11 ms·
Since 2010, Gun Stores Have Grown 4.7 Times Faster Than the Population
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- negrit 11y agoAnd yet San Francisco has no gun store anymore[1] [1] http://missionlocal.org/2015/10/san-franciscos-last-gun-shop-closing-after-city-passes-new-regulations/ http://missionlocal.org/2015/10/san-franciscos-last-gun-shop...
- iajg 11y agoCalifornia actually has the 2nd fewest gun stores per capita of any state (New Jersey has fewer). Although even California grew 10% in the last 5 years.
- ctdonath 11y agoCalifornia also has among the most aggressive anti-gun laws in the country. Actively & wantonly making it difficult to sell (and own) a product does tend to discourage businesses.
- thrownaway2424 11y agoPlease describe some of these cruel regulations.
- OopsCriticality 11y agoThere is an effective ban on selling any new pistol designs in CA due to a dubious microstamping requirement. Manufacturers are unable to change their current designs that are on the roster (even color!) without triggering a recertification process that cannot be passed. This also means that new, safer designs cannot be sold in CA as things stand now.
- thrownaway2424 11y agoThat doesn't explain the employment of the word "wanton". I'm much more concerned here with the abuse of the language than with the rights of the people to buy guns.
- OopsCriticality 11y agoI suppose it depends on your perspective. To some, passing laws with an overt goal of "making people safer" (but not actually doing so), with the covert goal of regulating a product out of existence, is a wanton act against our democratic system.
- HoHoHoNowIHaveA 11y agoIf your premise is that less guns does not make people safer... ...then you inversely arguing that more guns does not make people unsafer. Which is not true. More firearms makes for an inherently more dangerous society. Less firearms does indeed equal greater safety.
- Lawtonfogle 11y agoSo does not allowing the majority to vote and handing voting rights to a few selfless individuals who will do what is best for society overall. Even killing a person for their organs if it saves more people is a net gain in safety and health.
- HoHoHoNowIHaveA 11y agoIt's not a net gain for the populace since they will live in perpetual fear of being the next harvesting target. False analogy; not even close to the same thing.
- Lawtonfogle 11y agoSo now we include fear. So what about the fear that if one right is stripped from us then our other rights are also at risk.
- Alupis 11y agoAnd yet California has the most gun related deaths annually [1], even though it has one of the lowest percentages of gun ownership [1]. It just goes to show (in part) that legal gun ownership isn't really the main issue we have. We forget to include the 2/3 of national gun related deaths that are suicides [2]. These people need help; surely many of those victims would still have committed suicide had they not obtained a firearm. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States_by_state https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_Sta... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_Sta...
- thrownaway2424 11y agoHuh? I don't know if you've realized this, but California is the most populous state. If you want to make your analysis more relevant (and less totally idiotic) you need to look at the rate per capita.
- Alupis 11y agoCalifornia doesn't fare much better even with per capita rates. The notions stands, reducing legal gun ownership has little effect on reducing gun related homicides. Gun related suicides are the real problem (~20,000 out of the total ~30,000 annual USA gun related deaths). Nobody is focusing on that issue.
- HoHoHoNowIHaveA 11y agoYour premise is only applicable to US states. It is not applicable to nation-states which demonstrate considerable effect in reducing gun-related homicides. Even more so when discounting individual lone-wolf attacks of a terrorist nature (Brevik, Norway). I could post sources but they are beyond dispute at this stage. (United Kingdom, Japan, Australia and most of the Western world). Evidence is also lent by the nation-states with lax gun control legislation which dominate the league table of gun-related homicides, of which, the USA is one.
- knowaveragejoe 11y ago
- _delirium 11y agoPart of that is California's particular political history, where for a long period of time both major parties on the state level were pro-gun-control. The public displays of firearms by the Black Panthers in Oakland in the 1960s scared suburban white conservatives into calling for gun-control laws, which were enacted under Reagan's governorship with bipartisan support in the state legislature [1]. As the state has swung more solidly Democratic in subsequent years, they've retained and gradually strengthened such laws. The state Republican party has now turned towards pro-gun viewpoints, but no longer holds a lot of offices. [1] The first one, which effectively outlawed both open carry and concealed carry of loaded guns: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mulford_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mulford_Act
- NiftyFifty 11y agoYa, I saw that. However, SF is the most liberal city in the country if I were to guess. It's so far leaning in that direction, it's not of any surprise. However, I have to say ... nicest place on the West Coast. I can only compare it to Toronto during the summer!
- thrownaway2424 11y agoI don't think SF is even the most liberal city in the Bay Area, much less the entire country.
- fnfs2000 11y agoThis is not a measure of gun stores, this is a measure of licensed dealers. Many, many dealers do not operate a "store", so the title is totally misleading.
- ctdonath 11y agoThat used to be the case, but now a "brick and mortar storefront" is a de-facto requirement, the Clinton Administration having aggressively ended "kitchen table gun dealers" and reduced the total number of dealers by some 75% nationally. The only practical exceptions are "gun show vendors". ETA: other dealers do exist, yes, but nowhere close to the numbers of some years ago, and not to the point of making "the title totally misleading".
- F00Fbug 11y agoIn the last three years, I've bought five guns from a FFL dealer who has no store, while sitting at his kitchen table in his house. (In Maryland, no less!)
- travisby 11y agoI've done the same in NY. I have a really great deal going on with him -- I would email him before I would make any online purchase and ask if he could beat it. If so, I'd pick it up from him. If not, he'd tell me to order it and have it delivered to him. $25 transfer later and everything was square. I must have used him at least a dozen times. All out of his house.
- hvs 11y agoFFL dealers could be grandfathered in after the clinton changes as long as they are willing to pay the fees (I think it's $1000/year?).
- BrianGragg 11y ago$500 to $1000 depending on your license.
- rottyguy 11y agoIt does make me wonder if the gun industry secretly/financially supports the democrats in elections.
- Jgrubb 11y agoIt's not without irony to me that Obama appears to be the best gun salesman the industry every had.
- HoHoHoNowIHaveA 11y agoObama is, legislatively speaking, one of the worst Presidents regarding gun-control. He does very little and received an F by the Brady Foundation. http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/76717-gun-control-group-gives-obama-an-f http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/76717-gun-control... The media manipulation that Obummer is coming to get people's guns is quite simply staggering.
- rhino369 11y ago>The media manipulation that Obummer is coming to get people's guns is quite simply staggering. It's because he would if he could. He just can't do it.
- HoHoHoNowIHaveA 11y agoNo evidence supports that. None. Including his public statements on the matter advocating private gun ownership. Certainly not his background as a Constitutional Law Professor. Obama is, was and remains one of the most authoritative serving politicians on the Constitution and he has not indicated anywhere in his career that he intends to remove legal firearm ownership. UC Law School statement: The Law School has received many media requests about Barack Obama, especially about his status as "Senior Lecturer." From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School. He was a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996. He was a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004, during which time he taught three courses per year. Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track.[1] [1]http://www.factcheck.org/2008/03/obama-a-constitutional-law-professor/ http://www.factcheck.org/2008/03/obama-a-constitutional-law-... Note: My guess is that he, like most sane adults, question the need for possession of a or multiple military-grade rifles or sub-machines capable of killing considerable numbers of human beings in a short space of time. It's not about taking away the 2nd Amendment. It's about Amending it to make it compatible with modern life whilst maintaining the spirit of the law.
- AcerbicZero 11y agoThis could be viewed as a good thing, as guns sold via a gun store (Or just a licensed dealer) include a background check, unlike private party sales. I'm by no means opposed to private party gun sales, and my own anecdotal private gun buying experience has been that sellers are taking more steps to ensure they're selling to legitimate parties, i.e. only to CCW holders, or requiring an in-state drivers license, etc.
- serge2k 11y ago> requiring an in-state drivers license Such rigorous checks, how does anyone acquire a firearm in this country!
- abduhl 11y agoRequiring an in-state drivers license prevents one of the many loopholes touted by gun control advocates whereby strong gun control in one state is easily gotten around by driving to the next state over. But I assume your reply was meant more as a "GOTCHA" snark comment than a real conversation starter.
- Ntrails 11y agoSurely the advocates are after federal level gun control laws rather than looking to make sure people have to abide by disparate state rules..?
- travisby 11y agoYou cannot buy a handgun in a state you do not reside, and a gun must be legal in both the state where the transaction is occurring, and the home state of the buyer. (that's federal law) Although it's illegal to "knowingly" sell against those rules, most buyers don't live by the "don't ask, don't tell" methodology. So in a lot of cases (don't have statistics on it), sellers will want to verify the buyer's home state, and probably even keep a receipt with the name incase the gun is used in a crime, and the ATF comes knocking at the buyer's door.
- JoeAltmaier 11y agoI wonder if this simply correlates to more chains store(s) that have hunting departments now. WalMart, Scheels etc.
- DamnYuppie 11y agoThat would be an interesting data point. The one thing you would have to find out is which stores have FFL licenses and which don't. Not all chain stores sell firearms. I would also be curious to see where these stores are distributed geographically. EDIT: Right after writing that I saw this article http://www.citylab.com/crime/2016/01/map-gun-dealers-starbucks/423801/ http://www.citylab.com/crime/2016/01/map-gun-dealers-starbuc... While not exactly what I was looking for it is an interesting comparison.
- knowaveragejoe 11y agoNot just big-box stores, I've seen a number of gas stations selling all manner of firearms.
- logfromblammo 11y agoAnecdotally, the closest gun store to my current home started in a strip mall berth, and had its own freestanding building with firing range within one year.
- NiftyFifty 11y agoThis is media infusion, and political 2nd Amendment fears in the general population. NICS checks and permit requests are in high demand, so the demand-supply model general means, stores are going to pop-up because there is money to be had. Politics aside, the "anomaly" IMHO was driven by the tech industry and its enabling of EVERYONE to have a voice. It's the "meek shall inherit the Earth" to some extent, but it also makes the established news sources of the big 3-4 outlets (NBC, CBS, ABC, and maybe Fox/CNN) to be diminished in their role to inform us. This diluted the singular and make it the multiple. Again, not judging any side, but the tidal wave and saturation of market makes valued, conservatism almost a rare thing to witness. However, when people see a right possibly being restricted or removed (unlikely in our country) ... that's the fact, Jack. Ergo, where we are now.
- jff 11y agoIt's not entirely clear from the article, but the data they're using appears to include all types of Federal Firearms Licensees. FFL01 is the license for a traditional gun store. However I hold an FFL03, which is a license to collect Curio & Relic firearms. These comprise guns over 50 years old and some special items on a federal list. With this license I can purchase C&R-eligible guns and have them shipped direct to my door, unlike the general public who must transfer Internet purchases through a FFL01 licensee. I am not, however, allowed to deal in guns, just to make an occasional sale when I decide I don't want a specific gun any more. AMA about FFL03 if you're curious, I guess.
- OopsCriticality 11y agoI think it would be instructive if you spoke on needing to keep a bound book, dealing with inspections, and the time/money cost of attaining and maintaining your FFL.
- jff 11y agoSure! I've only used my FFL03 once, to order a Mosin Nagant rifle, but it still worked out cheaper than a single gun transfer in California ($30 for the FFL03 vs. $60+ for a transfer at a gun store) Part of having a FFL03 is the requirement that you maintain a "bound book" of all transactions done under that license. You can buy these online or print out sheets, but basically you must record who you bought it from, when, for how much, the serial number, etc. It has not happened to me in 3 years of licensing, but the BATFE may request to inspect your bound book and your firearms to make sure everything's in order. As for attaining the FFL, I filled out a form (ATF form 7CR) with a bunch of personal information and mailed it off with a $30 check. They did their background checks and after a month or two mailed back my license. You need to renew it every 3 years, but it's basically a matter of making sure the information is correct and sending in a check. The benefits of having an FFL03: - Eligible guns can be shipped direct to your door (no handguns shipped in California) - You can buy C&R eligible guns out-of-state and bring them back with you. In any case, you must provide the seller with a copy of your license prior to purchase.
- DrScump 11y ago