Tough times for the gun industry

Tucked in the back of Thursday’s business section of the Star Tribune was this item that probably went unnoticed: These are tough times for ammunition makers.

Federal Cartridge has either laid off or given buyout packages to 12 percent of its workforce in Anoka, with more cuts in the last two weeks.

Last week, 21 salaried engineers, plant supervisors and other workers were laid off. This week, 21 hourly workers took buyouts.

The cuts were on top of 130 layoffs earlier in the month, bringing the total number of displaced workers to 172. The departures drop the Anoka plant’s employee count down to about 1,260 from 1,430.

A company official blames “market conditions” for the slump in sales of ammunition.

It’s not just ammo, of course. Gander Mountain filed for bankruptcy last week.

It was only a few years ago that ammunition was flying off the shelf because people thought the Obama administration was coming after their guns and ammo. They weren’t. And the hysteria was great for business.

With Republicans in control of government, the fear is gone. And that’s lousy for business and, at least in Anoka, jobs.

The stock price of gun makers has plummeted.

It’s the down side of “consumer confidence,” NPR reports.

Since Trump’s election, background checks have fallen three straight months from year-ago levels. And shops like Nova Firearms in McLean, Va., have detected a notable drop in sales of certain types of weapons such as AR-15 military-style semi-automatic rifles. During the heat of the campaign, says salesman Tom Jenkins, the shop couldn’t keep those weapons in stock. Customers were worried the rifles would be singled out for a ban by Hillary Clinton.

“During the political crisis we had dozens of them downstairs, and then there would be zero. And it would go again and then go again. And right up to the election, literally, brought them in, brought them up and sold them.”

Since Trump’s victory those guns aren’t moving nearly as fast, says Jenkins, pointing to five AR-15 style weapons on a rack behind the counter of the shop. He says it’s a certain type of customer whose buying decisions are influenced by politics.

Gun sellers say the customers who’ve fled are those who bought guns and ammo for personal protection.

Thus the irony. The best friends of the gun industry are Democrats.

The National Rife Association does not agree.

A look at the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives’ (ATF) annual import/export records of firearms shows that the number of guns available for sale in America rose every year between 2003 and 2013. This number dipped slightly in 2014, but it was still three-times higher than it was at the turn of the century. That is hardly a crash. It is simply a market check.

Also, though Obama was first elected to office in 2008, the ATF’s raw numbers show a growing interest in guns beginning in 2003, during the George W. Bush administration. Gun sales are hardly all about fear of gun control.

The FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) shows the same steady rise beginning in 2003. It turned into a tidal wave during President Obama’s second term and has been falling since. But it has not come close to crashing all the way back down to pre-2003 levels. The FBI says it did about 2.23 million background checks last February, which is down about 14 percent from February 2016. But it is still well above numbers reached just a few years ago.

The NRA says national concealed-carry reciprocity legislation could be the tonic for what ails the industry.

“We do believe that having a Republican in the White House…negatively impacts gun sales in that it effectively eliminates any threat of new gun regulation for the foreseeable future,” counters James Hardiman, managing director of equities research for Wedbush Securities Inc., in an interview with FoxNews.

He expects things to get worse.

  • Jack

    Could it be market saturation?

    War stimulates the economy. Apparently Democrats stimulate the gun market.

    • Gary F

      Yes, and yes.

  • Rob

    If enough states follow North Dakota’s lead and pass “fog a mirror” carry laws, maybe that will cause an uptick in the gun industry’s fortunes.

  • MrE85

    I, for one, can’t wait until this industry is booming again.

  • Gary F

    When your best salesman is out of office, sure sales are down.
    And, during the Obama years, the government bought more handgun ammo than it ever did in the past.

    It was bound to happen.

    The ranges are still full. I was at Bill’s in Robinsdale and there was a line for range spots all afternoon. People of every color, age and sex where there recreational shooting. The gun range has become the new bowling alley.

    The numbers will be out in the next couple of weeks but the MN Clay Target League will announce the number of kids signed up for trap and skeet teams as part of the approved high school sport. Last year, 11,300 were on teams, they are expecting 12,000. The folks from MN now set up a national organization, USA Clay Target and set up 17 states so far with their own programs and I presume more to follow. Inner city teams such as St Paul’s Highland Park and Humboldt will have teams this year. Every kid participates every week, girls make up about 25% of the rosters, kids with certain disabilities can participate, and kids can earn a high school letter.

    I know people who are still getting the carry permits for the first time, at some point that my taper down, but the desire is still strong.

    So, what it really means is that we can find .22lr ammo on the shelf again so parents and grandparents can take their kids out shooting again.

    • MrE85

      Not the old “feds are stockpiling ammo” myth please, Gary. The news that spawned a million conspiracy theories and sent even more wing-nuts to the sporting goods stores to arm up is easily explained. The Feds don’t make purchases or contracts like we do — they have their own ways of doing things. That ammo you mention was purchased under a IDIQ, or indefinite delivery, indefinite quantity contract. That means it wasn’t delivered or demanded all at once, but over a five year period.

      • Gary F

        The Federal guy at Pheasant Fest a couple of years ago said their government sales were way up.

        • MrE85

          Well, it’s official then. 😉

        • jon

          This confuses me.

          People who buy guns to protect themselves from the government, because of the covert government conspiracy to take over the country (that they already run).

          But then take the word of folks from people who make a living selling ammo that they should buy more ammo. No conspiracy there, clearly those guys are on the up and up and have nothing to gain from continued employment.

          • Mitch Berg

            “This confuses me.”

            Unplug from the crazy memes. It’ll help.

  • “The NRA says national concealed-carry reciprocity legislation could be the tonic for what ails the industry.” What’s really behind the GOP push for reciprocity in statehouses across the country – including Minnesota’s – public safety and common sense be damned.

    • Gary F

      Do Alaska, Arkansas, Arizona, Maine, Mississippi, Missouri, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wyoming have more public safety problems because they have permit less carry?

      • Will

        Really, in Maine… they just legalized weed… plus you can get cheap lobsters…I have to keep pushing my parents to move out there.

        • Gary F

          I was there last summer. Just lobster for me.

          • The rat of the sea.

          • Will

            Yep, in the 1800s they had to write laws to make sure prisoners didn’t get more than 3 meals of lobsters a week. You can’t beat buying the lobsters straight from the lobsterman at $5 a pop. Then having a beer with him trying to understand what he’s saying in his thick Maine accent.

          • Gary F

            One time deal. I’d be poor and skinny if I had to eat lobster every day.

          • Back in the day, if you were poor, lobster is what you ate in Maine.

            I think that’s why so many people left Maine.

          • Gary F

            We ate at some place on one of the piers. After seeing them burn my wife’s steak, lobster was the better choice. Once in a lifetime meal. I had a lobster roll at McDonalds in Wobin Mass too. Just because.

          • Woburn.

          • Gary F

            Woobin.

          • Will

            Yep, many of the MacDonald’s on the coast of Maine have lobster rolls, but I still can’t bring myself to buy one there. Too many good places serve a better product.

          • Gary F

            McDonalds was right by the freeway exit by our hotel. You drive by the sign enough, you end up having one.

          • Will

            Do you really not like lobster???

          • Nope. Not a fan. Don’t really like seafood. Part of it is the taste, part of it is growing up along the Nashua River in the ’70s, which dumped into the Merrimack, which dumped into… guess where? Lobster country.

          • Will

            How about walleye?

          • tboom

            Lutefisk?

          • Will

            Gross.

          • Mitch Berg

            I’m with Bob on this one. Never liked the taste much.

            And that was before I learned that they’re genetically related to cockroaches.

          • Bingo!

            And you gotta wear a freaking bib!

          • Justine Parenteau Wettschreck

            Reading conversations like this is part of the reason I never leave work as early as I plan to… ha ha!

          • Will

            I understand why you moved to the Midwest, you’re speaking blasphemy Downeast, at least here you can find many people who don’t trust things that can’t​ be found within a state or two away.

          • Will

            I just booked my trip to Maine a few minutes ago, thanks for all this lobster talk, found a flight in July direct to Boston for $215. I’ve been going to Maine nearly every summer as far back as I can remember, it’s like northern Minnesota with lobsters and striped bass (aka stripers) instead of walleye.

      • You could probably research that. It’s pretty much like letting anyone drive without a license, though. Do you have any stats on that?

        • Gary F

          A drivers license is not part of the Bill of Rights. People drive all the time without a drivers license, especially drunks.

          • Jack

            Could that be because cars didn’t exist at the time that the Bill of Rights was written?

          • Gary F

            The Bill of Rights was made to protect the people from the government.
            .

    • Mitch Berg

      In Minnesota, before 1974, one didn’t need a permit to carry a concealed firearm.

      Was crime worse, or better, before 1974?

      I’ve never gotten a gun grabber to answer that.

      • >>Was crime worse, or better, before 1974?<>I’ve never gotten a gun grabber to answer that.<<

        And who do you consider a "gun grabber"? Someone who wants sensible firearm laws? If so, that would be "most people"…

        • Mitch Berg

          They *are* down a bit from 1974. After spiking in the 80s and 90s.

          “Someone who wants sensible firearm laws?”

          Close! Someone who labels “infringements on an essential Constitutional liberty” and “pointless burdening of the law-abiding citizen while leaving criminals unmolested” as “sensible”. That qualifies.

          “If so, that would be “most people”…”

          Until it’s explained (to the ones that are open to learning) that the “sensible firearm laws” do not and can not affect crime. Then, the smart ones come around.

          • kevins

            But why do people need guns?

          • Erik Petersen

            self defense, common defense

          • kevins

            OK…but is that really necessary?

          • Erik Petersen

            Yes it is. If you’re not armed you have no avenue for self-reliance / self-participation in your own defense. You’d be reliant on the police, who are not able to defend people from danger / and or crime at the moment it’s happening

          • kevins

            Arming yourself makes you safe and independent of the need to rely on appointed authority? Is that it?

          • Erik Petersen

            That’s a fair statement. People ought to cultivate and maintain their own autonomy for areas beyond this, its just like anything else.

          • kevins

            Can you not cultivate autonomy without a firearm?

          • Jerry

            Because fear is a powerful emotion

          • kennedy

            Your comment illustrates one problem quite clearly. “If you’re not armed you have no avenue for self-reliance…”

            This implies that one is helpless without a gun, that the tool for resolving any threat is a gun. Most self-defense courses teach that violence is the last resort. Best to avoid, if that is not possible retreat.

            Irresponsible gun owners and the perception that gun owners are itching for an excuse to fire off a few rounds are reasons that many would like more regulation of firearms. Your suggestion that guns are THE answer for self defense fosters that perception.

            Oh, and guns are far more likely to kill a friend or loved one than they are to kill an armed attacker. Gun related suicide outnumbers homicide 2 to 1.

          • Mitch Berg

            Part of me thinks this is not a serious questions, and isn’t worth the time it would take.

            Another part responds that someone whose mind *can* be changed and *is* serious about the question might read the answer.

            So I”ll give it a shot.

            Part of it is pragmatic: A firearm is the single best form of self-defense against violent crime.

            Part of it is philosophical. The definition of a “citizen” is someone who governs him/herself; who has all the responsibilities that government has; the responsibility to create and govern a society where people are safe and equal before the law – and to defend that society. Any responsibility that comes without the rights to carry it out is morally wrong – so a *citizen* has the right to speak, assemble, vote, to due process and legal privacy, and to have the means to defend those rights and that society and those freedoms.

            Having those rights is what separates a *citizen* from a *subject*. All of those rights. If you don’t have ’em, you’re not a citizen; you’re a subject, whose freedom, prosperity and life itself depend on the benevolent of those whose subject you are.

            That”s why.

          • kevins

            If you don’t have a gun, you are not a citizen?

          • Mitch Berg

            If you don’t speak, vote, assemble or participate in juries, can you be a citizen?

            Sure.

            If you don’t have the RIGHT to speak, vote, assemble or participate in juries, and participate in your own defense, can you be a citizen?

            No. You’re a subject.

          • kevins

            But you do not really need a gun for any of those.

          • Mitch Berg

            To defend yourself, your family, your community and your freedom against someone with a gun?

            You are entitled to your faith.

            Anyway – the point was that no, you don’t need a gun to be a citizen – but if you don’t have the right to defend yourself, then you’re really not one.

            That’s all.

          • kevins

            Sorry for taking so long to respond as I work and can’t hang in with the conversation all the time. The question I asked above was serious because I am trying to understand why folks really need guns. The constitutional question is a legal one and not in my area of expertise, but the need question is. If I read your response above correctly, you are saying that citizenship implies defending yourself and that firearms are both necessary and sufficient to defend self, family etc. and thus, guns are necessary for citizenship. Is that it?

          • Mitch Berg

            I don’t think it was that unclear.

            The *right* and the *practical means* to defend one’s life, property, community and freedom *are* necessary to be a citizen rather than a subject. Anyone who denies the people the practical and meaningful means to defend their lives, property, community and freedom considers the people their subjects, not their equal.

            Firearms are the most effective means to that end.

            Owning a gun doesn’t mean you’re a citizen. Having the right to defend yourself makes the word “citizen” meaningful.

          • kevins

            Thanks, but it seems to me that you can do all of that without a firearm.

            Earlier, you added that you should be able to defend self, family etc. against “someone with a gun”. Now you argue that having a gun is the best way to do that. I think I agree with you on that.

            What troubles me is the other guy with a gun. There are plenty of them and now, and the argument always seems to reduce to good guys and bad guys. I’m looking at it from another level…premising my gun ownership on the possibility that another person will threaten me with gun takes away rather than affirms my God given freedom. That premise enables me to rationalize defending myself with a firearm and therefore I need one (and therefore it is a God given right for me to have a firearm). I think all of that devolves to rationalization, based in fears that constrict my right to be free. Believe me, I get the idea of shooting someone that intends to kill you, and being dead is not one of my goals, but making myself safe can come in many forms, with firearms being only one of them. Frankly, I’m more worried about texting teens in their daddy’s car.

            The bottom line for me is that nothing, not firearms nor the constitution guarantees my life, and there is an illusion of safety with a gun.

          • Rob

            I am totally with you. The things that are the most likely to kill people in this country have nothing to do with guns, so the need to carry a gun around, or to have one at the ready in your dwelling, is extremely de minimis – if not completely unnecessary. My gun stays unloaded and locked in a safe, except when I go target practicing.

          • AKA Malthusian Greed Lover

            Nothing that was written says anything about guarantees. Guns are tools with which you defend yourself and your freedoms.

            If you don’t wish to use one….fine.
            But forcing others into that is wrong.

          • kevins

            Forcing others into what?

          • AKA Malthusian Greed Lover

            Forcing others to disarm.
            Making laws restricting the inalienable right to keep and bear arms.

          • There already ARE laws restricting the “inalienable right” to keep and bear arms, but you knew that already.

          • AKA Malthusian Greed Lover

            And those laws are wrong, unless they are part of due process because you are a felon or a mental incompetent.

          • And those are exactly the restrictions I was referring to, although your “mental incompetent” stipulation seems to be losing steam as of late so far as being a limiting factor for owning firearms.

            So you disagree with Justice Scalia’s assessment of the 2nd Amendment? Interesting.

            “…the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited.”

          • AKA Malthusian Greed Lover

            No…. you must be adjudicated through a court, not judged by a VA or Soc Sec bureaucrat.

            I never stated that.
            No right is “unlimited” since all rights are limited by the rights of others.
            Scalia was pointing out that you cannot carry ANY weapon for ANY purpose. That would mean that you would have the right to carry any weapon and murder people.

            The current laws infringing on the right, such as those of DC, MD, CA, NY, IL, NJ, etc….are all wrong.

          • Have I said anything about any of those laws? You seem to be putting words into my mouth.

          • AKA Malthusian Greed Lover

            It was in reply to this: “although your “mental incompetent” stipulation seems to be losing steam as of late so far as being a limiting factor for owning firearms.”

            I was also clarifying Scalia’s position, instead of relying on your over simplified inference.

            Gun control seeks to infringe on the right due to a desire to disarm the public.

          • Have I mentioned ANYTHING about “disarming the public”?

            No.

            You are clearly jumping to conclusions as to my stance on this.

            I’m done wasting my time with you. Good day.

          • AKA Malthusian Greed Lover

            Are you admitting to be part of gun control?
            THAT is the goal of it. I spoke generally. I did not name you as wanting to disarm the public.

            But if the shoe fits….

            Since your stance is obviously unclear because you wrote vaguely and simplistically, don’t get upset when you are not understood.

            Thanks for playing.

          • Apparently, anything stated that isn’t “no gun control at all” is wrong in your view.

            With that mindset, I can see where this is going.

            /Really done now.

          • AKA Malthusian Greed Lover

            I notice that you didn’t state what YOUR idea of sensible gun control is other than background checks. We have those already.

            Too bad you can’t articulate your position, but instead, must run away.

          • >>run away.<<

            Not really, I just got tired of your rhetoric.

            Good day.

          • AKA Malthusian Greed Lover

            What you got tired of was losing the argument and having to present your case.
            Which you still haven’t done.
            Good day.

          • Yeah, sure. Whatever helps you sleep at night.

          • AKA Malthusian Greed Lover

            Says who?

          • kevins

            It was a question. I can repeat it if you would like.

          • AKA Malthusian Greed Lover

            “But you do not really need a gun for any of those.”

            How is this a question?

          • Rob

            Firearms are only the best form of defense when the user is highly trained in the use of the firearm and is lucky enough to get the drop on the perpetrator. Otherwise, not so much.

          • AKA Malthusian Greed Lover

            HAHAHAHAHAHA!

            Dude….. a simple google search on defensive gun use proves you wrong.
            Just recently, a child stopped three home invaders.

          • Rob

            Dude, was that news on the same page as the toddler who pulled his mom’s gun out of her purse while in a shopping cart at Wal-Mart, and shot her with it, or was it on the page with the story about the toddler in the back seat of the car who shot his Mom with her handgun?

          • Will

            Couldn’t you just as easily say, why do people need free speech? Same answer, it’s​ a constitutional and human right (right to self defense or right to earn food).

          • Jerry

            There is a difference between being allowed to and needing. I have the right to a gun. I certain as hell don’t need one.

          • kevins

            OK, although both (right to self defense and to earn food)presumptively being in the constitution do not make both equal in terms of the level of human need they represent. For example, not having one does not kill you, while not having the other does.

          • Kassie

            To kill things. That is the only reason for a gun.

          • Ah, the old “criminals don’t follow laws anyway” canard. That’s adorable.

          • Mitch Berg

            Ah, the old “turn a dispositive fact into a bit of ofay snark, and be really condescending about it, because it’s easier than knowing anything substantive about the subject, or God forbid actually realizing that everything you believe about the subject is wrong” canard.

            That’s so dog bites man.

          • Gee mister, can you tell me what I don’t know about firearms laws.

            /FFL holder
            //Handgun permit

          • Will

            Define “assault weapon” objectively.

          • Mitch Berg

            Too easy, Will. An FFL will knock that one right out of the park!

          • I’m thinking perhaps YOU have a definition of one?

          • Will

            Well I believe it is a subjective term to attach to guns that look “scary”.

          • Why do you bring in “assault weapons” into this conversation anyway? Have I mentioned anything about banning certain weapons?

          • Mitch Berg

            Ah. An expert! Good!

            Since you’re an FFL, please explain how “universal background checks” – the “sensible law” everyone’s jabbering about these days – will compel straw buyers to stop? How they’ll prevent suicides? How they’ll turn people who buy guns in parking lots at bars into law-abiding citizens? How UBCs an even *affect* crime without being used as registration?

            And if you’re in Minnesota, clearly I need to know more about “handgun permits”. Please explain.

          • Golly gee, I was asking YOU to educate ME!

          • Mitch Berg

            Sentences that start with “Golly Gee”, in my experience, are never really worth working too hard on replying.

            So I’ll take that as a “you can’t answer my question”, then?

            Because it wouldn’t be a hard question for an FFL to answer. Just saying.

          • Rob

            Limits on the number of purchases in a given period could help control straw purchases.

        • Tim

          It’s a poorly phrased question due to the lack of specifics. It matters whether or not one is looking at the total number of crimes, crimes per capita, violent crimes vs. property crimes, etc. The answers to these are either “yes” or “no” depending on what is being examined.

          Per capita, all crime is far down since 1974, but violent crime is somewhat up (that said, it is far down from its peak in the mid-90’s).

          And that’s not even getting into the need to control for other variables as far as the actual cause of it.

        • AKA Malthusian Greed Lover

          Define “sensible.”

          We’ll wait.

          • sen·si·ble (sensəb(ə)l/)

            adjective

            1. (of a statement or course of action) chosen in accordance with wisdom or prudence; likely to be of benefit.

          • AKA Malthusian Greed Lover

            And how is that term applicable to your statement? I know of no sensible gun control laws.

          • You just wanted a definition of “sensible”. I gave it to you.

          • AKA Malthusian Greed Lover

            I was putting it into the context you were using.

          • What “context” do you think I was referring?

            >> I know of no sensible gun control laws.<<

            So, no background checks…at all?

            All firearms can be carried everywhere? Everyone has access to every weapon?

            Where is the line in your view?

          • AKA Malthusian Greed Lover

            Background checks are demonstrably useless.
            240+ million background checks since 1998. Perhaps a few hundred convictions, if that, arise from these background checks. 93% are false positives. Of the remaining 7%, 99% of those are either later cleared for purchase or ignored.
            The carry of firearms is a right. If a person has a right to be in a building and cannot be denied service due to race,creed, color, sexuality, etc, they should not be denied entry because they are carrying their weapons.
            Personally, I feel that private property owners should be able to deny service for any reason. It is their property.
            Define “every weapon.”
            Currently, all arms, suitable for a militia, in common lawful use are protected. I’m fine with that compromise.

          • So “No laws at all”.

            Got it.

          • AKA Malthusian Greed Lover

            So..you missed my follow on.

            If that is what you wish to describe it as…..

            Currently, I am perfectly happy with Virginia’s laws.
            Open carry is legal if you are 18 and up and lawful.
            Concealed carry with a permit at the age of 21. Easy to get. (Should be 18 or no permit required.)
            Carry into any private property. Property owners can forbid weaponry.
            Public buildings except courthouses and currently, anything controlled by our gun control governor, ie DMV are open. Example, I can carry into the Capitol building or City Hall.

          • AKA Malthusian Greed Lover

            The only gun control laws we need are laws against murder, negligence, and zoning rules about shooting…ie, cannot target practice in your backyard in an urban environment…… which would be part of the laws against negligence.

      • Crime stats generally follow other megatrends, and are not correlated with gun ownership. The permitting and training standards are designed to produce safer gun owners. If you care to talk gun safety and how it relates to one’s responsibilities to your family and those around you, then we can have a discussion without name-calling. (As a former police officer I’ve spent plenty of hours on the range and carrying on and off duty.)

        • Mitch Berg

          No argument with anything you’ve said – and to the best of my knowledge, if I’ve ever called anyone a name, it’s been in concordance with case law on rhetorical self-defense.

          While I don’t disagree that training is a very useful thing – I always urge people who are taking up shooting to get some – there doesn’t seem to be any statistical difference between Shall Issue states that require training, Shall issue states that don’t, and No Permit states.

    • AKA Malthusian Greed Lover

      Please point out where increasing CCW has increased crime or decreased public safety.

      Make sure you cite your sources.

      We’ll wait.

    • saltysailor

      “The NRA says national concealed-carry reciprocity legislation could be the tonic for what ails the industry.”

      Where is the NRA quote that stated such?

      • It is near the end of Bob’s article, i.e. Bob wrote it, and the actual quote, which he is paraphrasing, follows in the Fox News interview.

  • kevins

    I have some guns for hunting, but what I can’t wrap my brain around is why people need guns. I get it that folks want them, but…

    • As others have suggested, the market is saturated, with fewer gun owners owning large numbers of guns. It isn’t traditional collecting or hunting, either; it’s marketing to the older rural white male demographic, and the marketing pushed constantly by the NRA is fear and freedom.

      • Gary F

        Have you been to Bill’s Gun Shop and Range on a Saturday afternoon? You comment doesn’t sound like it. It’s the most diverse place in town.

        • Jeff C.

          While I haven’t been to that particular shop and range, it sounds like they aren’t the norm. Here is a graph that shows who a typical gun owner in the US is. They are most likely to be a white male who supports the Tea Party or Republican party. http://prri.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/AugustRNS_GunOwnership.jpg

          • jon

            I love me a good graph, but you seemed to forget to put it on your post…

            Any how, here is the pew information on gun owner demographics:
            http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/07/15/the-demographics-and-politics-of-gun-owning-households/

            more recent data from possible a source I’m less familar with seems to match up.
            http://www.statisticbrain.com/gun-ownership-statistics-demographics/

          • Mitch Berg

            “They are most likely to be a white male who supports the Tea Party or Republican party.”

            Right. In the same way that a Prius with an NPR sticker is likely to be owned by an upper-middle-class liberal with a government job. It’s part of the culture; among rural, blue-collar-to-middle-class white males in the west, it’s probably well over half.

            The gun control movement has spent fifty years trying to disarm minorities; most “gun safety” measures serve to drive up the cost and stifle the availability of guns to lower-income people (who, we are reminded, are disproportionally non-white).

            But guns are inextricably linked with civil rights for black Americans:

            https://www.amazon.com/dp/0465033105/ref=rdr_ext_sb_ti_sims_1

          • Gary F

            I have a friend who is female, white, upper middle class, in her sixties, who drives a Prius.

            And teaches permit to carry.

          • Rob

            NRA and NPR stickers on the Prius?

          • Mitch Berg
          • Jack

            Where can one get that bumper sticker?

          • Gary F

            I’ll be seeing her Saturday and check. I know she’s an NRA certified trainer, so she has to belong to the NRA. not sure if shes an MPR member.

          • Test drove a Prius a couple of weeks ago. Liked it. Decided I didn’t need the grief, though.

          • Rob

            Try a Challenger R/T. Much more fun, though ecologically very incorrect.

          • Gary F

            I couple years ago in Phoenix I took a taxi that was a Prius. Actually good rear leg room. The rental car last week from the body shop was a Nissan Versa, scared the hell out of my driving it. I’m glad to have my Taurus back.

          • MrE85

            In my latest DC trip, one of my cab rides was in a Nissan Leaf. It was a little cramped, but all the rides are short in DC.

          • Rob

            Good to know the leg cramps are short-lived.

          • MrE85

            Just pack some heat, like Gary’s friend. 😉

      • AKA Malthusian Greed Lover

        Fewer gun owners?

        HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

        240 MILLION NICS checks since 1998. To have FEWER gun owners, that would mean ALL of them would be going to actually fewer people.

        If HALF go to people that already own guns…that is 120 million new gun owners.
        If 1% go to new gun owners…that is 2.4 million new gun owners.

        Instructors state that their classes are full of new gun owners.

        • Rob

          I feel safer already.

      • Mitch Berg

        Yeah, Bob. That’s what it’s about.

        • AKA Malthusian Greed Lover

          Actually…yes…it was very useful and in line with the purpose of the 2nd amendment that day.
          Notice….. it worked.

    • Postal Customer

      They want them in case the King of England storms our borders.

      • kevins

        Pesky Brits!

    • AKA Malthusian Greed Lover

      Because it is our right to own them. We all have various reasons why we want them.

      • kevins

        Like what? Why do “we” need them?

        • AKA Malthusian Greed Lover

          We “need” them for whatever legal purpose we desire. No justification is necessary. We have a right to own them. An inalienable right.

  • jon

    “sale in America rose every year between 2003 and 2013.”

    Assault weapons ban expired in 2004. (sorry, it was temporary so it wasn’t a ban, it was a suspension… like the “temporary travel suspension” and any good second amendment warrior will tell you that they aren’t assault weapons, they just look like them and have some of the same functionality. 2004 is when the assault looking weapons suspension of sales ended, if you want to be PC.)

    Also 3% of americans own 50% of the guns according to some study I saw last year.

    Presumable that same 3% are the ones buying 50% of the guns (bit of a logic leap I know)
    Presumable that 3% could have a large impact on market across the entire US.

    Though it’s no surprise that since the propaganda has died down (And the NRA spins some wonderful examples of propaganda) the fervor of NRA members has died down as well.

    • Mitch Berg

      “Also 3% of americans own 50% of the guns according to some study I saw last year.”

      It was an intensely flawed study based on some bizarre assumptions, and one big “dog bites man”; is it remarkable that people who like to shoot own more things they can shoot with?

      • Rob

        My brother is a perfect example of a “3%er.” He’s got 16 handguns and three assault rifles.

        • Jack

          Egads

  • Will

    While there was some level of hysteria around the Obama “taking away guns”, there was an element of truth there as well. Obama and many left leaning legislators did propose bills to make “assault weapons” illegal, including the AR-15. There are over 1 million AR-15s in the USA now, I happen to know a few people who own them and/or are building their own to keep the serial numbers off them and to keep the government from knowing they exist. So I would agree that the fear was driving those sales. We have a gun culture here in the US that many are unaware of, it’s not necessarily a bad thing when people are responsible using their firearms…I say that as a proud uncle to a niece who is the top shot at her private all girls Catholic school. Only in America.

    • jon

      Not to drag this back into a gun control thread (we’ve done that to death)

      But OF COURSE IT’S THE IRRESPONSIBLE ONES THAT CAUSE PROBLEMS!

      However, the responsible gun owners continue to let the irresponsible ones call themselves responsible.
      There is no definition for what a responsible gun owner is.
      I say trigger locks and gun safes are good and self proclaimed responsible gun owners tell me that I’m wrong and that my family will be raped before my eyes while I fumble with a trigger lock.

      Lock up your guns.
      If criminals don’t get your guns, then criminals won’t give the government justification for more gun control laws… also as a plus a bunch of people are less likely to die. So it’s a win win.

      If you know some one who doesn’t lock up their guns, tell them they should. Get them a trigger lock, there are organizations that will send them to you for free. Better still get a gun safe. Secure the gun when it’s not in use. Be responsible. That’s the fastest way to end the gun control debate to everyone’s satisfaction.

      • Mitch Berg

        “There is no definition for what a responsible gun owner is.”

        Not sure what you mean by “definition”. There IS a perfectly good functional definition: if you pass a background check for violent or domestic crime, or drug or alcohol abuse, or violent mental illness, then statistically it’s a solid bet you’ll never commit a crime or have an avoidable accident with a gun.

        Are there exceptions? In any population of 100 million, of course there are. They happen about two orders of magnitude less than the general population, though.

        • jon

          Definition meaning a description of a responsible gun owner that can be generally agreed upon.

          For instance, I don’t think that simply not having criminal record and being able to pass a background check is the same as being responsible.

          If you “forget” your loaded gun in a bathroom, I don’t think you are responsible.

          If your toddler gets their hands on your loaded gun, I don’t think you are responsible.

          This should not be the level of incompetence gun owners aspire too…. and it shouldn’t be defended by those who claim they know better.

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/9cc57364157d7af3b7342a47bd437f2e86f2b5fdfd2c518ebdf454a43916de93.gif

          • Rob

            Very well said.

      • saltysailor

        “However, the responsible gun owners continue to let the irresponsible ones call themselves responsible.”

        A broad statement, wouldn’t you admit?

        • jon

          Yes it is broad, Are you implying that a broad statement is false simply because it is broad?

          Because there are a number of times in this conversation where people have suggested that passing a background check is the same as being a responsible gun owner, and it’s terrifying to anyone who has a definition of responsible that conflates to more than just having access. Yet no one from the pro-gun lobby has corrected them.

          To those of us who know what responsibility actually looks like, it sounds very similar to saying “if you have functioning reproductive organs you are bound to be a fit parent!” and then wondering why there are so many crack babies around.

          I don’t see push back on those people from the NRA, on a larger scale.

          I don’t see the NRA even endorsing responsible gun ownership at all. Instead I see them attacking the idea of trigger locks, shooting down bills to provide financial assistance for people to get gun safes, and generally promoting irresponsibility in a very broad way.

          I’d be happy if a group of responsible gun owners came together and started to condemn all these idiots who leave their guns accessible to toddlers or in public restrooms or schools etc.

          But I’ve not seen it. The NRA keeps walking further away from it.
          And even in this thread people opt to double down on responsible gun owners, and “good guy with a gun” is anyone who can legally get a gun. (somehow ignorant of the fact that everyone who has committed their first gun crime did so without having ever committed one before… by definition.)

          Maybe they all assume that everyone else is a responsible gun owner, with their weapons secured and safe at all times, like they are, though the evidence constantly shows that not to be true… and when presented with the evidence, they say “thoughts and prayers” or “the price of freedom” as the answer… not “we as a firearm owning community should do something.”

          • saltysailor

            “Yes it is broad, Are you implying that a broad statement is false simply because it is broad?”

            I am saying that a broad statement can be made to sound true but breaks down when its oversimplification can be shown to be erroneous
            .
            “Because there are a number of times in this conversation where people
            have suggested that passing a background check is the same as being a
            responsible gun owner, and it’s terrifying to anyone who has a
            definition of responsible that conflates to more than just having
            access. Yet no one from the pro-gun lobby has corrected them.”

            Probably because they had their hands full responding to someone from the anti-gun lobby with little time to be reading the responses of their pro-gun brethren.
            And you’re talking about the people on one forum out of tens of thousands with this same topic. Thus drawing a broad conclusion based on a micro sampling.

            “To those of us who know what responsibility actually looks like, it
            sounds very similar to saying “if you have functioning reproductive
            organs you are bound to be a fit parent!” and then wondering why there
            are so many crack babies around.”

            Oh, so you speak for others now?
            Do you want the government to get involved in the lives of couples to determine if they will be fit parents?

            “I don’t see push back on those people from the NRA, on a larger scale.”
            You haven’t been looking, either.

            “I don’t see the NRA even endorsing responsible gun ownership at all. ”

            That alone proves you’ve made your mind up without looking into the matter.

            “I see them attacking the idea of trigger locks,”

            Really? How so? They don’t have a problem with trigger locks. In fact they cover that in many of their courses.

            “shooting down bills to provide financial assistance for people to get gun safes,…”

            To be paid for by???

            ” and generally promoting irresponsibility in a very broad way.”

            Another statement without basis in fact. You really are getting desperate.

            “I’d be happy if a group of responsible gun owners came together and
            started to condemn all these idiots who leave their guns accessible to
            toddlers or in public restrooms or schools etc”

            They already do. Or is it your assertion they should march on Washington given that it’s a trendy thing to do?
            What forum should they use to please you?

            Should alcohol companies do the same given the amount of death and injury resulting from its misuse?
            Or is “Drink Responsively” in a commercial enough?

            “But I’ve not seen it. The NRA keeps walking further away from it.
            And
            even in this thread people opt to double down on responsible gun
            owners, and “good guy with a gun” is anyone who can legally get a gun.
            (somehow ignorant of the fact that everyone who has committed their
            first gun crime did so without having ever committed one before… by
            definition.)”

            Oh, so everyone is a potential criminal. Bet you’re a big fan of prior restraint applied to everything above and beyond free speech.
            What other organizations walk away from it? When was the last time GM or Ford took irresponsible drivers to task for their irresponsibility?

            “Maybe they all assume that everyone else is a responsible gun owner,
            with their weapons secured and safe at all times, like they are, though
            the evidence constantly shows that not to be true… and when presented
            with the evidence, they say “thoughts and prayers” or “the price of
            freedom” as the answer… not “we as a firearm owning community should
            do something.”

            The NRA has always had to be on the defensive from people that distort and present out-of-context arguments as well as make broad statements that don’t always reflect the reality of things.

            You mentioned above about something sounding like…
            You are making an argument that sounds like some people simply should not have certain rights based on your perception.
            How noble of you. As if we need more self-anointed types.

          • jon

            Nice straw man… Men even.

            Though in the future you could just prove me wrong, you have the power to take the action… Or keep doing what you’ve been doing… Thoughts and prayers to you.

          • saltysailor

            Straw man? Not hardly.
            Keep flailing.
            Your assumptions and prejudices shouldn’t be your calling card but if that’s who you are, who am I to stop you?
            Keep up the good flight.

          • jon

            no not hardly. EXACTLY!

            LEts star here shall we.

            [“it sounds very similar to saying “if you have functioning reproductive
            organs you are bound to be a fit parent!” and then wondering why there
            are so many crack babies around.”

            Oh, so you speak for others now?
            Do you want the government to get involved in the lives of couples to determine if they will be fit parents?]

            Did I say ANYTHING About the government?

            no… you did… you decided what you wanted me to say and started building an argument that didn’t match what I had said at all.

            Straw man.

            or maybe this one:
            [Oh, so everyone is a potential criminal. Bet you’re a big fan of prior restraint applied to everything above and beyond free speech.
            What other organizations walk away from it? When was the last time GM or Ford took irresponsible drivers to task for their irresponsibility?]

            OR

            [Should alcohol companies do the same given the amount of death and injury resulting from its misuse?
            Or is “Drink Responsively” in a commercial enough?]

            I dont’ have the energy to go back and tell you everything you didn’t bother to read and understand about my post, mostly because I’ve no hope of you reading and understanding my explanation… we both know you have no interest in that, anyhow… you’ve made that clear.

            Since I invited you to prove me wrong, and you haven’t, my statement stands… sample size of you, the gun community has no interest in stopping any of the irresponsible uses of weapons. It’s been demonstrated here, that there is a contingent that believes responsible gun ownership stops at guns.

            OH And that some of those same people (you again) think that child abuse isn’t a problem for the government to be involved in and that couples beating their own kids is fine… (You said it… go read what you typed, or maybe you didn’t say exactly that, and this is an example of a straw man, for your benefit to help you identify them in the future.)

    • John

      A bit, but from where I stand as relatively ambivalent toward the situation (i.e. I’m not terribly fearful of the 2nd amendment being violated, and I’m not particularly for/against regulations around gun ownership), it appeared to me that throughout Obama’s presidency, gun control just wasn’t even on his radar as a significant topic. He had other focus areas.

      The NRA seemed to be doing most of the work to whip up hysteria and get people frothing at the mouth about it. The motives of the NRA, as far as I’m concerned, are questionable. They are a one issue group, and as with any one issue group, tend to be blind or hostile to any viewpoint or idea that is even slightly different from their own.

      • Will

        That’s politics, right? Remember how horrible Trump’s budget was and how meals on wheels was going away? Well the truth is that it was only a 3% cut in a special program within meals on wheels that wasn’t as effective to get people meals as the other 97% of that organization. That’s just one example of how games are played in politics.

        • MrE85

          Get a room, you two.

        • Rob

          Thank gods that whether the planned MOW cuts are large or small, T.Rump’s chances of getting the cuts passed remain infinitesimal.

      • Mitch Berg

        Obama wasn’t stupid. He (and HIllary) knew full well that if they came out and said “we want to repeal the 2nd Amendment”, it’d extinct all non-urban Democrats between the Hudson and the Sierra Madre.

        • Rob

          They never wanted to repeal the 2nd Amendment; therefore they would never have made such a claim.

          • Mitch Berg

            Both said they wanted to overturn the Heller and McDonald decisions. This is a necessary prerequisite to trying to repeal the amendment.

            Both have expressed their disdain for the right to keep and bear arms.

            They weren’t politically stupid enough to say it in as many words – but all the actual evidence is that they did in fact seek to repeal it, or make it meaningless.

          • Rob

            I’ve never heard or read anything indicating their disdain for the right to keep and bear arms. I have heard them say they favour certain restrictions on what kinds of guns can be generally purchased, and have heard them bemoan the high number of senseless deaths that the gun culture we live in tends to breed. Not nearly the same thing.

          • Mitch Berg

            You haven’t heard it. Well, good enough for me!

            I have heard/read it. I could provide sources, but would it matter?

            But I’ll meet you halfway: the fact that both blame “gun culture” for senseless deaths (it’s not “gun culture” or its practitioners that are killing people) or that they jabber about the the cosmetics of guns doesn’t mean they want to repeal the 2nd Amendment, per se. It just means they don’t understand why it matters. Which is almost as bad.

          • Rob

            Show me a link to a reputable source wherein Barry or Hillary said anything remotely suggesting that they believe the 2nd Amendment should be repealed.

          • tboom

            Listen and read, “14 mass shootings, 14 speeches”. I don’t hear disdain for the right to keep and bear arms. I hear a plea to end these senseless killings.

            http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2016/06/12/14-mass-shootings-14-speeches-how-obama-has-responded/85798652/

          • Mitch Berg

            So the thesis seems to be “ignore their actions, and their statements to friendly audiences; since they don’t call directly for abolition every time they open their mouths, they must not support it”.

          • tboom

            just saying, like Bob H. above (or below depending on discus); “I’ve never heard or read anything indication their disdain for the right to keep and bear arms. I have heard them say they favor certain restrictions on what kinds of guns can be generally purchased … “

          • Mitch Berg

            OK. So taken at face value, AT BEST they advocate making the Amendment meaningless.

            And that’s studiously ignoring (“I haven’t heard…”) the fact that both openly advocated laying the legal groundwork to repeal the Amendment, and have questioned its necessity.

          • tboom

            Laying the legal groundwork to repeal the Amendment????

            Seriously? 2/3’s of the House of Representatives, 2/3’s of the Senate, 3/4’s of the States.

            There may be people out there who would like to repeal the amendment, but NOBODY is “laying the groundwork”.

          • Mitch Berg

            Well, yeah. Not openly. It’d be political suicide.

            Thank God.

            I’m going to do my best to keep it that way.

          • AKA Malthusian Greed Lover

            Except that there are other statements besides speeches. Advocacy for British style gun laws, which he did….. is a call for confiscation.

        • kevins

          Silly proposition on your part.

    • Rob

      There was no element of truth. At no time did Obama profess a desire to take people’s guns away. Did he want to make assault weapons illegal for general purchase? Yes. And gods bless your niece for being such a good shot.

      • Will

        Wouldn’t that also make possession of an AR-15 a felony? Part of owning something is having the ability to sell it, without that option then you have infringed on the rights of the owner of that item.

        • Rob

          Current owners would have been grandfathered in, and if they wanted to sell, there would have been a buyback program.

          • Will

            There were so many different pieces of legislation and there has been a lot of animosity against “assault rifles”, I wouldn’t doubt that many left leaning legislators would prefer to make them all 100% illegal.

          • Justine Parenteau Wettschreck

            Probably because so many people persist in believing the AR stands for assault rifle.

          • Postal Customer

            Yeah, well, when an assault rifle is used to murder a bunch of children, there tends to be a reaction.

          • Will

            So following your logic that’s true of anything, why didn’t we have a movement to make knives illegal after the St. Cloud stabbing? Why not cars after London?

          • Mitch Berg

            A child just used an AR15 to thwart a violent home invasion. It was the second incident I’ve read about where a minor has used an AR to thwart a violent home invasion against multiple armed adult assailants.

            What was the old liberal saw – “if it saves even one life?”

            QED.

          • Rob

            Was that on the same page as the story about the toddler who shot his mom in the car?

          • Rob

            Queen ‘s English Dictionary?

          • AKA Malthusian Greed Lover

            I am going to use this.

      • AKA Malthusian Greed Lover

        Actually, he advocated that we should go to British or Australian gun control laws. That is gun confiscation.

  • Kassie

    Re: Gander Mountain.. They have things I buy. They have brands I like. They are not too far away. But I won’t shop there. They are way too much into guns and hunting and feeling like only men should shop there and I don’t feel comfortable in their stores. So I’ll spend more money and shop at REI or Midwest Mountaineering. I’ll have smiling friendly faces, often women, help me.

    • Will

      That’s kind of sexiest to assume only men would be interested in guns or hunting, my 17 year old niece knows far more about shotguns and is an infinitely better shot than me. Just don’t make assumptions about what women or men might interested in, gender bias can keep women out of STEM fields which we need to remedy for the sake of all of us. You have every right to spend money where you feel comfortable and/or where they support your political affiliation.

      • Kassie

        I didn’t say that. I said “and feeling like only men should shop there.” Those are my feelings. I feel like they only want men to shop there.

        And it isn’t sexist. Go to their front page. 5 pictures of men, one of a woman. Go to their weekly add. 8 pictures of men, one of a women. The two pictures of women, one is staring at trees, maybe hiking. The other she is feeding her children. Most of the shots of men are action shots.

        Now to to REI’s website. The first picture is of a woman. Then you have the board of director photos that cycle through, all women except one man. Next photo, a man and a woman as equals. Final photo of people on the page is hard to tell, but looks like two women and one man kayaking.

        If you were a woman, where would you prefer to shop?

        • Will

          The words are VERY clear, no need to get defensive; just realize the subtle hints about what men and women “should” be interested in is a form of sexism and just be a bit more careful… young women are listening and don’t disparage their interests in guns, hunting, math, science or engineering. Many young women take those “social norms” very seriously before they gain a full understanding of how society pushes them in certain directions.

          • Jerry

            She’s not the one making those implications. It is Gander Mountain’s ads that are.

          • Will

            The original comment doesn’t mention ads, good attempt at deflection though, standard case of ignoratio elenchi.

          • Jerry

            It’s good you can tell a woman what sexism is.

          • Will

            That’s a typical red herring fallacy, in particular an ad hominem attack, appeal to motive specifically…directed at me instead of my point. Women can influence other women by holding them to social norms, it does happen.

          • Jerry

            The assumptions you are making about someone you don’t know are hilarious

          • Will

            I made a comment about a comment, at this point you’re attempting to use every fallacy in the book you just used another ad hominem attack on me without even addressing my point.

          • Jerry

            Sometimes the term is used way too loosely, but you are providing a stellar example of mansplaining. You are also telling a woman, who engages in outdoor activities, that her opinions on outdoor retailers is not valid. You are also seriously misreading her original post.

          • Will

            Did you just mansplain mansplaining to me?

            At some point we should be allowed to discuss issues without resorting to insulting one another. Having a detailed discussion will involve deeper explanation, which might lead to explaining things. Using the term so loosely results in the term losing power.

          • Will

            I didn’t say that her feelings or opinions were invalid, I saw a clear undertone of pushing societal norms possibly even pushed on her at a young age and pointed it out. You can disagree with what I saw but you don’t need to attack the messenger.

          • Jerry

            And you clearly misread her statement, which probably could have used an Oxford comma. But you also made huge assumptions, and lectured her on those assumptions.

          • Will

            You don’t need a comma between “assumptions” and “and” since you are only listing two items.

          • Jerry

            It indicates a pause for emphasis between clauses.

          • Kassie

            Since you don’t know me I’ll tell you that I grew up fishing, hiking, canoeing and doing tons of outdoor activities. It was very much a girls do these sort of things house.

            MY POINT, as Jerry does a good job of saying, is that Gander Mountain has a women are not welcome here vibe. I think I probably did miss a comma. That plus the guns ensures that I don’t shop there.

          • Mitch Berg

            “mansplaining”

            Aaaaaand the argument is over.

          • Rob

            Spoken from personal experience?

          • Rob

            Thanks for the mansplaining.

        • Rob

          Nice one!

        • Jack

          I am a woman and I do shop at REI. They have the best compression socks.

          Been a member there for over 25 years.

    • Jerry

      It also doesn’t help that Gander Mountains tend to be across the street from Fleet Farms and Cabelas

    • Rob

      And there’s a climbing wall!

  • Mike Worcester

    Why am I not surprised this topic generated a whole lot of commentary even before noon. Though apparently seafood sneaked in here somehow 🙂

    • MrE85

      That’s a lobster for you. They are crafty devils.

    • Will

      Sorry, that might have been my fault, at least it got me thinking about Maine and my yearly trip there, I got a hell of a deal on plane tickets.

  • Jerry

    I’m getting the feeling that Bob brought up guns because it has been a relatively quiet week in Newscut and he wanted to stir things up a little. Or he hadn’t heard from Mitch for a while and he wanted to remedy that.

  • lindblomeagles

    I tend to think people engaged in illegal activity need guns for protection. Those of us who abide by the law, in all likelihood will never use a gun for protection because we’re smart enough to avoid areas where we think a crime may be committed. Factor crime is down, way, way, way down, it doesn’t make much sense to own a gun unless you plan on hunting animals.

    • Rob

      Crime is committed everywhere. Can we do some common sense things to minimize the likelihood of being a victim? Sure. But being smart is no guarantee a person will never be a crime victim.

      • lindblomeagles

        Life is no guarantee period. There is no guarantee you won’t get killed in a car accident. But you don’t plan on buying a tank to stop other drivers? There is no guarantee you won’t have a heart attack today, but you didn’t start your day in your doctor’s office having a cardiogram. There’s absolutely no guarantee your neighbor’s dog won’t bite you in the ass, but you’re not going to take that gun you love so much and kill your neighbor’s dog without cause are you? There’s no guarantee you won’t catch the Zika virus, but you’re not going to wear a fully inflated, biohazard suit on the 4th of July. And, as painful as this to you, there’s NO GUARANTEE you won’t be killed by a criminal even when you are brandishing the weapon you falsely believe will save your life. And if you are a true American you’d know that just from the tragedies that have already happened. Hand guns didn’t save 911 Tower victims; it didn’t save 2016 Pulse Night Club goers; and they didn’t save 2015’s 8 African American victims from Dylan Roofs. What you’re talking about is the opposite of safety — FALSE HOPE. Dangers lurk everywhere. That’s called LIFE. Rather than fear your own shadow or the branches of a tree scratching the side of your house on a windy night, DO the commonsense things and enjoy life everyday. Stop exhausting the blogosphere with lies about how guns save the world. We all know, or should know, guns end far more lives, a million to 1, than they save.

        • AKA Malthusian Greed Lover

          Do you have a fire extinguisher in your home? A fire alarm? How about a security system?
          Why?

          The only one talking about guarantees and ludicrous scenarios is you.

          Be prepared.

          Btw…the CDC reports a low estimate of 108,000 defensive gun uses per year. That report was ordered by Obama.
          So, your last sentence was also wrong.

        • Old Jarhead

          “Hand guns didn’t save 911 Tower victims; it didn’t save 2016 Pulse Night
          Club goers; and they didn’t save 2015’s 8 African American victims from
          Dylan Roofs.”

          While all that is true, THERE WERE NO OTHERS AT ANY OF THOSE PLACES THAT WERE ARMED TO PROVIDE RESISTANCE! Now, there is no chance that a handgun could have taken down the jet that hit the WTC, but an armed pilot may have had a very good chance. What is “false hope” is the idea that if the innocent are completely disarmed, then there will never be an attack.

          There are a lot of examples of those who use a firearm top fight back winning the day. Here are just a few.

          • Resident shoots 2 home invasion suspects, killing 1, police say (UT)
          • Home Owner Shoots A Trio of Armed Intruders in Self-Defense (OK)
          • Man Shoots Alleged Burglar in Self-Defense (TN)
          • Fairhill Laundromat Owner Shoots Would-Be Robber (PA)
          • Man Kills Intruder in Self-Defense (MI)
          • Man Who Killed Ridgeville Shooting Suspect Acted in Self-Defense (SC)
          • Vegas home invasion goes awry, captive breaks free and shoots intruder (NV)
          • Police Said Brother May Have Killed Brother in Self-Defense Friday Night (NV)
          • Armed Citizens Prevent Aggravated Robbery in Tyler (TX)
          • Man Shoots at His Vehicle as It’s Being Stolen from Anchorage Gas Station, Police Say (AK)
          • Subway Maintenance Man Shoots Would-Be Armed Robber (GA)
          • Home Invader Killed When He Wouldn’t Accept Food Stamps (LA)
          • Video Shows Food Mart Clerk Shooting Would-Be Robber in Hand (OH)
          • Police: Richmond man shoots neighbor who tried to invade home (ME)
          • DDOT Bus Driver Stabs Passenger in Possible Case of Self-Defense (MI)
          • Gas Station Clerk Shoots, Kills Robbery Suspect on Indy’s South Side (IN)
          • Woman Fatally Shoots Boyfriend After He Tried to Run Her Over (MI)
          • Allegedly Intoxicated Man Shot, Killed After Wandering Up to Del City Home (OK)
          • California Man Shoots Granddaughter’s Boyfriend in Self Defense (CA)
          • Arlington Robbery Suspect Shot In Groin By Armed Jogger (TX)
          • Man Stops Home Invasion Attempt, Sh (FL)oots Two Armed Intruders
          • Yakima Home Invasion Ends With Homeowner Shooting Suspect in Self-Defense (WA)
          • Man Shoots Granddaughter’s Boyfriend in Self-Defense (CA)
          • Women Shoots Boyfriend in Self-Defense (NM)
          • Video shows Roseville robber climbing on store counter before running from gunfire (MI)
          • Male shoots subject in alleged self-defense (CA)
          • Police say store clerk shoots and kills man trying to rob business (GA)
          • Homeowner Shoots Man in Self-Defense (IL)
          • Army Ranger Dies Committing Bizarre Home Invasion In Georgia (GA)
          • Customer armed with handgun shoots assault suspect in local party store (MI)
          • Barbecue Restaurant Owner Guns Down Suspected Robber (TX)
          • Aberdeen Man Stabs Intruder in His Home (MD)
          • Police: Lothian homeowner shoots burglar in the head (MD)
          • 70-Year-Old Vietnam Vet Shoots Two Armed Robbers (MO)
          • Man Shoots Teenage Intruder in Self-Defense (TN)
          • Home Owner Shoots Knife- Wielding Intruder in Self-Defense (KS)
          • Armed Citizen Shoots Jewelry Store Robber (TX)
          • Assault Leads to Self-Defense Shooting (TN)
          • Wife Shoots Husband in Leg (FL)
          • Attempted Armed Robber Shot By Victim at Restaurant (MI)
          • Employee Fires Assault Rifle at Suspects Breaking into Gun Range (TX)
          • 71-Year-Old Shoots Alleged Attacker in Self-Defense (WV)
          • Man Fatally Stabs Family Member in Self-Defense (NV)
          • Armed Citizen Saves AZ Trooper (AZ)
          • 76-Year-Old Club Owner Shoots and Kills Club-Goer During Assault (SC)
          • Pregnant Phoenix Mom Drives Off Home Intruder With Gun (AZ)
          • Police: Would-be victim shoots alleged robber (PA)
          • Woman Stabs Man In Self-Defense During Domestic Disturbance
          • Shooting Death in Idaho Falls Might be Case of Self-Defense (ID)
          • Homeowner Shot Squatter in Self-Defense (FL)
          • Teen Car Robber Shot at Close Range (MD)
          • Father Shoots Son in Self-Defense (UT)
          • North Long Beach Resident Shoots, Kills Alleged Burglar (CA)
          • Pit Bull Shot in Taylor; Police Say No Charges, Citing Self-Defense (MI)
          • Syracuse Woman Stabs Man in Self-Defense (NY)
          • Gun Owner Shoots, Kills Armed Robber (GA)
          • Reports: CPL holder shoots 2 suspects who tried to rob him in Detroit (MI)
          • Police: Man shot in Orem with life-threatening injury was home intruder (UT)
          • Homeowner Fires At Armed Intruder Who Escapes With Firearm in Stolen Truck (MI)
          • Intruder Shot Twice but Manages Escape to ER (NC)
          • Man Shoots Intruder in Self-Defense (TX)
          • Uber Driver Shoots, Kills Would-be Robber on William Lehman Causeway (FL)
          • Officials: BBQ stand owner fatally shot would-be-robber in self-defense (FL)
          • Grocery Clerk Shoots Machete-Wielding Man (TX)
          • Woman Shoots Man in Self-Defense (OK)
          • Armed Employee Saves Store Clerk from Serial Robber with Gun (NV)
          • Man shot dead by homeowner identified as a Utica resident (NY)
          • Man’s Shoot Intruder in Self-Defense (TX)
          • Man says he feared for his life when he shot intruder in west Springfield (MO)
          • Tulsa Homeowner Shoots Man In Possible Break-In (OK)
          • West Virginia Homeowner Shoots at Intruders (WV)
          • Man Who Shot Subject in McDonald’s Drive-Thru Will Not Face Charges (FL)
          • Woman Opens Fire in Parking Lot on Occupants of Her Stolen Pickup (AK)
          • Man shoots 2 armed men who tried to rob him at ATM, police say (PA)
          • Three Men Shot in Self-Defense (IL)

    • AKA Malthusian Greed Lover

      Criminals find you.

      • lindblomeagles

        Car accidents find you too, but you don’t see the American people buying tanks do you? What’s your point beyond you personally being afraid of your own shadow on a bright sunny day?

        • AKA Malthusian Greed Lover

          My point is that you cannot plan to avoid criminal areas because criminals are mobile and go where the money is.

          But you knew that. You merely had to make a stupid comment and show how tough you are.