What Gun for Arming the Helpless? A Different Sort of Hypothetical

[LoneStranger]

It has been said that there are no dangerous weapons, only dangerous minds.

Several years ago on I believe PBS there was a news program call "Asia Weekly". I am probably wrong on the names but the program was produced out of Hong Kong and showed various stories about Asia.

They ran a story about a village in India which had established a firing range in the village, smallarm or air I don't remember, and made it so everyone in the village could use said range. By everyone I mean Male, Female, Young, and Old.

The end result, as reported, was a strong sense of independence is the village combined with noticable decline in local criminal activity. Also said village was producing marksmanship champions for India.

The resulting ability in firearms seemed to produce the mental willingness for the inhabitants to help themselves rather than looking for some faraway Guru to bring them answers.

With so much in regards to firearms and freedom it is the mental which predominates for successful endings.

 

[ashtxsniper]

There is a low cost program its called Hi-Point. Of course reliability is another issue.

 

[JCMAG]

I don't know if this has been mentioned (because I couldn't read the hair-splitting of terms), but, according to the 1992 congressional appraisal of the history of the Second Amendment, Virginia once upon a time fined folks for not going about armed. If they could not afford a gun, they were lent one by the state until that individual could afford one.

This wouldn't be the first time in history this has happened. However, something in our society has changed.

The gun culture, once omnipresent, is now totally unknown to many Americans, perhaps as many as 1/3.

If people think that possessing a gun turns the possessor into a blood thirsty killer, then I certainly do not want them possessing a gun! They're entirely too mentally unstable and dangerous to possess them. Fortunately, they are also so buried in their ignorance that they'd rather die than take up arms. We are safe from the murdering maniacs... for now.

Remove the heavy taxing, expensive and excessive procedure, and other hoops that make firearms too expensive for the impoverished and you will see an increase in ownership.

As for those cowards with an irrational fear of inanimate objects, let them reap the bitter produce that they have sewn. Sorry for the bitter angst, but natural law dictates that those who choose to make themselves vulnerable to death choose to die.

 

[entropy]

Training and mindset before weapon acquisition. SImple as that. Those who will not devote to either will be a liability.

 

[3KillerBs]

A hard-working honest grandma would get a weapon, and her drug-fired grandson would take it from her and commit crime or sell it to other criminals.

Not if she pulled the trigger when he grabbed it.

 

[3KillerBs]

Call it elitism but most of the people a program like this would be aimed at are people I would not be comfortable with owning guns.

Sounds like the anti's justifications for gun control laws.

I clearly specified "Adult, non-felon, citizens" who had passed a training course. That is, no one who would not already be eligible to own a handgun. Few states require any training in order to buy a gun but I included it as an integral part of this potential program.

What right do you, or anyone else, have to pass judgment on the trustworthiness of people who meet the very same standards that make you eligible to own your guns? How does that differ from the people who banned handguns in DC, Chicago, much of California, ... ?

 

[3KillerBs]

LoneStranger,

Good story there. Even though I envision this as a straight-up effort at using anti-crime money to actually reduce crime, that kind of change in mindset would be one of the ripple effects I would hope to see.

 

[3KillerBs]

Training and mindset before weapon acquisition. SImple as that. Those who will not devote to either will be a liability.

AMEN.

The training program comes first and each person involved would have to pass it before actually getting the gun.

 

[PaladinX13]

Few states require any training in order to buy a gun but I included it as an integral part of this potential program.

Actually do any states require it? One concern about making such programs available is that it makes the switch to mandatory training that much easier once it becomes "reasonable". Then all they have to do is cut funding from the training programs to reduce gun ownership.

The bottom line IS the bottom line... people are kicking and screaming about their money being spend to bail out incompetent CEOs, to pass this you have to convince anti-gun people their tax dollars are better spent on this program than anything else. Honestly, even if you're pro-gun, you're going to have a hard time saying there's a sufficiently strong correlation to justify the entitlement. Put another way, what would you cut and would the American people buy it?

 

[RONSTAR]

Edjumakashun

 

[3KillerBs]

Paladin,

The thing is, the money is already being spent on things like gun buybacks, midnight basketball for gang kids, and teaching women to vomit on their rapists -- things proven useless.

No politician is going to vote to strike anti-crime funding from the budget. People want government to deal with the problem of crime (and only the hardest-core, fringe elements think that crime control isn't a legitimate function of government).

I came up with this idea as a means of spending the money that is going to be spent somehow in a way that, according to a lot of very strong data, would actually reduce crime.

Nothing would be cut. Anti-crime money would still be anti-crime money -- just spent more effectively to achieve the stated purpose.

 

[PaladinX13]

You severely misunderstand the magnitude of costs between those respective programs and are basically asking for a tax hike for an unwanted entitlement. Good luck selling that.

 

[PaladinX13]

The thing is, the money is already being spent on things like gun buybacks, midnight basketball for gang kids, and teaching women to vomit on their rapists -- things proven useless.

Step back and THINK for a second instead of being pure pro-gun rhetoric. If they're "proven useless" then why do politicians keep doing it? It's because it's NOT useless for them. It helps the politicians because people ask for it and support the respective politicians who support such measures.

You might want to claim that it's irrational, that they're "proven" ineffective... but note that this country is roughly divided in half in terms of public policy, values, etc. If the people want it, irrespective of your views on its efficacy, then it's the representative's job to give it to them.

The data on "more guns = less crime" is not "hard". It's impeachable and far from universally accepted. Again, irrespective of whether it's fact or not, public opinion matters (global warming, etc). As far as antis are concerned, equally "hard" data is that there are nations with less guns AND less crime. So you're left with a value judgment which doesn't make any traction unless the people want it.

People first, not programs.

 

[3KillerBs]

Paladin,

Do you have the hard figures on that? I'll admit I don't, but, ...

I know that NRA pistol instructors around here work for peanuts and the satisfaction it gives them so I find it hard to believe that instructors would cost more than the government employees who currently work on the ineffective anti-crime programs.

I don't have the hard figures for manufacturers' or retailers' profit margins on guns but the usual rule is that every time a product changes hands it doubles in price. My experience in retail and as co-owner of a business that acted as sales agents for manufacturers and large wholesalers is that margins tend to run between 50% and 200% (discounters working in large volume with products that require minimal personal involvement from employees may go as low as 25-30% but guns are an employee-intensive product).

Using very conservative margins of only 50% markup and the usual type of bulk-buy discounts for large-quantity sales I think that a $300 gun could likely be obtained at a little more than $200 retail and maybe as low as $175 direct from manufacturer if the buy lot is big enough.

I will admit that I don't have gun-industry experience to get hard numbers but I doubt I'm too far out of the ballpark on gun costs. I'd be delighted to have someone who has ever bought guns in lots of several hundred to several thousand chime in with the real discounts vs retail.

The only other anti-crime program that would be likely to actually reduce crime would be to hire more police. I strongly suspect that you could buy an awesome amount of guns, even at full retail price, for the numbers you get when you add up the salaries, equipment, training, and support staff to put even 5-10% more officers on the street in even a mid-size town.

And even if finances dictated that the program couldn't be widespread enough to arm absolutely everyone who is eligible to legally own a handgun and who wishes to do so, even arming 10% of that segment of the population (perhaps targeting the higher crime areas or the more vulnerable people -- those would be details to be worked out by the people of the town in question), would do more to reduce crime than any number of pamphlets telling women to pee their pants when confronted by a rapist.

I guess it comes down to whether you think that money designated for a given purpose should be spent on things that make people feel like they're doing something or on things that are proven to actually accomplish the purpose.

We have Kennesaw, GA and Harrold, TX to prove that now and then a municipality will try something radically different and that the results will inspire others.

 

[3KillerBs]

People first, not programs.

Exactly.

Which is why I'm proposing that anti-crime money be used to do something that will actually protect people from crime instead of merely creating an illusion of doing something while keeping government employees from having to find real jobs.

 

[Elm Creek Smith]

"The Colony of New York's Militia Laws," on page 52/53, permits militia officers to sell arms to them for 1/5th of their value through any payment possible. The statute reads:

"But if any person shall not bee able to provide himself Armes and Ammunition through meere poverty, if he bee Single, shall bee put to Service by the Constable and Overseers of the place where he dwelleth, or they shall provide him Armes and Ammunition, and shall appoint him where and with whom to worke it out."

-----

It's simple, we arm and train the unorganized militia. Once a month, everyone musters for training and inspection, perhaps on a block-by-block schedule. For those who don't have the money to provide their own gun and ammo, they work one or two days a month in community service to pay for the gun and ammo.

The Hi-Point carbine in 9mm would be a reasonable choice, with the KelTec Sub2000 a slightly more expensive option.

ECS

 

[PaladinX13]

Exactly.

Which is why I'm proposing that anti-crime money be used to do something that will actually protect people from crime instead of merely creating an illusion of doing something while keeping government employees from having to find real jobs.

Whoa, slow down with the doublespeak there before you say "exactly"... you're misconstruing that statement, which meant that you have to get a mandate from the PEOPLE not shove a PROGRAM down their unwilling throats.

Your program budget is completely unrealistic. You're not talking about a handful of veritable volunteers doing things out of the conviction of their hearts whether you're talking about training OR buy backs. You're talking about a persistent government program, full-time employees, AND material costs (compared to game of b-ball) which means prohibitive costs and negligible effect.

Gun buy backs "work" (or more accurately, perpetuate) because crime is a rare circumstance. It's not like the instant they turn over their guns they become victims, which create bad press and deter future people from participating in buy backs. Besides which, few participate. Buy backs are simply "Feel good legislation." And that's EXACTLY what you're proposing. Unless you have a persistent government agency, with oversight (and you better believe a "free gun program" is going to have oversight) and an extensive PR and education campaign driving people into participating (do you know how much the shift to Digital TV is costing the gov't? It was allocated $1.5 billion and it's already over budget with months to go until the switch)... it's not going to have almost no effect. It's little more than "Go Guns!" feel good legislation that no one asked for.

My point, get people to ask for it instead of thinking of ways to rule them against their will.

Fact is, if people what cheap guns with government subsidy there's already the Citizen Marksmanship program that people can take advantage of at will. Given the participation and logistics of that, there's little call for an anti-crime analog. You CAN'T equivocate "anti-crime is anti-crime"... because if that were true, YOU would be happy with the ones we have now. You can bet there will be people unhappy with the one you want... only difference is that they have the mandate.

 

[PaladinX13]

Last point... why do we need to give away free guns? Because there aren't enough of them? The gun in the USA is ubiquitous. There are more guns in the US than people, pets, and every consumer appliance except the TV and telephone. Why should our tax dollars go right up against the law of diminishing returns? With that kind of supply, it isn't because the price is prohibitive... lack of penetration is because of lack of demand. You have to get the people to want them for the right reasons... not appeal to their handout instinct.

 

[smartshooter.45]

Serena +1

 

[Steve Raacke]

What right do you, or anyone else, have to pass judgment on the trustworthiness of people who meet the very same standards that make you eligible to own your guns? How does that differ from the people who banned handguns in DC, Chicago, much of California, ... ?
Today 07:04 PM

Just calling it like I see it. The world is populated by lots of idiots. It's frightening to see some of the people I interact with on a daily basis and imagine them having access to firearms. While they may not have criminal records, they have emotional and mental issues which, mixed with firearms, could not lead to any good.
You also mention paying for Concealed Carry classes and Permits and supplying CCW pistols. I disagree. If these people have passed government approved training and been issued a weapon payed for by government then let them Open Carry. Issue second hand, refurbished .38/.357 revolvers and leather belt holsters. If these people are so trustworthy and have met the standards then they have no reason to conceal carry.

 

[PaladinX13]

Just calling it like I see it. The world is populated by lots of idiots. It's frightening to see some of the people I interact with on a daily basis and imagine them having access to firearms. While they may not have criminal records, they have emotional and mental issues which, mixed with firearms, could not lead to any good.

To an anti, the very desire for a gun and the belief that one is necessary when the vast majority of life can be lived without them constitutes "emotional and mental issues" sufficient to bar us all from owning guns.

The premise of rights in America represents trust that individual citizens can exercise discretion and responsibility in voting, having children, defending themselves, etc. Once you remove that underlying presumption, then control of thought, creed, expression, etc. becomes "reasonable". So yes, it IS elitist and it is antithetical to RKBA, but it does prove the point that even people who have their own guns don't want programs which arm others apparently... even if for elitist reasons.

Open v. Concealed carry is another issue....

 

[Steve Raacke]

The premise of rights in America represents trust that individual citizens can exercise discretion and responsibility in voting, having children, defending themselves, etc. Once you remove that underlying presumption, then control of thought, creed, expression, etc. becomes "reasonable". So yes, it IS elitist and it is antithetical to RKBA, but it does prove the point that even people who have their own guns don't want programs which arm others apparently... even if for elitist reasons.

Well, there you have it. It's a matter of trust. If I trusted people I wouldn't deadbolt my front door and carry a pistol everywhere I go.

Open v. Concealed carry is another issue....

Not to me. If you trust people who have not broken any laws and have been issued weapons then there's no reason for them to hide said weapons.

 

[springmom]

I like the basic idea; but I'm thinking that a partnership with one or more gun manufacturers who might sell the guns at wholesale (or maybe less than wholesale) might be a good alternative. I hate it when tax dollars get spent on social programs in general (with some exceptions). Anything that *can* be done through private rather than public money and effort will always be done better, cheaper, and with less screw-ups.

So how about a partnership with, oh, Bersa, maybe Ruger (for the revolverphiles among us ) for Bersa 9's or .380's, Sp101's, where those guns would be available to those who complete the coursework required for licensure (and the NICS background check which, like it or not, is probably here to stay) and NRA instructors who donate their time for the classes; gun ranges who volunteer space on the range.... see where I'm going?

Everybody made huge fun of it, but I thought Bush #41's "Thousand Points of Light" was absolutely spot on as an alternative to governmental intervention and "help". Construct the program along those lines and you'll make social conservatives a lot more comfortable.

I'd personally like to see such a program begin with survivors of domestic violence. If there's any subset of society that needs to be able to defend themselves, God knows they do.

Good thread.

Springmom

 

[bwavec]

Pilgrim and the foot pretty well hit the nail on the head on the first page......

Those that want to have firearms, will do what they need to to get them....and be the ones that keep them. Sure make the training available....and even make it available for free....but the people who really want a firearm to protect themselves with, will find a way to make the money to buy one.

Just giving away the firearms (even with prerequired training) only means that they will mostly end up being pawned, sold or traded for something else. Easy come....easy go.

I've been down on my luck before, unemployed, homeless and pawning all that I owned (including guns) to have a few dollars for gas and food. Any adult that has an even low paying job, and is living within their means, can save the $300-500 that would be needed to purchase a decent quality firearm and ammo and go to the range once every other month. Yes it means you may need to scrimp a little: do with out cable TV and unlimited minutes on your cell phone; walk, ride a bike or take the bus to work most days; and skip "the bling" altogether. Do that and in less than a year you can buy a decent firearm.

If you live in the USA and have a job, the only reason someone doesn't have a firearm is because they find something else more important.

 

[rfurtkamp]

Using very conservative margins of only 50% markup and the usual type of bulk-buy discounts for large-quantity sales I think that a $300 gun could likely be obtained at a little more than $200 retail and maybe as low as $175 direct from manufacturer if the buy lot is big enough.

I will admit that I don't have gun-industry experience to get hard numbers but I doubt I'm too far out of the ballpark on gun costs

You are way, way, way, way out of the ballpark on gun costs and markup at retail.

New gun markup is 5-10%, tops. I wish it was otherwise, but the fact is that the money in gun sales is in ammunition and accessories, along with used guns and trades. Even in bulk quantities the price does not decline substantially or quickly. I'd wager the markup at the big distributors is in line with the markup at the shop level.

Look at what large PDs and agencies pay for guns - you're not going to get much *if* anything for < $300 a unit.

You also have to factor in insurance for the organization distributing them, and that would not be cheap either, and add substantially to the cost per gun handed out.