I think so.

https://www.npr.org/2017/03/31/522036660...s-election

I used to work in gun sales. When pro- gun people see the ( D )s " getting into power" - they buy more guns and ammo.

Evidence? Ammo shortages - like the one that ended a year or so ago - only happen during periods where the ( D )s have the appearance of having a chance of passing anti- gun legislation. Just before, and during the Clinton administration - I watched guns and ammo getting sold at a frenzied pace. I would say this is the period where private ownership of military looking guns soared. They simply weren't that popular before the 1990' s. 


So?


I guess if you' re against " flooding the market with guns" - the best thing you can do is a straight ticket vote - for the ( R )s.

LOL The Republicans would allow the already lax gun laws to lapse, making the problem worse.

AND you have the cart before the horse. The reason gun sales go up during Democrat administration is the relentless fear mongering of the NRA puppets.

(February 13, 2019 at 8:48 am)onlinebiker Wrote: I think so.

https://www.npr.org/2017/03/31/522036660...s-election

I used to work in gun sales. When pro- gun people see the ( D )s " getting into power" - they buy more guns and ammo.

Evidence? Ammo shortages - like the one that ended a year or so ago - only happen during periods where the ( D )s have the appearance of having a chance of passing anti- gun legislation. Just before, and during the Clinton administration - I watched guns and ammo getting sold at a frenzied pace. I would say this is the period where private ownership of military looking guns soared. They simply weren't that popular before the 1990' s. 


So?


I guess if you' re against " flooding the market with guns" - the best thing you can do is a straight ticket vote - for the ( R )s.

While it is true that democrats are legally allowed to own guns, and also true you'll find more agreement with democrats in red states agreeing with republicans in red states on firearms, the industry and NRA profit lobby have paid far more money to republican politicians to push their agenda, than they give democratic politicians. To imply voting R would be the answer is absurd. 

It still amounts to one industry and one lobby holding congress hostage. And yes, I do want to wipe that sarcastic smile emotocon off your post. I do not find the amount of firearm violence funny one bit. 

Needlessly scaring the shit out of right wingers does work, but only for an agenda, and profit of one industry. It does not do a damned thing for public safety or reducing firearm injuries and deaths.

The fear marketing does work, but it is not funny nor anything Americans should be proud of.  An average of 100 of our fellow citizens die every day because of use of a firearm.

And here we go again - overlook the evidence - vote partisan.


Did you read the attached story?

Gun sales are DOWN since Trump got elected.


Isn't that what you want? LESS GUN SALES??


No - what you want is to ignore the unintended consequences of your actions - and keep voting ( D ).


Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. - Albert Einstein

The trouble here is that d's have, traditionally, been absolute garbage when it comes to framing issues and wasteful when it comes to exerting their power.  That's the winds that fills the r's sails.  Voting for r's would be a particularly hilarious example on the running theme of d's doing shit that doesn't actually effect gun violence.

(February 13, 2019 at 9:40 am)Gae Bolga Wrote: The trouble here is that d's have, traditionally, been absolute garbage when it comes tvo framing issues and wasteful when it comes to exerting their power.  That's the winds that fills the r's sails.  Voting for r's would be a particularly hilarious example on the running theme of d's doing shit that doesn't actually effect gun violence.

Yes and no.

Would switching to voting ( R ) reduce gun violence?

Probably not.

Would it reduce gun sales?

 History shows it likely.

Is that a good solution?

Bwaaahahahahaha

...

No. 

Only a fool thinks voting for one party is a solution.

It would be unlikely to reduce gun sales, since those upticks in gun sales are argued to be an artifact of batshit reaction to perceived political opposition.  If everyone started voting r, there would be no opposition to scare the living shit out of the dolts in the first place. Gun sales would remain static, not increase or decrease. This, ofc, has no effect whatsoever on gun crime today, there's a lag between the sale of a new gun and it's appearing in trace data.

(February 13, 2019 at 9:26 am)onlinebiker Wrote: And here we go again - overlook the evidence - vote partisan.


Did you read the attached story?

Gun sales are DOWN since Trump got elected.


Isn't that what you want? LESS GUN SALES??


No - what you want is to ignore the unintended consequences of your actions - and keep voting ( D ).


Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. - Albert Einstein

You have a small problem with cause-and-effect.

Another resource for anyone interested in gun policy that works, a bit dated, to go along with the trace data I just love to post.

https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/GUIC.PDF

TLDR, most crimes are not committed with guns, most guns are not used in the commission of crimes.  When a gun is used in the commission of a crime it is overwhelming a handgun,  and even more specifically a large bore revolver - semi auto handguns were on the rise,.  About a third of those guns are less than three years old and likely stolen (5% were brand new)..the remainder, and overwhelmingly not stolen, are nearly two decades old.

We've known -exactly- how to deal with our gun violence problem for some time now. It's just not politically attractive. Not for the d's..not for the r's.

(February 13, 2019 at 9:50 am)Gae Bolga Wrote: It would be unlikely to reduce gun sales, since those upticks in gun sales are argued to be an artifact of batshit reaction to perceived political opposition.  If everyone started voting r, there would be no opposition to scare the living shit out of the dolts in the first place.  Gun sales would remain static, not increase or decrease.  This, ofc, has no effect whatsoever on gun crime today, there's a lag between the sale of a new gun and it's appearing in trace data.

I don't think so.

A high demand is caused by likely buyers seeing a potential future inability to buy.

When there is no threat - They don't buy - and the supply increases. This drives prices down - which SHOULD spur sales - but oddly enough, doesn't.

Illogical? Absolutely. But it is the observed trend.

Personally - I buy when prices are down, not up.