Althouse: "Why gun sales spike after mass shootings..."

July 25, 2012

"Why gun sales spike after mass shootings..."

"It's not what you might think."

Oh? But what did you think? Answer before you look. I mean, I guessed right.

44 comments:

traditionalguy said...: It's fear of gun sales restrictions or its fear of psychopaths studying for Phds.
What is hard to guess? Is it early Christmas shopping?; 7/25/12, 6:44 PM
Revenant said...: I guess correctly as well.

But then, my first reaction to hearing what guns the shooter had used was "I'd better hurry up and buy that AR-15 I've been wanting before some asshole bans them again".; 7/25/12, 6:46 PM
Brian Brown said...: Of course the answer is easy.

It is evident in that so many people are stocking up on guns & ammo during this failed affirmative action Presidency.; 7/25/12, 6:47 PM
traditionalguy said...: I read the article, and it hit me that the Feds need some more weapons ready to ship to Mexican Drug Lords before the current supplies supplies run out.

I want to know where they sell drones.; 7/25/12, 6:49 PM
edutcher said...: Being convinced of the foolishness of gun-free safe zones.

Once again, the people vote with their feet.

As it were.; 7/25/12, 6:50 PM
Bob Ellison said...: I haven't looked, and I'm guessing anticipation of new gun laws. Maybe I'm wrong.; 7/25/12, 7:01 PM
Drew said...: Wow!

I waded through all the pages of the comment section for that article.

I have never seen so many sheep in one place at one time.; 7/25/12, 7:01 PM
Bob Ellison said...: Ha! So I've looked, and I was right (as always). What did the author think I/we were thinking?; 7/25/12, 7:03 PM
Elle said...: Totally guessed correctly.

Hope my prize is Date Night at the local range.; 7/25/12, 7:04 PM
Bob Ellison said...: I suspect the author was thinking people were simpler than that: that they would tend to buy more guns only in response to a perceived immediate threat, not so much in response to a perceived threat of change in law.

It's an interesting editorial article. The Christian Science Monitor (BTW, what's with that Christian Science?!) has been going lefty and weirdy for years now.; 7/25/12, 7:07 PM
Amartel said...: The presumption of the media elite, "It's not what you might think." Screw you. More like it's not what YOU might think. Apparently it never occurred to YOU that maybe a lot of people noticed that after a shooting incident the very first government-media knee-jerk impulse every single time is to start yammering about guns and gun banning and restricting. And that maybe a lot of people noticed that this impulse, while transparently self-serving bullshit served up to show that the government is "doing something" and "cares", is still one which gets acted upon regularly. Hence the sudden urgency to buy a gun.

It's funny that the article points out that Obama has been GREAT for gun store owners.; 7/25/12, 7:39 PM
wyo sis said...: Probably most people guessed the right reason. Only Washington insiders would find it unusual. We've all learned that terrorism results in laws to punish/restrict the innocent and make academics and the elite media feel better.; 7/25/12, 7:39 PM
T J Sawyer said...: I guessed right.

It's like shooting fish in a barrel. (Should I put a "don't try that at home" disclaimer on that second sentence?); 7/25/12, 7:45 PM
Shanna said...: This article reminds me that I want to get a gun that's not a 22. And maybe head to the range, which last I checked was closed for repairs after a tornado.; 7/25/12, 7:51 PM
holdfast said...: Pretty much what I thought. I haven't checked ammo prices lately - wonder if they are spiking again?

Does anyone know of an app or site that aggregates and compares ammo prices?; 7/25/12, 7:51 PM
n.n said...: Risk management. Politicians often fail to comprehend that our government was authorized to preserve our Creator-given individual rights. This declaration was, ironically, recorded in The Declaration of Independence, America's establishment document. It sets the context for the organization document, The Constitution.; 7/25/12, 7:55 PM
Carol said...: I thought, all the more reason for self defense, a better carry gun than what I have now. In fact, a G23 like Holmes used is a good one to get.; 7/25/12, 8:17 PM
Carnifex said...: My Dad was watching the news tonight and strted laughing when the talking head repoted about the "high powered rifle" the dickwad in Colorado used.(I won't use the shooters name, he wanted publicity. Fuck what he wants). The least the news media could do is get someone that actually knows guns to report on them, but that will never happen, Doesn't fit the narrative. I told my wife, if this guy had been after body count he'd have used his exlosives almost exclusively. Much more dangerous, and can be done remotely, so less risk involved. This guy was a piker. Governments now...they know how to do mass murder.; 7/25/12, 8:22 PM
Marine 83 said...: "Does anyone know of an app or site that aggregates and compares ammo prices?"

Here ya go.

http://www.ammoengine.com/find/index?last_firearm_id=handgun&last_caliber_id=9x19mm_Parabellum_Luger&firearm_id=handgun&caliber_id=45_ACP&search%5Bsort%5D=1&search%5Bgroup%5D=0; 7/25/12, 8:25 PM
Hagar said...: Once again slowly.
The one thing that assault rifles must be is capable of automatic firing.
Possession of an automatic firing weapon without a Federal firearms license has been illegal in the United States since 1935, and since 1986 it takes a special hard to get license only issued to legitimate dealers selling arms to the miltary or police.
Therefore the "assault rifles" pictured at the link and elsewhere are not assault rifles, but look-alikes, without the automatic fire option.

And O'Reilly to the contrary, you cannot legally buy a bazooka (that is a WWII collector's item, anyway) or a military AK-47 at a gun show or anywhere else without that special Federal license.; 7/25/12, 8:28 PM
Eric said...: Pretty much what I thought. I haven't checked ammo prices lately - wonder if they are spiking again?

Probably. On the way into work NPR was having the vapors over the fact that you could buy ammo over the internet. Oh my God! It's like, people can just... buy the stuff, without a permit or anything!

Shouldn't everything you might want to buy require a permit?; 7/25/12, 8:31 PM
Hagar said...: And the term "high-powered rifle" that the TV airheads throw around is even more annoying.
"High-powered rifle" means anything larger than .22 Long Rifle, and is as meaningless as the breathless reports of car chases with speeds "up to 90 miles and hour!"
The 90 mph. bit is a hangover from pre-1950 when that was about as fast as any but special high-end sports cars and race cars would go.; 7/25/12, 8:36 PM
Richard Dolan said...: It isn't surprising that pretty much everyone here knew immediately that fear of Big Brother, not the random nut, was what was driving people to stock up. Those who, like Team O, think gov't is more solution than problem have a long way to go in winning over a skeptical public. They would be smart to start by cleaning up and reining in TSA, and ATF, and while they were at it, recruiting an Atty Gen who could bring a little judgment and common sense to that office.; 7/25/12, 8:45 PM
Bob Ellison said...: Hagar, keep trying. People don't know guns. I don't. It's kind of like trying to explain the Interwebs.; 7/25/12, 8:50 PM
Mr. D said...: Easiest question Althouse has asked in a long time.; 7/25/12, 9:02 PM
holdfast said...: Shouldn't everything you might want to buy require a permit?

Like an abortion?

Ok, kidding - and I'm not in favor banning things that millions of people will choose to purchase anyway, but the irony here is so huge - Libs believe that abortion is protected by an invisible clause in the Constitution, while they can't see the 2nd Amendment sitting there in real ink. Libs are concerned that guns might be used for murder. Conservative Christians believe that every abortion is a murder. And we have waiting periods for handguns, but not . . .; 7/25/12, 9:49 PM
Chip S. said...: Rational expectations rule at Althouse.

None of that Keynesian crap here.; 7/25/12, 10:57 PM
Indigo Red said...: DOH! I guessed the opening of deer season was coming up.; 7/25/12, 11:12 PM
Sabinal said...: rise in gun sales or no rise in gun sales, no one really knows what it's like to kill a human being, no matter what the reason. For one, unless you are sociopathic, it will bother you. Second, you will have to face the courts both criminal and civil (wrongful death suits from the criminal survivors)

Part of this I got from Pat of Stubborn Facts when the VA tech murders happened. Guns do not become weapons of protection in as much talisman against fear after such a Hollywood-type crime (face it, who would buy more guns if it was a drug bust gone wrong in the urban ghetto?).

When I was looking for a defense item (a kubotan)I was told by the gun sellers that that was not a good idea, because the assail-er/attacker could sue me in court if I actually succeeded in defending myself. A kubotan is a stick...imagine the problems with a gun.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kubotan
Here's an archived quote from Stubborn Facts about the risk of self defense - I hope I am not misquoting Pat HMD, as I had to cache it from Google:

One caveat I would make about the anecdotes in the thread. Keep in mind that they all necessarily came from survivors. There will be no anecdotes from the people who fumbled for the gun under the seat and were shot in the process; those guys didn't live to tell the tale. So while the comments are full of stories showing that, for the author, fighting back or standing up to the attacker worked, that doesn't mean that fighting back will always work, or even that fighting back will work most of the time. Nobody's around to give contrary examples like "I told the gangbanger who was carjacking me to step off, and then he shot me in the head."

for more detail here is the cache site
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:x8xNSSDFDP0J:stubbornfacts.org/archive/all/2007/stubbornfacts.us/law/harvardlawreview.org/issues/119/Nov05/stubbornfacts.us/politics/2010_election/stubbornfacts.us/law/%253Ca%2520href%253D%3Fpage%3D49+&cd=8&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a; 7/25/12, 11:32 PM
rcommal said...: Of course I know why, Althouse. That's exactly why.

Of course, my husband and I have neither bought more guns nor more ammunition in the wake of Aurora. Nor did we need to, and--further--we question why others felt they needed to, all in a rush, all due to a rush of reaction.

From our POV, gun-ownership and -buying ought to be approached in the same way as sound, rational, plan-ahead, longer-term budgeting and investment ought to be approached: as part of a steady, sober, calm, rational, intelligent plan, shoving all emotional and reactionary bullshit aside.

Only sayin'.; 7/26/12, 1:13 AM
rcommal said...: Panic-buying behavior is not a particularly confidence-building thing, in general. In this case, it makes both me and my husband wonder: WTF?; 7/26/12, 1:25 AM
Alex said...: Heaven forbid we should banish the NRA from having a place at the gun control table.; 7/26/12, 3:20 AM
rcommal said...: This one is for Alex and every and all other "pronounc-er" of definitiveness:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PjFE9uy3N38; 7/26/12, 4:29 AM
rcommal said...: (I'd way rather be a Charlie Brown [who in fact is not a follower, much less a sycophant] than any of of the rest of that gang, up to and even including--horrors that I could or would even say it!!!--Snoopy.)

Regards,

Lori; 7/26/12, 5:15 AM
Matt Sablan said...: Maybe I'm just cynical, but I guessed right as well.; 7/26/12, 6:43 AM
Rusty said...: Carnifex@8:22
Sadly,I couldn't help thinking that a shotgun with double ought buck would have had a greater effect.
Shooting well takes practice.; 7/26/12, 7:07 AM
Tank said...: Easy.

You misunderestimated us.

It's not just the knee jerk reaction to start "regulating" (ie. taking away the freedom and right of law abiding citizens who've done nothing wrong), but the absolute ignorance of so many politicians and others about firearms and the 2nd Amd.; 7/26/12, 7:56 AM
Aridog said...: Sabinal said...

... no one really knows what it's like to kill a human being, no matter what the reason...

I'd hope you exclude military combat veterans, and many police officers, from that assessment. The "no one" implies universality that simply isn't true.; 7/26/12, 8:50 AM
Kirk Parker said...: Hagar,

" since 1986 it takes a special hard to get license only issued to legitimate dealers selling arms to the miltary or police."

Huh? Not so, in states where full-auto is legal, you can still buy one just fine by buying the tax stamp and getting approved. What changed (I think in '86 but I'm too lazy to confirm) is that you are restricted to firearms manufactured before 1986, thus the supply is artificially limited and the price of the firearms themselves just keeps going up and up.; 7/26/12, 9:49 AM
jeff said...: It was exactly what I thought. And my reaction was the same as Revenant. Word for word.; 7/26/12, 10:00 AM
jeff said...: "One caveat I would make about the anecdotes in the thread. Keep in mind that they all necessarily came from survivors. There will be no anecdotes from the people who fumbled for the gun under the seat and were shot in the process; those guys didn't live to tell the tale. So while the comments are full of stories showing that, for the author, fighting back or standing up to the attacker worked, that doesn't mean that fighting back will always work, or even that fighting back will work most of the time. Nobody's around to give contrary examples like "I told the gangbanger who was carjacking me to step off, and then he shot me in the head"

What an incredible load of crap. If there was any suspicion that someone died trying to fight back, the media would proclaim it to the heavens. It almost sounds like you are presenting that old, tired argument that its better to capitulate than to resist. Which is YOUR right. Knock yourself out.; 7/26/12, 10:05 AM
karrde said...: @sabinal,

there are bloggers out there who gather stories of people who successfully defend themselves with guns.

While we don't have the data to compare them to stories of unsuccessful self-defense, these are not rare events.

However, they don't tend to be reported on national TV with weeks of follow-up.; 7/26/12, 12:38 PM
Big Mike said...: I guessed right

So did I. It's a pretty well-established phenomenon.

I wouldn't own an AK-47 because it's pretty inaccurate and if you need 10 or 30 shots to hit an intruder in your home, then it's too late because you're already dead. And I don't much care for the AR-15 because it reminds me of the M-16 when I was a Vietnam-era draftee, and I hated that finicky, prone-to-jam POS.

But a Remington pump? Just the sound of a shell being racked has been known to drive off intruders (unless that's a modern urban legend).; 7/26/12, 7:51 PM
Big Mike said...: no one really knows what it's like to kill a human being

There are hundreds of inner city kids who can make a liar out of you. Not to mention loads of veterans.

First person you kill, you feel really weird. You think, this guy had a mother who loved him, and a father who loved him, and maybe sisters and brothers who loved him, and he was living a moment ago and now he's dead and I'm to blame.

The second, you note that the bullet carried a little high and you need to adjust your sights or drop your point of aim.

Or so I'm told.; 7/26/12, 7:56 PM