What Stimulated the Gun and Ammo Market?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Daniel Craig is responsible. I want this gun.

You can probably get the gun sans the silencer.

[Peikko 1,575]

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.

[natty bumppo 297]

New poll.

my comments from the poll thread ...

Why does Stephen sensationalize old news? Cause it's the best he can muster.

McDonald's in San Ysidro , California --> 1984

Stockton Schoolyard --> 1989

101 California office building in San Francisco --> 1993

Edited March 27, 2009 by Natty Bumppo

[one...two...tree 2,762]

New poll.

my comments from the poll thread ...

Why does Stephen sensationalize old news? Cause it's the best he can muster.

McDonald's in San Ysidro , California --> 1984

Stockton Schoolyard --> 1989

101 California office building in San Francisco --> 1993

Because from 1994 until 2004 there was an assault weapons ban in effect.

[natty bumppo 297]

New poll.

my comments from the poll thread ...

Why does Stephen sensationalize old news? Cause it's the best he can muster.

McDonald's in San Ysidro , California --> 1984

Stockton Schoolyard --> 1989

101 California office building in San Francisco --> 1993

Because from 1994 until 2004 there was an assault weapons ban in effect.

this is 2009 ... we are 5 years later ... surely you can do better than 15+ year old news ....

[one...two...tree 2,762]

New poll.

my comments from the poll thread ...

Why does Stephen sensationalize old news? Cause it's the best he can muster.

McDonald's in San Ysidro , California --> 1984

Stockton Schoolyard --> 1989

101 California office building in San Francisco --> 1993

Because from 1994 until 2004 there was an assault weapons ban in effect.

this is 2009 ... we are 5 years later ... surely you can do better than 15+ year old news ....

Those dates aren't that far back, relative to the manufacture and availability of assault weapons. Look at the profiles of the ones who've carried out mass murders from anytime. They aren't career criminals, which negates the argument that banning assault weapons will only keep these weapons out of the hands of law abiding citizens.

[HAL 9000 96]

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.

[natty bumppo 297]

New poll.

my comments from the poll thread ...

Why does Stephen sensationalize old news? Cause it's the best he can muster.

McDonald's in San Ysidro , California --> 1984

Stockton Schoolyard --> 1989

101 California office building in San Francisco --> 1993

Because from 1994 until 2004 there was an assault weapons ban in effect.

this is 2009 ... we are 5 years later ... surely you can do better than 15+ year old news ....

Those dates aren't that far back, relative to the manufacture and availability of assault weapons. Look at the profiles of the ones who've carried out mass murders from anytime. They aren't career criminals, which negates the argument that banning assault weapons will only keep these weapons out of the hands of law abiding citizens.

um ... we have vj members younger than these dates. how far back isn't that far back?

reread the bolded statement ... you're not targeting criminals?

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.

yup ... and the cost of LE materials will go up too ... what the heck ... more taxes

[HAL 9000 96]

New poll.

my comments from the poll thread ...

Why does Stephen sensationalize old news? Cause it's the best he can muster.

McDonald's in San Ysidro , California --> 1984

Stockton Schoolyard --> 1989

101 California office building in San Francisco --> 1993

Because from 1994 until 2004 there was an assault weapons ban in effect.

this is 2009 ... we are 5 years later ... surely you can do better than 15+ year old news ....

Those dates aren't that far back, relative to the manufacture and availability of assault weapons. Look at the profiles of the ones who've carried out mass murders from anytime. They aren't career criminals, which negates the argument that banning assault weapons will only keep these weapons out of the hands of law abiding citizens.

um ... we have vj members younger than these dates. how far back isn't that far back?

reread the bolded statement ... you're not targeting criminals?

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.

yup ... and the cost of LE materials will go up too ... what the heck ... more taxes

Actually... they would go down. Less manpower devoted to confiscating weapons as time moves in the only direction it can go. You never hear of negative gun seizures at crime scenes.

Less need = less tax for that bit.

[natty bumppo 297]

New poll.

my comments from the poll thread ...

Why does Stephen sensationalize old news? Cause it's the best he can muster.

McDonald's in San Ysidro , California --> 1984

Stockton Schoolyard --> 1989

101 California office building in San Francisco --> 1993

Because from 1994 until 2004 there was an assault weapons ban in effect.

this is 2009 ... we are 5 years later ... surely you can do better than 15+ year old news ....

Those dates aren't that far back, relative to the manufacture and availability of assault weapons. Look at the profiles of the ones who've carried out mass murders from anytime. They aren't career criminals, which negates the argument that banning assault weapons will only keep these weapons out of the hands of law abiding citizens.

um ... we have vj members younger than these dates. how far back isn't that far back?

reread the bolded statement ... you're not targeting criminals?

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.

yup ... and the cost of LE materials will go up too ... what the heck ... more taxes

Actually... they would go down. Less manpower devoted to confiscating weapons as time moves in the only direction it can go. You never hear of negative gun seizures at crime scenes.

Less need = less tax for that bit.

you mean property seizures ?

.

please post how many "assault weapons" are seized at crime scenes ... how many are kept ... how many are returned. just to support the comment .

[HAL 9000 96]

New poll.

my comments from the poll thread ...

Why does Stephen sensationalize old news? Cause it's the best he can muster.

McDonald's in San Ysidro , California --> 1984

Stockton Schoolyard --> 1989

101 California office building in San Francisco --> 1993

Because from 1994 until 2004 there was an assault weapons ban in effect.

this is 2009 ... we are 5 years later ... surely you can do better than 15+ year old news ....

Those dates aren't that far back, relative to the manufacture and availability of assault weapons. Look at the profiles of the ones who've carried out mass murders from anytime. They aren't career criminals, which negates the argument that banning assault weapons will only keep these weapons out of the hands of law abiding citizens.

um ... we have vj members younger than these dates. how far back isn't that far back?

reread the bolded statement ... you're not targeting criminals?

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.

yup ... and the cost of LE materials will go up too ... what the heck ... more taxes

Actually... they would go down. Less manpower devoted to confiscating weapons as time moves in the only direction it can go. You never hear of negative gun seizures at crime scenes.

Less need = less tax for that bit.

you mean property seizures ?

.

please post how many "assault weapons" are seized at crime scenes ... how many are kept ... how many are returned. just to support the comment .

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.

[Ban Hammer 14,297]

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?

[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.

[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?

[Ban Hammer 14,297]

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.

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