over $25 for a box of 50. These kind of rifles (and I’d include in this some of the cheap — under $800 — American AR-15 knock offs and other “tactical” weapons) are not terribly accurate, especially beyond 200yds, and a they’re more for the plinker or casual shooter than the serious target shooter.
The other category of “assault weapons” includes rifles like the M-14/M1A, the AR-15/M-16, and a few Western European imports. These rifle are expensive — to get a good one you’ll probably spend over $1000. And they are in fact incredibly accurate. While Matt Talbot is right that his Remington 700 would own any AK shooter, he’s be in for a serious run for his money against the guys who compete in the National Match competitions — at which the categories are for the three US service rifles: M1 Garand, M-14 and AR-15. Ranges for those go out to 1000 yards, and all three rifles (if properly turned and maintained) are very, very accurate out to that distance. Why use those instead of a Remington 700? People enjoy the history attached to the guns, and also keep in mind: many of the military rifle competitions are iron sights only — no scopes. US military rifles have very, very good iron rights, and there is definitely an added challenge in target shooting out to 1000 yards without a scope.
So, that’s pretty much what the interest in them is. And given that there is absolutely no history of these guns being used in crimes and suicides, there’s really no reason to ban them except as a “screw you” to the gun lobby. (Given that gun owners sided with McCain by a decent margin, and generally vote Republican, it’s perhaps not surprising that a combination of ignorance and vindictiveness would lead to that kind of law.)
Zippu said
I am getting the impression that the anti-assault rifle folks here dislike these weapons precisely because they were originally designed for military use, not because they are used frequently or even at all in crimes. So the point to banning them is purely ideological/polemical and has nothing to do with actual gun crime.
No. It has to do with the killing power of such weapons, which exceeds the bounds of legitimate self-defense.
DarwinCatholic said:
“And given that there is absolutely no history of these guns being used in crimes and suicides, there’s really no reason to ban them except as a “screw you” to the gun lobby.”
No history?
From:
http://cbs3.com/topstories/omaha.mall.shooting.2.603308.html
Shooting At Nebraska Mall Leaves 9 Dead
Man Kills At Least 8 Before Turning Gun On Self
CBS News Interactive: Crime Beat
OMAHA, Neb. (CBS News) ― A man opened fire with a rifle at a busy department store Wednesday, killing eight people in an attack that sent holiday shoppers screaming through a mall as others barricaded themselves in dressing rooms.
The young shooter, who left a note predicting, “Now I’ll be famous,” wounded five others, two critically, then took his own life.
Police have not said anything about the motive, if it is in fact known to them. But a family friend says he recently broke up with a girlfriend and got fired, and a source tells CBS News affiliate KMTV that he tried, but failed, to get into the Army.
Witnesses said the gunman sprayed fired down on shoppers from a third-floor balcony of the Von Maur store. Police recovered an SKS assault rifle believed to have been used by the gunman.
Shooting At Nebraska Mall Leaves 9 Dead
Man Kills At Least 8 Before Turning Gun On Self
CBS News Interactive: Crime Beat
OMAHA, Neb. (CBS News) ― A man opened fire with a rifle at a busy department store Wednesday, killing eight people in an attack that sent holiday shoppers screaming through a mall as others barricaded themselves in dressing rooms.
The young shooter, who left a note predicting, “Now I’ll be famous,” wounded five others, two critically, then took his own life.
Police have not said anything about the motive, if it is in fact known to them. But a family friend says he recently broke up with a girlfriend and got fired, and a source tells CBS News affiliate KMTV that he tried, but failed, to get into the Army.
Witnesses said the gunman sprayed fired down on shoppers from a third-floor balcony of the Von Maur store. Police recovered an SKS assault rifle believed to have been used by the gunman.
From:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20781848/
MIAMI – The spray of bullets that killed a police officer and hurt three others this week came from something increasingly common on this city’s streets: a high-powered assault weapon, fast becoming the gun of choice for gang members and violent criminals.
And when the guns, once found solely in the hands of soldiers, are aimed at officers on patrol, there’s little authorities can do to escape.
“It’s almost like we have water pistols going up against these high-powered rifles,” said John Rivera, president of the Dade County Police Benevolent Association. “Our weaponry and our bulletproof vests don’t match up to any of those types of weapons.”
Antonio,
Before believing news reports that say things like “…a high powered assault weapon, fast becoming the gun of choice for gang members…” check the FBI statistics: Although in a few cases a year assault weapons are used in crimes, it is incredibly, incredibly rare. The most used weapons in crimes are the pump shotgun and cheap revolver, usually a .38. Trailing distantly are some of the cheap crap versions of the 9mm semi-automatic pistol. You won’t find a single assault rifle on the FBI’s list of guns most frequently reported as used in crimes throughout the country.
Honestly, though, reading through that Miami story you linked to — there are so many factual errors in there about assault rifles and the laws surrounding them its hard to believe anything in the article.
This bit I found particularly funny: “Police recovered an SKS assault rifle believed to have been used by the gunman.”
An SKS is not an assault rifle.
Furthermore, the SKS was not defined as an “assault weapon” under the 1994-2004 AWB law, nor would have been considered one under the renewal bill introduced this year (which died in committee).
But that’s the yellow press. . . They never let facts get in the way of a good story!