Does Gun Control Legislation HELP or HURT gun ownership?

[no_problem]

The Democrats recently made a deal with the NRA on gun control legislation after the VT shooting.

Do gun control laws help gun ownership or hurt gun ownership? I think of prices on guns skyrocketing after the GCA of 1988 and 1994. After those major pieces of legislation went though congress, primarily due to the perceived scarecity of certain guns, people started hoarding guns and ammo and as a result prices went up.

What do you think?

 

[Jimmie]

Have you tried to buy any AR lowers recently? But I sure wouldn't say it "helps" gun ownership. I'd say pending legislation helps gun ownership. Already-in-the-books-legislation can certainly hurt it - at least for those of us that follow laws.

 

[PracticeFreedom]

where's the poll? IMHO gun control controversy helps the NRA itself by giving it a reason to exist. Passing gun control legislation hurts gun owners and the gun industry, in the long run.

 

[obxned]

Every new law makes me buy more, more, more.

More people drank alcohol during and after Prohibition than before. Stupid laws often have unintended consequences.

 

[mnrivrat]

Pretty much all gun control legislation is a bite out of the total pie of gun ownership. It is infringment - nothing less.

The infringment started on a national level in 1934 and with every new law the right to keep and bear arms is deminished.

 

[tegemu]

The question is too ambiguous. GC Legislation can be pro or con. It was legislation that gave us back our right to concealed carry in many states.

 

[Kevin108]

I would clarify that gun control hurts LEGAL gun ownership.

 

[McCall911]

I voted helped.
Like with the mostly toothless high-cap ban in the 90s, it stimulated demand and drove prices up, up, up!!

 

[fast eddie]

Like most poll questions this one leaves much room for interpretation. I think it's fairly obvious that the overwhelming majority of gun laws are designed to hinder, not encourage gun ownership. I understand there are a few municipalities around the country that require gun ownership by citizens but these are extremely rare exceptions. Although an impending restriction may cause a surge in gun purchases prior to it's passage I don't think that qualifies as "helping" gun ownership.

 

[SoCalShooter]

Pending legislation helps, here in California I heard that something like 200,000 AR OLL were sold when the we found out about the loophole.

 

[DMK]

I voted both. I think it reduces the number of gun owners. Folks in DC, NYC and Chicago have a lot of trouble getting a gun to protect themselves.

However, I think that many folks already owning guns will buy more because: a) they can, and b) they are afraid they can not in the future.

 

[geekWithA.45]

It really depends.

In NJ, they set the barriers to excercise of RKBA so high that participation has fallen off to the lowest levels in the land.

In most places though, I think the social factors are the gates, rather than the legal factors.

In places where gunnies are closeted, participation is lower. In places where gun owning is normative, it's higher.

 

[Titan6]

I don't get it. Help ownership? Hurt ownership? Gun control? These are such vauge terms as to be almost meaningless.

The thing we all have to remember is there is no such thing as gun control. All the laws in the world won't make guns react in the least. Now people control on the other hand... that is the real issue.

 

[Redneck with a 40]

For me personally, gun control laws cause me to put guns on my wish list. Although I usually don't buy immediately, if the law looks like its going to pass, then I bite the bullet and get the gun. Case in point, when the new hi-cap magazine ban was introduced, I ordered (2) more 12 round XD40 magazines just in case, for a total of (4). Now it seems the bill is going nowhere, oh well, better safe than sorry. You can never have too many magazines or guns, right? Bottom line, if a new draconian gun law is introduced, it makes me think hard about buying another gun.