What Happens After Calls for New Gun Restrictions? Sales Go Up


NY Times:

What Happens After Calls for New
Gun Restrictions? Sales Go Up

More guns were sold in December than almost any other month in nearly two decades, continuing a pattern of spikes in sales after terrorist attacks and calls for stricter gun-buying laws, according to federal data released in January.
The heaviest sales last month, driven primarily by handgun sales, followed a call from President Obama to make it harder to buy assault weapons after the terrorist attack in San Bernardino, Calif.

                         Fear of gun-buying restrictions has been the  main driver of spikes in gun sales, far surpassing the effects of mass  shootings and terrorist attacks alone, according to an analysis of  federal background check data by The New York Times.
                         During the previous record month, December  2012, Mr. Obama called for new buying restrictions after the mass  shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School.
                         “President Obama has actually been the best  salesman for firearms,” Brian W. Ruttenbur, an analyst with BB&T  Capital Markets, a financial services firm, said last month.
                         These estimates, based on data first reported  in 1998, undercount total sales, because some sales are not recorded in  states that do not require background checks for private sales.
                            **Gun Control Proposals**
                         Gun sales rose in New Jersey in 2013 after Gov. Chris Christie [proposed]("http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/05/31/new-jersey-pushes-gun-control/")  measures that included expanding background checks and banning certain  rifles. (Mr. Christie later vetoed one of the most stringent parts of  the proposals.)
             The dynamic shows a Catch-22 for gun control proponents: Pushing for new restrictions can lead to an influx of new guns.
                         When Maryland approved one of the nation’s [strictest gun-control measures]("https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/md-politics/signing-of-md-gun-control-bill-to-launch-new-legal-battles-fight-for-public-support/2013/05/15/2c68f7d8-bd99-11e2-9b09-1638acc3942e_story.html")  in May 2013, gun sales jumped as buyers tried to beat the October  deadline specified in the measure, which banned most semiautomatic  rifles.
             As police officers evacuated people from New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina, legally registered guns were [confiscated from civilians]("http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/09/us/nationalspecial/police-begin-seizing-guns-of-civilians.html").
                         The confiscations outraged gun owners and  prompted an increase in gun sales in the area. Conservatives responded  by pushing for a federal law prohibiting the seizure of firearms from  civilians during an emergency, and many states followed with similar  legislation.


Of course they do. So? Analogously, when you try to fight a bad habit, at first it gets worse.


Nobody likes losing a “right,” even when the exercise of said right makes no sense.

One of the foibles of human life is that the surest way to make someone want something is to threaten to take it away. No biggie.



Didymus. You asked. . .

What Happens After Calls for New Gun Restrictions? Sales Go Up

I think this is multifactorial didymus.

People are worried this MAY be their last chance to purchase an American weapon they have long been considering and may soon be unavailable (hopfully not) due to unlawful Government over regulating or “Too much Government” (TMG).

Other people are concerned about the violence in the news and are taking steps to safegurad thmselves and their families if violence comes their way.

Others may be worried about price increases.

Many people want a piece of history before people in Washington who threaten to disregard the very oath of fidelity to the Constitution they had taken, can unlawfully act with little or no consequences.

Coiincidental purchase.

Some combination of above.

Something different than above.

Etc. Etc.

But Hopefully . . .***

Hopefully an effort to get more law abiding citizens trained and the impedances to carry diminished so a guy in a public place couldn’t pull off stunts like this (at least to this degree)

A movement in the school system to teach youth responsible age appropriate fire arm usage. Like the NRA Eddie Eagle education program.

God bless.



Very true. Tell a child “Don’t touch X” and that’s a sure-fire way to make him grab X.

Some of us grow up. Others don’t. :stuck_out_tongue:


Despite being British I’m not remotely in against the 2nd Amendment (although it’s noticeable we have very low levels of gun crime, in common with most other countries with very - one might say overly - restrictive firearms laws).

However it does rather strike me that putting more guns into the hands of the responsible is not going to make the world safer. Even rigorously trained police officers in the midst of some awful gun battle are not in a position safely to always distinguish friend from foe (or bystander from criminal anyway) - and perhaps more pertinently, shots go awry. If bullets start whizzing past my head the last thing I want are MORE bullets with half a dozen trajectories as a bunch of local heat-packing do-gooders start retaliating (“defending”), quite possibly with no knowledge of where the actual shooter is.

All that said - and while I would in no way feel safer in public if half the people around me however much they might be on ‘my side’, carried, for the above reason alone - the impulse to want to defend oneself is completely legitimate and while one might think that more notice could be taken of the 2nd and 3rd words of the 2nd Amendment sometimes, to deny in the current climate people reasonable (and “regulated”) access to firearms seems woefully irresponsible on the part of a supposedly democratic government. I highly doubt any sort of gun control measures will result from the tragedy in Orlando (since no previous incident has either…), but the notion that they might quite reasonably leads people to bring forward a purchase they’ve been considering, just in case.


Guns are a liberal platform talking point and it gains support in times of disaster, they ignore the disaster and play politics.

They will never correct it nor have they. Been talking the same trash for decades and nothing ever happens. :shrug:

Same comparison with abortion as the democrats suggest about republicans. :shrug:

Democrats are fear mongers in time of chaos and disaster and for political gain only, had they really been so concerned the focus would be the disaster not the politics driven nonsense of guns and republicans.


Change the name from assault weapon to defense weapon. Problem solved. Orlando would therefore be a violation of federal safety labeling.

Really, we know which religion is the elephant in the living room. But no one dare mention it.


I’ve never felt the need, nor the desire, to exercise my rights to own a gun. And, honestly, I have doubted the need that others (other than for hunting, sport, or perhaps collecting), have seen as compelling rationale for others to own gun ownership; so if that makes me a wild-eyed liberal anti-constitutional fear monger, so be it. I’ve been called worse.

One justification for gun ownership I have never bought into is the belief that I (or others) need guns for protection from our own government.

A dramatic change in the character of government, as a result of next fall’s election could change all that. I may end up changing my mind on this issue.


Some of this depends on where you are and what you do.

Where I live, there are a lot of people who live in pretty remote circumstances. Law enforcement may be thirty minutes to an hour away, if it comes at all. Absolutely everybody who lives in such circumstances has a gun, and rightly so.

In recent years, and due to a number of factors, the wildlife population has exploded. We have feral hogs, bears, coyotes, mountain lions, feral dogs. On the “varmint” side, we have coyotes, armadillos and other creatures that pose other kinds of threats. Armadillos, for example, dig big holes in the ground and if one is driving through a field in tall grass, one could have a fatal accident if a wheel fell into one of them. Coyotes rarely attack humans, but they’re a danger to children, and they are dangerous to certain livestock.
And then there are copperheads and water moccasins. In some places, rattlesnakes.

A person really needs a gun in places like this. And, other than bears, lions and snakes, the very best gun for all of those is an AR-15.

Nobody around here has been killed with an AR-15 in living memory, even though they’re everywhere. So, while cities might ban anything from semi-automatic rifles to big soft drinks if the voters want it, what is the compelling reason for depriving people where I live of any means of self-protection?


Can anybody point me to an example of where this has actually happened? I can not recall an instances of where legally armed persons start indiscriminately shooting because other shots have been fired near them.


Sadly, this is just another example of the urban versus rural divide in the nation. And it is really why there is now an issue.

In the past, when we were a rural nation, folks armed, not to challenge other persons, but to obtain food and contend with nature. Modern Urban America arms against its fellow citizens.



I wonder how much of the uptick can be ascribed to politically liberal gays, who prior to June 12 would have never considered a need for a firearm.


As shown in this article, stocks in gun companies did rise immediately after the Orlando shooting, in anticipation of new gun restrictions. But today we hear on the Marketplace Morning Report that stocks in these companies are back down. If you google Smith and Wesson stock values and look at the last 5 days you will see it was just a temporary blip. Same thing for Store and Ruger firearms.


One wonders just a little, however, how many citizens of Boston bought guns after the Tsarnaev rampage through the neighborhoods. Imagine how one would have felt, cowering defenseless in his/her home while the Tsarnaevs were on the loose with automatic weapons. Some terrorists want to die as martyrs, but some of them want to escape the consequences of their deeds. Imagine the panic in south Florida if Mateen had shot up that club then disappeared into residential neighborhoods. It does seem the San Bernardino killers intended to get away.


But remember that the city was locked down on that occasion; anybody blasting into the shadows would have been killed when the law showed up.


Remember, Obama engineered a drought of ammunition and still some ammo is not available.


And how many might have died before it did?

Took awhile to locate the younger Tsarnaev. What if, instead of hiding in a boat, he simply jimmied a lock on some resident’s door and held the family hostage or simply murdered them?

I’m sure it was cold comfort to the residents to believe that Tsarnaev would surely be killed by law enforcement if they, themselves, were murdered by him.


True, and it could be made worse by him. The ridiculous thing about that is that many bullets are not gun-specific. 9mm, for example, can go into a wide range of guns, from a single-shot pistol to a fully automatic rifle.


Well said. :thumbsup:

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.