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

[rfurtkamp]

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.

Yep, someone who wants one will get one. When I cancelled cable, that was $80 a month in the household's pocket immediately. No cell phones, another $50+. Buying reasonable used cars with good maintenance histories or ones you can tear down yourself or with the help of friends: even more.

That said, I could get behind a low-income rebate or subsidy that kicks in after a period of time - say 1/4 the price of the gun after a year if the person can still qualify with the gun or exhibit the most basic marksmanship, and another 1/4 the following year.

Or just set up a program to pay for concealed weapons permits for those who can prove low income and let them provide their own choice of weapons.

 

[Pat-inCO]

What guns do you think would suit my hypothetical anti-crime program?

None.

 

[jlbraun]

I don't like the idea of the .gov giving away free guns to anyone. That means that they can take them back any time they want.

I like the idea of subsidized firing ranges and reduced price CCW and rifle classes.

 

[Claude Clay]

the government has already a very large and well funded program offering free training and equipment to most all americans
The Armed Services

 

[3KillerBs]

Why should our tax dollars go right up against the law of diminishing returns?

Why do you persistently refuse to acknowledge that I am suggesting only that the money earmarked for anti-crime programs, which is currently being spend on utter nonsense, be spent on something which would actually have the effect of reducing crime?

If I were pulling the idea of suddenly starting-up anti-crime programs in a situation where no anti-crime programs have ever been implemented or funded, your objections would have a point.

I am merely proposing that the existing money be spent more effectively.

We're stuck with spending that money. Voters wouldn't stand for it if politicians suddenly said, "Government has no right to fight crime so we're cutting all anti-crime funding".

Why not have that money spent on something useful instead on feel-good nonsense?

 

[3KillerBs]

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.

A. That is the very attitude exhibited by the anti-gun celebrities with their armed guards -- "I deserve protection but those idiotic little people can't be trusted".

B. I did not say ANYTHING about concealed carry classes and permits. I said firearms training and the usual paperwork and permits for handgun ownership, not carry.

At least debate what I actually proposed instead of a wild exaggeration of my idea.

 

[3KillerBs]

Anything that *can* be done through private rather than public money and effort will always be done better, cheaper, and with less screw-ups.

Of definitely. Private charity is almost always more effective than bureaucracy-plagued government programs.

Its just that the idea was developed when I was objecting to the useless nonsense anti-crime money is being spent on now and was challenged, "Well, what's YOUR plan?"

Given that, it doesn't have to be perfect. It just has to be enough better than the current situation to make a noticeable difference.

 

[3KillerBs]

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.

To some extent that's true -- for the young, healthy, and unencumbered. But its also the same sort of arrogance I spoke of in the "teach a man to fish" illustration -- the arrogance that says "I'll teach you to fish, but only AFTER you invest $500 in fishing gear because no one who can't come up with $500 is worthy to eat."

I've been in a situation where for much longer than a year I couldn't have raised $500 for ANYTHING because I'd have had to take it out of my kids' mouths. We were already doing without cable, wearing clothes from the thrift store, growing a garden, sleeping under 5 blankets with a hot water bottle at our feet because cheap rental houses are so poorly insulated that heat through a New England winter took all year to pay for, and eating such low-grade, starchy food that my husband ended up with Type II diabetes to show for it.

 

[3KillerBs]

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.

Are those hard numbers from experience as a selling guns at retail or just hearsay?

I'm afraid I find it hard to believe that the markup you're talking about would cover the salary for an employee to show a gun to a customer and fill out the paperwork. To have an entire industry not just using loss-leaders to boost sales now and then but rather using loss-leaders as their primary product seems unlikely.

 

[3KillerBs]

the government has already a very large and well funded program offering free training and equipment to most all americans
The Armed Services

And this does what to provide the 80yo woman whose neighborhood has deteriorated with protection from crime?

 

[mgregg85]

Cool idea but I'm thinking it will never happen. Give me a call if you ever need some help in michigan though.

 

[PaladinX13]

Why do you persistently refuse to acknowledge that I am suggesting only that the money earmarked for anti-crime programs, which is currently being spend on utter nonsense, be spent on something which would actually have the effect of reducing crime?

1. Because you have no concept of how much an EFFECTIVE program would cost. Otherwise you're just asking for "feel-good" legislation that no one asked for.

2. Because you keep equivocating "anti-crime = anti-crime" which is utter nonsense, if it was, then you wouldn't be asking for reallocation of those meager funds. How can you think politicians can just sell a pro-gun bill under the label of "anti-crime" without anyone blinking when YOU are blinking at the present anti-crime programs?

Why not have that money spent on something useful instead on feel-good nonsense?

Because it WOULDN'T be effective- either against crime (low funding, low penetration, low effect UNLESS you have extreme, unwanted costs), for the politicians (pro-gun program no one asked for), or for the people (reaches only those who already have guns and exploit the program, who don't need guns and exploit the program, and those who weren't motivated enough to buy a cheap durable good that has more market penetration in the USA than any other modern nation).

It's a poorly thought out idea. Not to mention, if money so so tight that a person can't afford a $300 gun, there are at least a dozen other more practical concerns in that person's life than firearm ownership.

With this kind of mindset you might as well demand Bibles be given out using government money because religion is a salve for all social issues in this life and the next... what's that, you don't agree with me? Huh. But surely learning to love your neighbor is effective at driving down crime, teaching people to be responsible, and better than other "nonsense"! We should mandate sensitivity training and "Love Your Neighbor" workshops to reduce crime and increase civic responsibility! Yeah! Or is there some blindingly obvious problems with this that only come to light once you're out of the pro-gun rhetoric haze?

 

[rfurtkamp]

Are those hard numbers from experience as a selling guns at retail or just hearsay?

Hard numbers from experience, I was management at a shop here for several years.

The money is in accessories, used guns, and ammunition, plus occasional closeout buys from wholesalers. There's also a reason that areas without high population density often do pawns as well.

Guns have a razor-thin margin when purchased new. The Internet drove that down even further.

Most of the time you make more money on the transfer of guns or special orders than on stocking items by a long shot, since no money is tied up in doing either.

As far as prices the average consumer can see, the dealer prices for guns on sale at pseudo-wholesalers are not particularly cheaper, either: AIM, Centerfire, etc do not offer major dealer discounts. There's a little bit, yes, but not much. Factory direct stuff isn't really any better, Springfield used to come at us all the time to order directly from them but the savings was offset by having to buy fixed numbers of items, any one of which might not sell well in a particular market so any savings was offset immediately by spending the 10k they wanted in one shot and having to dump a few clunkers at cost.

This isn't a high profit industry. A good estate buy or somebody selling off their collection is your profit for the whole month sometimes.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

If only a handful of lives are saved it would be more than are saved by telling women to puke on their rapists.

And what about the lives such a program would cost because guns were given to legal, non felon adults who passed the background checks, but who don't have the responsibility to properly handle a firearm and keep it properly secured?

 

[LWGN]

3KillerB's

I, too, have been in situations where $300 might as well have been $30,000, and the situation did not improve for years, until my medical problems finally stabilized enough that I could work more hours and pay less money out to the medical system. It had nothing to do with motivation, or responsibility, or fitness to own a firearm, and everything to do with illness and injury and outrageous medical costs, and a social safety net that has holes so big an elephant could fall through them. We lived without TV, without anything but emergency phone service, and without heat, wearing hand-me-downs and Goodwill purchases that we washed by hand and hung to dry, driving a car that could only be charitably called a beater, and then only when absolutely necessary, riding bicycles or walking the rest of the time. We ate a lot of "rice and rice" for dinner and the only vegetables we could afford were what we grew in front of the 30-year-old trailer we lived in. If my husband had not inherited guns from his family, there would have been absolutely no way that we could possibly have purchased one. In fact, during this time we sold most of his guns to buy food.

I sincerely hope that the people on this forum who take the attitude that poverty is purely the result of laziness or some character defect never have to deal with circumstances beyond their control that put them in such a position, and I hope they never have to make the choice between protecting themselves and their family from violence or from starvation.

 

[saspic]

And what about the lives such a program would cost because guns were given to legal, non felon adults who passed the background checks, but who don't have the responsibility to properly handle a firearm and keep it properly secured?

That sounds suspiciously anti-gun. What about such individuals? If they meet all legal requirements, what's to stop them from buying a gun right now? Whose judgement will decide who is responsible enough? According to some politicians, only law enforcement meets the criteria. We are all innocent until proven guilty. If an adult hasn't been convicted of a crime or adjudicated mentally deficient, they are free to buy a gun in the U.S.A.

On to the original post!

All the arguing aside, it would make an interesting experiment. Obviously it would be easiest to start as a pilot program in a willing city.
If buying new guns, I would recommend Rugers or Tauruses. 9mm semi-autos and .38 caliber revolvers.
OR, here's an idea, how about using old police/military trade-ins?

As to the "handouts" issues, why not offer people a choice? Lend them out for free or sell them for a nominal fee, like $100. I do agree people take better care of things they pay for, even if it's dirt cheap.

Remember Aristotle's maxim, guys:

It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.

 

[red headed stranger]

I would primarily support making the process of buying a gun less obstructive coupled with reasonable tort reform. Affordable guns that could be easily purchased in a hardware or departments store just like in the past would go a long way towards arming the the poor.

In some communities it is very difficult to purchase guns due to various restictions. This is a significant barrier to entry.

 

[caseypj]

It's not the government's role to provide people with the means to defend themselves, nor is it their role to prevent people from defending themselves. Giving out free guns to the poor would simply allow them to sell to felons at an increased price, as they most likely have no interest in firearms.

 

[JImbothefiveth]

What about making it voulantary?
They could still get the free gun, but they have to apply to this on their own, to show they are dedicated. You could hand out flyers to get people interested.

And maybe you could do a polygraph test, and ask "will you use this gun for a crime?".

And as for the gun itself, a revolver would probably be best, since the people won't have too much training. If a semi-auto, I hear you can get a certain model of SIG, I think the p226 for under $300.

Bibles be given out

A bible and a sig-sauer for every home then .

 

[moooose102]

this would be a great idea. however, the thing that comes to my mind imediatly, is how would someone sort out the people whithout enough courage to actually squeeze the trigger when their life is in danger? if they can not pull the trigger, they have just given the gun to a b.g., and he will probably take their life with it. my mother in law would be one who would not be able to do it, and sometimes, i wonder about my wife. if my wife had the kids with her, it would not be a problem (mother protecting her young) but if she was by herself, ???? she knows how to shoot, and has her own gun, but that does not mean she has the constitution to do the deed. her sister would be one that could not. plain and simple. she has been in one abusefull relationship after another. since she was a tennager. for some weird reason, she loves it. we have interveined several times, and got rid of the guy. and the next relationship (that lasts more than a month or two) she is back in a place where she is getting hit, and beat up every week. personally, i, like most of you, do not understand it. but it is clearly what she wants. she likes the bad boy immage, and lifestyle. it seams that if she is not getting beat on, she does not feel loved. figure that one out. so anyway, if you gave her a gun, it would not do her any good. and i suspect that a certain amout of these "battered women" are in the same scenario as my sister in law. so how do you tell who you are helping, and who is going to take the gun home to her boyfreind to do nasty things with?

 

[Claude Clay]

the 80 year old lady who is probably going starve if her electric can opener stops working is gonna load and defend herself with a gun? though you might want to think so, if she hasn't been gun savvy most of her life, one class last year likely isn't the answer to her needs today.
besides, if the young ones knew that at 18 they would be either in the army or jail (or dead); who now does she need protection from?

 

[JImbothefiveth]

There was that 80-year old woman who held a burgler at gun-point until the cops arrived. It looked like a break-top .22 revolver.

So yes, I think she can, but you should hold classes, make sure she's able to operate it, etc.

 

[3KillerBs]

Because you keep equivocating "anti-crime = anti-crime" which is utter nonsense,

If the purpose of a current program is to reduce crime then its an anti-crime program.

Anti-crime IS anti-crime. There is no other possible definition for something designed to prevent people from becoming victims of the predators among us.

The question is not whether or not the current programs are anti-crime programs. The question is whether or not they actually have any effect at reducing crime.

If you don't believe that a gun in her hand is more effective than a tongue depressor down her throat for a woman who is facing a potential rapist why are you here on a handgun board in the first place?

I repeat what I said before,

It does not have to be perfect (we are, after all, talking about the government). It does not have to be as good as a privately funded, privately run program doing the same thing would be. It does not even have to achieve universal penetration in the targeted population (the arguments for CCW always talk about the deterrent effect of having even a fairly low percentage of the population armed).

It merely has to be more effective than the useless waste of my tax dollars that is going on right now.

ANY improvement is a good thing. Just a few communities adopting such a program would affect not only their own citizens but would have ripple effects far beyond their borders -- enhancing RKBA rights, shaking up the assumptions of antis and fence-sitters, and shaking up taxpayer complacency with the idea that tax-funded programs just possibly ought to actually have some kind of real effect on the problem.

Making the perfect the enemy of the "better than what we've got now" when there is no realistic chance that perfect can be achieved in one, fell swoop is silly.

 

[3KillerBs]

Quote:
Are those hard numbers from experience as a selling guns at retail or just hearsay?

Hard numbers from experience, I was management at a shop here for several years.

Thank you.

Knowing how hard it is to make a living on products at the 50% mark-up level its a wonder then that gun shops exist at all.

Doubling the gun costs I'd hoped for would severely reduce penetration in the population.

I would still contend that a small positive effect is better than spending money to no effect at all -- unless they can come up with something even more effective.

Towns considering changing their mindset on anti-crime might find that such a program was only viable vs a particularly large existing expenditure on multiple, useless anti-crime programs or vs the costs of hiring more police (especially if the likely applicant pool of competent police officers in their area is small).

In the case of dramatically higher gun costs and small, pre-existing anti-crime budgets the money might be most effectively used on advertising the legality of self-defense and presenting information about the effectiveness of CCW and hangun ownership vs. crime as a means of changing the overall community mindset. That such can be powerful is proven in a case I remember from some years ago ...

A serial killer was operating in one of the southern states (Mississippi or Louisiana perhaps?), and had killed often enough to create a considerable stir. The top police official of that area made a public statement about the investigation and reminded women that it was a "shall issue" state so they could carry a gun if they wanted to. The mere announcement that women could arm themselves was sufficient to stop the killings.

Best case -- majority of law-abiding citizens armed and prepared to defend themselves.

Good case -- a noticeable fraction of law-abiding citizens armed and prepared to defend themselves.

OK Case #1 -- a portion of the most vulnerable law-abiding citizens armed and prepared to defend themselves.

OK Case #2 -- the community at large is consciously aware that they may arm themselves and defend themselves with support and encouragement from officialdom.

Worst Case -- the status-quo where money is spent uselessly on ineffective "anti-crime" measures which are useless at best and which actively discourage self-defense at worst.

Cost could make my program over-ambitious depending on the given municipality's current spending statue. But any step away from the worst case is a move in the right direction.

 

[3KillerBs]

Quote:
If only a handful of lives are saved it would be more than are saved by telling women to puke on their rapists.

And what about the lives such a program would cost because guns were given to legal, non felon adults who passed the background checks, but who don't have the responsibility to properly handle a firearm and keep it properly secured?

That could be taken straight from the Brady group's talking points. They make a specialty of hyperventilating about gun accidents.