What Stimulated the Gun and Ammo Market?

[HAL 9000 96]

Gun seizures from actual busts. Its clear-headed logic that if there is no more manufacture, then there is pretty much a decreasing supply available for criminals to replenish confiscated inventory. And then every time a gun/drug bust happens... that's even less.

so remind us again, why does mexico have a firearms problem?

Because the Cartels are busy buying them here in 48 of 50 states.

decreased supply ... increased prices LEOs pay more for supply too.

there were a lot of pistols in the pictures. Also std shotguns with cosmetic features and have no mechanical operational differences than one used for hunting/target.

these are staged photos? heck ... could they even close the trunk and put all the firearms inside the car ... and still have room for the driver?

Come one Natty. Use that common sense. Law enforcement doesn't have to be subject to the same market pressure civilian customers are subject to. Just as the manufacture and purchase of a weapon can be banned, so can the sale of a weapon be designed and sold to law enforcement. If LE doesn't like it, they can move on to another supplier. I mean... when you have your customer base controlled, a manufacturer will sell at the lowest possible price to stay in business. Economics 101.

[britty 1]

No 9mm ammo to be had anywhere either. If you can find it, its 30% more expensive than it was last week. Thanks O'Barmy !!

[*Robert* 2]

Guns are great,

Guns are good,

Let me take one to the Hood!

Click

Click

Boom!!!

[HAL 9000 96]

Gun seizures from actual busts. Its clear-headed logic that if there is no more manufacture, then there is pretty much a decreasing supply available for criminals to replenish confiscated inventory. And then every time a gun/drug bust happens... that's even less.

so remind us again, why does mexico have a firearms problem?

Because the Cartels are busy buying them here in 48 of 50 states.

apparently you're not seeing how your first post is rendered null and void

Like I said- the cartels are here in the US buying inventory to send to México. Not that hard to comprehend is it?

Funny that my 'first post' in this thread states

Its the same BS. Ban them now, that means less future inventory problems. Law enforcement can then divert its attention to combating criminals without worrying about them resupplying themselves.

I guess that logistical part skipped a few here.

Which means that IF we band them now, THEN, law enforcement can have an easier time at seizing a resulting shrinking inventory. Surely you can understand that right?

Since México HAS a problem NOW, and its illegal to have such weapons THERE... then all they have to do is buy them HERE. Which is what they do.

[natty bumppo 297]

Gun seizures from actual busts. Its clear-headed logic that if there is no more manufacture, then there is pretty much a decreasing supply available for criminals to replenish confiscated inventory. And then every time a gun/drug bust happens... that's even less.

so remind us again, why does mexico have a firearms problem?

Because the Cartels are busy buying them here in 48 of 50 states.

decreased supply ... increased prices LEOs pay more for supply too.

there were a lot of pistols in the pictures. Also std shotguns with cosmetic features and have no mechanical operational differences than one used for hunting/target.

these are staged photos? heck ... could they even close the trunk and put all the firearms inside the car ... and still have room for the driver?

Come one Natty. Use that common sense. Law enforcement doesn't have to be subject to the same market pressure civilian customers are subject to. Just as the manufacture and purchase of a weapon can be banned, so can the sale of a weapon be designed and sold to law enforcement. If LE doesn't like it, they can move on to another supplier. I mean... when you have your customer base controlled, a manufacturer will sell at the lowest possible price to stay in business. Economics 101.

no acceptable profit margin ... no manufacture of the product. after what company wants to make a product at a loss (unless it's a loss leader).

[Danno 1,228]

It would be interesting to see how many of these "assault weapons" were being sold a year ago as to how many are flying out the door now.

Obama is a gun dealers best friend at this point.

Only if you assume that people who didn't vote for Obama have now rejected democracy in favour of militia action. That whole line of thinking is a bit like 'end of the world' predictions. I have a few conspiracy theories I can throw you as well, if you like that kind of thing.

In other words Danno, Obama can't be made the scapegoat, it doesn't make sense.

Wow MC your fertile imagination is in conspiracy overdrive. (again)

My only point is; People who had no reason to buy a so-called Assault weapon, are now lining up to do so before the window closes. (and their are plenty of Obama voters in there to.. I bet)

If there were no fear of a ban, millions would not have been sold.

One could logically say Obamas position of guns might actually put more guns on the street than Bushs...... it would be interesting to see the numbers anyway.

*Liberals and their unintended consequences.

[HAL 9000 96]

Gun seizures from actual busts. Its clear-headed logic that if there is no more manufacture, then there is pretty much a decreasing supply available for criminals to replenish confiscated inventory. And then every time a gun/drug bust happens... that's even less.

so remind us again, why does mexico have a firearms problem?

Because the Cartels are busy buying them here in 48 of 50 states.

decreased supply ... increased prices LEOs pay more for supply too.

there were a lot of pistols in the pictures. Also std shotguns with cosmetic features and have no mechanical operational differences than one used for hunting/target.

these are staged photos? heck ... could they even close the trunk and put all the firearms inside the car ... and still have room for the driver?

Come one Natty. Use that common sense. Law enforcement doesn't have to be subject to the same market pressure civilian customers are subject to. Just as the manufacture and purchase of a weapon can be banned, so can the sale of a weapon be designed and sold to law enforcement. If LE doesn't like it, they can move on to another supplier. I mean... when you have your customer base controlled, a manufacturer will sell at the lowest possible price to stay in business. Economics 101.

no acceptable profit margin ... no manufacture of the product. after what company wants to make a product at a loss (unless it's a loss leader).

Well they can't make a banned product unless the ban is somehow only for civilians or its a ban for most civilians. I'm thinking a ban that doesn't apply to a limited number of civilians that can prove that they have a legitimate use. Like getting a license to drive a big rig.

A ban on civilians wouldn't even have to apply to law enforcement.

The other thing that needs to be considered as well is the biggie behind all this legislation talk:

WHY?

We're having a constitution/rights vs protection of the majority of the population.

So, if its an issue of profitability for the manufacturer, I suggest they seek an alternate means of production.

It would be interesting to see how many of these "assault weapons" were being sold a year ago as to how many are flying out the door now.

Obama is a gun dealers best friend at this point.

Only if you assume that people who didn't vote for Obama have now rejected democracy in favour of militia action. That whole line of thinking is a bit like 'end of the world' predictions. I have a few conspiracy theories I can throw you as well, if you like that kind of thing.

In other words Danno, Obama can't be made the scapegoat, it doesn't make sense.

Wow MC your fertile imagination is in conspiracy overdrive. (again)

My only point is; People who had no reason to buy a so-called Assault weapon, are now lining up to do so before the window closes. (and their are plenty of Obama voters in there to.. I bet)

If there were no fear of a ban, millions would not have been sold.

One could logically say Obamas position of guns might actually put more guns on the street than Bushs...... it would be interesting to see the numbers anyway.

*Liberals and their unintended consequences.

Well, if they are law abiding citizens with a legal right to own, let them buy. End of story and your train of logic as well.

[natty bumppo 297]

Gun seizures from actual busts. Its clear-headed logic that if there is no more manufacture, then there is pretty much a decreasing supply available for criminals to replenish confiscated inventory. And then every time a gun/drug bust happens... that's even less.

so remind us again, why does mexico have a firearms problem?

Because the Cartels are busy buying them here in 48 of 50 states.

decreased supply ... increased prices LEOs pay more for supply too.

there were a lot of pistols in the pictures. Also std shotguns with cosmetic features and have no mechanical operational differences than one used for hunting/target.

these are staged photos? heck ... could they even close the trunk and put all the firearms inside the car ... and still have room for the driver?

Come one Natty. Use that common sense. Law enforcement doesn't have to be subject to the same market pressure civilian customers are subject to. Just as the manufacture and purchase of a weapon can be banned, so can the sale of a weapon be designed and sold to law enforcement. If LE doesn't like it, they can move on to another supplier. I mean... when you have your customer base controlled, a manufacturer will sell at the lowest possible price to stay in business. Economics 101.

no acceptable profit margin ... no manufacture of the product. after what company wants to make a product at a loss (unless it's a loss leader).

Well they can't make a banned product unless the ban is somehow only for civilians or its a ban for most civilians. I'm thinking a ban that doesn't apply to a limited number of civilians that can prove that they have a legitimate use. Like getting a license to drive a big rig.

A ban on civilians wouldn't even have to apply to law enforcement.

The other thing that needs to be considered as well is the biggie behind all this legislation talk:

WHY?

We're having a constitution/rights vs protection of the majority of the population.

So, if its an issue of profitability for the manufacturer, I suggest they seek an alternate means of production.

It would be interesting to see how many of these "assault weapons" were being sold a year ago as to how many are flying out the door now.

Obama is a gun dealers best friend at this point.

Only if you assume that people who didn't vote for Obama have now rejected democracy in favour of militia action. That whole line of thinking is a bit like 'end of the world' predictions. I have a few conspiracy theories I can throw you as well, if you like that kind of thing.

In other words Danno, Obama can't be made the scapegoat, it doesn't make sense.

Wow MC your fertile imagination is in conspiracy overdrive. (again)

My only point is; People who had no reason to buy a so-called Assault weapon, are now lining up to do so before the window closes. (and their are plenty of Obama voters in there to.. I bet)

If there were no fear of a ban, millions would not have been sold.

One could logically say Obamas position of guns might actually put more guns on the street than Bushs...... it would be interesting to see the numbers anyway.

*Liberals and their unintended consequences.

Well, if they are law abiding citizens with a legal right to own, let them buy. End of story and your train of logic as well.

the civilian, military, LEO markets are pretty much tied together. they all benefit from the production facilities and volumes. take away one of the three and prices get a little ... well skewed.

the "proof" for use? who decides?

[HAL 9000 96]

the civilian, military, LEO markets are pretty much tied together. they all benefit from the production facilities and volumes. take away one of the three and prices get a little ... well skewed.

the "proof" for use? who decides?

Not if the manufacturer wants to lose to competitors.

Just like with any other efficient licensing system... each form of usage should have its own criteria that would be silly to elaborate on at this point.

Gotta run now. 10PM bus or 10:30PM bus.

[Ban Hammer 14,089]

Gun seizures from actual busts. Its clear-headed logic that if there is no more manufacture, then there is pretty much a decreasing supply available for criminals to replenish confiscated inventory. And then every time a gun/drug bust happens... that's even less.

so remind us again, why does mexico have a firearms problem?

Because the Cartels are busy buying them here in 48 of 50 states.

apparently you're not seeing how your first post is rendered null and void

Like I said- the cartels are here in the US buying inventory to send to México. Not that hard to comprehend is it?

Funny that my 'first post' in this thread states

Its the same BS. Ban them now, that means less future inventory problems. Law enforcement can then divert its attention to combating criminals without worrying about them resupplying themselves.

I guess that logistical part skipped a few here.

Which means that IF we band them now, THEN, law enforcement can have an easier time at seizing a resulting shrinking inventory. Surely you can understand that right?

Since México HAS a problem NOW, and its illegal to have such weapons THERE... then all they have to do is buy them HERE. Which is what they do.

and once we gut the constitution to make some have a warm and fuzzy, they'll acquire them elsewhere. it's happened before, it will happen again.

[*Robert* 2]

Ask the cops in Orange City, FL who got shot at with a variety of military assult weapons, including a .50 cal. I know they enjoyed the rush for sure!

Too bad the guy killed himself before an all out war broke out!

[natty bumppo 297]

the civilian, military, LEO markets are pretty much tied together. they all benefit from the production facilities and volumes. take away one of the three and prices get a little ... well skewed.

the "proof" for use? who decides?

Not if the manufacturer wants to lose to competitors.

Just like with any other efficient licensing system... each form of usage should have its own criteria that would be silly to elaborate on at this point.

Gotta run now. 10PM bus or 10:30PM bus.

there are market / manufacturing conditions that don't always meet the "wish list". many manufacturers are more than happy to let non-profitable products go. and when someone wants that product ... they charge an amount that is ... well ... extremely profitable.

license system for use ... on a right? humm

anyway ... have a good evening. about time for me to get a few hours sleep before the twins want a feeding.

[Ban Hammer 14,089]

Ask the cops in Orange City, FL who got shot at with a variety of military assult weapons, including a .50 cal. I know they enjoyed the rush for sure!

Too bad the guy killed himself before an all out war broke out!

don't tell me you're using that vague term too

[luckytxn 2,265]

No one else see the harm in the police having weapons but the populace is disarmed?

[HAL 9000 96]

Gun seizures from actual busts. Its clear-headed logic that if there is no more manufacture, then there is pretty much a decreasing supply available for criminals to replenish confiscated inventory. And then every time a gun/drug bust happens... that's even less.

so remind us again, why does mexico have a firearms problem?

Because the Cartels are busy buying them here in 48 of 50 states.

apparently you're not seeing how your first post is rendered null and void

Like I said- the cartels are here in the US buying inventory to send to México. Not that hard to comprehend is it?

Funny that my 'first post' in this thread states

Its the same BS. Ban them now, that means less future inventory problems. Law enforcement can then divert its attention to combating criminals without worrying about them resupplying themselves.

I guess that logistical part skipped a few here.

Which means that IF we band them now, THEN, law enforcement can have an easier time at seizing a resulting shrinking inventory. Surely you can understand that right?

Since México HAS a problem NOW, and its illegal to have such weapons THERE... then all they have to do is buy them HERE. Which is what they do.

and once we gut the constitution to make some have a warm and fuzzy, they'll acquire them elsewhere. it's happened before, it will happen again.

Yeah... tell that to the thousands of gun violence victims' families. *Applause*

'Gut the Constitution'... Exaggerate much?