the dreaded Saturday Night Special

imported post

mkl wrote:

You may be a little out of touch with the level of poverty in some places in the country if you believe a ~500$ purchase is not super expensive for a decent amount of the people out there. Sure around DC, and in NOVA, and NYC, etc. 500$ for most people isn't much, but there are still a heck of a lot of folks living pay check to pay check that could have a 500$ gun on layaway for a year or more to get it. I am originally from a town in MD where the average families income is under 36,000$ a year. 500$ is a heck of a lot to them. Throw in a single mother with 2 kids, and the decision for a $500 gun or a new pair of shoes for Johnny...

I agree that those guns could be junk, but I don't need the government stepping in to "help" me decide what I want to buy. I have a brain and can make my own decisions. If I prefer to buy a gun that works 50% of the time, cause its better than not owning one at all, that is my right, responsibility, and problem. I don't need the nanny state stepping it to "help" me make the right decision. Give me the facts, and get out of my way.

Click to expand...

Agreed.... I live in an area where single family home with no land is almost 1 million dollars. But we also have people that are poor here.

People earning small wages can still save and buy a gun.They may have to save a little while.... but they can eventually get one.

I served in the military and did not get much pay. I also remember getting loans to get some of my guns when I just could not wait to save enough.

Just because they have other bills now does not justify a need to let them buy a junk gun thatare known to be problematic and inferior.

They are paying out hard earned money for something they expect to work. They may not have the knowledge or experienceto tell it is junk. The guy selling it not going to tell them either.

The point being..... The gun's price may be attractive to those with little money.... but the ban has nothing to do with preventing the poor from owning a gun.

This is just pure malarkey!


DISCLAIMER: I am not attacking anyone or their thoughts or ideas. I am entitled to my own opinions and I have posted them to further a "discussion" here. Some things were said in a humorous manner to keep it light hearted.

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

They are paying out hard earned money for something they expect to work. They may not have the knowledge or experience to tell it is junk. The guy selling it not going to tell them either.

Click to expand...

I have changed my mind and agree with you 100%. I think the government is really falling down on allowing cheaply made cars to be sold. Kia, Cheap Hondas. Poor people may not have the experience or knowledge to tell them they are junk. They don't all have four wheel disc brakes for the love of god!
Some of them aren't as reliable, and they may not have as good safety systems. The government should ONLY allow BMWs and Mercedes to be sold, as they are high quality cars. Yes, some families will have to save a little longer, but really, a $30,000 car will be far superior to the $11,000 one they would have bought.

imported post

mkl wrote:

I have changed my mind and agree with you 100%. I think the government is really falling down on allowing cheaply made cars to be sold. Kia, Cheap Hondas. Poor people may not have the experience or knowledge to tell them they are junk. They don't all have four wheel disc brakes for the love of god!
Some of them aren't as reliable, and they may not have as good safety systems. The government should ONLY allow BMWs and Mercedes to be sold, as they are high quality cars. Yes, some families will have to save a little longer, but really, a $30,000 car will be far superior to the $11,000 one they would have bought.

Click to expand...

I guess you know nothing about this.....


[align=center]FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS AND REGULATIONS[/align]
[align=center]U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION[/align]

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has a legislative mandate under Title 49 of the United States Code, Chapter 301, Motor Vehicle Safety, to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) and Regulations to which manufacturers of motor vehicle and equipment items must conform and certify compliance. FMVSS 209 was the first standard to become effective on March 1, 1967. A number of FMVSS became effective for vehicles manufactured on and after January 1, 1968. Subsequently, other FMVSS have been issued. New standards and amendments to existing standards are published in the Federal Register.

These Federal safety standards are regulations written in terms of minimum safety performance requirements for motor vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment. These requirements are specified in such a manner "that the public is protected against unreasonable risk of crashes occurring as a result of the design, construction, or performance of motor vehicles and is also protected against unreasonable risk of death or injury in the event crashes do occur."



[line]

If you want to play "what gun to buy....." Sure.. If the poor citizen wants to buy the Cadillac of guns and get themodel 29 Dirty Harry .44 Magnum.. you will have to shell out $1000 or more.




Not every poor person is going to save to get a BMW and will have to settle for the GEO Metro or the KIA. But all three cars have been checked and certified safe. The BMW just has more luxury and status to it.

Do you believe the government should stop testing cars and allow cheep junk cars to be purchased too?


EDIT: Rhetorical question!! Not meant to be answered and take us off topic.

DISCLAIMER: I am not attacking anyone or their thoughts or ideas. I am entitled to my own opinions and I have posted them to further a "discussion" here. Some things were said in a humorous manner to keep it light hearted.

imported post

I suggest that the 'racist roots of gun control' be studied before pontificating on this the Saturday Night Special aspect of it.

Price nor melting point are indications of quality but are the tools of marketeers.

imported post

Exactly. The US Gov itself produced the FP-45 Liberator pistol during WW II. It was a total POS single-shot. They recognized that to desperate people anything WAS better than nothing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FP-45_Liberator

imported post

Jim675 wrote:

Exactly. The US Gov itself produced the FP-45 Liberator pistol during WW II. It was a total POS single-shot. They recognized that to desperate people anything WAS better than nothing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FP-45_Liberator

Click to expand...

When you need to churn out 1,000,000 of them to give away.... You not going to be giving the resistance fighters a Sig or a Glock. It takes far too long to make just onea gun to that standard.

These guns cost about $2.00 to make and you get what you pay for. No frills... one shot at a time. But when you have 1,000,000 people armed there is the real strength. Better than throwing a rock or waiving a stick.

Neither the Government nor the junk gun makers are trying to arm 1,000,000 poor citizens today to become freedom fighters.

This is not a time of war and guns are readily available to those willing to pay for them at their current MSRP set by the manufacturer and NOT the government.

imported post

If I may summarize part of Doug's recommendation: The poorest areas of cities tend to have the most crime. The poorest citizens are the most frequest victims. They are also the least able to afford tools/training for their defense.
It is not up to me to say "If you can't afford an HK and two weeks of training you have no business using a pistol." This is (and has been used hostorically) simply a way of disarming minorities. If the guns truly don't work, to a degree that their purchasers require, then economic forces will stop their production.

imported post

I would also remind folks that when flintlock, wheel lock, match lock, etc. guns were the state of the art the were highly sought after. Knives and swords were available (and perhaps carried also), but the propable ability to dispatch the first attacker with a lead ball justified the purchase and inconveniance of carrying the often unweildy arms by any who could afford them.

I suspect Raven et al. could throw bullets down range at least as quickly as these with less mess and training.

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

Do you believe the government should stop testing cars and allow cheep junk cars to be purchased too?

Click to expand...

Of course I do. I am a consumer should be able to make my own decision about things. Sometimes I may choose an option that hurts me. Oh well, that is what freedom is.

Once you give the power to decide what can be sold to the government, you lose the freedom to live your life as you see fit.

In the example of cheap guns, I do believe that the roots are in racism, and classism. It is purely an attempt to keep poor people from having guns. Period.
When legislation was put forth (and is still put forth by Brady etc) The definition of a "Saturday night special" wasn't one of poor quality that might hurt you, it was based on price, and having a very short inaccurate barrel.
It was purely to stop poor people from having guns.

imported post

Like any product on the free market, low priced guns will sink or swim based on their usefulness to consumers. Bryco-Jennings went out of business because of a BS lawsuit over an ND. However guns to their design are still being made and their magazines have been slightly modified to cure most feed problems. I have a Jennings .22 that is quite reliable and I have even carried it as a small pocket pistol, and I own a SA 1911a1 and a Ruger Security Six as well.

The Raven is generally held to have been a pretty functional pocket pistol.

The better made guns stayed on the market, and the bad ones went away. If folks aren't buying them...

Personally I like the RG and Excam revolvers too.

There was a time when I was very poor and didn't have much money at all. I had to put an Excam .38 on layaway in order to afford an $80 revolver. I'm glad I had it though.

How many people against low priced guns are just repeating what they have heard, and how many have actual experience with them?

imported post

mkl wrote:

Of course I do. I am a consumer should be able to make my own decision about things. Sometimes I may choose an option that hurts me. Oh well, that is what freedom is.

Once you give the power to decide what can be sold to the government, you lose the freedom to live your life as you see fit.

In the example of cheap guns, I do believe that the roots are in racism, and classism. It is purely an attempt to keep poor people from having guns. Period.
When legislation was put forth (and is still put forth by Brady etc) The definition of a "Saturday night special" wasn't one of poor quality that might hurt you, it was based on price, and having a very short inaccurate barrel.
It was purely to stop poor people from having guns.

Click to expand...

Yes.... you are the consumer. But what if the car can just explode without warning burning the occupants or the brakes can fail if the heat hits 90 degrees? Still sell it to people that may not know?

Point being... YOU may be willing to risk your life but what about those kids in the car with you? They have no say in the matter.

Now.. back to guns....

I hear people crying over the poor not being able to buy a gun with all those bills to pay and having to feed their kids. How they should be allowed to buy junk guns that are cheap so they can defend themselves.

And at the same time I think back to my home town where many of the people were poor. I remember the state giving all kinds of assistance to families with kids. You get food stamps and WIC coupons to feed your family. Free cheese and what not.

The savings right there in just one month is a fair amount of money. It would not take long to get enough to get a gun.

Is there a fair amount of crime in areas that are predominately poor? I guess there may be. Poor people robbing and stealing from other poor people. And they are not stealing food. They are stealing property.

So now we have a new predicament.

We want poor people to be armed and able to defend themselves against.... other poor people committing crimes... on poor people!!

So we want to be sure we can feed the vicious cycle so make junk guns readily available to both sides. They can shoot each other.

As riotous as it may seem.....the criminals are going to really benefit from cheap guns.

I have never met a criminal yet that had paid out much for a gun. They are normally POS guns not worth a dime. So a junk gun is perfectly priced for a criminal. Dirt Cheap!!

Could the ban on junk guns be two fold? Safety of the consumer AND to thwart bad guys from getting disposable guns? Maybe. But we all know bad guys can buy their guns on the street cheap too.

imported post

So if poor people (augmented with free chesse perhaps ) have enough discrectionary income to buy higher-quality arms and ammo are they poor?
OMG - you've just eliminated poverty from the US! :celebrate

Yes, many SNS used non-steel frames. But the rounds they were chambered for have low chamber pressures and they didn't kaboom like Glock-like regularity (just kidding - couldn't resist).

The other part of this argument is the old: a higher percentage of this class of people commit crimes so we should use prior restraint to prevent any of them from being armed. Welcome to post-civil war Alabama.

In the US you are a full citizen until proven otherwise in a court of law; race, income, religion, neighborhood, mode of dress not withstanding.

ETA: Please see the Wiki article on SNS:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturday_night_special

ETA: After a bit more thought I'm going to say this as well. I've been poor. My folks divirced when I was young and my father took his income and left. My mom literally did not have 5 dollars at the end of the month. Luckily she clawed upward financially, but for several years the notion that we could buy anything as extravagant as a gun was laughable. Poverty truly does happen.

imported post

DP

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

But what if the car can just explode without warning...

Click to expand...

Not possible. Once upon a time a Georgia State Certified Fire Control Technician to be allowed to work CART fire control.

Gasoline/alcohol is a fuel only and requires an intimately mixed oxidant to burn (as it is at the surface of a puddle).

imported post

Jim675 wrote:

So if poor people (augmented with free chesse perhaps ) have enough discrectionary income to buy higher-quality arms and ammo are they poor?

...Snipped

Click to expand...

Just because you can save up to finally buy something does not negate the fact you are poor.

I will point out once more...

Even the poor can buy a gun. There is absolutely no restriction in place saying that they cannot have one. Either as a gift, private purchase, or FFL sale.

Like everything else in the US.... you have to be able to pay for it. The government does not want crap being sold to unsuspecting consumers. This is to include junk guns.

Unfortunately.... the gun retailers mark up the cost and sell them at MSRP. If every poor person is entitled to a gun then the government can give them a coupon to go get one at the tax payers expense. :lol:

Otherwise.... they can do what I did when I was poor. SAVE SAVE SAVE!! Then BUY the gun of my choosing.

I have an employee that was making $10.00 an hour and paying for college. He seemed to mange the ability to pay his car loan, college tuition, bills, AND buy a Glock!

You cannot sit here and tell me the poor cannot afford a gun costing more than $100 bucks!


DISCLAIMER: I am not attacking anyone or their thoughts or ideas. I am entitled to my own opinions and I have posted them to further a "discussion" here. Some things were said in a humorous manner to keep it light hearted.

imported post

Doug Huffman wrote:

LEO 229 wrote:

But what if the car can just explode without warning...

Click to expand...

Not possible. Once upon a time a Georgia State Certified Fire Control Technician to be allowed to work CART fire control.

Gasoline/alcohol is a fuel only and requires an intimately mixed oxidant to burn (as it is at the surface of a puddle).

Click to expand...

You do realize it was a hypothetical situation, right?

Wait... This is Doug we are asking. Smart.. but not too bright sometimes. :lol:

DISCLAIMER: I am not attacking anyone or their thoughts or ideas. I am entitled to my own opinions and I have posted them to further a "discussion" here. Some things were said in a humorous manner to keep it light hearted.

imported post

I guess I can say that not all poor people can afford a gun, actually. The flaw in your argument is the $10 per hour. Make it unemployed and add 5 dependants. Many benefits now have time restictions.

You can say that if they can save 1 cent per month they can afford a full auto UZI with proper stamp. But practically speaking, would YOU rather wait ten years to be armed with your dream machine or would you have something else in the meantime?

Do you drive a Lamborghini (or whatever your preference may be)? Why not, you can afford it.

imported post

The metaphor of the "Saturday night special" is a cheap, readily available handgun, before NICS, waiting periods, background checks. Used to be you could drop by a pawn shop and pick up a 22 cal revolver for $20 -- or less, "in the heat of passion."

Used to be you could pick up a cheap revolver at the pawn shop for your boyfriend, or girlfriend. "Straw purchase" wasn't illegal, and there weren't any forms to fill out.

Back in 1967, in Killeen TX, I bought a Ruger Single Six, 22 LR / 22 Mag. at a pawn shop. I was 19, no paperwork, no waiting. Paid cash and then GOT ON THE BUS and rode back onto Ft. Hood.

Those days are gone forever. But the cheap guns are still around.

We need to make a clear distinction between the firearms and the criminals.

imported post

I think most of us agree allowing truly dangerous, poorly made, unreliable guns is bad for the buyer, the bystanders and the reputation of gun owners in general.

On the other hand, most of us notice that the "helpful" groups who want to determine which guns should be prohibited are mostly the leftist states and cities, who clearly have more in mind than simply protecting the consumer. (The foxes guarding the henhouse.)

Most states requiring training for CCWs will say that NRA-approved training is acceptable, and the leftists have little to say about this, since they can't deny the NRA's historic role in gun training and safety. So, here's my suggestion: Let the government appoint the NRA to come up with realistic standards for evaluating and testing inexpensive firearms and making recommendations to the various agencies. Something like this might be the best of both worlds.....though I doubt our leftists would like to see any expanded role for the organization they hate. Still, this approach would reveal what their real agenda is: banning, not "safety".

imported post

Excellent point.