DevsAdvocate

...and then? I don't see how them denying you for a CCW can really affect you any other way. Just write down: "did not show justifiable need for CCW" or something. It's not like you become a prohibited person by being denied.

NJ is counted in the total. NJTrace uses NICS. How many NICS = a gun buy? Probably 95% of them were gun buys. Were they new guns? Maybe. 6 million next month might be a bit much. The only thing which would slow all this down is supply.

Record breaking month for NICS. 2.78 million checks. 39% increase over November 2012, and 49% increase over December 2011. Found it on Reuters

The State will be shamed by it's inadequacies. I'd be down to join a part of this plan. We don't even need the whole state to do it, just one town.

Isn't the reverse typically the case, with the State having the burden of proof? Also, what if you own a .50Beowulf upper and an AR? You would own ammo for both...

How would politicians even get around this? I mean, if I own an AR-15 and a .50 Beowulf, does that mean I can technically own a 30 round 5.56 magazine to hold 10 rounds of .50? Or .458 SOCOM? Seems like this would be a massive blind-spot in any future magazine legislation...

Blogged this earlier: From Illinois State Rifle Association (ISRA) via Shall Not Be Questioned "Based on what we know about Cullerton’s bill, firearms that would be banned include all semiautomatic rifles, pistols, and shotguns. Pump action shotguns would be banned as well. This would be a very comprehensive ban that would include not only so-called “assault weapons” but also such classics as M1 Garands and 1911-based pistols. There would be no exemptions and no grandfathering. You would have a very short window to turn in your guns to the State Police to avoid prosecution." Looks like they’re gunning for everything here, using “Assault Weapons” to reduce Illinois gun owners to only having bolt-action rifles, lever actions, and revolvers. Weapons like the M1 Garand and 1911 would be banned. If you’re in Illinois, now is the time to act. Call you local representatives and give them an earful.

Immigration is a major contributor to our nations' population growth, but I have nothing to support how this would affect gun owners. There is simply not enough data.

Vlad, I accounted for that. I know mixing data sources is never a good idea, but this is all we have to go on. If you have better source data, then by all means, let me know. The sheer fact most gun owners are paranoid about people asking about gun ownership is why getting data on the actual number of gun owners is very difficult. You can see that with the 2000 polling data versus 1990, and then 2010. In 1990, it might have been in vogue to report gun ownership, but not in 2000. But even under-reported, 80 million people is a lot. At least it gives us a good idea of the minimum number of gun owners. It is most likely a lot higher... but how much higher? Here is the problem though: under-reporting gun ownership is actually TERRIBLE. Guess who else looks at these polls? Politicians, policy makers, etc. People who make decisions and hold a lot of power. When they see gun ownership in decline, or they think the numbers are lower than they really are, they assume gun owners can be marginalized. Sure, we can rally and kick their asses out of office AFTER the fact, but the idea is to make them realize how powerful we really are as a group so they know the political costs of pissing us off.

Thanks! Part 1 should be linked in the first paragraph. Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

I don't get it, if NICS is down, don't we automatically revert back to a waiting period? Also, what's the point of our Pistol Permits and Firearms ID card if we can't use them to buy guns?

Figured ya'll would enjoy this, I did a write up on the number of firearms owners over the years 1970, 1980, 1990, 2000, 2010... using polling data combined with census data. Linky... Let me know what you guys think!

Fortunately, many of those "hunters" are dying off and are being replaced by more modern gun owners who are more steadfast in my beliefs... at least my theory.

I have a theory: I believe the reason you don't see much increase in gun ownership is due to a demographic shift. Once upon a time, Americans mainly owned guns for hunting and the likes. Practical shooting and usage. This sorta peaked in the 70s and early 80s, and then we saw a shift in demographics from those traditional gun uses, to the new generation: home defense, tactical weaponry, etc. Basically as the old timers are dying off, their being replaced by a younger demographic, with a different outlook on firearms. I also imagine that this difference in gun use reflects support of the 2nd Amendment. Early in the 20th century, there 2nd Amendment Rights issue wasn't as strong as it is today, people believed in reasonable restrictions, etc. This is also changing. So while our numbers are remaining fairly steady, we're becoming more steadfast in our beliefs. This is my theory, I'm gonna dig up stats to prove it.

http://in-defense-of-liberty.com/2012/12/29/trolling-gun-control-by-saying-what-they-really-mean/ Basically, some crazy on DailyKos outlines the plan to rid the United States of all it's evil guns. I'm not sure if they're the real deal, or if they're just an elaborate troll.

Any word on when those things will ship out?

Check this out: Is gun ownership going up? down? or staying the same? (Part 1) According to my analysis of polling data, census data, and felony data: about 79 to 81 million people. That's a lot of gun owners. My next post will be to see how this number has changed, and to see if it is changing up or downward. Enjoy!

I'm waiting to decide between a S.E.A.L. Lower or a Handl Lower receivers. Both can use Magpul LR20s, but the SEAL one is the better of the two at this. I'm hoping MidwestPX will get more in so I can order 15/20s.

Credit exists for a reason, gas stations, realizing the potential profit margins can extend their credit to compete in the generator market to restore power and sell gas. As prices increase due to demand, most gas stations can afford more generators to get online. As for the rich vs. poor, that is a concern, but there are fewer rich people than poor people, their demand would be satiated sooner, and they would be bankrolling the recovery a lot more quickly. Poorer folks will suffer early on, but they suffered regardless. How many wasted countless hours sitting in line to fill their tanks? They could've car pooled, or found alternative means of transport. Also, gasoline would've been rationed on a personal level, budgeted for when it was needed. Honestly, I'd rather pay more to get gas conveniently, then deal with the inconvenience of waiting in line. I might not be able to afford a full tank, but I can probably get a gallon or two to get me to work. As the time goes on, the prices would drop as power and distribution is restored, back to their normal levels.

Honestly, it's a self-resolving problem. I theorize that if gas were to increase in price, then it would make more sense to get gas stations back in action and increase supply at a quicker rate. The increased profit margin would allow station owners to bring in generators to run their stations, even if the cost is quite high. When you let the market do its job, things normalize pretty quickly. It's only when you regulate it by rationing crap that things get messed up.

They did their best to keep things reasonable. But then again, their entire stock was cleared out in about 3 days. Saturday/Sunday after the shooting, people just went in and bought or put deposits on stuff.

Exactly, same here. If people want to panic and throw their money at obviously overpriced stuff, let them. They're old enough to make their own decisions.

Doesn't matter if the fuel was there or not. If it's inaccessible, then that supply is useless to those who need it. The cost of gas should have gone up to account for the drop in supply, coupled with the increase in demand from people running generators and using their cars for warmth. This would've eliminated, or at least, mitigated the need to ration gas and wait in long lines. Also, when that guy bought that $300 case of ammo, ammo was most likely plentiful in relation to demand. If they sold it for $800, then that means supply has gone down and demand has gone up. He made a profit by forecasting the increase in prices. Seriously, I don't see why people get so mad at those who buy low and sell high. Once upon a time, Springfield M1903s were plentiful and could be had for $45. But now supply is down, and you see them at $700, so where is the outrage there?

Agreed Nick. I don't understand the vilification of 'gouging', it's a market reaction to demand. If you don't "gouge" then you end up with the following things happening: 1. Shortages 2. Rationing "Gouging" eliminates that. Because what people consider "gouging" is a rational response to demand. Take Hurricane Sandy for instance: the SUPPLY of gasoline in the State was low. But prices remained low at pre-Sandy norms. What happened? SHORTAGES! RATIONING! Now if prices were allowed to increase, then we wouldn't have had long gas lines, or shortages, and the increased profit margins on shipping gas into the State and selling it would have probably restored service in the same amount of time. Does this mean some folks (who don't have a lot of money to pay inflated rates) get screwed? Yes! But when you run out of something, or ration it, everyone gets screwed. This firearms panic is a terrible thing for the entire firearms and accessories supply chain. Unfortunately, like most panics, it cannot be predicted in time, and most attempts to raise prices did not occur fast enough. Dealers should have marked up everything rapidly to ensure a steady supply, even if it is at a higher rate. Being a "jolly good fella" and selling things below their market value is dumb, and hurts everyone in the long run.

I'm sorry, but this is a pretty entitled view to take here. Firstoff, what is fair to you as the buyer is not fair to the seller. It's their item, they have the right to sell it for what they want. Secondly, market forces dictate demand. Next time, stock up on stuff before someone shoots up a school.