What if the weapon used cost $25k?

[MR2Aaron]

Question:

Billy Shears' letter suggests that none of the proposed legislation would have stopped Adam Lanza. How do we know that's actually true?

I didn't get into guns until this year, but my understanding is that the Federal ban served to severely limit availability. As such, the price of the affected guns that remained legal to own and transfer went up many times, effectively pricing most criminals (and non criminals) out of the market.

If the AR-15 Lanza had used cost $25,000, and not $1,000, it's not unreasonable to speculate that he might not have been able to get his hands on it.

Granted, I didn't know Adam Lanza, but as the news folks describe him, he wasn't the type to know where to get a stolen high dollar rifle. I don't doubt that he'd have been willing to break the law to get his hands on it, just that, if the supply were severely restricted, he might not have been able to, legally or not.

As an example, I'd submit the NFA. Gun enthusiasts consider it an occasion to get to shoot a fully automatic weapon. There's no technical reason for these to cost as much as they do - it's just that there are very few of them, and they're thus extremely exclusive and valuable to wealthy collectors. I seem to recall a similar situation with legally ownable ARs toward the end of the Clinton ban years.

 

[Fryerpower]

I sent emails to both of my federal senators and to my federal representative before I saw this page. I like your letter better.

@ MR2Aaron Why on earth would I ever want to make it harder to own a weapon that is ideal for the purposes of the second amendment? The second amendment isn't about hunting or sport shooting. It is a check & balance against a tyrannical government. Making them more expensive only makes us weaker as a free country.

Jim

 

[leadcounsel]

If the AR-15 Lanza had used cost $25,000, and not $1,000, it's not unreasonable to speculate that he might not have been able to get his hands on it.

Focusing on the tool is the wrong answer. Also, pricing weapons out of the hands of common people effectively destroys the 2A.

These murders weren't committed with the AR15, and that's a moot point really. Lanza could have bought a $200 chainsaw and walked into the school and cut up a classroom of kids. Right?!? Who and how would those teachers and kids have prevented that. Given the circumstances, the death toll would have been the same and just as grisly. Should we ban chain saws? Of course not.

 

[MachIVshooter]

If the AR-15 Lanza had used cost $25,000, and not $1,000, it's not unreasonable to speculate that he might not have been able to get his hands on it.

No, he probablly wouldn't have been able to steal a $25k firearm from his mother that he'd just murdered. She wasn't wealthy.

He'd have just found an alternate.

 

[Teachu2]

What if he'd used two 5 gallon containers of gasoline and a couple of road flares?

 

[hso]

I didn't get into guns until this year, but my understanding is that the Federal ban served to severely limit availability.

Do a little reading. Availability actually was increased by the AWB because demand increased, prices rose causing manufacturers to step up to meet that demand. The AWB only affected availability initially and briefly. That by itself would have driven demand and prices up, but it took no time for manufacturers to produce versions without the bayonet lug and with the flash hider pinned or welded or absent the threads to satisfy that demand. People who were formally blasé about ARs and AKs suddenly were told "You can't have this" and their appetites for the "forbidden fruit" fed the demand even more.

The AWB actually started the growth of the modern Black Rifle enthusiasm and led to many more AR manufacturers starting up and producing rifles. Back then we had Colt and a couple of also makes. Who had heard of Bushmaster before the AWB? LMT, Spikes, DoubleStar, ...? Who would have thought that Remington, Ruger and S&W would have started making AR type rifles? Who would have thought they'd be available in so many different calibers?

It doesn't take much effort to see that demand for every sort of military styled semi went up during the AWB and grew ever since. For those of us that were buying firearms at the time we watched the availability drop for about a quarter and prices shoot up into the stupid range and then production skyrocketed and expanded to what we have today.

I don't know where you get your information, but the AWB expanded availability of AR type rifles and could be looked at as the best thing for the growth of the firearms industry and for 2A activism.

just that, if the supply were severely restricted, he might not have been able to, legally or not.

Are you aware that CT has a state AWB and that Nancy Lanza had a registered compliant AR? The "restriction" was already there and it did nothing to stop her having the rifle. Are you aware that CT has a secure storage law? That didn't stop her son from getting that rifle or two of her handguns either.

You're grossly misinformed on the facts about the AWB and of the current state of the law in CT and you've based your opinion on that misinformation and you should spend some time learning the history around the AWB and the failure of it to limit firearms one whit while violent crime and firearms violence was dropping before, dropped during and, surprise to those foolish enough to claim blood would run in the streets, continued to drop after the foolish ban sunsetted. The rate of violent crime and firearms related crime has continued on that downward trend while more and more people buy these rifles, more and more companies spring up to produce them and more and more states enact "shall-issue" concealed carry.

 

[Zoogster]

Many of the people responsible for these attacks planned them out. They were not someone angry in the moment that went and got a gun, but calculated attacks planned in advance.


With that established consider also that most do not plan to survive, and if they do will be in prison for life or executed.


Now consider that most adults can qualify for credit, credit cards, loans, etc
In fact if you don't care about interest rate you can have bad credit and still get several thousand dollars.
There is even various predatory lenders that have charges rather than what would be illegal interests rates to get around the interest rate cap, and those are even easier to get.


Now consider that someone that does not plan to survive or to be in prison from that event on has no concern with paying off thier debt. They can take out plenty of loans, beyond what thier budget could ever manage, because they won't be paying them back.
This means your typical killer has more funds available to use for such an attack than most responsible adults trying to budget thier expenses.
Gun prices, magazine prices, or ammunition prices are no big deal.


So price increases are not going to have much impact on such a mass shooter. They will however have a serius impact on your typical responsible gun owner. To be high enough to have much impact on someone that has no plans to repay thier debt, they would have to be higher than your typical responsible consumer would pay to purchase them.









Now a seperate issue:
They were his mom's guns if I recall not his own.
His mother recieved more than $250,000 and up to $300,000+ in alimony payments a year.
This clearly means he has a wealthy father, and a mother with a good amount of spending cash. More than your average citizen.
This means how much the 20 something year old made had no impact on the income level of those who purchased the firearms which were available to them.
I also recall images of a mobile home or trailer, which I was under the impression was the mother's home.
Someone living that lifestyle probably has fewer bills than your typical home owner paying a mortgage. So not only did the mother get $250-300,000 a year, she also probably had fewer expenses than most, and so a higher percentage of it was spending cash than even a home owner that made that kind of money but pays big mortgage payments.
So she could more casually and easily afford guns than the majority of citizens in the USA.
So to price guns out of her reach you would have had to price them well beyond the majority of US citizens' reach.





The prior ban happened when AR and AK type firearms were rare and unique in the USA. Yet prices for those guns and magazines still were within reach of even people with tight budgets after several years.
Today they are some of the most common firearms out there, with tens of millions of AR-15 type guns alone, and many times more magazines. The price increase would be even slower because the market is so saturated with them (outside of panic times.)
They would be well available for purchase for not that much more 10 or even 20 years into the future after a ban if they can transfer preban items as before, and as I said someone not planning to be around to have to pay debt is going to be less hampered financially than your average citizen, not more.

 

[toivo]

Does anybody really think that it was the AR that determined the death toll? These were small children. After he shot the two adults, the kids were absolutely defenseless. He could have used a lever action rifle, a pump shotgun, even a double-barrel shotgun. He had ten minutes before the police arrived on the scene, and there was no opposition whatsoever. All he had to do was load and shoot.

If he had burned the building down, he could have killed hundreds. Then the media would be talking about mental health care.

 

[Hacker15E]

No, he probablly wouldn't have been able to steal a $25k firearm from his mother that he'd just murdered. She wasn't wealthy.

She was a divorcee who was 'making' $289,000 in alimony per year.

Money definitely was not a problem for that family.

 

[mljdeckard]

Yep. She lives in a $500k house on a 2+ acre lot in CT.

And remember, this gun was already ban compliant. It was not restricted under the '94 AWB or CT law.

 

[beatledog7]

OP, are you suggesting artificial price controls should be imposed by the federal government? How has that worked out well anywhere?

 

[LNK]

Question:

Billy Shears' letter suggests that none of the proposed legislation would have stopped Adam Lanza. How do we know that's actually true?

I didn't get into guns until this year, but my understanding is that the Federal ban served to severely limit availability. As such, the price of the affected guns that remained legal to own and transfer went up many times, effectively pricing most criminals (and non criminals) out of the market.

If the AR-15 Lanza had used cost $25,000, and not $1,000, it's not unreasonable to speculate that he might not have been able to get his hands on it.

Granted, I didn't know Adam Lanza, but as the news folks describe him, he wasn't the type to know where to get a stolen high dollar rifle. I don't doubt that he'd have been willing to break the law to get his hands on it, just that, if the supply were severely restricted, he might not have been able to, legally or not.

As an example, I'd submit the NFA. Gun enthusiasts consider it an occasion to get to shoot a fully automatic weapon. There's no technical reason for these to cost as much as they do - it's just that there are very few of them, and they're thus extremely exclusive and valuable to wealthy collectors. I seem to recall a similar situation with legally ownable ARs toward the end of the Clinton ban years.

Let me see if I can put this in terms you can understand. We are going to raise the price of all mid-engined sports cars 25x. Due to their low polar moment of inertia, they are much more likely to spin out in inclement weather. It's for the public good you understand....

LNK

 

[Dreamliner787]

Going to be difficult for them to "ban" guns but they can tax the hell out of them. What if they impose a "scary gun" tax to fund mental health care and each "scary gun" you buy will have to pay a $10K tax to purchase one and if you want bullets another tax of $10 per bullet.

 

[mljdeckard]

Remember, that the original intent of the $200 NFA tax was to be a price-fix that would put those items out of reach of most users. The amount hasn't changed. It was $200 in 1934. Not adjusted for inflation, that was a lot more then than it is now.

 

[Zoogster]

Yep. She lives in a $500k house on a 2+ acre lot in CT.

If that is true, the cost of the house compared to income is still minimal. Many people have a $500,000+ house, they just are paying for it with a 15-30 year mortgage.
She is getting enough to purchase the house outright every 2 years and still have plenty left over for other living expenses.
She may even have received the home from the divorce already paid for.

Someone that doesn't even have to work getting a quarter million a year has a lot of spending money and a lot of time to figure out how to get what they want and go through any formalities required.
Plenty of money and a wide open schedule.
One of the last segments of the population you would be pricing things out of reach of.