PDA

View Full Version : Do gunlaws increase gun ownership?


Cato
09-01-2011, 12:05 PM
If the 2A wasn't infringed, do you think there would be less gun ownership? In my case, I bought semi autos when Obama was elected and OLLs when back when we were in that "TWO WEEKS" period. I'm not a gun nut, but I do cherish my Liberty and seem to buy guns whenever I think their purchase might get banned. Guns are expensive; I don't think I would have built a collection if the anti gun folks had legislation pending to take away my rights.

If the 2A was respected, I'd probably have just a pistol for home defense, maybe a semi auto rifle. I'd just rent or borrow any other gun I wanted to try out.

stix213
09-01-2011, 12:11 PM
I think the fear of gun laws increases ownership. Last presidential election is proof.

Existing gun laws probably increase fears of future gun laws, so they probably cause increased ownership as well.

Seems like there is nothing the anti's do that doesn't have the exact opposite effect.

mag360
09-01-2011, 12:11 PM
many of the people I work with also freaked out and became gun owners in 08. You're onto something. Should be in general discussion tho?

Andy Taylor
09-01-2011, 12:20 PM
While I would own guns one way or the other, I would most like not own an EBR if it weren't for all the bans/attempted bans of such guns.

pteveland
09-01-2011, 12:21 PM
Any time there is a fear something will be taken away (guns, ammo, candy, etc.), there is a tendancy to over react. Several friends of mine have gone from no guns before the election, to now owning several. I have also increased my humble collection somewhat. We should not live in fear but instead bolster our collections because it is our right and privilege as United States citizens.

Cato
09-01-2011, 12:23 PM
Seems like there is nothing the anti's do that doesn't have the exact opposite effect.

That makes me think of an interview I heard in KPCC's Talk of the City. Charlie Beck, the Chief of LAPD, was asked about his stance on gun laws. His response was simply "I don't know why there are SOOO many guns in our society."

Well, you tie the hands of honest people. People who open carry are harrassed. You nuter what weapons you permit honest people to own. And you fail at maintaining a safe community. Now on one hand Law Enforcement are supposed to just enforce the law. But, you know what, they don't. They are the first to come out in support of gun laws. They use their position to lobby public opinion and votes. They are anti civilian gun ownership. I know there are a few lower level cops who support the 2A, but you never hear of them in a public forum.

ckprax
09-01-2011, 12:27 PM
Gun purchases definitely increase when it seems our right are at risk.

It hasn't personally affected me but that is because I want my collection to surpass my fathers, and I have a long ways to go. I will continue to buy guns as fast as I can afford them.

triplestack3
09-01-2011, 12:29 PM
Stocking up for when Obama gets re-elected LOL

Anchors
09-01-2011, 12:42 PM
I defintely have bought guns "just because" due to California law. When I first started lurking/reading here, I was just interested in shotgun laws. But I got sucked in and ended up assembling an AR and buying an AK. Actually my first gun was a Mosin sniper from RGuns which I sold later. But yeah, if I stayed in Arizona ad hadn't discovered calguns, I probably wouldn't be so into it.

The person that said it is like when you take candy away from a kid and they just want it even more is pretty accurate.

Mesa Tactical
09-01-2011, 12:43 PM
Handwaving here, but the 1994 assault weapon ban was absolutely the single most important factor in the AR-15 becoming "America's Rifle" ten years later.

I've been trying for years to get the NSSF to host a dinner in honor of Gloria Feinstein at a SHOT Show, but no one wants to get behind it.

joefreas
09-01-2011, 12:51 PM
112860

infernl
09-01-2011, 12:54 PM
I am of the opinion that what what people are not allowed to have - they want more than anything.

-And just start laying down a bunch of rules, or give a date after which something is no longer legal, but you can be grandfathered in - and I guarantee you that there will be a rush like nobody's business on that which is being limited/criminalized/controlled.

FastFinger
09-01-2011, 1:16 PM
I'm not tthe type to stockpile stuff, but I do have a couple of stripped lowers "just in case..."

bruss01
09-01-2011, 2:26 PM
I remember back when I purchased my first guns (a pump shotgun and a revolver) that I heard about the "collective rights" theory and it made me so angry I determined to buy as many guns as I could. Now, 7 years later, I've got 3 and a half safes full.

So yes, I'd say based on personal experience that attempts at gun control can actually encourage more gun ownership.

Wherryj
09-01-2011, 2:30 PM
If the 2A wasn't infringed, do you think there would be less gun ownership? In my case, I bought semi autos when Obama was elected and OLLs when back when we were in that "TWO WEEKS" period. I'm not a gun nut, but I do cherish my Liberty and seem to buy guns whenever I think their purchase might get banned. Guns are expensive; I don't think I would have built a collection if the anti gun folks had legislation pending to take away my rights.

If the 2A was respected, I'd probably have just a pistol for home defense, maybe a semi auto rifle. I'd just rent or borrow any other gun I wanted to try out.

My wife can verify that at least one household made "impulse" purchases on a long delayed shotgun and EBR, many "impulse" buys on extra ammunition and even several "impulse" buys for airsoft replicas-and they all just MIGHT have had something to do with legislation that was pending at the time.

2009_gunner
09-01-2011, 2:34 PM
I defintely have bought guns "just because" due to California law.

Me too. I've never been in a situation where I needed a gun, and don't anticipate being in one.

I've always supported the 2Am, but had other priorities in life than to buy a gun. After seeing the demonization of guns in the movie "Crash" I slowly started researching about guns, and was surprised that many of the longarms I was interested in were banned in CA. I couldn't figure out the rhyme or reason for a while.

I finally found Calguns, discovered the crazy laws here, bought a few handguns in 2009, and am very happy to give what I can.

InGrAM
09-01-2011, 2:40 PM
People want what they can't have or could possible not be able to get. It is human nature. So, Yes.

I am currently more into Pistols and obtaining off list pistols because of the idiotic laws involved with Sporting rifles that make absolutely no sense what so ever. But that would change if/when I move or if/ever the laws are changed.

1859sharps
09-01-2011, 2:41 PM
If the 2A wasn't infringed, do you think there would be less gun ownership? In my case, I bought semi autos when Obama was elected and OLLs when back when we were in that "TWO WEEKS" period.

It's hard to say. I would lean a bit toward yes, less gun law would probably reduce sales or flatten them. like you many people buy when bans are pending or believed to be pending because they feel it's now or never. if the potential bans were never a threat, then people tend to put off "expensive" purchases like guns until later in life if at all. Because after all, no ban means you can always buy tomorrow.

I'm not a gun nut...,

exercising one's rights or pursuing an interest as a hobby does not make one a "nut". "gun nut" is a derogatory term use to call into question the "sanity" of someone who wants to exercise their civil right to own a gun. I would urge you to drop that from your description of your self and or fellow gun owners.

lgm118icbm
09-01-2011, 2:45 PM
I think gunlaws increase guns purchased by collectors, activists and SHTF types but decreases overall gun ownership.

There are many enthusiasts that own more than one gun but as the regulations increase and it gets harder to own and transport guns, it decreases the participation of the casual owner.

aermotor
09-01-2011, 2:52 PM
The amount of guns sold per day in California is staggering, and we are one of the tightest states. People buy like mad because of the fears, I think it's good.

SwissFluCase
09-01-2011, 2:56 PM
I think gunlaws increase guns purchased by collectors, activists and SHTF types but decreases overall gun ownership.

There are many enthusiasts that own more than one gun but as the regulations increase and it gets harder to own and transport guns, it decreases the participation of the casual owner.

I have personally seen evidence that contradicts this. I have seen more non gunowners buy guns as a result of past restrictions than for any other reason. They want a gun or two "while they still can".

I would be curious to see what the number of new gun owners per year are pre- and post- Heller.

Regards,


SwissFluCase

himurax13
09-01-2011, 3:03 PM
I myself was not interested in owning any guns until I found out how ludicrous the laws in this state have become. Lets just say that they are a huge motivator for my current stash. :)

RGERBER
09-01-2011, 3:28 PM
I defintely have bought guns "just because" due to California law.

and ammo

dfletcher
09-01-2011, 4:28 PM
I think gun laws decrease gun ownership overall, fear of more gun laws increases the number of guns owned and gun owners.

I think if we look at CA gun control its approach, in part, uses human nature & buying habits as a tool to dissuade people from buying a gun. If you had to take a test, wait 10 days, have a 2nd form of ID and to buy an icebox, for example - don't you think sales would drop? More steps, more inconvenience, remove the impulse purchase and certainly sales will decrease.

Price becomes important too. The seller of any product knows they tend to move fewer items when price increases. Cigarette companies know it, so does the government. The government uses taxes to increase the price knowing there will be a 1% decline in use for every $.50 per pack increase. So, add a lock and artificially inflate prices via a closed market (the roster) and more folks drop off the "I want a gun" bandwagon. I know 3 or 4 people who have started to buy a gun and for whatever reason not followed through. If we lived in NV or UT they'd all be gun owners, but not here.

I think CA gun control is the most insidious form because it is sneaky and uses human nature, mostly unnoticed, to reach its goal.

Knuckle Dragger
09-01-2011, 6:50 PM
This works both ways. Actual laws can work to reduce gun ownership whereas the threat of new legislation or bans on specific types of firearms will stimulate sales. All you have to do is all the hysteria over the election of Obama and fear that the AWB would be renewed or worse.

On the other hand there's no doubt that barriers erected to gun ownership in states like CA, NY, NY, MD, and MA have resulted in declining rates of gun ownership. In the case of Mass, strict and discretionary requirements for a license to possess almost any firearm combined with broad categories of prohibited persons has discouraged a generation of would-be gun owners. For the other than truly committed, it's just not worth the cost and effort.

tyrist
09-01-2011, 7:07 PM
I would say gun laws increase ownership. Many people just buy something so they are sure to have it. How many people would not own a firearm if when they felt they needed one could just walk down and get one immediately. Instead you have people who buy something (almost anything) just in case and it just sits in some drawer or closet unused for years on end.

wolfstar
09-01-2011, 8:06 PM
Personally I was concerned I would never be able to own a fire arm unless I got it now when Obama was elected. I have always supported gun rights but I never got around to buying one. Frankly guns scared the **** out of me.

Once I hit the range everything changed. Nothing quite like firing guns with good people for a few hours. There's also nothing quite like the peace of mind knowing that you are just as dangerous to the bad guys as they are to you. Before my options were baseball bats, calling 911, and hiding in fear when thugs came around. I felt like a sheep. Today I stand tall because I refuse to be a victim.

JeffC
09-02-2011, 9:52 PM
I think all laws increase gun ownership. The idea of self defense against aggression and possible aggression is a part of human nature.

baz152
09-02-2011, 9:57 PM
Yes new gun laws cause a spike in firearm purchases. In the AW ban of 2000 mor AW's were purchased the three month prior to the law going into effect then there were purchased the prior three years. Supply and demand.

JeffC
09-02-2011, 10:02 PM
Yes new gun laws cause a spike in firearm purchases. In the AW ban of 2000 mor AW's were purchased the three month prior to the law going into effect then there were purchased the prior three years. Supply and demand.


If it is true that gun laws cause people to buy more gun, then do groups like NRA and gun makers like gun laws?

SwissFluCase
09-02-2011, 10:14 PM
Personally I was concerned I would never be able to own a fire arm unless I got it now when Obama was elected. I have always supported gun rights but I never got around to buying one. Frankly guns scared the **** out of me.

Once I hit the range everything changed. Nothing quite like firing guns with good people for a few hours. There's also nothing quite like the peace of mind knowing that you are just as dangerous to the bad guys as they are to you. Before my options were baseball bats, calling 911, and hiding in fear when thugs came around. I felt like a sheep. Today I stand tall because I refuse to be a victim.

Yours is a typical story. If you can always buy something, it is something you don't think about. I am certain that the absence of gun laws would reduce my armory to three or four guns MAX, and maybe 200 rounds of ammo.

Regards,


SwissFluCase

Merc1138
09-02-2011, 10:25 PM
If it is true that gun laws cause people to buy more gun, then do groups like NRA and gun makers like gun laws?

No, because it causes a spike in sales when a restriction like the AW ban occurs and then sales stop.

"Quick, they're going to ban xxxxxx we better buy 'em up now!"

That's great for the short term, but then once no one can buy "xxxxxx" anymore it does the industry no good.

timdps
09-03-2011, 11:51 AM
Certainly I have been building/importing guns just to spite the anti-gunners and their CA laws:

AK pistols
C&R pistols
RPD
Pps 43
M53
DP28
Dshk in .50 BMG
Building AKs
etc.

I also watch in glee as others do the same...:43:

Tim

Tarn_Helm
09-03-2011, 12:17 PM
If the 2A wasn't infringed, do you think there would be less gun ownership? In my case, I bought semi autos when Obama was elected and OLLs when back when we were in that "TWO WEEKS" period. I'm not a gun nut, but I do cherish my Liberty and seem to buy guns whenever I think their purchase might get banned. Guns are expensive; I don't think I would have built a collection if the anti gun folks had legislation pending to take away my rights.

If the 2A was respected, I'd probably have just a pistol for home defense, maybe a semi auto rifle. I'd just rent or borrow any other gun I wanted to try out.

For the most part, "gun laws," by which you presumably mean, "laws that infringe or inhibit the fullest and freest exercise of the right of armed self-defense," invariably have one effect.

The opposite of what was intended.

But you need to take a view of things that is not merely logical but temporal--i.e., that takes into account their effects over time.

In the short term, they increase armed criminality because criminals rationally assume that most would-be victims/law-abiding-folks will have consented to being disarmed and therefore made more vulnerable to armed predationby them.

In turn, these laws increase the number of people who seek to be lawfully armed for purposes of lawful self-defense.

Once this happens, a societal grassfire ignites--then the law-abiding become more interested in being able to exercise their rights outside of their dwellings.

They seek UOC, LOC, LTC (aka CCW).

So in the short term, infringement ensues.

In the medium to long term, freer exercise gains sway.

The situation is dynamic and fluid not static and frozen.

:cool: