Quantcast

Can the feds use purchasing power to pressure firearms manufacturers?

Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by JRH6856, Jul 18, 2015.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. JRH6856

    JRH6856 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2011
    Messages:
    3,828
    Location:
    Flower Mound, TX
    The New York Times is calling for the Federal Govt. to use its purchasing power to pressure the firearms industry to develop smart guns and restrict civilian distribution of firearms.

    "When police officers carrying Glocks are recovering Glocks at crime scenes on a regular basis, shouldn’t this prompt questions about whether the police department could use its influence to reduce the number of guns that end up in the hands of criminals? When Smith & Wessons turn up frequently in the hands of criminals, shouldn’t questions be asked when Smith & Wesson seeks a contract with the federal government?"

    It didn't work the last time they tried it. Will it work the second time around?
     
  2. hso

    hso Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2003
    Messages:
    52,845
    Location:
    0 hrs east of TN
    Less likely with a lame duck president and Congress dominated by the opposing party. I also suspect that alllll the nonfederal purchasers outweigh the fed by a lot.
     
  3. JRH6856

    JRH6856 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2011
    Messages:
    3,828
    Location:
    Flower Mound, TX
    Given what happened to S&W the last time around, and the current status of Colt (due, at least in part, to dependence on govt. contracts while ignoring the civilian market), I suspect that any company acceding to govt. demands to shift to smart gun technology for the civilian market would know that it would mean surrendering that market to non-compliant competitors while making the company totally dependent on the govt. for survival.
     
  4. Black Knight

    Black Knight Member

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2006
    Messages:
    1,440
    Location:
    Charlottesville, VA
    Look what has happened to Colt because they put nearly all their eggs in the gov't basket.
     
  5. barnbwt

    barnbwt member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2011
    Messages:
    7,340
    "When police officers carrying Glocks are recovering Glocks at crime scenes on a regular basis, shouldn’t this prompt questions about whether the police department could use its influence to reduce the number of guns that end up in the hands of criminals? When Smith & Wessons turn up frequently in the hands of criminals, shouldn’t questions be asked when Smith & Wesson seeks a contract with the federal government?"

    Spoken like a true politico, avoiding the truth as always. Police aren't recovering Glocks anywhere near as often as Jennings/Bryco/etc., broken revolvers, and assorted stolen stuff. Flawed premise based on nothing to start with.

    Second, it's not like if we issued Webley revolvers or Howdah flintlocks to officers that crooks would start choosing the same to 'keep up.' The reason both prefer the Glock (when it is available in the case of criminals) is that it does a very good job performing the job needed by both groups' line of work. Bad assumption number two is that both police and especially criminals do not act out of self interest.

    Third, it's not a coincidence both the police and military go with the guns they do. While political influence has a small role, it's mostly because the contract winners have the lowest bid for the requirements specified. Glock pioneered the technology that allows for large numbers of pistols to be quickly produced using inexpensive materials; that's why they're cheap, not because they won a contract (for being cheap).

    In any case, Glock's aren't the cheap-est firearm-shaped-objects out there, not even close, in fact. That's why (to start where I began) they aren't used in crimes anywhere near the rate of the cheapest used or stolen weapons available. This has been the case since at least the turn of the last century, but probably forever.

    I always love these articles; some random idiot reporter or politico literally titling their article "I've got an idea!" and proceed to regurgitate the same old tripe as though it's their own thought;

    "What could gun manufacturers do to protect the public?

    They could distribute their guns exclusively through dealers that sell guns responsibly, and end their relationships with the small percentage of bad-apple dealers that sell a disproportionate number of the guns used in crimes."

    It's the ATF's job to route out bad-buzzword dealers and always has been. I suggest they take this up with Mrs. Lynch. Second, the only disproportionate number is the infinitesimal nature of lawfully-purchased guns (from an FFL dealer, no less) used in crimes of the type described (inner city gang activity)

    "But companies will innovate in these areas only if their major customers ask them to."
    No one is asking anybody to add useless, expensive, or moronic features to their guns (just useless, expensive, and moronic accessories). Least of all people intent on using them for defense.

    "First, use federal purchasing power to begin a substantive conversation with gun manufacturers"
    If by "converse" you mean "coerce," I suppose. Reminds me of that article recently about how these statist-minded people are in so deep they don't even understand the nature of coercion, force, or freedom.

    Basically, any op-ed which exhibits such limited understanding of 1) firearms (ignorance/lies about the nature of 'crime guns'), 2) the firearms marketplace (what customers want), 3) firearms technology (actual availability of 'smart gun' tech and its reliability/cost), 4) firearms laws ('bad apple dealers' nonsense), and who uses anti-gun mafia buzzwords like 'loophole,' 'bad apple dealers,' 'smart gun' and others constantly isn't an 'opinion' at all. It's advertising.

    Here's there list of cures for what ails us:
    -Industry cuts off 'bad apple' dealers (code for urban dealers, btw). Basically an endorsement of the illegal Choke Point program. Distribution only through "reputable channels" presumably to be determined by anti-gun zealots.
    -Somehow produce smart guns using technology that does not yet exist. Ignore that it would trigger onerous laws in multiple markets banning the sale of more profitable items. Ignore (again) that this demand for new technology is made by people completely devoid of any engineering or technical background.
    -Use federal government interference to distort private markets into suiting policy objectives. This is also known as Command Capitalism aka Fascism. Military handgun procurement decisions apparently drive criminal handgun selection (think about that for a second).
    -Modify the 68 GCA to automatically deny anyone not immediately approved for a firearm purchase their right to buy firearms. Guaranteed to be struck down in courts almost immediately (possibly with the whole damn BGC). Since three-days is apparently not enough time for a five-minute check, I'll just treat the extension of the 3-day deadline to 'indefinite' as a denial.
    -As a more realistic-ish alternative to modifying the 68 GCA, unlawfully coerce FFL dealers to refuse transfers to the same persons
    -Throw a bunch of money at something called the federal "smart gun research program" as though DARPA isn't already working on something like this.
    -Hold firearms manufacturers accountable for the free will actions of their customers (violates the lawful commerce act) by publicly shaming (and privately punishing extra-judicially) those whose brands happen to show up at crime scenes the most. The desired effect is obviously to increase prices beyond what poor black people can afford.

    This is an absolutely shameful editorial, even for antis. Illogical, ignorant, and immoral. The one bright spot is that it is devoid of calls for legislation. It appears these monsters have finally realized that way is shut. So they appeal to extra-legal (unlawful) methods like bribery, harassment, and extortion to effect their desired results.

    "Conversation" = Coercion
    "Encouragement" = Bribery
    "Measurement" = Harassement
    "Reasonable" = Totalitarian

    The amount of newspeak and doublespeak in the article is jarring. Quite literally none of the policy ideas they describe would anyway resemble the methods used to implement them. I don't understand how people can function with this amount of dissonance in their heads; they must write a brutally honest editorial, the use "find/replace" like a code table to generate the actual article.

    TCB
     
  6. danez71

    danez71 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    4,469
    Location:
    CAAZ
    That's typically the case with most things. And the fed will buy 1 per 2 leap years or so as opposed to every year
     
  7. Sol

    Sol Member

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2011
    Messages:
    899
    Holy moly what did I just read?

    That HAD to have mistruths and blatant misdirection in that article.

    I don't believe that S&Ws, glocks, sigs, colts and rugers are some of the top guns found on crime secenes.

    Hi-point didn't even get a runners up trophy in that list?

    The author draws some dumb parallels as well.
    The whole quote about the cops showing up with the same guns found on crime scenes was an entertaining jibe.

    Why does that matter? The cop obviously didn't use his glock to stop the victim from being glocked in the first place. Exactly what point does that make?

    I'd tell ya but it doesn't support the gun grabbers narrative.

    The author thinks that gun companies can survive on govt contracts.
    With an estimated 900,000-1,000,000 law enforcement officers and we'll average say, $1000 per officer for weapons, and that's being generous. That is 900 million to a billion dollars in revenue dividied for 5 or six companies. On the grand scale of international business $1bn is squat.

    Plus the whole smart gun revival BS.

    My assesment is: Author is deceitful or stupid, probably both. He's pushing the disarmed utopia myth. The author may have a vested interest in smart gun tech. The author writes for the New York Times.

    Dead give away.
     
  8. pintler

    pintler Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2008
    Messages:
    519
    FWIW, I've heard cops say, anecdotally, that the crooks they find with guns are using the same types as everyone else; that they aren't buying Jennings as much as stealing Glocks.

    As far as the notion that gov't purchasing can affect the business practices of companies, I'm a little skeptical. As a thought experiment, let's imagine that all the big names sign on to every gun controller wet dream. One of two things will happen: either it won't be an actual impediment to people buying guns, or if it is, then those company's civilian business will migrate to the second tier companies like Springfield Armory, Kahr, Rock River, ad infinitum. If Glock effectively stops civilian sales, that sucks, but the good guy civilians will still be able to defend themselves with XD's, and then the bad guys will end up stealing XD's as well. Muggers don't care what brand they use.

    This strategy just can't work, no matter how broadly adopted. It would just split the market into gov't/civilian brands.
     
  9. jerkface11

    jerkface11 Member

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2005
    Messages:
    5,500
    Location:
    Arkansas
    That's assuming anyone would cater to the government at all.
     
  10. barnbwt

    barnbwt member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2011
    Messages:
    7,340
    David K Brawley, First Baptist minister of Deer Park
    Otis Moss III, Chicago Trinity United Church of Christ Pastor
    David Benke, Atlantic District Lutheran Church Pastor (oddly has the same name as the teacher that stopped the Littleton, CO school shooting; context suggests this is the pastor writing)
    Joel Mosbacher, Rabbi gun-grabber extraordinaire (nearly all search references not pertaining to this specific article have to do with gun control or other equally-political advocacy)

    Three guesses as to which is the real author, and who just co-signed the document. Like I said, not one of these guys has the background or qualifications to be weighing in on the legality or effectiveness of any of the proposals they put forward, nor do they appear to have any experience with firearms whatsoever (crime does not equal experience with firearms). Not that lack of standing has ever stopped clergy from throwing their moral authority at pet causes.

    TCB
     
  11. lee1000

    lee1000 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2009
    Messages:
    84
    Location:
    Tulsa, OK
    Sometimes I wonder if the Fed went with FN on M4s for that reason. Maybe not
     
  12. 22-rimfire

    22-rimfire Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2005
    Messages:
    11,749
    Location:
    TN
    I see little parallel between manufacturing a gun and whether or not one turns up at a crime scene. I would suspect that the author also favors bullets with serial numbers and doesn't care what the cost is because they hate guns and anything that makes it more difficult to manufacture or use firearms would be favored by those people/authors.

    As usual, they are trying to place responsibility on business and not the individuals who choose to commit crimes with firearms.
     
    Last edited: Jul 19, 2015
  13. SuperNaut

    SuperNaut Member

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2006
    Messages:
    3,879
    Location:
    SLC, Utah
    When Anti's start using words like "influence" and "pressure" they are talking about extra-legal means of advancing their agenda.

    This is actually good news for us for a few reasons:

    1. Their legal avenues are being systematically shut-down
    2. Extra-legal avenues are easily countered by quick political action. In many cases it doesn't even require a new law, just an adjustment to the interpretation of the law.
    3. Forcing a re-examination of the law to see if these extra-legal means of control are covered or not is VERY dangerous for Anti's to do.
     
    Last edited: Jul 19, 2015
  14. Guy B. Meredith

    Guy B. Meredith Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    2,383
    Location:
    Salem, Oregon
    Dunno. Can they out buy over 60million civilian firearms aficionados and the new ones coming on board so as to really carry any weight?

    I'm looking forward to the first smart gun, the following demonstration on how easy it is to circumvent the "smart" and the appearance of instructions on Youtube
     
  15. P5 Guy

    P5 Guy Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2004
    Messages:
    2,755
    Location:
    Tampa Bay area
    What is the ratio of commercial sales versus sales to agencies?
     
  16. DHJenkins

    DHJenkins Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2009
    Messages:
    1,022
    Location:
    South Texas
    A quick google search shows there are roughly 2 million US troops and 1.1 million police officers.

    According to the BATFE, there were 10.8 million firearms produced for public consumption (including police) in the US in 2013 alone.

    The US government can't touch the public when it comes to purchasing power - at least when it comes to "regular" firearms.
     
  17. P5 Guy

    P5 Guy Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2004
    Messages:
    2,755
    Location:
    Tampa Bay area
    Two million troops and a million plus police. This does not include and the myriad federal, state and local agencies that arm their employees. If I remember correctly, I saw a ratio of 30% commercial to 70% agencies. This was something I saw in the late 1990s. I think this also included private sector employers that arm their employees like security and armored transport companies.
     
  18. TwinReverb

    TwinReverb Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2015
    Messages:
    167
    First the NY times article is illogical rubbish.

    Second, i guess they can because they are (operation choke point). But they shouldn't be able to do this without due process. Obama is a tyrant.
     
  19. DHJenkins

    DHJenkins Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2009
    Messages:
    1,022
    Location:
    South Texas
    The 1.1 million includes state, county and municipal agencies. According to the DoJ, there were 120K federal agents in 2008 that were authorized to carry firearms and according to the BLS, there are 1 million security guards (armed and unarmed), so rounding way, way up, let's say there are 5 million people who's job it is to carry guns.

    In order for the 70% ratio to be correct between 2009 & 2013 (for example), those 5 million people would have had to have purchased 26 million firearms - all in that 5 year window, which is highly unlikely. Even 1 firearm per person in that time period is unlikely, but if it were true, that's a 13% share.

    Of course, this is moot, because the question is about the potential influence of federal spending, not the outlay of local & state law enforcement agencies and security firms.
     
  20. OptimusPrime

    OptimusPrime Member

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2012
    Messages:
    573
    Location:
    The Old Dominion
    I can't believe I just read that rubbish, but thanks for posting the link. Opinion pages don't have to even carry a hint of journalism standards but this piece was especially illogical.
    "Squirrels have tails, and bunnies have tails, so squirrels must be bunnies."
     
  21. KSDeputy

    KSDeputy Member

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2009
    Messages:
    81
    Location:
    NE KS
    I think that's where all the .22lr is going.
     
  22. dingo5

    dingo5 Member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2005
    Messages:
    8
    Location:
    Minneapolis, MN
    Cops also use cars to chase speeds and drunk drivers. When will the federal government pressure car manufactures to stop selling cars to speeds and drunk drivers? It is just as idiotic of a question.

    The government is the equivalent of a hammer, and it's the only tool in the leftists' tool box. So every problem to them appears to be a nail. They always start from the same place - "What can the government do to fix this?" Any solution outside this paradigm doesn't compute.
     
  23. ApacheCoTodd

    ApacheCoTodd Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2011
    Messages:
    5,066
    Location:
    Arizona
    My take?

    I hate to do their fact checking, background research, editing or proposal outlines for them so I'll just let that "journalistic/editorial" dog-pile stand on its own without my input.

    Todd.
     
  24. Sav .250

    Sav .250 Member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2007
    Messages:
    3,712
    Location:
    Central Fla
    Contacts/w specs are bid! It`s like saying the Gov`t is going to "rig" contracts.

    A conspiracy ?
     
  25. GEM

    GEM Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2004
    Messages:
    6,280
    Location:
    TX
    Companies back in those days jumped at the chance for smart gun development. Colt, SW and Taurus were enthusiastic.

    Such a mandate would cause 100,000s new buys.

    It was also thought that there would be new gun owners who wouldn't buy a normal gun but would buy a smart gun.

    However, the police didn't want them and they don't work.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice