Posted on 02/10/2016 4:51:22 AM PST by marktwain
January of 2016 had the highest number of NICS checks for any January on record. There were 2,545,802 million checks, which translates to a bit less than 1.9 million new firearms. The industry is producing firearms as fast as they can, and they are being purchased just as fast. The demand side is crowded with first time buyers, women, and young urbans. Where will it end?
Disarmists, those who wish us to be disarmed, constantly talk about "need". Need is something they seem to think that they are the only ones qualified to define. The idea of "need" is a semantic trick to appeal to parents, especially women. Parents are constantly required to determine "needs" versus wants. This is because the parents are paying for what their child obtains. "Needs" are finite. Wants are infinite. If parents allow children to get whatever they want, the family goes bankrupt, or the children never learn self discipline. With adults, this is not normally a problem. Reality makes the distinction between "needs" and wants. No one can get everything they "want", because resources are finite at any given time. I might "want" a completely manned aircraft carrier fighting group; but I cannot afford it. Neither can Donald Trump.
The disarmists attempt to translate parental requirements for "needs" and "wants" onto other adults. Much of disarmist rhetoric focuses on defining adults as children that must be taken care of.
In the United States, we advanced beyond "needs" a long time ago. Most "poor" people in the United States would be upper middle class in most of the rest of the world. People do not "need" central heating, air conditioning, television, cell phones, or microwave ovens.
In the U.S., such things are taken for granted. We are a consumerist society. We mostly divide our disposable income into things that we want, rather than what we need to survive.
The United States has the highest number of automobiles per capita, on the planet. We also have the highest number of firearms on the planet. The current firearms number is approaching 1.25 for every man woman and child in the United States.
But what is a practical upper limit on the number of firearms produced? Firearms are not like most consumer products. They seldom wear out; their expected life, given moderate care and use, is centuries. It is likely that completely different weapons technology will eclipse firearms before the modern stainless steel and composite stock firearms wear out. It is one of the reasons that the current number of firearms in the United States is over 400 million.
Firearms are closer to finely crafted utensils than they are to automobiles. People still have and use utensils that were made in the 1800s. Often, they become family heirlooms, occupying a prominent place in a display cabinet, even if they are seldom used. A person is likely to have a pitcher or a gravy bowl that has been in the family for several generations; such objects are far more fragile than firearms.
Once a person becomes familiar with firearms, they realize that one firearm does not serve for all situations. In times of normal ammunition availability, a .22 rifle and pistol are virtually required for practice and training. A centerfire handgun is the favored tool for personal carry; a centerfire rifle for hunting, perhaps another for zombie defense, home defense, and neighborhood security during times of unrest; and the ubiquitous shotgun for hunting and home defense.
In that short paragraph, we have six firearms. It is not unreasonable that each adult would want to have their own. There are about 237 million adults in the United States as of the end of 2015.
Six times 237 million is 1.4 billion firearms, about 3.5 times the current number.
Even at the current fevered pace, we are producing only 17 million firearms per year. It would take about 50 years of such production to meet the measly 1.4 billion minimal "limit" that I have arbitrarily set.
Some firearms, for some people, some of the time are a clear "need". But most firearms, for most people, most of the time, are a "want". For people who explore the finer points of firearm ownership, owning a hundred firearms is not unusual.
Firearms are fun, are easy to store and take care of, have a good history of maintaining value, and offer a hedge against hard times and difficulty that even gold and silver do not. They are safer than swimming pools, stairs and bicycles. There is little reason to believe that the numbers have an upper limit based on market saturation, for decades to come. Human "want" has no limit.
Definition of disarmist
©2016 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.
Link to Gun Watch
Hopefully it will end with every conservative and moderate in our nation having a virtual arsenal in every home - and every liberal/progressive and other person with evil intent toward others having none in their homes.
Hopefully it will end with a government that fears its citizens instead the other way around - just as it was in the beginning of this miraculous nation.
And hopefully the strength of the well-armed will prevent the government and progressives/liberals/Marxists from ever making a move on its citizens to take away freedoms granted us by the constitution. Between nations, it’s called peace through strength, demonstrated best by Ronald Reagan.
But it not only applies to nations, but to the relationship between governments and the citizens.
I don’t think we should be able to buy tactical nukes at gun shows. At least not without a really solid background check.
...a good start.
Interesting question but poor choice of term.
The question is about MARKET SATURATION, not imposing artificial limits fit political reasons.
Infinity. Plus one.
Then answer to the “need” question is simply this:
As many weapons, of such types as I deem fit, to secure the liberty of myself and my family.
At least all LOS.
Maybe Ted Cruz could write the supreme court brief on the right to keep and bear electromagnetic rail guns and laser weaponry.
I do see the need for a sensible limitation, based on safety.
Not on the firearms themselves, but on the propellants, explosives, compressed gases, and inflammable liquids and solids. Of any kind.
This sensible limitation is strictly based on “safe storage.”
Possibly a good example of this was the recent house fire in Gilbert, AZ. Perhaps an accident or just “bad luck”, and things got out of control in a hurry.
For a home gun owner, who perhaps does his own reloads, safety guidelines are a must. For example, having a fire resistant powder safe. Not storing cans of gasoline, paint or solvent, pool chlorine, compressed gas tanks, etc. nearby. And, in very hot places, having at least some temperature control in storage and use areas. Ventilation is also a must when using high vapor or dust hazards.
Okay, so who polices all of this?
The individual. However, there is a twist. If they refuse to keep a safe and orderly storage space, if the police or fire department are called there, if it is “unsafe”, they have the option to “blow it in place.”
For many years, hoarders, especially in California, took to building bunkers out in the desert, which were packed with all sorts of ammunition, and flammable liquids and solids. So the authorities didn’t even bother to enter, other than to take a quick look, before inserting a pole with dynamite on the end, then retreating to outside the estimated hazard area.
But no need to do any of this with the guns themselves, assuming they have been cleared.
The irony of the Tremors movies is that Michael Gross is a big time gun control activist, or was.
Of course, Hollywood’s hypocrisy knows no bounds.
Sharks! Sharks with fricken lazers.
There should be no limits whatsoever.
The corrupt factions within our government answerable to that treasonous, corrupt, dictatorial, piece of human excrement, the (dis)honorable Barky mobambam would have you turn in every gun you had, and would jail you for not doing so.
And, of course, me, being a good citizen, would do that if he would only ask...but alas, the boat accident and all that, you know.
Statistically, could someone please explain how 2.55 million background checks translates into 1.9 million firearms sold?
I would think the number would be reversed, since one background check can be used to purchase multiple firearms.
Or do nearly 700,000 background checks (and possibly much more), per month, fail?
Why is it that the disarmists believe they can toy with the Second Amendment while all others are sacred? What part of "shall not be infringed" don't they understand?
January’s background checks hit 2.5 million.
A slight decline from December’s 3.3 million.
But with Christmas and all....
Why not? STRATEGIC nukes, I can see. But why not tacs?
Your initial pistol purchase was "too many" in the eyes of government. At every level it yearns to limit and eliminate gun ownership.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.