the dreaded Saturday Night Special

[LEO 229]

imported post

Jim675 wrote:

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.

Well golly.... how about we start a program then. Those that cannot afford a gun will be issued one by the government at the tax payers expense. Free gun with every block of cheese. :lol:

Sorry.... but if you are out of work and have five people to feed... The last freaking thing you better be buying is that damn gun! :X

Your priority should be feeding those five you are responsible for. Is it a nice to have the gun for added security? Hell yes. But the chances on your needing it are so slim anyway.

How many people out of the 8000 members here have EVER had to draw their Glock, Kimber, XD, COLT, Ruger, or what ever fine gun they have bought? So few it is not even funny.

So the notion that a poor family man out of work is in such a need for a gun is ludicrous. :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.

 

[Jim675]

imported post

LEO, do you not see that you're setting yourself up as the arbitor of who requires safety? Let the market rule! Its easier and works. The SNS "ban" isn't a ban on domestic manufacture, only imports. It was point based for adjustable sights, target grips, etc. It did not say barrel must be tempered to X hardness. It was not about safety. It was about politics.

 

[LEO 229]

imported post

Jim675 wrote:

LEO, do you not see that you're setting yourself up as the arbitor of who requires safety? Let the market rule! Its easier and works. The SNS "ban" isn't a ban on domestic manufacture, only imports. It was point based for adjustable sights, target grips, etc. It did not say barrel must be tempered to X hardness. It was not about safety. It was about politics.

Naw... you aregrasping at straws..... You keep jumping ship from junk guns to anything else that fits the bill.

I have expressed my opinion on the matter... Enough said. :lol:

I will respond some a valid argument is made that I either agree with or disagree with.


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.

 

[mkl]

imported post

Dutch Uncle wrote:

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".

I would prefer a model where the government stays out of it. Then the NRA is welcome to voluntarily publish a "consumer reports" style information booklet about the pro's and cons of various firearms they have tested. Any other gun group could do the same. Then Customers can buy whatever they want, reading the various published reports or not. If a product is built improperly and causes a person damages, they are free to file a lawsuit to try and prove the company was negligent in the design, or manufacture of the gun.
Seems like everyone should be happy. Tax payer dollars are saved, the NRA has a new way to reach people and solicit donations (or charge for the information), the people are free to make whatever choice they value, and the company gets to make whatever they want, balanced with the fact they are responsible for their products if they sell a faulty dangerous product.

 

[mkl]

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

[
Sorry.... but if you are out of work and have five people to feed... The last freaking thing you better be buying is that damn gun! :X

Your priority should be feeding those five you are responsible for. Is it a nice to have the gun for added security? Hell yes. But the chances on your needing it are so slim anyway.

Wow. So , poor people do not deserve the same safety in their homes as others. We should just ban all guns now, citizens don't need it.
I would say, if you have a family of five to feed, the last thing you should be doing is paying taxes to support crazy government spending. The last thing you should be doing is paying more for a gun because the government won't let you buy a cheaper one.

 

[Felid`Maximus]

imported post

I know people who are so poor that a $40 gun would be a serious investment that they would have to save up for weeks to get. Original bans on cheap guns were designed to prevent ex-slaves from being able to afford guns. Modern attempts to ban saturday night specials are just another attempt to ban guns as a whole. Cheap guns need to be banned as saturday night specials and expensive ones as pocket rockets. In sum, all guns are banned. Plus, many people's definition of a Saturday Night Special would include all 5 shot compact revolvers regardless of price, all polymer framed handguns (based on melting point) and guns made with Zinc frames etc.which are totally arbitrary and only serve to make firearms more difficult to own. That is the goal of anti-gun organizations, to regulate firearms out of existence.

Now personally, I thinkits a better deal toget military surplus guns like Nagant revolvers, makarovs etc. rather than Ravens and Lorcins, but the Ravens and Lorcins are usually even more affordable, and they are U.S. made, help the U.S. economy etc.


The government should not step inhere because they only makethings worse.Price, materials, etc are not what makea gun good or bad. As a rule of thumb, the more the government intervenes the more unintended consequences you have. Especially when it comes to firearms the government is particularly ignorant.

If the gun sucks,it won't sell as well asa better made gun.Capitalism will naturally solve the problemof badproducts.

 

[Mordis]

imported post

Leo229, can you clarify if your talking about hi points and keltecs? From what i understand and have seen with first hand experiance, they are both very inexpensive and very reliable. Sure the hi points had there problems at the beginning, but they have since been cured.

I do agree that those people that are low income need a decent firearm to defend them selvs with. Look at it like this sure they could save up and wait a few months to buy a nice namebrand like sig, glock, or smithand wesson, or they could shell out $200 and get a nice highpoint and have enough cash left over to get a nice fobus holster and some ammo.

I see it this way, if i had a choice between putting a $500 gun on layaway and paying for it a little at a time, or getting a highpoint for around $100 id take the high point. The reason is, if im at the low end of the money making totem pole, i probably live in a not so nice area, and ill probably need that gun sooner rather then later. Id rather have a reliable but cheap gun now then pay for a expensive gun on layaway and die during a robbery becuase Leo229 said that $500 guns werent overly expensive for those on limited budgets.

 

[LEO 229]

imported post

mkl wrote:

LEO 229 wrote:

[
Sorry.... but if you are out of work and have five people to feed... The last freaking thing you better be buying is that damn gun! :X

Your priority should be feeding those five you are responsible for. Is it a nice to have the gun for added security? Hell yes. But the chances on your needing it are so slim anyway.

Wow. So , poor people do not deserve the same safety in their homes as others. We should just ban all guns now, citizens don't need it.
I would say, if you have a family of five to feed, the last thing you should be doing is paying taxes to support crazy government spending. The last thing you should be doing is paying more for a gun because the government won't let you buy a cheaper one.

Those are your words.. not mine. :X

I only mentioned priorities.... Unless that gun is going to bring food to the table... you may have to go without one. You have a choice.... Feed your kids dinner for a few nights... or get a gun... Hmmmmm!!!!!! :uhoh:

Our founding fathers only wanted to be sure we had access to guns. They did not intend on the price being set so low that everyone could afford one. :lol:Unless you want to cross over into communism..... we can start setting the price across the board so everyone has equal access.

Next.. we can start paying everyone the same pay too. That way lazy people can earn as much as those that worked hard to get where they are today.

All men are created (born)equal.. after that.. you are on your own!

You do the best you can with what you got. I knew people that could work but choose not to because they made more money suckling the government teat than working all day forminimum age.


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.

 

[mkl]

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

. They did not intend on the price being set so low that everyone could afford one. :lol: Unless you want to cross over into communism.....  we can start setting the price across the board so everyone has equal access.

Wow. Do you really think that is what I am saying?

I am saying let people buy whatever they want, and let the gun companies set the prices using the market as a guide.

YOU are the one saying the government should regulate which guns can be sold, at what price.

YOU are the one suggesting a fascist type system where the government determines what a person is able to own.

I am the one suggesting a system where a company can produce a product, and people can freely choose to buy it or not. YOU are the one suggesting a person should only be able to buy what the government deems acceptable.


See the difference?

 

[Felid`Maximus]

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

mkl wrote:

LEO 229 wrote:

[
Sorry.... but if you are out of work and have five people to feed... The last freaking thing you better be buying is that damn gun! :X

Your priority should be feeding those five you are responsible for. Is it a nice to have the gun for added security? Hell yes. But the chances on your needing it are so slim anyway.

Wow. So , poor people do not deserve the same safety in their homes as others. We should just ban all guns now, citizens don't need it.
I would say, if you have a family of five to feed, the last thing you should be doing is paying taxes to support crazy government spending. The last thing you should be doing is paying more for a gun because the government won't let you buy a cheaper one.

Those are your words.. not mine. :X

I only mentioned priorities.... Unless that gun is going to bring food to the table... you may have to go without one. You have a choice.... Feed your kids dinner for a few nights... or get a gun... Hmmmmm!!!!!! :uhoh:

Our founding fathers only wanted to be sure we had access to guns. They did not intend on the price being set so low that everyone could afford one. :lol:Unless you want to cross over into communism..... we can start setting the price across the board so everyone has equal access.

Next.. we can start paying everyone the same pay too. That way lazy people can earn as much as those that worked hard to get where they are today.

All men are created (born)equal.. after that.. you are on your own!

You do the best you can with what you got. I knew people that could work but choose not to because they made more money suckling the government teat than working all day forminimum age.


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.

They also never endorsed artificially setting the prices higher which is what a ban on saturday night specials would do.

Government regulation of a market is not capitalistic.

People who live off of welfareare an example of the failures of socialism too. I don'tseek to make it easier for them to purchase firearms. If I had my waywelfare wouldn't exist. Passing laws trying to punish them by making things less affordable also punishes those who don't exploit the system.

There are people who make an honest livingwhocould not easily afford spending$500on a gun. $50 is a tenth of that price and muchmore affordable.

 

[Felid`Maximus]

imported post

The government in its attempt to regulate bad firearms, has set up a worthless "point system" for importation of guns.

The Beretta 1934, a perfectly good firearm, is not importable any more in its standard form because it does not score enough points.

According to the government, "bad guns" are ones without target grips, without manual safeties, and with short barrels.

That is nothing like banning guns that blow up in your hands. I think laws already exist that one could prosecute a company for if the product was defective or falsely advertised.

New laws only seek to make sure your guns have six safeties, a 12" barrel, weigh more than 8 ounces and less than 48, have no "Barrel Shroud" (decreasing your safety by allowing you to be burned) etc. They are arbitrations simplyaimed at makinggun owners miserable.

 

[Doug Huffman]

imported post

Safety is a tyrant's tool because no one can be against safety. Public safety is a public tyrant's tool.

 

[deepdiver]

imported post

To rattle off $500.00 as some mostly insignificant sum of money to most everyone that just requires a few weeks of savings deserves a response of rubber boots and a muck rake. I can't believe some of the horse-squeeze I have read in this thread.

I have shot several inexpensive firearms and own a Raven P25. Works fine after some buffing. Very accurate from 7-10 yrds and closer. They are not designed to throw thousands of rounds down range in regular target practice (nor is that new composite thousand dollar/6 mo wait pistol), but if I needed a cheap gun to protect my butt, I have no problem with it. And I do carry it on occassion, although now that reliability has been proven, only shoot it a few times a year.

Who the hell is the United States gov't to tell me I can't own it? Who the hell is anyone else to say "shall not be infringed" really means, unless we think it is a shitty gun because you can't put 30,000 rounds through it after throwing it off the roof and running over it with the pick up truck? Who is to say that a cheap gun I have reliably put more rounds through than a typeical gun owner will ever put through that $500 S&W they bought and threw in the nightstand drawer with the left over money they had laying around the house at the end of the month should not be sold, manufactored or owned in this country? Dictatorial bastages....

 

[LEO 229]

imported post

deepdiver wrote:

To rattle off $500.00 as some mostly insignificant sum of money to most everyone that just requires a few weeks of savings deserves a response of rubber boots and a muck rake. I can't believe some of the horse-squeeze I have read in this thread.

...Snipped

In comparing gun prices across the board..... $500 is cheap now-a-days. If you can findsomething that fits your needs for $350 then good for you!

I completely understand how money can be tight for some. I have lived it myself. But somehow.... I survived and I bought the guns I wanted. None were cheap and inferior either.

I also remember buying my first Sig 228 thatwas over $700almost18 years ago.I saved up and in time... I purchased it.

 

[mkl]

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

I completely understand how money can be tight for some. I have lived it myself. But somehow....  I survived and I bought the guns I wanted. None were cheap and inferior either.

I also remember buying my first Sig 228 that was over $700 almost 18 years ago. I saved up and in time... I purchased it.

Seems to be the problem I tend to see with people who want to make decisions for other people. They always seem to think that everyone is in the same circumstances they are/were.
You may be surprised to find that just because you managed to do something, doesn't mean that everyone is capable of the same thing. There are a lot of variables to life, and not everyones match up with yours.

Let people make their own decisions, even if sometimes they get hurt. It's how we learn.

 

[LEO 229]

imported post

mkl wrote:

Seems to be the problem I tend to see with people who want to make decisions for other people. They always seem to think that everyone is in the same circumstances they are/were.
You may be surprised to find that just because you managed to do something, doesn't mean that everyone is capable of the same thing. There are a lot of variables to life, and not everyones match up with yours.

Let people make their own decisions, even if sometimes they get hurt. It's how we learn.

And they do..... they decide.... gun or food.....

There is no argument from me that even the poor should own a gun if they feel the need. Keeping in mind that not all poor people/families find this to be something important to have.

Keeping in mind... a gun is not a required item. It is a tool used for either hunting for food, sport shooting, or self defense. And as I said... Unless they are going to use it to hunt for food.... they may elect to not even purchase one and opt tobuy food.

Businessescannot start selling crap at cheap prices just sosomeone on a limited income can get one too. And this goes for everything commercially available.

Where do we draw the line? We can package food products that do not meet health standards and price it so low the poor people will pick that instead of something safer?

How about this.... stop talking about it here since you are convinced that junk guns for the poor are a good thing. Write some letters and put your self out there to lead the way to legalize junk guns. :lol:

I have been on here a while... I always know and look for the underlying reasoning for decisions some members make. In this case.... is it not really about the poor getting a gun.... it is about the banning of one "class" of gun and the fear that more bannings are to come. :lol:

 

[mkl]

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

I have been on here a while... I always know and look for the underlying reasoning for decisions some members make. In this case....  is it not really about the poor getting a gun.... it is about the banning of one "class" of gun and the fear that more bannings are to come. :lol:

You don't know me. And you're wrong in this case.

 

[Thundar]

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

Junk guns have been discussed many times.

To get a glock 26 they would have to work about2 weeks.

So it is not like the "can't" afford to get aglock that is of better quality. It will just take a few more days.

I agree, the Glock is a real junk gun!

 

[LEO 229]

imported post

mkl wrote:

LEO 229 wrote:

I have been on here a while... I always know and look for the underlying reasoning for decisions some members make. In this case.... is it not really about the poor getting a gun.... it is about the banning of one "class" of gun and the fear that more bannings are to come. :lol:

You don't know me. And you're wrong in this case.

I have been known to be wrong.... However...maybe not you.. but others...

 

[thx997303]

imported post

The underlying argument here seems to be, and I'm just guessing here, but it seems to be whether the government should be able to regulate firearms.

No, governments should not be able to regulate firearms period. So LEO 229 I disagree with your argument.