quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

ORIGINAL: WyrdRich

Well, yeah. It's kind of a Duh, really.

CA is still CA, though. I bought the wife a 9mm for our anniversary (hey, fuck off, I think it's a very romantic gift. With my ex, I wouldn't have a gun in the house, much less give her her own). Went out to pick up some plinkers right after the election and shelves were bare. CA passed a law requiring a background check for ammo purchases that takes effect in 2018, and enough people panicked.

Tell us Muse, since you want to talk about jobs, how many people do you think work in a typical company that makes aftermarket upper receivers for an Armalite style .223? What sort of skills do you suppose those employees have? No googling now.

Well,no Rich, it isn't a topic about jobs. It's data that supports a hypothesis that a lot of the gun market is driven by irrational fear stirred up by the gun lobby. If you want to go off on related tangents, you might compare it to the mania about muslims pouring over our borders so we need a wall that won't actually do much.

From there we speculated about the economics of those gun purchase trend and possible market consequences. I didn't mention jobs once. But sure, jobs are a possible effect of those changes, so if you want to talk about that, fine.

Skills are transferable, first. If more to the point, a declining domestic market and excess inventory doesn't mean the end . The US sells arms globally, even funding both sides of conflicts at times,. Taxpayers will end up buying guns, one way or another. And, certainly gun enthusiasts aren't done collecting.

I'm also,btw,not in favor of "saving" jobs. Detroit 'a auto dominance is not coming back, ever, because we have a glut of cars, because there's significant foreign competition, because markets today are global, and because automation has permanently replaced many manufacturing jobs. Retraining workers for new industries makes far more sense. Labor markets change along with product markets.

Whether I have or haven't specific knowledge on the skills needed to manufacture a specific product is irrelevant to all those points. If your point is just "well I know things you don't," that's hardly surprising...I suspect there are many such things, just as you likely don't know the details of my areas of expertise.

*shrug*

I'm pleased you find the "gun lobby" so frightening. I think it's silly to believe it stirred up irrational fears. But, that sort of thinking is consistent with a socialist/progressive belief that the little people are all too ignorant to understand life, are merely blowing in the wind of evil corporations and need enlightened elites in the government to do things for them that they couldn't possible understand.

Nice little rant, but it shows both no reading comprehension and a disregard for data.

Point 1: the theme is that gun buyers buy into the hysteria. Since I didn't buy any guns, apparently I didn't find the lobby frightening.

Point 2: the data is the data. Provide alternate and supported interpretations if you like. Pretending it's not there is just irrational.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

A weird way of saying:

A) none or their fears came to pass,
B) yet they bought five times as many guns,
C) and you think OTHER people are the hysterical ones.

That about it?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

A weird way of saying:

A) none or their fears came to pass,
B) yet they bought five times as many guns,
C) and you think OTHER people are the hysterical ones.

That about it?

Thought about it. You're projecting.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

A weird way of saying:

A) none or their fears came to pass,
B) yet they bought five times as many guns,
C) and you think OTHER people are the hysterical ones.

That about it?

Thought about it. You're projecting.

Of course you did. It happens when you're belief driven instead of considering the data presented.

Unless the data are projecting, a psychological trait not observed in dry numbers, maybe think a little more.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

And your experience makes the FOX Article data untrue HOW?

You're the "narcissistic fool" who ran out throwing insults without bothering with the data.

* shrug *

Maybe you could use a little schooling, wherever you want to get it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: AtUrCervix

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: AtUrCervix

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

I'm just sharing the data. You have no clue as to what "my side" might be.

And you're spinning as fast as you can.

Point: sales jumped 5x
Point: sales fell

Any accounting for reality has to acknowledge that data, or it's bullshit.

Right you don't have a side.
You are just siting facts.
And for some reason you can only find facts that show that while the anti gun crowd
constantly attack gun rights their attacks shouldn't count because they are so incompetent
they make the three stooges look brilliant. I am giving you facts and a refusal to see them is BS.

Citing.

What do you need to be sited.
His vague claims that gun owners are hysterical with not supporting evidence?
Do you need for me to cite that every time they had an excuse the gun grabbers tried to pass a bunch of anti gun laws that even they said wouldn't have stooped the incident that they claimed was the reason for the
new laws?
Do you want me to cite the well covered lies Obama gave about how easy it was for children to get assault weapons?
Do you want me to cite that Attacks against rights count as attacks even if they are conducted by the Keystone cops?
Or do you want him to explain That an attack against right don't count if they fail.
Do you want a citation that counting failing attacks as a take ignores reality, or do you want a citation that pretending that if it fails then the attacker clearly did want to weakenthat rigt.
Maybe I should give a cite that anytime you try to make something harder to get you increase interest in hoarding that object whatever it is.
Maybe we could use a cite why.

A It is any of his business how many guns other people own and
B Why it is automatically bad.

I was simply offering a correctly spelled word.

Did you want to cite something?

Ok that makes more sense.

I'm so glad.

Not much need for me to cite anything since my claims of actions have been well covered by the press.
Much of it will adoration that either congress "will do something at last" and that Obama was trying do get something do even if he couldn't get what he wanted through Congress.

(English please...I'm confident others would appreciate it as well).

Other than that I was pointing out that when there appears to be an impending shortage of anything people rush to get it. If you remember the "gas shortages " in the 70's that everyone panicked over.

(Did you feel a need for a comma......or possibly...connecting thought processes anywhere? Sue me dude...perhaps others may appreciate something that connects us to the OP....as well as...wherever the flying fuck you're going with this but....of course...I digress...)

They limited gas purchases. Shiiiit....serious? Well....that's pretty much...in general....kinda fucked up....yeah?

"They"?. Sorry...my bad...(I was certain we we're discussing gun purchases....please let me know when we switch from one subject to another....it helps me stay focused.

It turned out that not only did the shortage never reached the pumps (which...has nothing to do with gun purchases), but once they established purchases (<<< comma)....................."this then" limits sales (comma..."and then....oddly"...) actually went up (in price? Volume? Please help me....where are we going?) because people would get ("to"????) the max a couple of times a day, and they were using up gas waiting in line. (Buying....guns?)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

OK. Your experience isn't representative of what happened, given the data.

Must you be a prick with every post?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

Lol! No better way to declare yourself a sock than to be another idiot who thinks I'm two people.

When I have something to say, I put my name on it.

Go away. Your mommy is calling.

I'm too old and too bored for this playground recess bullshit. I come here to discuss politics with a variety of viewpoints. There's no need to seek out name-calling retards.

Bye!

quote:

ORIGINAL: AtUrCervix

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: AtUrCervix

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: AtUrCervix

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

I'm just sharing the data. You have no clue as to what "my side" might be.

And you're spinning as fast as you can.

Point: sales jumped 5x
Point: sales fell

Any accounting for reality has to acknowledge that data, or it's bullshit.

Right you don't have a side.
You are just siting facts.
And for some reason you can only find facts that show that while the anti gun crowd
constantly attack gun rights their attacks shouldn't count because they are so incompetent
they make the three stooges look brilliant. I am giving you facts and a refusal to see them is BS.

Citing.

What do you need to be sited.
His vague claims that gun owners are hysterical with not supporting evidence?
Do you need for me to cite that every time they had an excuse the gun grabbers tried to pass a bunch of anti gun laws that even they said wouldn't have stooped the incident that they claimed was the reason for the
new laws?
Do you want me to cite the well covered lies Obama gave about how easy it was for children to get assault weapons?
Do you want me to cite that Attacks against rights count as attacks even if they are conducted by the Keystone cops?
Or do you want him to explain That an attack against right don't count if they fail.
Do you want a citation that counting failing attacks as a take ignores reality, or do you want a citation that pretending that if it fails then the attacker clearly did want to weakenthat rigt.
Maybe I should give a cite that anytime you try to make something harder to get you increase interest in hoarding that object whatever it is.
Maybe we could use a cite why.

A It is any of his business how many guns other people own and
B Why it is automatically bad.

I was simply offering a correctly spelled word.

Did you want to cite something?

Ok that makes more sense.

I'm so glad.

Not much need for me to cite anything since my claims of actions have been well covered by the press.
Much of it will adoration that either congress "will do something at last" and that Obama was trying do get something do even if he couldn't get what he wanted through Congress.

(English please...I'm confident others would appreciate it as well).

Other than that I was pointing out that when there appears to be an impending shortage of anything people rush to get it. If you remember the "gas shortages " in the 70's that everyone panicked over.

(Did you feel a need for a comma......or possibly...connecting thought processes anywhere? Sue me dude...perhaps others may appreciate something that connects us to the OP....as well as...wherever the flying fuck you're going with this but....of course...I digress...)

They limited gas purchases. Shiiiit....serious? Well....that's pretty much...in general....kinda fucked up....yeah?

"They"?. Sorry...my bad...(I was certain we we're discussing gun purchases....please let me know when we switch from one subject to another....it helps me stay focused.

It turned out that not only did the shortage never reached the pumps (which...has nothing to do with gun purchases), but once they established purchases (<<< comma)....................."this then" limits sales (comma..."and then....oddly"...) actually went up (in price? Volume? Please help me....where are we going?) because people would get ("to"????) the max a couple of times a day, and they were using up gas waiting in line. (Buying....guns?)

quote:

ORIGINAL: AtUrCervix

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: AtUrCervix

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: AtUrCervix

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

I'm just sharing the data. You have no clue as to what "my side" might be.

And you're spinning as fast as you can.

Point: sales jumped 5x
Point: sales fell

Any accounting for reality has to acknowledge that data, or it's bullshit.

Right you don't have a side.
You are just siting facts.
And for some reason you can only find facts that show that while the anti gun crowd
constantly attack gun rights their attacks shouldn't count because they are so incompetent
they make the three stooges look brilliant. I am giving you facts and a refusal to see them is BS.

Citing.

What do you need to be sited.
His vague claims that gun owners are hysterical with not supporting evidence?
Do you need for me to cite that every time they had an excuse the gun grabbers tried to pass a bunch of anti gun laws that even they said wouldn't have stooped the incident that they claimed was the reason for the
new laws?
Do you want me to cite the well covered lies Obama gave about how easy it was for children to get assault weapons?
Do you want me to cite that Attacks against rights count as attacks even if they are conducted by the Keystone cops?
Or do you want him to explain That an attack against right don't count if they fail.
Do you want a citation that counting failing attacks as a take ignores reality, or do you want a citation that pretending that if it fails then the attacker clearly did want to weakenthat rigt.
Maybe I should give a cite that anytime you try to make something harder to get you increase interest in hoarding that object whatever it is.
Maybe we could use a cite why.

A It is any of his business how many guns other people own and
B Why it is automatically bad.

I was simply offering a correctly spelled word.

Did you want to cite something?

Ok that makes more sense.

I'm so glad.

Not much need for me to cite anything since my claims of actions have been well covered by the press.
Much of it will adoration that either congress "will do something at last" and that Obama was trying do get something do even if he couldn't get what he wanted through Congress.

(English please...I'm confident others would appreciate it as well).

Other than that I was pointing out that when there appears to be an impending shortage of anything people rush to get it. If you remember the "gas shortages " in the 70's that everyone panicked over.

(Did you feel a need for a comma......or possibly...connecting thought processes anywhere? Sue me dude...perhaps others may appreciate something that connects us to the OP....as well as...wherever the flying fuck you're going with this but....of course...I digress...)

They limited gas purchases. Shiiiit....serious? Well....that's pretty much...in general....kinda fucked up....yeah?

"They"?. Sorry...my bad...(I was certain we we're discussing gun purchases....please let me know when we switch from one subject to another....it helps me stay focused.

It turned out that not only did the shortage never reached the pumps (which...has nothing to do with gun purchases), but once they established purchases (<<< comma)....................."this then" limits sales (comma..."and then....oddly"...) actually went up (in price? Volume? Please help me....where are we going?) because people would get ("to"????) the max a couple of times a day, and they were using up gas waiting in line. (Buying....guns?)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SunDominant

Out of the pure hysteria that accompanied Obama's inauguration, accompanied by the skyrocketing price of some firearms and ammunition, I have seen a few positive things emerge. Interest in firearms, especially by women, seems to have risen considerably. Gun safety awareness and training have received greater emphasis in mainstream gun culture. I welcome an ebb in the craziness. Gun and ammo prices have already dropped considerably over the past few years. It makes my second-favorite hobby more affordable.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
You may have noticed that these "hysterical " people buying guns set a new record for the lowest firearm safety rate in history.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
You may have noticed that these "hysterical " people buying guns set a new record for the lowest firearm safety rate in history.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SunDominant

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
You may have noticed that these "hysterical " people buying guns set a new record for the lowest firearm safety rate in history.

Yes, though I continue to be disappointed, as I have for some years now, in the NRA's high profile in the political arena as opposed to our history as a gun safety and shooting advocacy group. I understand the reasons behind the marketing, but organizations like CMP have been much better at staying on target.