All this talk of banning guns, how about the reverse?

page: 1
0

log in

join

posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 11:28 AM
link   
Hi all, first poster here, I dont think this one has been done yet but forgive me if it has.

All I see is posts on banning guns following the most recent massacre, equal to the amount of peoples posts saying this whole thing was staged.

I just spotted something on Sky and a few other news broadcasters about sales of guns across America dramatically rising following the massacre and also through fear of a ban (get one before you cant anymore).

What if, and its a BIG if, the weapons manufacturers had a hand in this whole thing if is staged? Could it be a strategic plan to triple gun sales in America? Sounds crazy doesnt it BUT look what American Weapons manufacturers do in other countries, They create whole wars just to increase sales!

Its a bit out there but maybe something to consider??

Here is a link to one of the MSM sites showing an increase in supply etc.. news.sky.com...

edit on 17-12-2012 by pbasonuk because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 11:30 AM
link   
I thought gun sales had been at all time highs recently anyway? Even before this?



posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 11:32 AM
link   
reply to post by khimbar
 


Yes, probably following other massacres in the States?



posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 11:34 AM
link   
Well its the right time of the year to get those sales in just ahead of the end of year accounts and the moment theres even the slightest mention of anything changing in the US gun world everyone goes into a buying panic

Perhaps someone should map stuff like major incidents/dodgy press releases versus financial periods in the gun industry



posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 11:35 AM
link   
reply to post by pbasonuk
 


Given how dodgy certain aspects of your Government and associated agencies are, I would be arming myself to the teeth too, ulterior motive or not.

Seems they have been trying to take the guns off you for ages. They did it over here years ago, offered top dollar too so I gave up a few of mine, but kept the best, you know, just in case.

Bloody terrible that latest shooting. My prayers are with the victims and families.



posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 11:38 AM
link   
IF Gun Manufacturers staged this then it would be short sighted to triple sales in the short run but bring about them coming to a virtual stop (except for Mil and LE orders). IF "Mind Control" was used to manipulate the shooters (easier given their mental state probably and accessibility to the mental health system) then it would be State Level techniques likely that would be utilized. My take is "No"....the gun makers did not do it.



posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 11:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Strewth
reply to post by pbasonuk
 


Given how dodgy certain aspects of your Government and associated agencies are, I would be arming myself to the teeth too, ulterior motive or not.

Seems they have been trying to take the guns off you for ages. They did it over here years ago, offered top dollar too so I gave up a few of mine, but kept the best, you know, just in case.

Bloody terrible that latest shooting. My prayers are with the victims and families.


Just the opposite really. Gun laws have been getting loser and loser. The question that has to be looked ask is, is the drop in gun laws and all time high of gun ownership the cause of the rise in shootings. I am a gun owner and support gun ownership but, clearly way to many people who have no buisness having guns are getting them. Mostly this the result of irresposible gun owners who do not secure their weapons. What America needs is something along the lines of required nation wide safety classes for gun owners that requires them to take before they buy and with refreshers every few years online. Such courses would include the results of morons not securing their weapons and the results when people who should not have them get them. That and finding why Americans are so prone to things like this would help.



posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 11:52 AM
link   
reply to post by MrSpad
 


Yep - agreed.

I still do a bit of contract shooting for farmers here in West Aust getting rid of foxes and Roos but I too have the necessary licences.

I'm a believer that idiots kill people with guns, not guns themselves.



posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 11:56 AM
link   
Just wanted to add this, as it makes it clear as to what a Assault Weapon is. Ban them all you want, chances are you don't have one, and your not looking to get one. Even if you wanted that fancy AR-15 with lazer scope, single point sling, 50rd drum..... it would be okay, it's still not an Assault Weapon.


Massachusetts law considers “assault weapons” to be part of a larger class of guns known as
“large capacity weapons”. There are restrictions on possession, purchase and transportation of
these guns and the penalties for using them in a crime are generally more severe. There is also
a ban on “large capacity magazines” made after September 13, 1994.
The definition of “assault weapon” is the same as the federal law that went into effect on
September 13, 1994. Specific guns are banned by name, and guns with certain combinations of
features are banned:

A semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least 2
of--
(i) a folding or telescoping stock;
(ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon ;
(iii) a bayonet mount;
(iv) a flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor; and
(v) a grenade launcher;

A semiautomatic pistol that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least 2
of--
(i) an ammunition magazine that attaches to the pistol outside of the pistol grip;
(ii) a threaded barrel capable of accepting a barrel extender, flash suppressor, forward handgrip,
or silencer;
(iii) a shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely encircles, the barrel and that permits
the shooter to hold the firearm with the nontrigger hand without being burned;
(iv) a manufactured weight of 50 ounces or more when the pistol is unloaded; and
(v) a semiautomatic version of an automatic firearm; and

A semiautomatic shotgun that has at least 2 of--"
(i) a folding or telescoping stock;
(ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon;
(iii) a fixed magazine capacity in excess of 5 rounds; and
(iv) an ability to accept a detachable magazine.'“

A “large capacity feeding device” is defined the same as in federal law, or:
“a fixed or detachable magazine, box, drum, feed strip or similar device capable of accepting, or
that can be readily converted to accept, more than ten rounds of ammunition or more than five
shotgun shells; ... The term “large capacity feeding device” shall not include an attached tubular
device designed to accept, and capable of operating only with,.22 caliber ammunition.”
A “large capacity weapon” is basically any firearm, rifle or shotgun that is semi-automatic with
a fixed large capacity feeding device or that is capable of accepting any detachable large
capacity feeding device; or an “assault weapon.”
Ban on recently-manufactured “assault weapons” and “large capacity magazines.” State law
clearly limits possession to pre-1994 items and exempts out only law enforcement and retired
law enforcement:



posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 11:56 AM
link   
reply to post by pbasonuk
 


Its a risky endeavor to take as there is a legitimate risk their business will get shredded by legislation and regulation...Its a plan that has a devastating backfire...I don't think they are that desperate to increase sales they would risk destroying their entire industry....

edit on 17-12-2012 by Sly1one because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 12:26 PM
link   
Barak Obama and his fellow commie hacks,
I mean democrat hacks,
Is the best thing to ever happen to the gun market.



posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 12:34 PM
link   
The opposite....gov demand that you own a firearm....seems to have worked pretty well where it has been done. You cannot get rid of crazy...but you can prepare "the people" to deal with it. If everyone knows how to use and respect a tool...it is just that...a tool.

That is the fundamental issue here. That people need "to be taken care of"...I disagree. I do not need a nanny. I am an adult...I grew up in a hunting and fishing family...we knew how to live off the land if we ever needed to. We were taught to respect a firearm because of the damage it can do. I had my first gun at about the age of 10 or so...a 410 shotgun. I had to take classes through the 4-H club and the Dept. of Natural Resources before I could use it though...family rule, not state rule. Sure, my Dad, older brothers taught me...but still...this was the rules. I have been around guns my entire life...the inanimate object is not the issue...the person behind it is.

I really hate to see such ignorance exploding...a firearm is a tool...just like a hammer or a shovel...it has a job, a purpose. Getting rid of it serves nothing.
edit on 12/17/2012 by Jeremiah65 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 01:11 PM
link   
I think the record gun and ammo sales are down to the economic system. People know this scam can't go on for ever and that crime will rise as the economic situation worsens. If you're in the US you have to be mad not to be making preparations for widespread lawlessness.

No, no gun makers would do this, as has been pointed out it could have the opposite to the desired effect.

When I first saw the thread title I was expecting the OP to be a call to arm everyone so that everyone could defend themselves. I'd be a supporter of that stance.





top topics
 
0

log in

join