This year's uptick in buyers must reflect some new gun owners, but if past surveys are a good guide, surely most of these buyers are repeat buyers. This means that the well-armed are probably getting better-armed—a point none of the recent news stories makes.That's one of the points Bryan Miller tried to make so unskillfully and deceptively a few days back.
Here's the thing: So what?
The hard core, the committed, the trained just got better armed and resupplied.
Ponder that.
[Via "remarks"]
6 comments:
I also like that he made the point at the end that rises in sales were a response to Obama and Bidens past records and not Obama's race.
I see that some are calling "Obama greatest gun seller in history".
Would that make him a "gun pusher"?
It's too late, Mr. Gilson. It has already been established that we are racists. We know this because of "science".
I don't think there are gradients of being armed. I already have two handguns bought specifically for self-defense. I can only effectively use one at a time. Therefore--and presuming I chose my defense weapon wisely--additional purchases do not make me "better-armed". To suggest otherwise would not only be illogical, but also suggests that someone with a collection of 200 guns is somehow more dangerous that someone with two.
One of my father's liberal academic friends was pondering my stock of ammunition and firearms capable of using standard NATO and police rounds, if need be. He said "It looks like you guys are preparing for a war." I responded "I hope not, but that's not in my hands."
tjp, you are almost correct, naww, I'm just teasing. You are wrong.
For instance, you have two handguns which you say you can only effectively use one at a time. That is most probably absolutely true.
But if you had in your possession other arms capable of reaching out further, with more authority, you would be better armed.
For instance you will not be able to use your handguns effectively at 200 yds. or a 100 yards.
However, if you were armed for distances of at least 200 yards to the front yard to inside your home, each scenario served more efficiently by a different type weapon, you would be better armed.
If all you had in long guns were single shot bolt actions, and you purchased a semiautomatic in appropriate caliber you would be better armed.
Therefore, gradients of being well armed do exist. It is illogical to believe otherwise. That is why the military has all different kinds of weapons. A 1911A1 will not be as effective as 105mm Howitzer, depending on the purpose.
A crew with both is better armed than a crew with only one.
tjp, if you have additional arms, you will be able to arm your friends and neighbors who wake up to reality at the same moment it is too late to run to the gun shop. That would certainly make you better armed, as a group.
The ability to provide supressive fire while teams maneuver, cover you while you reload, etc. are wonderful options if you find yourself exchanging gunfire. You might want to consider situations where your handguns will not be adequate. Education on this subject will, also, make you better armed. :)
Post a Comment