The Big Gun Control Thread

In the interest of turning that into an actual citation:

The Current Status of Cyanide Regulations
(Professor Jan G. Laitos, Engineering and Mining Journal, 2012-02-24)

In the U.S., Montana currently has the only state-wide complete ban on the use of cyanide heap-leach processes, and prohibits any new open-pit gold or silver mines. Only open-pit mining operations with a valid permit before November, 1998 are exempted. This ban is in place as a result of Citizens Initiative 137 (I-137), enacted in 1998. This ban remains in effect.

You're welcome, Malor.

Maylor if there is no example of that ever happening to a gun manufacturer it makes for a very shaky case.
I don't think anyone actually in the business thinks for one second that any state will be able to pass a ban on gun manufacture.

I would bet the tax incentives had more to do with the decision than anything else. With a possible bump from being able to sell in their own state.

Longer ago than I remembered, but thanks for digging it up.

And I just happened to know that one: I'm sure there have been plenty more cases of things being made illegal to manufacture. Even if the laws doing so are a good idea (we probably don't want any more, say, PCB being made), that's still a loss to the companies making those products. If they can't repurpose or move their equipment, it might be a big loss, even a catastrophic one.

If I were intent on building a gun factory, Tennessee, Kentucky, and Alabama would be on the short list, because I could be pretty sure that I wouldn't have to worry about state laws damaging or destroying my business. Federal laws would still be an issue, but I'd personally rate those as less of a potential problem than, say, the state of New York deciding that segments of my product line could no longer be made within state lines.... or, possibly, them banning the manufacture of firearms altogether.

Wage and tax levels are certainly going to figure into the equation as well, but when you get past the hard numbers, you get into emotional territory, and capitalists often make decisions based on simple hunches. From an economic perspective, a gun factory in the sticks in California would probably make more sense than building one in Tennessee, as wages are almost as low out in the boonies (lots of areas in California are pretty depressed), taxes aren't too bad, and California has major transportation hubs of every type. But I'd consider someone opening a gun factory there to be fairly foolish, because the political risks there would, in my view, heavily outweigh the easy access to transportation.

You can build the cost of shipping into your product pricing, but you can't price your way past a ban.

I'm out And about so I don't have a better source than this article at the moment, but in the case of Magpul, the CO state senate did have to make a legal exemption for Magpul to keep manufacturing in CO once the law passed.

http://kitup.military.com/2013/02/ma...

Also Beretta didn't move, they opened a new R&D facility in TN but still kept all their existing facilities and corp HQ in Maryland.

Malor wrote:

If I were intent on building a gun factory, Tennessee, Kentucky, and Alabama would be on the short list, because I could be pretty sure that I wouldn't have to worry about state laws damaging or destroying my business.

beretta-moves-new-plant-to-tennessee

Jeff Reh, a member of the company's board of directors, said Wednesday the company seriously considered seven different states but began with one criterion:

"We started our search by looking only at states that have a consistent history of support for and likelihood of future support for Second Amendment rights," Reh said in a statement.

Thanks to Edwin for bringing an actual example. However that example appears to show that legislatures will twist around to keep a gun company around.

I live in MA and I don't think we ever passed anything that shut down a gun manufacturer. And IIRC there was one small manufacturer in my home town that was famous for rifles that went off if you looked at them wrong. Completely unsafe in terms of basic consumer protection but they plugged away. I think they are gone now. Might have had to stop because of some federal law or just went out of business because of shoddy product. Or moved to Mexico or something. But I don't think our crazy liberal anti gun state had anything to do with it.

I don't blame Beretta for looking at states with that record. Solid business decision. But that doesn't mean it isn't slightly paranoid in terms of the actual likelihood of anything really being a problem.
This opinion is subject to change in light of actual evidence of this happening.

realityhack wrote:

That doesn't mean it isn't slightly paranoid in terms of the actual likelihood of anything really being a problem.

You just described the entire NRA's platform

Researcher finds evidence that changing gun regulations (permit processes for gun purchases) affected the murder rate in Missouri.

Since the 1920s, Missouri had been operating under a permit-to-purchase system, where would-be gun buyers would have to see local law enforcement for a background check and general vetting. If a person passed the check, they'd be given a permit that allowed them to buy guns. In 2007, that law was changed so that any required background checks were performed at the time of purchase, and buyers would be approved immediately after completion. It passed as part of a package that included stand-your-ground legislation.

As the national murder rate continued to trend downward, Missouri's held steady in the wake of the changes. Webster also said that the age adjusted gun homicide rate in Missouri went up by 25 percent. In eight other states, there were no significant changes in this figure and, in aggregate, the rate in these states went down by 2.2 percent. Changes in murders committed without firearms were not statistically significant.

Another change came in the dynamic of the guns seized after crimes. Prior to the change in the law, most of the guns recovered at crimes had been in circulation for a while; after, there were many more that had been in circulation for less than a year. The number of guns seized just three months after purchase doubled.

Once we actually data to be collected and research to be done, things will get interesting.

I'm just glad that he wasn't hurt badly. Still, the irony burns.

Meh. Accidental shootings only happen when guns are present. The greater the presence of guns, the greater the chance of an accidental shooting. Why wouldn't we expect them to happen occasionally at NRA events or even safety classes? It's not irony to me. It's merely a statistic.

I was wondering if this thread would rise from the deep today and it did, but for a different reason to the one I expected...

So international news is reporting a mass school stabbing in the States in which there were no fatalities but a whole bunch of students got injured. One of the chief arguments I've seen and heard about gun control over there is that an aspiring mass murderer will just turn to such things if guns aren't available, yet here we have a young man who *chose* knives and didn't end up killing anyone (plus he was pacified instead of killed on capture). I can only imagine how many kids would be dead now had he decided firearms were more appropriate, and there's a much better chance that we'd never know why he did it as he would've been shot by himself or another to end the threat.

Has this incident come up at all in the public gun control debate?

Doubt you'll really see much mention on this past this week.

The sad fact is that because there wasn't any gun used, and no one died, there isn't much interest.

The one that happened in China didn't get much airtime either.

http://news.sky.com/story/1219600/ch...

Edwin wrote:

The one that happened in China didn't get much airtime either.

http://news.sky.com/story/1219600/ch...

Not quite the same, as it was 8 people with knives, rather than 1 perpetrator. Contrast to Sandy Hook, where 1 person with guns killed 26, all by himself. If the terrorists / criminals in China had guns, I have no doubt that there would have been many, many more victims. Not to mention, 4 of that 33 number were part of the group responsible for the attack.

That's not to say it was not a horrific act, but I fail to see the equivalence. Guns give people an order of magnitude more power to commit atrocities, hence gun control (not gun elimination, as people keep accusing the anti-gun lobby of) is a good idea.

I wasn't trying to make them equivalent because they aren't. It just didn't get much airtime like this story like I was pointing out.

Ah! I misunderstood. My apologies!

3 more people murdered... With a gun... This sh*t pisses me off.

Exactly how large of a mass killing with guns is required before someone modifies the laws?

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_FATAL_SHOOTING_KANSAS?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

Maq wrote:
LouZiffer wrote:

Meh. Accidental shootings only happen when guns are present. The greater the presence of guns, the greater the chance of an accidental shooting.

(John Oliver) that's _my_ point.

It only applies on Planet X (also known as Australia)!

LouZiffer wrote:

Meh. Accidental shootings only happen when guns are present. The greater the presence of guns, the greater the chance of an accidental shooting.

(John Oliver) that's _my_ point.

I was surprised that there wasn't much talk about the Bundy farm incident.

Since this thread has come back to life, there was a significant court decision last February in California. It wouldn't surprise me to see a similar challenge in NY or NJ. Perhaps CA will appeal this decision to SCOTUS.

Court overturns restrictions on concealed guns in much of California

I hate the 2nd amendment more and more every day.

I was afraid this was actually going to pass, but sane heads saved the day.

JC wrote:

I hate the 2nd amendment more and more every day.

Not if the original wording had stood.

I love the 2nd amendment!

JC wrote:

I hate the 2nd amendment more and more every day.

I hate the fact that you want to someone to rape, rob, and murder my poor, defenseless grandmother (God rest her soul).

Also, I think I have an actual policy idea towards guns after reading this
It'd be nice if absolutely anyone wishing to carry a gun in public, hunters included, open carry or concealed, exceptions made for people who just bought one, had to have training.

RolandofGilead wrote:

I love the 2nd amendment!

JC wrote:

I hate the 2nd amendment more and more every day.

I hate the fact that you want to someone to rape, rob, and murder my poor, defenseless grandmother (God rest her soul).

Why sir, that certainly is a downright handsome man of straw you have there.

RolandofGilead wrote:

I love the 2nd amendment!

JC wrote:

I hate the 2nd amendment more and more every day.

I hate the fact that you want to someone to rape, rob, and murder my poor, defenseless grandmother (God rest her soul).

Also, I think I have an actual policy idea towards guns after reading this
It'd be nice if absolutely anyone wishing to carry a gun in public, hunters included, open carry or concealed, exceptions made for people who just bought one, had to have training.

That bill eliminates training requirements for open carry.