Gun sales jump following election

[Kar Kar]

Source

Is The Election Causing Gun Sales To Spike?

By Chris Pollone
Reporter
Published: October 28, 2008

HOOVER, Ala-- At The Gun Cellar in Hoover, sales mirror recent nationwide trends-- they’re going up across the board.

“Gun sales have been up double or triple for any given month compared to the year previously,” The Gun Cellar’s Tom Pinion said.

Some national analysts chalk up the rise to fear of a slowing economy and crime that could potentially come with it.

Tom Pinion says that’s possible, but it’s not the reason he’s hearing at his shop.

“I think the most imminently clearly visible reason is the political climate we’re in.”

Specifically, gun enthusiasts fear an Obama presidency.

Medical student Brandon Ryan came in Tuesday night for that very reason.

“Probably with him and with the full Democratic Congress, we’ll probably see lots of weapons restrictions even for people like me who have no criminal record and are able to get a gun permit,” Ryan said.

He wants to buy a semi-automatic rifle which was once illegal under the Clinton Era ban on assault weapons.

On his website, Barack Obama says he supports Americans’ Second Amendment rights, and is against a new tax on guns or ammunition as some have claimed

But Obama believes in “common sense safety measures” which does include reauthorizing the ban on assault weapons.

It’s those gray areas that have people like Brandon Ryan stocking up before it’s too late.

“To get a concealed carry permit, it’s not the easiest thing in the world,” Ryan explained. You have to have a squeaky clean background and those are the people you want to have guns. The laws aren’t going to stop the criminals. The guns are going to be out there.”

Tom Pinion says his shop is already experiencing shortages of some of the more popular gun models.

He expects business to pick up between Election Day and Inauguration Day, if Barack Obama is elected president.

Better git out thar quick before the dingycrats take ma only protection from furinors and other freedom haters!

Personally I'd be happier if there were less guns available to everyone, including those without a criminal record.

[Guardsman Bass]

It's not entirely an unfounded worry on their part (the two buyers cited in the article). If you think that guns should be sold with fewer/little (or no) restrictions, then the last Democratic Presidency wasn't particularly promising; the Brady Bill was passed back in 1993 (before the 1994 elections swept away Democratic dominance in the legislature), then signed by Clinton.

[Count Chocula]

This is a fairly common response to every election.

Given President-Elect Obama's AO (Chicago), however, I have every expectation that he will support every ban, restriction, etc. that is proposed. The Democrats have a long record of sponsoring legislation that restricts ownership and use of firearms, compared to the Republicans.

I predict he will approve any "gun control" legislation that passes the Democrat-controlled House and Senate, regardless of merit. I don't have time right now to compare my prediction to Clinton's record, but as an early guess I wager Chuckie Schumer will sponsor legislation to repeal the so-called AWB repeal, if that makes any sense. To put it into mile perspective, the original AWB made features like bayonet mounts and collapsible stocks on rifles illegal, features that were ironically freely available and legal on firearms sold in Canada!

[Guardsman Bass]

Why bayonet mounts? It's not like it's particularly more dangerous than, say, a long knife.

[Beowulf]

Obama wanting to reinstate a weapons ban that didn't really do anything? Change I can believe in. Yup.

/me starts saving.

[Medic]

Actually such a spike is warranted. I can no longer quote directly from Obama's site, because he pulled all the details from the "Agenda" tab @ http://www.change.gov (it used to pull up a bevy of issues like *Immigration *Energy *Defense, etc) but under *Urban Issues (and not, as you might think a Republican would do with "2nd Amendment" or "Gun Rights") he snuck in:

Address Gun Violence in Cities: As president, Barack Obama would repeal the Tiahrt Amendment, which restricts the ability of local law enforcement to access important gun trace information, and give police officers across the nation the tools they need to solve gun crimes and fight the illegal arms trade. Obama and Biden also favor commonsense measures that respect the Second Amendment rights of gun owners, while keeping guns away from children and from criminals who shouldn't have them. They support closing the gun show loophole and making guns in this country childproof. They also support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent, as such weapons belong on foreign battlefields and not on our streets.

I suppose I'm not like most Americans; when I buy (and did, in fact, 2 Saturdays before the election at a gunshow in Topeka, Kansas) an M16-type rifle from Eagle Arms, it means I can get rounds down-range on my own time to improve my marksmanship. That's a job requirement, even when I'm a medic in the future.

Obviously now as an owner of such an Assault Weapon, I'm not a fan such an idea.

[Count Chocula]

Guardsman, it didn't and still doesn't make any sense at all. I can't recall ANY murders by bayonet in my life . But, I shit you not, a lot of the original criteria for the Democrat AWB were based on appearance. In other words, if it looked "deadly," it was made illegal. Bayonet mounts? Bad. Collapsible stock? BAD. Short barrel? BAAD. Magazine in your pistol holds more than 10 rounds? OHHHH MUY MALO VERRRRYYYY BAAADDDDD. Emphasis on the "Baa." Schumer, by the way, once proposed a 10,000% tax on handgun ammunition. That is not a typo.

[Kar Kar]

Obama wanting to reinstate a weapons ban that didn't really do anything? Change I can believe in. Yup.

/me starts saving.

Short of a magic genie and maybe some pixie dust small measures like the assault rifle ban won't put a scratch in firearm related crimes. The US population is saturated with firearms with an estimated 83 to 96 guns per 100 people as stated in this 2003 U.N. survey.

[Medic]

Why bayonet mounts? It's not like it's particularly more dangerous than, say, a long knife.

Gun laws, when you judge them critically, are all about what looks dangerous, nasty, or fearsome. Glocksman would be more knowledgeable about this than I, but I can remember posts by him, and others, detailing just how inane some gun laws are. They'll ban features which are fearsome and fail to regulate some thing which legitimately make a weapon more dangerous, or capable. At least automatic-firearms bans make enough sense, in the wrong hands they're REALLY nasty. Look at that shootout with body-armored bandits in LA with AK's.

[Guardsman Bass]

What does it mean to "make guns childproof"? That sounds like a requirement for "trigger locks" or the like.

[Beowulf]

Google cache of the page Brungardt referred to

The AWB also banned having a grenade launcher on your evil rifle.

Making guns childproof sounds like code for: guns must be stored disassembled, in a multiple locked cases, with ammunition stored in a locked case separate from the ones the gun is stored in.

[loomer]

Quite frankly, I've never really understood why you Americans get into such a hubbub regarding gun laws. The old Clinton era regulations were actually very similar to the ones here in Aus (like the 10 round mag cap law. We also have a caliber restriction of .32 or under, unless we have special permission for professional sports/film use.)

[Ryan Thunder]

Actually such a spike is warranted. I can no longer quote directly from Obama's site, because he pulled all the details from the "Agenda" tab @ http://www.change.gov (it used to pull up a bevy of issues like *Immigration *Energy *Defense, etc) but under *Urban Issues (and not, as you might think a Republican would do with "2nd Amendment" or "Gun Rights") he snuck in:

Address Gun Violence in Cities: As president, Barack Obama would repeal the Tiahrt Amendment, which restricts the ability of local law enforcement to access important gun trace information, and give police officers across the nation the tools they need to solve gun crimes and fight the illegal arms trade. Obama and Biden also favor commonsense measures that respect the Second Amendment rights of gun owners, while keeping guns away from children and from criminals who shouldn't have them. They support closing the gun show loophole and making guns in this country childproof. They also support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent, as such weapons belong on foreign battlefields and not on our streets.

I suppose I'm not like most Americans; when I buy (and did, in fact, 2 Saturdays before the election at a gunshow in Topeka, Kansas) an M16-type rifle from Eagle Arms, it means I can get rounds down-range on my own time to improve my marksmanship. That's a job requirement, even when I'm a medic in the future.

Obviously now as an owner of such an Assault Weapon, I'm not a fan such an idea.

Why the fuck does anybody outside of the military need to own an -->assault<-- rifle? You can't say it's for self-defence, which is the usual excuse I hear for owning a gun, because it is, by definition, an offensive weapon...

[Nieztchean Uber-Amoeba]

Why the fuck does anybody outside of the military need to own an -->assault<-- rifle? You can't say it's for self-defence, which is the usual excuse I hear for owning a gun, because it is, by definition, an offensive weapon...

Why does anyone need to own replica swords or comic books or bath oils or DVDs? Because some people like collecting that sort of thing, some people think it's cool, some people like going down to the range to pop off a few rounds.

[Beowulf]

Ok, Ryan, define a fucking "Assault Rifle". Here's the usual military definition: a selective fire, magazine fed rifle. Ergo, a machine gun. which is something close to $20,000 to buy on the open market, assuming you can pass a background check for one.

Liberals, like you, like to take names and scary features as to why guns should be banned. Nothing really mechanically distinguishes from

It's all smoke and mirrors to make it look like he's doing something while nothing really happens except piss off law abiding gun owners.

[Duckie]

Wow, now I want a Hello Kitty Assault Rifle. That's a semi-automatic/civilian AR-15, right? So it's not banned under an automatic weapons ban any more than a 9mm pistol would be. Unless there's something horribly wrong with congress's definition of automatic.

[Anguirus]

Wow, it's not every day you see "liberal" used as a pejorative on this site.

Call me a liberal weenie, but I actually don't see the problem with a huge tax on handgun ammo (well, not ethically, I understand why such a proposal is politically not going to go anywhere). How many bullets are traditionally needed to defend one's home? As far as range shooting, perhaps they could offer bullets at the range at a reduced price.

[Count Chocula]

OK unless you're in California....or Washington DC....or Chicago.

Beowulf, your pictures said my 2,000 words. Nice pieces.

BTW, an FN FAL, a .308-caliber, magazine-fed, bayonet lug equipped semi-auto rifle is legal to own in both Canada and the US.

[Kar Kar]

Why does anyone need to own replica swords or comic books or bath oils or DVDs? Because some people like collecting that sort of thing, some people think it's cool, some people like going down to the range to pop off a few rounds.

How many people get killed or commit crimes with replica swords or comic books or bath oils or DVDs? I bet DVDs are a real killer.

I'd try to find statistics on the deaths caused by those things, but I doubt anyone has done a study.

[ray245]

Why does anyone need to own replica swords or comic books or bath oils or DVDs? Because some people like collecting that sort of thing, some people think it's cool, some people like going down to the range to pop off a few rounds.

How many people get killed or commit crimes with replica swords or comic books or bath oils or DVDs? I bet DVDs are a real killer.

I'd try to find statistics on the deaths caused by those things, but I doubt anyone has done a study.

Not to mention, it is harder to kill anyone with a comic book or DVD as compared to a gun. Seriously I have no idea why did the pro-gun crowd use entertainment as a reason to defend themselves. If that's the argument, then people should be able to defend themselves for killing people because the core reasoning and arguments is the same.

There is a lot of things we would love to do, however, when certain entertainment is a huge harm and risk towards the public, it should not be tolerated.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I thought that the purpose of a gun is to kill someone? The primary purpose of a weapon is to be a weapon? If you like to shoot something that much, why can't you use a BB gun or even a airsoft gun instead?

Why can't you go to the arcade and simulate shooting for all you want? Why do you want to shoot something that can EASILY kill someone?

[Beowulf]

Wow, now I want a Hello Kitty Assault Rifle. That's a semi-automatic/civilian AR-15, right? So it's not banned under an automatic weapons ban any more than a 9mm pistol would be. Unless there's something horribly wrong with congress's definition of automatic.

It's not Congress's definition of automatic, but their definition of "Assault Rifle", which is basically a bunch of features someone found scary, so they banned having more than two of the features on a gun. One of the features was "detachable magazine". Another was "pistol grip stock".

The worst thing about the AWB? Only an idiot would try to commit a crime with a long gun. It's not as if you can just casually walk around with one concealed in your pants.

As for rounds: the number of rounds you need to defend yourself is typically just a handful. However, actually being a good shot requires practice for most people. Typically a hundred rounds a month, at least. I've probably shot over ten thousand rounds myself, and I still think I could improve.

[Medic]

Why the fuck does anybody outside of the military need to own an -->assault<-- rifle? You can't say it's for self-defence, which is the usual excuse I hear for owning a gun, because it is, by definition, an offensive weapon...

An odd question, considering anything chambered above your bog-standard "assault rifle" will kill, probably, better than ... an assault rifle! Why? Because they're all chambered in intermediate cartridges, by definition smaller in caliber and shorter in range than typical rifles back-in-the-day, they were meant to replace, like the Mosin-Nagant (AK's predecessor) and the M1 / M14 Garand, the M15's predecessor. Because of their lesser weight, superior ergonomics and a smaller caliber, you can shoot more and faster with assault rifles than your average WWII rifle, but when we're talking private ownership and the possibility of committing crimes with these weapons, we're invariably talking about armed versus unarmed completely. Consequently, associating them with the battlefield-characteristics as the sole reason for regulation seems a tenuous claim, at best.

So-called Saturday-night specials and sawed-off shotguns are a greater risk than any assault rifle because of their concealability and punch and suitability to criminal activity. As are silencers. Guess what's illegal in so many states consequently? On the other hand, Saturday-night specials are also the ideal concealed-carry self-defense weapons, so small, cheap handguns always fall in a legally ambiguous state.

As for ownership, the very qualities that distinguish assault rifles from sort've "old guard" service rifles like a Garand make them simply funner to use recreationally use. Mosin-Nagant's hurt. Private citizens seem perfectly happy with circumscribing their evil black rifles to semi-automatic capability only, beyond that, regulation aimed at these weapons is an easy way to look like you're making some principled stand when you're not, really. You'll find more assault rifles at ranges and backwoods private ranges than the ghetto. If for no other reason than ardent collectors collect them in bunches, skewering ownership rates greatly in favor of those not likely to commit crimes with them.

[Coyote]

It's funny how, usually, people who don't know much (or anything) about guns, or have little experience with them, are usually trying to tell me what guns are best for whatever scenario I may see fit.

How about... I own one because I want to, and I am not causing harm to anyone else. I don't have to justify my ownership to you, you have to find reasons why it's detrimental to society at large. If some other guy goes out and commits crimes with a gun, well, I say go and get that guy. But don't come knocking on my door and tell me that I am responsible, or that I did something to make it happen. If you want to start cracking down on people because they look like a guy that did something wrong, we're going to have a whole lot of prisons being built.

"Guns are designed to kill..." Maybe, but I don't have to use them for just that purpose. I can also use them for target shooting, collecting, and because I enjoy the hobby. In fact, I've had guns for years and years and I've never killed anyone. Cars, alcohol... those aren't even "designed to kill" but they have a far, far higher body count-- but we don't lock up everyone with a driver's liscence when there's a road-rage incident. If someone gets drunk, drives home, and kills someone, we lock that bastard up and punish him. I'll be right there to help you if another bastard attacks someone with a gun.

[ray245]

It's funny how, usually, people who don't know much (or anything) about guns, or have little experience with them, are usually trying to tell me what guns are best for whatever scenario I may see fit.

How about... I own one because I want to, and I am not causing harm to anyone else. I don't have to justify my ownership to you, you have to find reasons why it's detrimental to society at large. If some other guy goes out and commits crimes with a gun, well, I say go and get that guy. But don't come knocking on my door and tell me that I am responsible, or that I did something to make it happen. If you want to start cracking down on people because they look like a guy that did something wrong, we're going to have a whole lot of prisons being built.

"Guns are designed to kill..." Maybe, but I don't have to use them for just that purpose. I can also use them for target shooting, collecting, and because I enjoy the hobby. In fact, I've had guns for years and years and I've never killed anyone. Cars, alcohol... those aren't even "designed to kill" but they have a far, far higher body count-- but we don't lock up everyone with a driver's liscence when there's a road-rage incident. If someone gets drunk, drives home, and kills someone, we lock that bastard up and punish him. I'll be right there to help you if another bastard attacks someone with a gun.

Why can't you use a airsoft gun instead? Why can't you use them for target shooting? I have used a assault rifle in my military cadet days, and I do enjoy it.

Just because other people do it is no justifcation for owning a gun in my opinion. I mean, by that defination, we should allow people to carry guns onto the airplane instead, simply due to the fact I know I will not use the gun and attack others on the plane, and I am not responsible for the action of others.

By the way, I am against private ownership of cars, and consumption of Alcohol as well.

[Ender]

Google cache of the page Brungardt referred to

The AWB also banned having a grenade launcher on your evil rifle.

Look man, I'm a big fan of guns and shooting, but honestly what the hell do you need a grenade launcher for? That goes beyond any reasonable standard I can think of. I'd sooner get behind selling automatic weapons then I would a freaking grenade launcher.

Making guns childproof sounds like code for: guns must be stored disassembled, in a multiple locked cases, with ammunition stored in a locked case separate from the ones the gun is stored in.

I was under the impression was it was the requirement that all guns be sold with trigger locks. That's an objection I never understood - no one is saying your gun must be locked at all time, just that when you buy a gun it must come with it. In that regards it is less stringent then seat belts. And it is going to tack on what, $20 at most to a product that is already a few hundred dollars? Why the objection to that regulation?