The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old March 16, 2009, 09:53 AM   #26
KSFreeman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 9, 2001
Location: Lafayette, Indiana--American-occupied America
Posts: 5,416
Is this not exactly what the Southern states did after the Civil War? Southern states prohibited inexpensive guns so that the new freedmen could not defend themselves against state-sponsored terrorism.

Even anti-gun liberals admit that banning inexpensive guns is aimed at economically disadvantaged minorities.

Let's not rush to join Southern legislatures.
__________________
"Arguments of policy must give way to a constitutional command." Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573, 602 (1980).
KSFreeman is offline  
Old March 16, 2009, 09:56 AM   #27
EvilAerosolCan
Junior Member
 
Join Date: March 23, 2005
Location: NC
Posts: 9
Quote:
Well, I guess no one has any sort of fact or study to refute this.
Didn't the NFA of 1934 effectively raise the price of all affected firearms by $200? Do criminals have a hard time getting full-auto weapons? Or short barreled weapons? I know it makes it more difficult for me, as a law abiding citizen.

I also have a question about your suggestion. Who gets to set the price, Congress? That makes me feel better about a price floor.

Last edited by EvilAerosolCan; March 16, 2009 at 10:09 AM.
EvilAerosolCan is offline  
Old March 16, 2009, 11:49 AM   #28
johnwilliamson062
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 16, 2008
Posts: 6,810
It isn't my suggestion. I would like to overturn the '68 and '34 restrictions. It is something on the horizon which I think many Americans would support and I don't see any strong argument against it backed up with any real data. You have the unconstitutional aspect, but that hasn't held water in the past and I doubt it will this time around.

I think criminals do have a harder time getting full auto weapons than they once did. Have you been to the FBI museum and seen all the Tommy guns they collected in the 20s and 30s? The full auto 1911s?

Criminals substituted semi-auto guns for the full autos, much as I believe they would substitute illegally imported Russian military surplus for hi-points.
In most cases full auto offers no real advantage over semi auto out of light barreled rifles.

Obviously they still get a hold of the full autos when they are in situations where it could be advantageous.
__________________
$0 of an NRA membership goes to legislative action or court battles. Not a dime. Only money contributed to the NRA-ILA or NRA-PVF. You could just donate to the Second Amendment Foundation
First Shotgun Thread First Rifle Thread First Pistol Thread
johnwilliamson062 is offline  
Old March 16, 2009, 12:32 PM   #29
vranasaurus
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 16, 2008
Posts: 1,175
I don't think you understand criminals and why they buy cheap guns. They don't by them because that's all they can afford. They buy them because they may have to toss them and they see no reason in spending extra for something they may have to toss.

If you raise the price the criminals will just pay what they have to to get guns and chalk it up to the cost of doing business. If they have to spend a little extra they won't care. They wopuld certainly prefer to buy cheap guns but if they aren't available they will buy what is.

Your argument might hold water if the criminals were lacking in funds but last I checked many criminal etnerprises are very lucrative.
vranasaurus is offline  
Old March 16, 2009, 12:49 PM   #30
vranasaurus
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 16, 2008
Posts: 1,175
**

Last edited by vranasaurus; March 16, 2009 at 12:50 PM. Reason: double post
vranasaurus is offline  
Old March 16, 2009, 12:51 PM   #31
Kreyzhorse
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 12, 2006
Location: NKY
Posts: 11,481
Quote:
Setting a minum price on guns would seem to me to discriminate against poor people. I would equate that to a poll tax.
+1 to that.

As we've seen, the anti gunners are already trying to increase prices on both guns and ammo to regulate guns out of existance simply through price increases. Case in point, ammo serialization would increase the cost of ammo and in some cases put its price point out of reach to a section of the population. No ammo, no guns.

Setting a government directed price point on firearms is simply a bad idea.
__________________
"He who laughs last, laughs dead." Homer Simpson
Kreyzhorse is offline  
Old March 16, 2009, 01:19 PM   #32
zukiphile
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 1,646
Ohio has minimum prices for beer set by the state, and this seems to be an anti-competitive measure in character with the rest of the state's liquor license system.

It doesn't appear to reduce drinking, or the consumption of cheap beers. It just keep people from paying a low price for cheap beer.

Funny article:

http://www.backbencher.org/2008/07/avoiding-the-tr.html
zukiphile is offline  
Old March 16, 2009, 01:37 PM   #33
johnwilliamson062
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 16, 2008
Posts: 6,810
As far as the prices being different on different brands of beer I would agree that is ludicrous. It may possibly be related to alcohol content.

Being a recent graduate of OSU I have certainly been in more than one situation where the minimum price on beer in Ohio affected the volume of my consumption of beer. I have been involved in more than one situation where the price of the beer regulated how much we bought for an event. If I had been able to get beer for half as much I almost certainly would have bought twice as much on many occasions, and been twice as friendly to anyone I did not know who showed up. We simply had a budget and maximized the alcohol we could get for that budget. I would guess very few of us could claim that raising the price of beer by 100% would not affect our consumption.
__________________
$0 of an NRA membership goes to legislative action or court battles. Not a dime. Only money contributed to the NRA-ILA or NRA-PVF. You could just donate to the Second Amendment Foundation
First Shotgun Thread First Rifle Thread First Pistol Thread
johnwilliamson062 is offline  
Old March 16, 2009, 01:44 PM   #34
EvilAerosolCan
Junior Member
 
Join Date: March 23, 2005
Location: NC
Posts: 9
I'd have to agree with the poll tax comparison. The only people that won't be able to buy guns under your regulations are the poor, law abiding citizens. Rich people and criminals will still be able to afford them, and poor criminals will just still them. I just don't understand the point of your suggested regulation.
EvilAerosolCan is offline  
Old March 16, 2009, 01:52 PM   #35
fisherman66
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 22, 2005
Location: Rhome, TX
Posts: 4,641
Quote:
Being a recent graduate of OSU
Does OSu teach the "efficient market" theory?
__________________
la plus belle des ruses du diable est de vous persuader qu'il n'existe pas!
fisherman66 is offline  
Old March 17, 2009, 09:47 AM   #36
johnwilliamson062
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 16, 2008
Posts: 6,810
Not in my experience to any depth. It may be covered in more depth by the finance section of Fisher, but i doubt it. There is all kinds of empirical evidence contradicting the efficient market hypothesis. Think about people who stayed in stocks with solid PE ratios recently. Most of them outperformed the market based on publicly available information. There are a large number of investors/brokers who regularly outperform financial markets. My favorite being James investment Research.

I am not sure how you are tying that into this as I am talking about government regulation concerning supposed externalities and making the market for firearms less efficient by qualitative measures.

I am not saying I want this regulation, just that I could care less and I haven't seen any stats or studies concerning it.
__________________
$0 of an NRA membership goes to legislative action or court battles. Not a dime. Only money contributed to the NRA-ILA or NRA-PVF. You could just donate to the Second Amendment Foundation
First Shotgun Thread First Rifle Thread First Pistol Thread
johnwilliamson062 is offline  
Old March 17, 2009, 10:36 AM   #37
fisherman66
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 22, 2005
Location: Rhome, TX
Posts: 4,641
I agree about the EM theory being a poor construct. I ask because I'm curious as to how you think the market would price that news into the manufacturers market cap and how that kind of regulation would affect those in say...Austria or wherever. The thing about EM theory is it's blind eye to manipulation. The ivory tower guys in the SIC; ahem SEC, have assumed EM balances the market and regulation is an unnecessary redundancy. That's how the regulators have postured (what do they do all day? play patty cakes). I admit I'm moving on a tangent here, but I think there's some pertinence to the idea of a floor on gun prices will affect the market in a way that the manufacturers can be damaged. I can cite examples all day where this has happened.


Quote:
There are a large number of investors/brokers who regularly outperform financial markets. My favorite being James investment Research.
Many of which have been doin' the perp walk lately. Although; you can just look to Berksire Hathaway and see it can be done and in a way that adds value to the economy.
__________________
la plus belle des ruses du diable est de vous persuader qu'il n'existe pas!
fisherman66 is offline  
Old March 17, 2009, 10:38 AM   #38
Kreyzhorse
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 12, 2006
Location: NKY
Posts: 11,481
Quote:
I am not sure how you are tying that into this as I am talking about government regulation concerning supposed externalities and making the market for firearms less efficient by qualitative measures.
Herein lies the rub. Who's to set the market price that is deemed sufficently high enough to keep firearms out of the criminal elements hands? Could S&W be trusted to price their firearms high enough to keep a part of their customer base from affording them? Doubtful. So, that leaves the government right. So the government says, would a starting price of $250 for any gun keep firearms off the streets? Doubtful. How about $1000? Maybe. How about a $10,000? Most certainly.

Setting an artifically high price that is used to eliminate certain targeted demographics would be dangerous. After all, who has the final say on what demographic shouldn't allowed to own guns? Your target demographic might be vastly different that Eric Holders.
__________________
"He who laughs last, laughs dead." Homer Simpson
Kreyzhorse is offline  
Old March 17, 2009, 10:52 AM   #39
sholling
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 18, 1999
Location: Hemet (middle of nowhere) California
Posts: 4,260
Quote:
All I could come up with is a price floor on firearms, specifically handguns. Say a price floor of $250 or $300.
So what you're saying is that poor people shouldn't be allowed the means to defend themselves. That only the lives of those above a certain level of income have value. So what level of affluence does one have to reach before their lives have enough value to defend? Those that can afford $250? Wait there might still be some riffraff lives at that price point. Why not $2500? Surely those are more elite lives. Or maybe just the lives of the really special people that can afford $5000? Or $10000? The history of gun control has been one attempt after another to keep guns out of the hands of the poor and minorities. Thus the demonetization of $100 self defense handguns as "Saturday night specials". A cheap $150 handgun is much better than nothing when your life is in danger - unless your life has no value to your "betters".
__________________
Proud Life Member: National Rifle Association, California Rifle & Pistol Association, and the Second Amendment Foundation.
Annual Member: Revolutionary War Veterans Association (Project Appleseed) and the Madison Society.

Last edited by sholling; March 17, 2009 at 11:00 AM.
sholling is offline  
Old March 18, 2009, 01:41 PM   #40
USASA
Member
 
Join Date: June 27, 2008
Location: Washington State
Posts: 84
KSFreeman,

Read the link referenced in my post...#14.
USASA is offline  
Old March 18, 2009, 02:08 PM   #41
Tucker 1371
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 29, 2008
Location: East TN
Posts: 1,996
I personally think this is a terrible idea. There are such things as thugs with money to spare, I'm certain there are plenty of violent drug dealers with enough money to buy an AR15, something that I don't have.

Actually, no offense, but I think this is about the WORST gun control proposal I've ever heard. The whole microstamping business actually sounds good compared to this.

EDIT: Our gun laws are at about the most effective level they are ever going to reach right now, absolutely NO new gun laws are going to make gun crime decrease significantly. The rabid gun-hating morons in the Anti-gun crowd need to realize this, consider it a job well done for themselves, AND SHUT THE HELL UP.
__________________
NCO of Marines, 3rd Award Expert Rifle, 236 KD Range
D Co, 4th CEB, Engineers UP!! OEF 21JUN-20SEP2011
REV. 19:11 And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war.
Tucker 1371 is online now  
Old March 18, 2009, 08:28 PM   #42
Tamara
Moderator Emeritus
 
Join Date: March 11, 2000
Location: Indianapolis, IN
Posts: 15,960
Quote:
Originally Posted by KSFreeman
Let's not rush to join Southern legislatures.
I wish the Yankee legislature here would rush to join Georgia and do away with this "pink card" nonsense.

Down there, any 18 year-old may drive about with a loaded pistol in his car without having to tug his forelock at his betters at the statehouse...
__________________
MOLON LABE!
2% Unobtainium, 98% Hypetanium.
The Arms Room: An Online Museum.
Tamara is offline  
Old March 18, 2009, 10:00 PM   #43
bclark1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 5, 2005
Location: Ohio
Posts: 1,531
The fallacy of this regulation is that criminals go to your friendly firearms retailer, get their NICs check done and wait three days. The latter two don't work, so why would the price at the store? Besides, if it costs another $400, Slimey Joe will just mug another guy at the ATM before he heads down to Guns R Us for his perfectly legal, retail-price-control-purchased sidearm.

To recite what is all but boilerplate: Any gun regulation is redundant and meaningless to the reduction of crime. Enforce what we have already e.g. don't kill anyone. The roots of violence are a societal problem that is in no way addressed by limiting the devices employed as evidenced by the wildly differing but overwhelmingly unproductive results in gun-restrictive cities, states and nations.
bclark1 is offline  
Old March 19, 2009, 06:35 AM   #44
KSFreeman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 9, 2001
Location: Lafayette, Indiana--American-occupied America
Posts: 5,416
Quote:
I wish the Yankee legislature here would rush to join Georgia and do away with this "pink card" nonsense.
Now, now, the "Army pistol laws" and "Son of Ham" laws, which were intended to set minimum prices outside the financial means of African-Americans, were all Southern.

An 18 year old may carry a loaded pistol in his car as well up here. He simply needs the license which is the cost of 4 packs of cigarettes. That 18 year old better put down his jug or banjo and get himself a j-o-b.

As for the need for a license, you can blame John Dillinger. He was from Southern Indiana.
__________________
"Arguments of policy must give way to a constitutional command." Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573, 602 (1980).
KSFreeman is offline  
Old March 19, 2009, 09:51 AM   #45
Tamara
Moderator Emeritus
 
Join Date: March 11, 2000
Location: Indianapolis, IN
Posts: 15,960
Quote:
Originally Posted by KSFreeman
He simply needs the license...
See "(T)ugging his forelock to his betters in the statehouse..."

Are those pistol licenses sold in the office down the hall from the free speech licenses?

I see my plans to own a 14" 870 'entry gun' in Indiana are right out, too, thanks to Johnny D.
__________________
MOLON LABE!
2% Unobtainium, 98% Hypetanium.
The Arms Room: An Online Museum.
Tamara is offline  
Old March 19, 2009, 10:28 AM   #46
KSFreeman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 9, 2001
Location: Lafayette, Indiana--American-occupied America
Posts: 5,416
I say, I say, yer betters, I say are in the State Pooooleeeece, but they remain unimpressed.

Quote:
Are those pistol licenses sold in the office down the hall from the free speech licenses?
No, parade permits applications are on another floor in the City-County building.
__________________
"Arguments of policy must give way to a constitutional command." Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573, 602 (1980).
KSFreeman is offline  
Old March 19, 2009, 11:42 AM   #47
TEDDY
Junior member
 
Join Date: December 10, 2006
Location: MANNING SC
Posts: 837
steam

I find an advanced education seems to make the user turn into a dim wit.since I am much older and have seen much more I think I have a slight edge.I came from a time before the intelectuals got control of the country,and before all the gun control went wild.the 1934 law did not stop the ownership of MGs what it did was tax the guns and registered[bad]them.
the $200 was big money then.but it did not stop any one from getting guns.
as a mater of fact they then stole the guns from police stations.what stopped it was the elimination of the groups.and criminals dont use MGs not because of the price but because that brings federal heat down on them and no one wants them around.there are thousands of unregistered MGs out there.but the people who have them are not the criminals.its not the gus stupid its the criminals.either eliminate them or you have them.it isnot the poor that are the criminals its the people who want something for nothing.
I live barely on my SS and cannot afford the price of the modern guns what I have I got long ago.I hope you rethink you thread before you get to deep in cow-dung
TEDDY is offline  
Old March 20, 2009, 12:24 PM   #48
Tucker 1371
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 29, 2008
Location: East TN
Posts: 1,996
Quote:
Down there, any 18 year-old may drive about with a loaded pistol
Not quite, I'm 19 and I cannot buy a handgun until I'm 21. Shotguns and rifles are a different story though. Unless you have a carry permit the only way you can have a loaded gun in your vehicle is if you have it sitting up on the dashboard or somewhere else in plain sight.
__________________
NCO of Marines, 3rd Award Expert Rifle, 236 KD Range
D Co, 4th CEB, Engineers UP!! OEF 21JUN-20SEP2011
REV. 19:11 And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war.
Tucker 1371 is online now  
Old March 20, 2009, 01:02 PM   #49
cracked91
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 17, 2009
Posts: 385
This whole thing is the stupidest thing I have read on this website. Would that go for used handguns to? And im pretty sure you could go buy a 90 dollar NEF single shot twelve gauge from walmart, cut it down a little bit, and go kill someone just as easily as you could with a hi point. This is America, free market. There is nothing wrong with cheap guns. Nobody wants to throw an 800 dollar gun in their tacklebox when they go fishing. Thats what cheap guns are for! Practical use! If i dropped my .357 on a rock while hiking I would feel it all the way up in my pee pee, If i dropped my hi point I would shrug, pick it up, dust it off, and keep going. The absolute ONLY thing I would say to do is try to crack down on crooked gun dealers, and ask the good ones to use discretion when selling guns
cracked91 is offline  
Old March 21, 2009, 01:14 AM   #50
stickhauler
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 21, 2009
Posts: 244
Now I'm Almost Worried To Admit...

Where I live, based on some pretty outlandish ideas posted by John. WHY would you even consider setting a minimum price for a firearm? Do you watch the news around here? In any news coverage where they showed the weapons involved in a crime, I have yet to see a Hi Point shown as the bad guy's gun of choice. And you think making a minimum price point for firearms will convince the anti-gun crowd to consider that a compromise that would convince them to go along with removing the restrictions of the 1934 or 1968 gun laws?

The anti-gun crowd sees a compromise as a situation in which gun owners give up some more rights willingly, and the anti-gun side simply takes more control of the issue. Their aim is to remove guns from society, not allow easier access to full auto weapons.

If criminals really wanted full auto weapons, they could as easily buy military surplus re-created guns like an AK or an SKS, and work them over a little to set them to full auto. That would be a lot easier than smuggling in surplus guns already made that way.

Now I don't know what they're teaching you over there at Columbus, but to this Buckeye, it makes no sense to try and force an Ohio company from business on a notion that isn't going to achieve the goals you think it will.

One question: Have you ever shot a Hi Point? I own one as does my son, and I know of many people who own them that certainly aren't criminals, they had a need for a firearm at a time of limited cash flow, and that was the only option available. And the vast majority of those who own them that I know feel they're pretty good guns. If you haven't shot one, let me know, maybe we can set it up for you to try one out, since we both live in the Gem City.
stickhauler is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:26 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.13880 seconds with 7 queries