I was on the road for most of the day [again] but took the time tonight to put together a rather decent Thursday evening Sift. Have fun.
A- My Weston Blog ventures out of Broward County and informs us that there are now "Animal Relief Areas" at MIA. Cue the jokes.
B- October 8th is a day Miami-Dade bicyclists might want to circle on their calendars, according to Spokes 'n' Folks.
C- South Florida Theatre Scene has their regular wrap up for the week.
D- SFLTV takes a look at the fracas that occurred yesterday outside the Federal courthouse when a politician accused of corruption emerged and was swarmed by the media.
E- Ipanemic chills with his peeps in his apartment courtyard for South Beach Social: Episode #9.
F- Obalesque shares the comments he gave at a recent Broward County Commission hearing and there's confusion in the comments.
G- Eye on Miami's missive on the state of Coconut Grove is pretty much what you've been hearing from Coconut Grove Grapevine for the last year or so but a bit more readable.
In historical context, however, there is another issue: the Grove recklessly squandered its unique character. It is not easy to correct errors in permitting developments out of scale with neighborhood character. Coconut Grove needs its character back, but it was sacrificed on the altar of lobbyists, greedy public officials and grand schemes. It is the story of Florida writ small.H- Someone needs to show Miami-Dade Dems how to embed YouTube videos on his blog.
I- Both Incertus and Bark Bark Woof Woof comment on the increased sale of ammo in this country since President Obama took office. From the former...
The silly side of this is that these people are manufacturing fear out of nothing, spinning it out of the air. They're making themselves paranoid and spending lots of money on something based on this irrational notion that there's a secret plot to disarm them and take their freedoms away. The scary side of it is that these people don't seem to get that they're being irrational, and any move to convince them otherwise only reinforces their paranoia.
.
8 comments:
Re:Ammo
"They're making themselves paranoid and spending lots of money on something based on this irrational notion that there's a secret plot to disarm them and take their freedoms away."
The plot is not "secret", its open and public:
http://accurateshooter.wordpress.com/2009/09/15/california-legislature-approves-restriction-on-ammo-sales-bill-goes-to-governor/
Secondly, many are buying out of a "fear" that ammo prices are not going to come down anytime soon. Unlike other commodities like gasoline, ammo can be stored for years as a hedge against its prices rising further in the future. The Iraq/Afghanistan conflicts have put a significant strain on civilian supplies for sport and hunting.
Typical example of how a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Are "Incertus and Bark Bark Woof Woof" even gun owners? Are they in any way involved in shooting sports? Who is really the paranoid one here?
Pussy King: I read through the proposed statute you cite, and I don't see how it in any way limits the sale of ammunition to sportsmen, law enforcement agents, or ordinary private citizens over the age of 18 who don't have criminal records or other official designation questioning their sanity and competence.
Maybe you'd like to read it yourself and point out the specific language. It's possible I missed it, what with all the strikeouts and jargon, but I doubt it.
Meanwhile, I conclude that indeed, you're paranoid. That doesn't mean they aren't really after you, though. Kitty-kitty better sleep with one eye open.
I got it! Frank Burns!
squathole...be nice to king of kats otherwise he's going to take his wealth of knowledge and dispense it elsewhere...
1. Thumb print requirement accomplishes what exactly? Riiiight, criminals won't be able to obtain ammunition anywhere if we start thumb printing people.
2. Like everything else, the Internet is the way to shop around. Prices in California will be higher because consumers will loose choice. Competitive shooters who cannot use off-the-shelf walmart ammunition are going to have big trouble in California. Some of the imported ammo required for precision events may mean training in California will be impossible.
I cited just one California law, there are a whole host of ammunition-related laws being proposed in gun unfriendly states, and at the federal level, that will have the effect of raising ammunition prices dramatically.
Like almost all gun control measures, these may be well-intended, but never achieve their desired affect. Criminals are going to get their ammo one way or another, just like they do guns now. Its law abiding citizens that suffer from such folly.
In any case, it is not panic, rather just sound economic sense. People are stocking up because it doesn't look like ammo is going to get cheaper. Several thousand rounds of just about any caliber takes up very little floor space, and depending on the person, can last several years or a life time.
What you may not know is that competitive shooters, even moderate hobbyists, might go through 3-4K rounds a year. Depending on caliber, that's about $500 a year in hobby expense. So if there is a real fear that legislation or war scarcity will drive up prices, why not stock up and buy a few years worth? It keeps for decades, you'll either use it up or its easy enough to sell your surplus. You'll only get burned if ammo prices drop, which as I say, does not seem very likely.
KoC,
This is a quote from the AP report BBWW links to:
'"I call it the Obama effect," said Jason Gregory, 37, who manages a gun store outside of New Orleans. Gun control legislation "always happens when the Democrats get in office. ... Ammunition will be the first step, so I'm stocking up while I can."'
This supports BBWW's contention, I think. Mr. Gregory cites no research for his "Obama=fewer guns" claim and he hasn't heard (or forgot) Obama explicitly saying he wouldn't touch anyone's guns.
Meanwhile, you link to a story about a bill in a state government (ie government unable to change the Constitution) that tries to limit the sale of bullets to gang-members.
When confronted with this, your argument is "lets stop fingerprinting because we should not impinge on my privacy since the criminals are going to get the bullets anyway." To which I say, lets apply this approach to other social problems and see if you would support them.
Lets start with child molestation. Most states require fingerprinting for all applicants to school district jobs (such as teaching). Your argument, applied to this, would sound like this: lets stop fingerprinting because we should not impinge on my privacy since the criminals are going to molest kids anyway.
Yeah, not very compelling line of argument you got there. You see because a government can't stop all crime doesn't mean that they shouldn't monitor the key points at which crimes could be stopped.
You get to keep your guns and get bullets. Gang members have a harder time getting bullets. Harder, not impossible, and sometimes that's the best we can do while keeping our freedoms.
As far as the difficulties of sportsman get hard-to-find bullets in face-to-face settings, where you see a hardship I, good capitalist that I am, see a potential business opportunity. I'm sure some local will to.
-g
ps Note that I didn't attack you personally, question your patriotism, or call you an adherent to some political belief that many consider evil. I defy you to find this kind of respect for the apostates on Val's site.
g-
The central thesis was that ammo sales are up over some paranoid fear over Obama. We are both getting off track.
I am very familiar with the ammo shortage situation, and very involved in some of the sporting communities affected.
I personally do not know anyone who has a fear that guns or ammunition will be banned under Obama (with the exception of an attempt to re-instate the ridiculous "assault rife" ban). I know many sporting marksmen (doctors, lawyers, teachers, i.e. your neighbors) who have a rational fear that there will be increased restrictive legislation that will raise firearm and ammunition prices.
There may be some "right wing" paranoia fueled buying. Fine, but how wealthy is that segment? How much ammo can some far right militia-man buy? I know hobbyist sportsmen, professionals, who are buying several thousand dollars of ammo in order to stockpile not for some "revolution", but simply because they feel that by doing so they are saving thousands of dollars in the future. It has become a self-fulfilling prophecy, either hoard now, or you won't have ammunition to compete at next months match.
Its not a fear of Obama per se, but how a more restrictive ammunition legislative regime, at the state or federal level (Congress probably can tax ammo under the commerce clause) that will hit sportsmen in their pocket books.
And as I say, the civilian and military suppliers are the same. The military gets priority, and the factories are running around the clock from what I hear.
My point is that there is more to the current ammo "run" and shortage than meets the eye.
KoC,
Look, what you are describing (the "ammo hedge")is possible. I think that the fear-of-a-Democrat dynamic is more probable. I think what we are confronting, however, is that there are limits in what journalistic reporting can offer. The cited AP article is a news piece, not research. It is inconclusive.
On the other hand, I want to peak to this point:
There may be some "right wing" paranoia fueled buying. Fine, but how wealthy is that segment? How much ammo can some far right militia-man buy?
I looked at the gun ownership demographics (by income) from Table 3 here:
http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=234
I then organized the population/income numbers from here:
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/cpstables/032009/perinc/new11_001.htm
into the groupings of the Harris poll (Table 3).
Now, the census has the median income as $50k. Per my calcs (and I'll email you the spreadsheet if you like), 57.54% of gun owners are at or below the median income.
So, how much ammo can the lower socio-economic status (SES) gun-owners buy? Since they are the majority of gun owners, I contend that it is safe to say that lower SES gun-owners may not even buy proportionally to higher SES gun-owners, they can still purchase massive amounts of ammo.
Granted, this doesn't explain why people buy ammo. I think it does bring to light the possibility that it is more than simply the wealthy that are buying ammo.
-g
Post a Comment
Spam, vulgar language, trolling and off-topic comments are not tolerated at SFDB and your comment will be removed if it meets this criteria.