NY Times: Obama can ban guns by using the .gov’s buying power
The Paper of Making Up The Record shows what’s wrong with cronyism. And they like it.
7 Responses to “NY Times: Obama can ban guns by using the .gov’s buying power”
Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.
Uncle Pays the Bills
 |
|
Find Local
|
Categories
- ATF (769)
- Death Match (10)
- Eminent Domain (225)
- In the bag (9)
- Notes to Junior (546)
- Poker (74)
- Recipes (142)
- Shotgun Noob (11)
- The Airing of Grievances (19)
- uncategorized (47,725)
July 21st, 2015 at 9:31 am
That worked so well for S&W…
July 21st, 2015 at 10:11 am
Heh. What oldradartech said. Apparently, the person making the suggestion didn’t do the the math. The domestic civilian firearms market is about 8 million guns per year. Even if the federal government were to purchase a new gun for every active duty military person and federal law enforcement officer, it would still only total less than about 1.5 million firearms. If you add in reserves, it still is less than 2.3 million. If you figure the lifespan of a gun in active service is 5 to 10 years, that’s just 230,000 and 490,000 guns a year, a tiny fraction of the civilian market.
Given the propensity of gun owners to boycott a company they see as screwing them, what would effectively happen is that the majority of firearms companies would go completely to the civilian market, which is much more lucrative and reliable than the federal government market. That would also limit the federal government to purchasing from companies willing to tie their wagon to the feds. Those companies deciding to do that would shrink in size rather quickly.
July 21st, 2015 at 11:28 am
They could produce “smart guns” that can be fired only by authorized users, and that therefore are far less likely to be used in accidental or intentional shootings. These measures, over time, would prevent many thousands of deaths.
But the government doesn’t want “smart guns”.
July 21st, 2015 at 12:48 pm
“Some of the leading brands of handguns purchased by the government — Glock, Smith & Wesson, Sig Sauer, Beretta, Colt, Sturm, Ruger & Company — are also leading brands used in crimes.”
And Honda Accords are among the most stolen vehicles. And popular movies somehow have the highest box office totals.
Some people just can’t think, at all.
July 21st, 2015 at 12:50 pm
Regarding S&W: had the boycott killed that venerable gun manufacturer, leading to them shutting their plants, firing their workers, selling their machine tools for scrap metal, would not the anti-gunners have rejoiced, and even thanked the boycotters for their support of the anti-gun cause?
July 21st, 2015 at 1:18 pm
Mikee: And if S&W has prospered they’d have cheered.
It’s the antis. They’ll take credit for anything they think will help and blame anything they don’t like
(Note that now they’re calling the Brady Bill “NRA written”).
These are people who don’t care for falsifiable hypothesis.
July 21st, 2015 at 4:20 pm
…“smart guns” that can be fired only by authorized users, and that therefore are far less likely to be used in accidental or intentional shootings.
Yes, exactly, they are less likely than regular guns to fire accidentally or intentionally. Therein lies the source of their total failure to generate any interest among people who expect mechanical devices to function when they’re intentionally triggered.
Of course, when the main premise of the column was that an entire industry should disregard the interests of 3/4 of its market in order to cave in to the demand of the other 1/4 (assuming the columnists’ numbers are correct), logic obviously wasn’t among their strengths.