Engineered false scarcity (0.00 / 0)

It's a bonanza for the industry. Olin Corp., makers of Winchester ammunition, reported sales up 30% over 2007. That's in a recession, folks.

The NRA morphed into a corporate mouthpiece decades ago. The scare tactics are simply effective industry-wide marketing, tiding them over (and then some) when they should be seeing sales decline.

The other effect is the "bare shelves" cycle. The most paranoid got out there months ago and stripped the ammunition shelves in their local Wal-Marts and gun shops. The slightly less paranoid came in afterward, saw the shelves bare, and panicked. Wal-Mart managers are reporting people calling in to ask when the next shipment of ammo is coming in and then the whole lot selling out by 10 AM. Classic hoarding scenario. Prediction: A couple of years from now, when 1) we finally pull the majority of our forces out of Iraq, 2) Obama hasn't proposed any new gun control legislation, and 3) the economy goes further down the tubes, there will be a glut of surplus ammunition.

Same issues for any firearm more suitable for shooting humans than deer.

I shoot targets with an old style flintlock muzzle-loader, but most of the guys I see at competitions overlap with the modern firearm group. The rhetoric is breathtaking. You'd think (what passes for) Western Civilization was about to collapse into some dystopic combo of Hobbsian chaos and Orwellian/Soviet repression. I have a couple of politically progressive friends I shoot flintlocks with, and we all have to bite our tongues and do the micro-eyebrow-arch to each other at these events. One of my friends summed it up thusly: "A piece of black "librul" fell on my head so the world is coming to an end." Don't bother trying to tell the NRA guys anything different.

Minor Heretic
"Damned for 25% of eternity"

---

by: Minor Heretic @ Sun Jun 28, 2009 at 22:10:07 PM CDT

Well, (4.00 / 1)

I've always insisted the problem isn't guns, it's the gun nuts.

You can read more of JD Ryan at five before chaos. But why would you want to?

---

by: JDRyan @ Mon Jun 29, 2009 at 11:02:55 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

More gun sales... (0.00 / 0)

...will automatically, law of averages-wise, result in a spike in gun related deaths and injuries, either accidental or deliberate, as some of these new twits buying guns fondle their new toy.  I'm not anti-gun, and, realistically, I don't think this country will ever be anti-gun, but it's not being 'anti-gun' to suggest that the NRA, the right wing groups, the Gun Clubs, the gun manufacturers and retailers AND the MSM are promoting a situation that puts more guns in potentially (averages) the wrong hands, and thus are creating a situation that endangers the public and ups the stats on gun-related death and violence.  I guess the Patriot Act clauses about threats to the public safety and general well being don't kick in here.  Too bad they can't be held accountable.  Perhaps some mother of some young dude-who accidentally blows himself or someone else away with the weapon he was told he should buy before it was banned-will sue NRA, Etc., and get the ACLU behind her.

You're a lawyer, Jack.  Any grounds for 'preventative' class action on this issue before the death toll rises?

---

by: PeteySweety @ Tue Jun 30, 2009 at 10:43:32 AM CDT

Can this really happen? (0.00 / 0)

Perhaps some mother of some young dude-who accidentally blows himself

---

by: farjas @ Tue Jun 30, 2009 at 12:35:05 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Of course... (0.00 / 0)

...it could happen.  I believe in the right to keep and bear arms, but I do NOT believe that it should be 'corrupted' for political/commercial goals.  Encouraging people to buy firearms out of fear Obama will ban them is like telling assholes they should drive faster to save gas.  If more guns are being bought with a fear-factor attached, it's bound to happen that more people will become victims of guns.  I think there's grounds for some kind of class action suit NOW against NRA, etc. for stirring up gun control hysteria.

---

by: PeteySweety @ Tue Jun 30, 2009 at 13:53:10 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I was reading your quote a bit more literally. n/t (0.00 / 0)

---

by: farjas @ Tue Jun 30, 2009 at 14:21:02 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Jump in here any time, Jack N/T (0.00 / 0)

---

by: PeteySweety @ Tue Jun 30, 2009 at 14:40:00 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Well... (0.00 / 0)

Were the young man actually limber enough to pull that off, there is the risk of some serious back injury, I would imagine.

You can read more of JD Ryan at five before chaos. But why would you want to?

---

by: JDRyan @ Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 08:52:10 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

"Young"? n/t (0.00 / 0)

---

by: Jack McCullough @ Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 08:53:44 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

I don't see it. (0.00 / 0)

There are all kinds of activities that, in the aggregate, are likely to lead to some harmful consequence, but can't be prevented for that reason.

To take one example, it is predictable that in a construction project of a certain size, at least one of the workers will be killed. Or we know that by manufacturing SUV's, the car companies are likely to cause the deaths of some number of people riding in smaller cars who get into crashes with the SUV's. In neither case, though, will it be possible to obtain an injunction against the activity.

In this case, where the activity you're talking about is speech about an issue of public concern, there is no way a court would issue an injunction.

---

by: Jack McCullough @ Tue Jun 30, 2009 at 21:03:07 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Which side? (0.00 / 0)

 Perhaps some mother of some young dude-who accidentally blows himself or someone else away with the weapon he was told he should buy before it was banned-will sue NRA, Etc., and get the ACLU behind her.

Pretty sure the ACLU would take the NRA's side of the argument, if any, in a case like that.

sláinte,
cl

-- Religion is like sodomy: both can be harmless when practiced between consenting adults but neither should be imposed upon children.

---

by: Caoimhin Laochdha @ Tue Jun 30, 2009 at 21:48:34 PM CDT

[ Parent ]