Number of unemployed after AWB


PDA






MachIVshooter
December 28, 2012, 11:54 AM
We need to compile a figure for the total number of people employed by gunmakers, a breakdown of gun sales into the category of firearms that would be banned versus exempted, and make a reasonably accurate prediction as to how many people would be put out of work by the passage of Feinstein's proposed ban.

This may be one of the strongest arguments we have for fence sitters or non-gun people who don't care one way or the other about gun laws.

Take S&W. A legendary American company who employs more than 1,500 people. My guess is their M&P handguns and rifles account for a majority of sales, and most firearms in that line would be banned. How many would they lay off? 1,000? Would the company even be able to sustain on the revolvers and the few other exempt firearms, or would they just fold, costing all employees their jobs and killing shareholder's stocks?

I have work to do now, so I won't have time to look this up myself until later. A little help from fellow highroaders would be appreciated and beneficial to all of us. This nation can ill afford to put tens of thousands out of work for some feel-good legislation.

If you enjoyed reading about "Number of unemployed after AWB" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Skribs
December 28, 2012, 12:09 PM
I suck at research, so I can't look up the information, but here's what I was looking at in regards to our economy:

1) Major manufactures: In the event of a ban, they will have to stop production. This affects the company bottom line and will probably result in mandatory LWOP, if not lay-offs, for the majority of the workforce and their direct supervisors. In order to produce compliant parts, they will need to do R&D and retool their equipment, and then bring back/rehire their work force. The down time will cripple company stocks and the worker's bank accounts.

2) Gun Store Owners: While waiting for the major manufacturers to put out new products, gun stores will remain empty (because of all the pre-ban purchase). This will probably mean lay-offs for the employees and may take gun stores out of business.

3) Small Business: Small business in the industry will get hit the worst, especially businesses specializing in USPSA accessories. No point making a race gun magazine that holds 24 rounds if you can't legally hold more than 10. No point making accessories that people don't want because it would make their rifle illegal.

4) Gunsmiths: Gunsmiths will still have some work, but work will suffer if people are not buying new guns. I think half of their work is "I broke this, can you fix it?" and half is "I bought this and that, can you put them together for me?" (Or a combination of both "I broke this while trying to put that in it, can you fix this and install that?"...I may have done this before). The later type (I bought this and that) will taper off.

You are right, though, MachIV. The economy is an important consideration as well.

RBid
December 28, 2012, 12:20 PM
The total figure would be considerable.

S&W and Ruger are two easy companies to think of, but there are many others based here, or with operations here. Glock, FN USA, H&K USA, Walther setting up shop, Century Arms, Rock River, Remington, Bushmaster, DPMS, ATK (ammunition interests) would take a hit, American Tactical, Springfield, Colt...

Any firearm-associated businesses, as well. DeSantis holsters, Magpul, and a lot of other producers of items that become irrelevant or suffer diminished demand in the absence of firearms...

The total economic hit would be tremendous.

Jorg Nysgerrig
December 28, 2012, 12:22 PM
Take S&W. A legendary American company who employs more than 1,500 people. My guess is their M&P handguns and rifles account for a majority of sales, and most firearms in that line would be banned. How many would they lay off? 1,000? Would the company even be able to sustain on the revolvers and the few other exempt firearms, or would they just fold, costing all employees their jobs and killing shareholder's stocks?
Yeah, just like they folded in 1994. S&W survived the first AWB (even with their layoffs and restructuring).

The large companies will still be building guns and accessories for LEO and military customers and will shift their production to "ban-compliant" models. People will still be buying guns, just like they did from 1994 and 2004. Yes, there were a few casualties among some niche companies.

The economic argument is weak at best and will be easily tossed aside the same way restrictions on the tobacco industry were.

Skribs
December 28, 2012, 12:24 PM
RBID, there's also Kel-Tec (I believe), Mossberg, POF (they say that everything is all-American including the raw materials)...

That's another thing. During the R&D cycle, how many American companies that get the raw materials or generic parts (i.e. pins) would be affected by low purchasing from the companies that sell weapons?

And, considering the buying frenzy right now, there is going to be low demand for compliant weapons when they first come out. How is that going to affect the bottom line for these companies? (And then their employees)?

Cesiumsponge
December 28, 2012, 12:32 PM
That isn't really a strong argument for most people. The whole subsidized green energy movement displaced traditional energy sector jobs and research. No one seemed to care much about those lost jobs since it was in the name of the green movement. Did anyone throw up a fuss in 1994 when a bunch of gun companies folded? No, they were "evil gun companies".

RBid
December 28, 2012, 12:34 PM
Jorg,

The economic argument is weak as a key point, but it may have supporting or "also, consider ____" value. You are correct that some companies will turtle up a bit, and focus on contract work. Others will focus on 'ban compliant' items. These transitions, across all manufacturers, wholesalers, dealers, etc will not be instant, and are very likely to result in a high number of lost jobs.

You are certainly aware that the civilian market is a huge pool. You simply can not cut out the segment Feinstein's current proposal is leveled against, and not reduce the dollars enough to create a big hit.

Over time, yes. The industry could evolve and heal, somewhat. In the short term, it would be painful.

Skribs
December 28, 2012, 12:38 PM
Another factor is that under Clinton we had a surplus, so a few lost jobs here and there were probably just a papercut to our economy. Currently we are in a recession, which might be made worse by the fiscal cliff.

If your car breaks down when you have a large amount of money in savings, it's no big deal. If your car breaks down when you are already in debt, it's a crisis.

KMatch
December 28, 2012, 12:43 PM
If they're fence sitters on gun issues because they don't own guns, they'll likely be fence sitters on unemployment and loss of businesses since their work is likely not related here as well. I can see the whole picture and agree with the crisis it may cause, but fence sitters won't care until it directly affects them. You have to reach their pocketbook to get them off the fence with financial issues.

MachIVshooter
December 28, 2012, 12:57 PM
Yeah, just like they folded in 1994. S&W survived the first AWB

The economy was stronger in 1994, and their sales weren't composed of so many guns on the chopping block.

AR makers that were able to work around the last ban would be SOL this time. Same for any other company whose bread and butter is something on the list.

And though more difficult to quantify, the trickle down effect is not to be ignored. As Skribs mentioned, we're talking about lay-offs and company closures all the way down the line, from distributors to accessory manufacturers to the local gun and accessory shops. I can think of a couple local stores that aren't even FFLs who would absolutely fold because their sales are totally comprised of parts and accessories for firearms on Feinstein's list.

If they're fence sitters on gun issues because they don't own guns, they'll likely be fence sitters on unemployment and loss of businesses since their work is likely not related here as well. I can see the whole picture and agree with the crisis it may cause, but fence sitters won't care until it directly affects them. You have to reach their pocketbook to get them off the fence with financial issues.

I disagree. Getting them to care is about how you make the point. You don't just state "X number of jobs will be lost" and leave it at that. Make it personal, make them empathetic. FInd an example of how ridiculous legislation could cost them their job (that point can be made for almost any career).

KMatch
December 28, 2012, 01:43 PM
You have to reach their pocketbook to get them off the fence with financial issues.





I disagree. Getting them to care is about how you make the point. You don't just state "X number of jobs will be lost" and leave it at that. Make it personal, make them empathetic. FInd an example of how ridiculous legislation could cost them their job (that point can be made for almost any career).

Looks more like you agree rather than disagree.

Ryanxia
December 28, 2012, 04:10 PM
When I wrote my politicians I mentioned; manufacturing jobs (in my State) sales, shipping and much more would be lost.

Keep in mind this AWB could be much more restrictive than the 1994 AWB so just because a company survived it once doesn't necessarily mean they will do well again (especially while we're in a recession).

If you enjoyed reading about "Number of unemployed after AWB" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!