I am sure you will get lot's of quality responses from the ones supporting her po's.

to the increased availability of them resulting from increased sales EVERY TIME a new mass murder is reported, and reported and reported and...

We have not as yet hit critical mass for long gun distribution to the degree that hand guns have, but it is coming at an alarming rate. The concept of market saturation does not appear to apply to weapons sales regardless of caliber, rate of fire, barrel length, portability, concealment factor, or prominence in films and TV programs or the News.

Of course the measure of collateral damage has not yet been applied, in law or in sales.

A sidelight of this is that one day we may need to begin mining operations in landfills to recover enough brass, copper and lead to continue the staggering rate of ammunition sales required when every American household has, and uses their constitutionally required firearms on a regular and frequent basis.

"...does not take into account the very likely increase in future long gun deaths due to the increased availability..." When will that kick in? There are about as many rifles as there are handguns. Long guns (rifles and shotguns) account for almost twice the number of handguns.

"We have not as yet hit critical mass for long gun distribution to the degree that hand guns have..." Please explain your metaphor and add a dash of quantitative to that stew.

"Of course the measure of collateral damage has not yet been applied, in law or in sales." How is a "measure of collateral damage" which hasn't occurred applied? Is this just a statement meaning that the future hasn't yet become the past?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

But thanks anyway!

Not because of their content of lead, brass, or copper (those are recycled probably in the 90% range these days) but for all the crap Americans throw away in their "regular" trash.

"The concept of market saturation does not appear to apply to weapons sales regardless of caliber, rate of fire, barrel length, portability, concealment factor, or prominence"

Of course market saturation applies. But you are looking at the wrong criteria. And long guns already have greater market saturation than handguns; the difference in misuse boils down to the fact that you can't stick a 26"+ rifle in your waistband under a T-shirt. Long-gun misuse has actually declined considerably today compared to the 1970s.

It's not mass murders that drive rifle sales, though. It's the fact that every time there is a mass murder, journalists and prohibitionists demand that future rifle sales to the lawful and nonviolent be constrained. So if you have just come of age to own guns or have just never gotten around to buying that rifle you wanted, the politicians/media push people to hedge against the possibility of bans. Josh Sugarmann and Michael Bloomberg have together sold more rifles than any other two people in U.S. history, IMO.

As to the criteria you list, caliber is already constrained by law and practicality; anything .51 caliber or higher is banned unless exempted for "sporting purposes" (that's how .729-caliber 12-gauge shotguns are legal), and anything less than about .20 caliber is small to be practical under Federal rifling rules, so civilian caliber has been stuck between .22 and .50 for a century and will probably stay there.

Civilian rate of fire has been limited to one shot per trigger pull for nearly a century and will likely stay there.

Civilian barrel length for rifles is 16"-24", constrained on the low end by Federal law and on the high end by practicality.

Portability/concealment are inherent to the type of weapon, not to technology. Most handguns are concealable; rifles are not. Rifles and shotguns are still required to be at least 26" long with 16" barrels minimum; you might be able to make a rifle lighter with future materials, but you can't make a rifle disappear into a waistband or pocket.

I'm not sure what you mean by "prominence". The AR platform is the most common civilian rifle in U.S. homes, but does that make it "prominent"? If so, does that mean it should be banned, or that it should become the national standard? Not following you here.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172181197

http://wwlp.com/2015/11/10/i-team-guns-licenses-jump-by-66-in-massachusetts/



Gee, I wonder what happened to murder and aggravated assault rates in Massachusetts
while the number of firearm owners increased by two-thirds...


https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10tbl05.xls

Massachusetts

Murder 3.2/ per 100,000 inhabitants

Aggravated Assault 331.8/100,000


https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2014/crime-in-the-u.s.-2014/tables/table-5

Massachusetts

Murder 2.0/100,000

Aggravated Assault 267.6/100,000

Close to no rifle crimes before and none after, so obviously it must be the new gun control laws, right?

And as you can see from the OP, some years had no murders-via-rifle at all

You know that facts, are NRA talking points® ...

The line of argument you're (rightfully) mocking always struck me as more of a concession than a rebuttal.

If another party is considered the nemesis and one's interlocutor has no rebuttal except to note that a certain line of argumentation comes from the nemesis then the interlocutor is stating the nemesis is in possession of facts that cannot be refuted.

That seems to bolster the position of the nemesis while undermining the interlocutor.

And yet, they seem so proud of such things. It's really inexplicable.

...facts don't matter. Such reasoning (or lack thereof) have Godwinism for ideological parents.
Often the result of these interactions is the sad conclusion that for some a viewpoint of an opposing political entity or individual that isn't shared by a political ally is unprovable to them.

Not surprising, just prejudice. Prejudice is one of the reasons Dorthy Fontana is better known as D.C. Fontana.

They have no qualms throwing around, "30,000! 30,000! 30,000!" as an appeal to facts but as soon as any other facts enter the picture the deadline for submitting facts is found to be suddenly closed.

There are 2 sorts of individuals I've grown particularly skeptical of: Those who demand I not even look at a thing lest it corrupt me and those who insist the rules only work in their favor.

Gun control extremists have pegged my Skeptometer on both counts.

this is why gun controllers remined me of those religious nuts that demand their followers never question them or their god.

no offense to anyone of any faith, i had the unfortunate of attending churches that preached the benefits of being close minded.

...I'm taking to ignoring certain proven cases who've caught the control religion.
When you have both time and inspiration, I look forward to some insightful, informative and humorous tidbits from your end of the table.

....is when someone bring up the facts that cars or alcohol kill more people, they come back with "But guns are designed to kill people!" as if pointing out that something not "designed" to kill people still actually kills MORE people is a good thing..

They seem to like the "designed" talking point, and repeat it as if it has some relevance.

It doesn't.


Not to mention, that civilian legal non-automatic rifles and handguns, are generally designed specifically to pass stringent standards of non-convertability to automatic fire, and for lawful sale and use in the civilian market in the US.

They argue that cars are "designed" to transport people and goods to and fro, and in doing so, they operate on the pretense that this or its many equivalents, do not exist:



They have to, because otherwise someone might point out that we don't regulate that car any farther than we regulate this car, which is quite obviously not designed for the same purpose:




The anti-gun market of ideas is simply layers of murk on top of layers of murk mixed with lots of muddy water, intended to mislead those who aren't knowledgeable on the topic and are therefore easily swayed.