Seeking Alpha

States aren't waiting around for new federal gun legislation as they take matters into their own...

States aren't waiting around for new federal gun legislation as they take matters into their own hands. The latest: A new South Dakota law will allow teachers to carry guns in schools and Georgia approved a measure which will remove a ban on firearms in college classrooms and churches. About 25 other states have similar bills pending. Meanwhile, gun sellers Sturm Ruger (RGR -1.2%) and Smith & Wesson (SWHC -1.2%) continue to try to keep with robust demand.
Comments (33)
  • What a relief to see that so much of the US retains some common sense regarding the right to bear arms. As cities such as Detroit, and states, who are unable to print their own sovereign scrip allow parts of their jurisdictions to fall into abandonment and demolition due to their economic travails, shrinking police forces will respond more slowly or not at all to emergencies in such areas.


    But all public places need responsible citizens carrying concealed weapons to thwart mass killings which will be less likely to occur in the first place if the perpetrator knows he may face armed civilians capable of limiting his carnage.
    8 Mar 2013, 03:14 PM Reply Like
  • How many mass killings were there in the US in 2012?
    11 Mar 2013, 06:56 AM Reply Like
  • Just got off the phone with the Sales Dept. at Sturm Ruger. They cannot keep AR-15s in stock...
    8 Mar 2013, 03:24 PM Reply Like
  • Even some Canadian gun stores are out of ARs!
    8 Mar 2013, 05:35 PM Reply Like
  • Wow. A return to the wild west. College definitely would have been a different experience if I went to class with a pistol strapped on my side each day. I look forward to when dueling is once again legalized, as it was in the 1700s. ;)
    8 Mar 2013, 03:26 PM Reply Like
  • We'd be living in a much more polite society if it was legalized again. :-)
    8 Mar 2013, 03:41 PM Reply Like
  • I have never heard a more true statement.
    8 Mar 2013, 04:02 PM Reply Like
  • The wild west was far less violent in reality than the films would have you believe. Do you always believe what you see in the films? Do some research into the real number of bank robberies that occurred for example.


    You know Lincoln never hunted vampires, right?
    8 Mar 2013, 04:23 PM Reply Like
  • Did you see the wink ;) at the end of that?


    Absolutely, the US should require every capable adult to carry a weapon at all times. It might be a novel solution to public deficits, because police forces could be eliminated, or greatly reduced in size. The military could be switched to specialists with highly technical weapons, or special operations, safely eliminating all regular foot soldiers. ;)


    Okay, take that statement and run with it.
    8 Mar 2013, 04:41 PM Reply Like
  • Full employment for laywers, and funeral directors.
    9 Mar 2013, 10:28 AM Reply Like
  • It simply just makes SWHC more enticing to invest in
    8 Mar 2013, 04:06 PM Reply Like
  • It's being driven by panic buying, which is a sort of bubble. The trick would be to book some profits before the bubble pops. At the moment there is a perception of a shortage, which fuels even greater demand.
    8 Mar 2013, 04:19 PM Reply Like
  • It's not a perception, it's a very real shortage. Manufacturers have backorders and ammunition is hard to find or very expensive.
    8 Mar 2013, 04:22 PM Reply Like
  • Check the pricing of ammo. Initial demand was solid, but then went into panic buying. I have friends with many thousands of rounds of ammo, who still want to buy even more ammo, and they find the price levels to be excessive. This is a classic panic buying situation, when you view this as an investor.
    8 Mar 2013, 04:37 PM Reply Like
  • Welcome back to the Wild Wild West. It's a barbaric society that can't deal with social issues without violence. Have fun!
    8 Mar 2013, 04:17 PM Reply Like
  • Since when are lunatic shooting rampages classified as "social issues"? What are you gonna do? Talk the guy down? Sorry, but I don't share your optimistic view of human nature. I have the right to protect myself from harm and in my view, being armed is the best way to accomplish that.
    8 Mar 2013, 04:24 PM Reply Like
  • Slightly optimistic, maybe. But works a hell of a lot better in Europe, for example (there are always exceptions, but you have to look at these things statistically.


    Poverty, lack of education, lack of health care and social services, cultural violence, are social issues that most gun related incidents can be traced to.


    Adding more guns into that mix and sticking your head in the sand in a false sense of security will not help anything.


    But you can't explain things to a person who doesn't understand where laws come from in the first place. We were barbarians before where everyone could fend for ourselves, but we left that place for a good reason.
    8 Mar 2013, 05:34 PM Reply Like
  • So I am supposed to take solace in the fact that statistically I will be safer if I trust the government to create a utopian society in which all people are cared for and nurtured? It won't happen in our lifetime, if ever. And even if you can use the european model to reduce homicide rates (which I am not convinced would work.) You still can't guarantee my safety, so in the meantime it is still in my own best interest to have a gun just in case.


    Does that make me a barbarian?
    8 Mar 2013, 06:03 PM Reply Like
  • That's part of the point. These decisions need to be made collectively, because the individual can't affect the whole, so your alternatives are limited. All you're doing is gaining a false sense of safety. Owning/carrying a gun actually has some negative effects on one's safety just by itself. This can be shown in stats. Not sure how the positive safety implications can be shown statistically.
    9 Mar 2013, 12:29 PM Reply Like
  • I am not a statistic, and I am absolutely safer with my gun.
    9 Mar 2013, 01:37 PM Reply Like
  • Comments about the Wild West are really funny. As losing Paper stated, it was not what you have seen in movies. It was a society that knew if you got way out of line, you had to answer immediately.
    Texas is a gun toting state and their is a lot less crime per capita, because a criminal has to decide if he wants to potentialy face an armed victim. Look at Chicago, which has the strictest gun laws and high crime per capita. Look at the stats. The areas with the toughest laws have the highest crimes.
    I for one certainly will always be armed (because I have that right) and have the training to protect myself and family.
    9 Mar 2013, 01:43 PM Reply Like
  • There is a saying that goes "there are lies, damn lies, and statistics". Economic levels have far more bearing on crime levels than the volume of gun ownership. Parts of Houston, like any major large city, have higher violent crime rates than other areas. Legal gun ownership tends to be concentrated in more well off neighborhoods.


    I have zero problem with people owning as many guns as they want, if that is what makes you feel safer. Where I have a problem is people suggesting that a vigilante force should replace a police force. If you want guns for this idea of turning over a "corrupt" government, then go round up your buddies and attack Washington, D.C. The rhetoric being thrown around sometimes makes it sound like a civil war is imminent, and soon the United States will turn into the next Libya. It's about as likely as a military coup in the US, and don't ever think that the military would not oppose a large armed force of citizens. Don't forget that it was unarmed old ladies marching in Red Square that marked the collapse of the Soviet Union.
    9 Mar 2013, 04:09 PM Reply Like
  • Very different cultures at work here. You must be able to understand (Grok!) the difference between a citizen and a subject. It's too much to give up. Ever. It won't last forever, but oh what a glorious difference.


    Jeff Carter,
    11 Mar 2013, 06:59 AM Reply Like
  • I think the issue is being derailed here. No one is talking about taking guns away from average people.


    My argument (and the argument of many other *citizens*) is about whether a greater proliferation of guns is the answer to the problem of gun violence in American society. It sounds like an oxymoron, and it is.


    The question is about:
    -should everyone be allowed to own every type of gun
    -should everyone be allowed to carry a gun everywhere


    The answer has always been "no". There are reasonable exceptions and restrictions that *society* has agreed upon. These exceptions and restrictions shift through legislation, depending on the current mood in society. Much of the civilized world still agrees with stricter restrictions, and it doesn't seem to negatively affect their public safety.


    If much of American society, through discussion, agrees that those laws were frivolous, as certain states seem to be heading, that is fine. Like I said, have fun with it.


    If owning guns makes you feel safer politically, you're just childish. Ask people in the third world who've had to endure coups and dictatorships, how much better off they were with or without guns. The only reliable obstacle to tyranny is a large, well educated middle class. Period. Read that again.
    11 Mar 2013, 06:43 PM Reply Like
  • Firstly the NRA classified Sandy Hook as a social issue by attributing the massacre to mental health combined with violent video games. 1) Aspergers is not a mental illness, and 2) there is no evidence connecting gun violence (or other violence for that matter) to Aspergers.
    Secondly, wow, way to argue the strawman, cause all us liberal anti-gun nuts naively believe you can talk a psychopath down, and if it weren't for all you straight talkin', clear thinkin, gun-packin' mericuns the streets would run red with blood of innocent women and children. See, that was easy.
    12 Mar 2013, 04:32 PM Reply Like
  • We aren't a collective society, our Rights are individual Rights. (per the Constitution). Therefore you must either support getting rid of the Constitution and finding a better alternative. Which I contend NONE currently exists. Or your understanding of our Rights was not properly taught to you at your local liberal public school. The individual rights of man are what created the huge growth and wealth of this country. I have lived in Germany, I have lived in England, I have lived in Spain. Their collectivism works short term on a limited level. Watch it slowly decline over the next 10 years and pray we don't fall further into the "whats good for the collective trap".
    14 Jun 2013, 08:45 AM Reply Like
  • Cms: you need to read up a bit on law and philosophy. There is no such thing as an absolute personal right to freedom of choice. You can not just do what you please in a society, because that degenerates society. You may not murder, rape, pillage, etc. See Ten Commandments for examples of the most basic "freedoms" not afforded to you by a higher authority, whether you agree with the restrictions or not.


    Now that we are past that, you need to understand that societies are based on systems of laws. These systems are evolutionary by nature, they shift based on societies' needs and shifting values. . It's a question of which liberty we value more: The liberty to live, or the liberty to play with guns. Neither you nor I make that determination. SOCIETY does.


    I was just making a comment on the characteristics of a society that makes one choice over the other.
    19 Jun 2013, 05:01 PM Reply Like
  • Your calling it "playing with guns" shows how little you understand what's actually being discussed.


    It's not about toys, it's about a right to defend yourself, and remembering who it was and the political environment in which those constitution items were added.


    They added them for a reason, a reason of knowing what can happen, not because people might one day want to "play with guns".
    19 Jun 2013, 05:31 PM Reply Like
  • Automatic rifles are toys. They serve no other reasonable purpose in a civilian setting. Those are what the proposed regulations were trying to address, yet they were protected as godgiven rights.


    If you think you'll successfully use weapons to stand up to power, good luck. That is outdated thinking that might have had a place hundreds of years ago, but is absurd in today's society, which is why systems of laws evolve.


    Do you really need me to lay out why it’s absurd and outdated, so this notion can be put to rest?


    -you’d have no chance under any conceivable scenario (if you have doubts, look at examples of civil wars, even current ones, where armed rebels have no chance on their own against much less technologically advanced governments than your own).
    -if you tried, you’d be labeled a criminal and convicted.
    -in a civilized society we resolve conflicts between groups of people through dialogue (protest, etc.), voting, ie: democratic processes.
    -once the system degenerates enough to subvert democratic processes, you have no chance anyway, we’re back to the first point.
    -unless you get parts of the military on your side (only possible through persuasion, not force), in which case you don’t need your store bought toy gun anyway.
    20 Jun 2013, 12:53 PM Reply Like
  • I didn't use the word absolute. And Morals and Values don't shift. Basic laws don't shift as you used the Ten Commandments in the example above. The only laws that shift are bad laws created by an entitled mob rule. Such as Prohibition. Such as collecting rain water from the sky is illegal. Good laws don't shift. Drive on the right or left side of the road. Don't rape, murder, and pillage. All good laws. Unflinching never changing. Liberty isn't playing with guns. Liberty is having the ability to defend your person and property. How does one measure Liberty or Freedom? Is it a vague and amorphous sort of thing? I think that freedom can indeed be measured. I say that freedom is measured by how long you can sit in a pub drinking beer and smoking cigarettes with your gun and talking about how badly the Government is behaving in your free time, and that anyone is able to do what they choose to do (without hurting others).
    5 Aug 2013, 06:54 PM Reply Like
  • You kind of touched on the key issues.


    1) you have the right to free choice as long as you don't harm anyone else. Many will argue that smoking in public does harm children and others around you, so we made laws to reduce those risks (it took me a long time to understand that one personally, but it makes perfect sense in a utilitarian, collectivist framework, one that all of humanity naturally tends towards - and this is a great example).


    2) how do you measure freedom? You measured it one way. The rest of society has collectively shot down some already, and it's back and forth on others, but definitely not conclusive in your favor. You need to understand that some people have the right to measure freedom in personal safety and public safety. And by logical reduction, there would be a lot less gun violence if there were zero guns in circulation, so it's sort of logical to tend towards that ideal rather than the opposite, even if the absolute goal is unfeasible.
    7 Aug 2013, 04:21 PM Reply Like
  • I heard it was the US government buying all the guns and ammo to create an artifical crisis.
    8 Mar 2013, 04:57 PM Reply Like
  • No, the NRA.
    9 Mar 2013, 10:28 AM Reply Like
DJIA (DIA) S&P 500 (SPY)