WE HAVE NO PROBLEM WHATSOEVER WITH THIS …
Private equity firm Cerebus is ridding itself of the company that manufactured the rifle used in last week’s tragic school shooting in Connecticut.
“It is apparent that the Sandy Hook tragedy was a watershed event that has raised the national debate on gun control to an unprecedented level,” the fund’s managers said in a statement announcing their decision.
Cerebus owns Freedom Group, which manufactures the Bushmaster Rifle used in the Newton, Connecticut shooting – a rampage that left 20 children and six adults dead last Friday. Given our prior coverage of the fallout from this shooting, you might be expecting this website to rail against Cerebus’ decision – blasting the company for caving to the liberal anti-gun lobby.
Not at all … Cerebus is a private equity firm and as such is free to invest its assets wherever and however it wants. In fact this decision – spineless though it may be – reaffirms our faith in the free market.
Here’s how it works: If you don’t like guns, don’t buy them – and don’t buy stock in companies that manufacture or sell them. If you like guns, do the opposite. The same principle applies to supporting groups that support/ oppose guns – and contributing to politicians who support/ oppose guns.
See how easy it is? We not only live in a marketplace of ideas, people, we live in an actual marketplace (for the time being, anyway) … which means that “money talks and bullshit walks.”
And based on last weekend’s gun sales in South Carolina, money is sprinting toward guns … not walking away.
Nonetheless, Cerebus’ decision represents the free market in action … which is something this website will always support. Just like we will always support the right of American citizens to keep and bear arms.
So the free market is fine, but if you disagree with it, it becomes spineless.
You make a good point. Cerebus’s first and foremost duty is to protect its investors.
Philosophical issues outside of profit/loss is not their responsibility.
If they see too much risk after this event it is the fiscally sound thing to do.
Potential financial risk now include:
1. More laws against manufacture
2. Increased number of lawsuits from victims
I’d say it seems like a good decision to divest itself for its stock holders at this time, especially in light of the current gun buying boom which might be unsustainable long term.
Cerebus probably smells a class action lawsuit or something…Big LAW is itching to take on the NRA; I’m sure criminals can’t wait for law-abiding citizens to be disarmed…
His mother was a law abiding citizen. She purchased the guns.
There is a federal law that immunizes gun manufacturers from lawsuits unless, for example, the gun manufacturer knew or should have known that it was selling guns recklessly.
Considering the guns here were sold to a normal, law-abiding woman, I don’t think this suggested class action would go very far.
From what I’ve read thus far the shooter did not use the AR15…he used two pistols…the Bushmaster was found inside his vehicle in the parking lot.
I’ve read conflicting reports. A more recent article I read said he used the AR-15, while older stories said it was in his vehicle.
I tend to think he used the rifle. Why would he leave it in the car?
Pretty sure coroner said almost all victims shot with a rifle. The weapon found in the vehicle was a shotgun.
At least, this is what is in the news right now.
Because the school had a system where you had to be buzzed in to get in. Walking up with a rifle would’ve set off some alarms I think…much easier to walk up with two pistols concealed than a rifle. The point is….no one knows for sure WHAT weapon was used and here are all these news outlets reporting it as fact and villainizing ONE type of gun and manufacturer….
According to a report I saw, the shooter shot the glass out of the locked school entrance.
I’m not in favor of dramatic gun control, but your thoughts are too simplistic on this issue. “If you don’t like guns, don’t buy them,” is all fine and dandy until someone who does like them shoots you.
The same could be said of alcohol, cars and drunk drivers….or terrorists and planes…or homegrown terrorists and fertilizer…
We all see where incrementalism ends up with govco….give it an inch and it eventually becomes a mile.
The problem is looking to govt for solutions to endemic to the nature of man.
Even Madison accepted the nature of govt, but he thought he could write a document to control & restrain it-unlike Jefferson(for the most part-no question he was a hypocrite-like most of us to some degree).
edit: “problems endemic”
Regardless, it’s a more complicated issue than “if you don’t like guns, don’t buy them.” Because guns affect people that don’t buy them.
I think we are stuck in a difficult position. On one hand there are too many guns and too many gun deaths. On the other hand, the only “meaningful” gun control is to make all but a few disappear — which is not only impossible, but also most people, including myself, do not want. Another ban on “assault weapons” is probably going to be passed in the wake of this tragedy, but the results will be largely symbolic.
Good Ole Boy: being defenseless is the risk one takes when choosing not to arm oneself. If someone dislikes guns enough to accept that risk of defenseless-ness then it’s perfectly fine for them to do so. You’re right, it is simple. Simple to the point that it is stupid to make it any more complex than it has to be.
You’re so right. Those children should have all been armed. And the teachers and administration should have been trained in tactical warfare. I mean, really, it’s more their fault than the shooter’s.
So your solution is that everyone arm themselves?
I think Meow’s post is enough to show how absurd your “simple” solution is.
Meow / Original Good Ole Boy – The conversation is more complex than this, obviously. But there are two scenarios to consider.
The first, current situation: It is tragic on many counts that this even happened. Let’s look at the problems though. A disturbed person with a history of mental illness on medication for such with a mother who (by at least some media accounts) was also unbalanced. This person should not have had the firearms because he was (A) Under 21, (B) Mentally ill and (C) On school grounds. He was already in violation of these three laws. I am not sure how any additional laws would make any difference. Additional gun control laws would not have saved a single life here. However, laws giving teachers the option to carry a concealed firearm after being trained and licensed could have prevent much or even all of this. Look at the mall and the other school incident were legal concealed carry owners quickly ended the situation. Will everyone carry a gun? Of course not – and that is absolutely their right. Should the kids be armed? Of course not – that is just ignorant.
The second scenario is if we had much, much more rigid gun control. Things like this would happen MORE often. Research Florida and their concealed carry program. 5 years after the fact inmates were interviewed and overwhelmingly stated that they now had a real fear that a potential victim may be armed. The result? Lower crime rates. But if you take away firearms than all law abiding citizens will turn them in. People that would violate the law anyhow would not. The result is simply that criminals would feel safer while committing crimes and therefore be more likely to do it.
Look at Great Britain – gun control for generations yet a higher per capita violent crime rate than the U.S. Look at Australia with it’s fairly recent gun control actions. The gun related crime rate has dropped by about 1/4. The violent crime rate has actually increased by 11%. Gun control does not work. Look closer to home. Which cities/states have the most rigid gun laws? D.C., Chicago, NYC, N.J., Detroit, L.A. Which have the hughes gun related and violent crime rates? Same list.
Let’s have an honest conversation here. The underlying causes of violence – mental illness, lack of personal responsibility, acceptance of violence in EVERYTHING with little parental intervention, etc. Gun control is addressing a symptom, it is not addressing the root cause. Then the other side of that has to do with people that do in fact violate existing laws. They almost always have reduced sentences and are allowed back out on the streets. Even while in prison they get cable TV, Internet, etc. Look at France – no capitol punishment but the prison conditions are so bad that a 10 sentence is almost equivalent to a death sentence. We have TONS of gun laws on the books. Let’s enforce those. Lets make criminals serve every minute of jail time. Let’s make jail hell on Earth to deter criminals.
We do not need to change our gun laws…but we do need to change.
My opinion is this.
The guy who shot up the school was a crazed lunatic, no ifs, ands, or buts. Crazed lunatics WILL find any method they feasibly can to kill as many people as they can. Elementary school kids are not grown adults, they can’t fight back, they can’t escape to the same degree as an adult might be able to. Assault rifle, semi-auto pistol, knife, bomb, they’re all pretty much lethal in an attack like this.
The other part is normal criminal activity with guns. Unfortunately, according to this DoJ study, nearly 40% of inmates who had a gun with them during the commission of a crime got it through illegal or street sources, and nearly 40% got it through a family or friend. This means that only about 20% of those inmates got their guns by purchasing it themselves. Illegally obtained guns are usually stolen from law abiding gun owners, usually having their serial numbers filed off.
Are there things we can do? Yes. We need to address what makes crazies lash out like this, and there’s a lot of things that contribute. The 24/7 sensationalist news media certainly gives them a platform for it. Psych drugs with severe side effects contribute, as does inadequate access to mental health treatment. There’s no easy way to solve it.
The other part is granting legal, sane, lawful gun owners to carry, and to carry in more places. Have an armed security guard or resource officer at each school. Allow teachers or principals who have undergone the proper training to carry. Work on improving the ability for teachers to report attacks so that law enforcement can arrive faster.
If there are sensible gun control provisions, bring them forward and let them be judged on their merits, but otherwise let decent citizens carry and don’t further restrict those who actually follow the laws of the land.
Damn, forgot the /b. Also, didn’t link the actual study. Here ya go:
It lists results from 1991 and 1997, and the number of illegally obtained sources jumped pretty significantly over those 6 years.
Fact: Thirty-nine states, comprising the majority of the American population, are”right-to-carry” states. Statistics show that in these states the crime rate fell (or did not rise) after the right-to-carry law became active (as of July, 2006). Nine states restrict the right to carry and two deny it outright.
Fact: Crime rates involving gun owners with carry permits have consistently been about 0.02% of all carry permit holders since Florida’s right-to-carry law started in 1988.
Fact: After passing their concealed carry law, Florida’s homicide rate fell from 36% above the national average to 4% below, and remains below the national average (as of the last reporting period, 2005).
Fact: In Texas, murder rates fell 50% faster than the national average in the year after their concealed carry law passed. Rape rates fell 93% faster in the first year after enactment, and 500% faster in the second. Assaults fell 250% faster in the second year.
Fact: More to the point, crime is significantly higher in states without right-to-carry laws
Fact: States that disallow concealed carry have violent crime rates 11% higher than national averages.
Fact: Deaths and injuries from mass public shootings fall dramatically after right-to-carry concealed handgun laws are enacted. Between 1977 and 1995, the average death rate from mass shootings plummeted by up to 91% after such laws went into effect, and injuries dropped by over 80%.
Smirks, while many of those guns were obtained either illegally or from friends, they are often originally bought from people who themselves bought several dozen on a road trip to “the big gun store down I-95.” Many of the illegal guns were legally bought with the intention of being sold on the black market. So if there are additional restrictions at point of sale, it will reduce the amount available down stream to those who buy them illegally.
I am not in favor of dramatic gun control, but I have no problem with reasonable gun control — i.e. background checks, reasonable waiting periods and reasonable limits on the amount of guns and ammo you can buy in a month.
As to “assault weapons,” there are so many full-capacity magazines in circulation that I’m not sure further regulation would do much good. I do think, however, that it should be more difficult to buy a semi-auto AK than it is to buy a double-barrelled shotgun, for example.
In my opinion it should be an automatic federal offense to steal or possess a stolen firearm, 15 years with no parole.
Thank you for this post and Merry Christmas.
Woah, holy crap. I think I’ve heard this story. I think she was on the show “I Survived.” Could be wrong.
Powerful story. Thanks for posting that.
I pose a genuine, non-judgmental question: Of what value is the ownership of assault rifles to our society?
I’m a hunter. I own a Benelli Nova 12 gauge shot gun and a Remington 700 7 mag rifle. I don’t hate all guns, but I do believe it is time we reassess our society’s values regarding guns through mature, logical discourse.
That shotgun could be extremely fatal in close quarters, the rifle could be used on rooftops. Both weapons have been used several times in the past by crazies to kill plenty of people.
We can ban ARs, place limits on magazine capacities, place limits on calibers, require special licenses/permits for ownership, require all kinds of checks and waiting periods before letting people buy guns, force them to register their guns, put serial numbers on bullets and track those. That way, when a regular citizen FINALLY gets a gun and some bullets to go target shooting, someone can break into their house in the middle of the night, steal his gun, sell it, and that buyer go rob a bank a week later with it, or their deranged child can grab it and go shoot up their local mall with it.
I feel safer already.
As to assault rifles, they really have no value to society other than the entertainment they provide to those who shoot them at target ranges.
Meow – What is the value of owning a 2013 Mustang Cobra GT-500 with well over 600 horsepower and the ability to nearly triple the fastest legal speed limit in the U.S.? Not trying to be an a** about it, but where do you seriously draw that line? As someone with an extensive military background there isn’t much that can NOT be used to kill and even more that can be used in excess of legal limits. You going to impose a 2 drink maximum at bars? Alcohol directly and indirectly kills many times more than what guns do. You going to impose calorie restrictions on…oh wait…Bloomberg. You get my point. To answer your question, as a former Marine I enjoy owning and shooting a Government Model AR-15 A2 as it most closely resembles the M-16 A2 I carried in combat. While I do not hunt, I know many who use AR’s to hunt. The swappable upper allows a range of calibers. In addition, former military people today were taught to use the M-16/AR platform effectively. As these people come back to the U.S. and do hunt, which rifle do you think they would feel most comfortable shooting? And of course it all comes back to the fact that a tiny fraction, less than 0.001%, of firearms and magazines are used in crimes. So everyone else now must take responsibility for an extreme minority when we are not bothering to address the underlying fundamental problems?
“I pose a genuine, non-judgmental question”
“I do believe it is time we reassess our society’s values regarding guns through mature, logical discourse.”
but you also posted:
“You’re so right. Those children should have all been armed. And the teachers and administration should have been trained in tactical warfare. I mean, really, it’s more their fault than the shooter’s.”
lol-you may have trouble finding people to have that debate with you. But that’s just a guess on my part.
In fairness, his second statement was in response to a silly assertion.
Once again the NRA is turning rational discussion into lunacy, and now they have even gotten to those I would consider capable of rational thought.
Lets get something off the table. NO ONE IS TALKING ABOUT BANNING PRIVATE GUN OWNERSHIP. NO ONE IS TALKING ABOUT REPEALING THE 2ND AMENDMENT. We are talking about regulating the exercise of a Constitutional Right. You know, the way you guys regulated the Constitutional Right to vote.
A reasonable start would be as follows:
We need guns to be registered by owner and type. You know just like cars. Everyone who owns a gun should be requred to have a gun ownership license, take a test on safety and use, and gun laws; and show the ability to properly use the weapon to an officer. You know, just like getting a drivers license. Every state needs to require a background check to get a gun ownership license. Gun shops must make a copy of your gun ownership license before selling you a gun. Private owners should transfer guns by signing over the registration, and you can only sign over the registration to a licensed gun owner. The license should have to be renewed regularly, just like a drivers license. You should have to be 16 years of age to obtain a gun license, just like a drivers license. The Gun owner should be held liable for any damages if they allow their gun to be used by an unlicensed person. It should be a crime for a person without a license to be in possession of a gun and guns found in the possession of an unlicensed person should be confiscated.
We need mandatory reporting when a gun is lost or stolen(i.e. within 48 hours of discovery). Failure to to timely report should carry a hefty fine.
We need to restrict access to assault rifles. In regard to assault rifles, we need to require a more intense background check and mandatory special use and safety training to obtain a license to own an assault rifle. We need an annually renewable license with annual background check, and a prohibition on allowing anyone who has not attended the mandatory training the use of you assault rifle. If anyone who is not licensed to own an assault rifle is found in the possession of an assault rifle, the rifle needs to be confiscated and the owner fined, unless he can prove the weapon was stolen. Owners of Assault Weapons should be required to prove the ability to reasonably secure the weapon, for example proof of a gun safe or other reasonably secure location that is checked on a regular basis.
Guns need to be treated by the court system the same as any other inherently dangerous products. That means anyone who manufactures guns or sells guns will have some liability for damage caused by those guns, just like manufacturers of explosives and other dangerous products. Manufacturers should consider moder technology, like placing chip in each gun that allows it to be identified even if the serial number is removed. The chip should send a signal if it removed illegally. The chip could also be activated if the gun is stolen or lost. You know, like your IPhone.
Likewise individual owners of guns should be held financially liable for damages caused by the use of their gun if they failed to properly secure the gun.
Owning and operating a gun should be at least as regulated as owning and operating a car.
Persons with a criminal record and those with a history of mental illness should not be issued a license to own a gun.
“Owning and operating a gun should be at least as regulated as owning and operating a car.”
I don’t have to renew my driver’s license annually! Everything you are saying is bureaucratic BS that won’t solve a thing. All of the licensing in the world will not stop a criminal from obtaining the weapon illegally and using it…The only thing you accomplish with your “ideas” is a way for the lawyers to go after law abiding citizens in the event their weapons are stolen or used for malicious purposes. There is no fool proof way to store a weapon. Go on youtube and watch how quickly and easily two men can break into the average safe-they can do it in minutes! The average citizen should not have to invest in $1000 safe in order to own a firearm!
You’re ideas about chips and iPhone technology is equally ludicrous. If all weapons were required to have these “chips” then all criminals would know where they were and would remove them. Not to mention that this would just be another “tax” meant to price firearms out of the reach of anyone which is what liberals want anyway.
Sorry in advance for the wall of text.
We need guns to be registered by owner and type.
Has absolutely no use in controlling guns except to let the government know what you have, which can be quite shitty if government becomes oppressive.
The best this could offer is that if someone committed a crime that would make them ineligible to own guns, the cops would know how many weapons they (may) have in their possession and confiscate them. That doesn’t stop them from illegally hiding or obtaining a gun.
We need mandatory reporting when a gun is lost or stolen(i.e. within 48 hours of discovery).
Someone may have to back me up on this, but I believe there is a worry that someone could be found negligent concerning this law for not knowing their gun was lost/stolen for a prolonged time. The gun being reported as lost/stolen won’t matter much if the serial number is filed off, and a police report won’t stop someone from shooting people with it, or really help catch who stole it that much more than current law.
We need to restrict access to assault rifles.
So, we shouldn’t BAN assault rifles? That is exactly what Feinstein is going to propose, and Obama agrees with it.
Again, having to get licensed just to own one is tantamount to gun registration, which I don’t agree with. Increased levels of background and mental health checks may be a little justified, but honestly, that won’t stop a whole lot. Gun safes are nice but telling people they have to use them doesn’t make them use them, nor does telling them to check them regularly make them do so. Maybe the liability of that failure should be taken into consideration in some cases, but that’s hard to say for all cases.
Guns need to be treated by the court system the same as any other inherently dangerous products. That means anyone who manufactures guns or sells guns will have some liability for damage caused by those guns
Absolute horseshit. So gun companies should be held liable for anything anyone does with their guns? We do that kind of shit to tobacco companies because the end result of their product is what it is, and undeniably or unavoidably so. Gun manufacturers have no fucking clue who is going to use their product or to what end, nor would any of them want their products used for indiscriminate killing. They have shown zero criminal intent. How the hell do they get pulled into this?
And gun sellers? What the hell? Punish them if they don’t follow the letter of the law in selling their merchandise, but otherwise they are following the rules that the government set up for them to use. If anyone is negligent then, it is the government itself. You’re basically saying “Well your product is still dangerous, and even though you did everything we wanted you to before selling it, it’s still kinda sorta your fault.”
Manufacturers should consider moder technology, like placing chip in each gun that allows it to be identified even if the serial number is removed. The chip should send a signal if it removed illegally. The chip could also be activated if the gun is stolen or lost.
Hells bells this is getting ridiculous. RFIDs, LoJack in every gun? What kind of nanny-state fuckery is this? Chips can be removed or rendered useless using certain methods, and I’m sure any kind of tracking technology could be killed along with it using the same methods. Also, unless it is an RFID, it will need a battery, and thus a power source. Where are you going to get that? And yes, this could easily turn into government being able to track all of your guns. You think Uncle Sam won’t ask for access to this stuff? Nah, Sam just likes peeking into your emails and listening to your calls without warrants, and the power to jail you forever at its own discretion, it’d never go THAT far!
Likewise individual owners of guns should be held financially liable for damages caused by the use of their gun if they failed to properly secure the gun.
Your gun got stolen? You failed to properly secure it. Any scumbag lawyer fresh out of law school will be able to argue that point. Being overly negligent is one thing, but there’s plenty of scenarios where a gun can be stolen even with someone taking many precautions. Gun safes aren’t impenetrable you know.
Owning and operating a gun should be at least as regulated as owning and operating a car.
Wrong. The reason we regulate driving is because you put others’ life and property at risk when you drive. Owning a gun by itself does not necessarily put others in danger. You’re treating anyone that owns a gun like a criminal right off the bat.
We DO regulate people who carry guns in public. Most states have a “will-issue” or “may-issue” law concerning open-carry or concealed-carry. People who carry in public do pose some risk to life or personal property because they have a higher propensity to have to use it in public areas.
I myself had to take a training course (teaches about guns and gun laws, tests retention of this knowledge, puts you through a firing range test to check for accuracy), submit fingerprints, be given an extensive background check, and pay a fine. I then had to wait 4 months (yes, really) to get my CWP, which allows me to carry into a very limited number of areas.
I don’t fuss much about what I had to do to obtain the CWP, most of that is fairly sensible (except maaaybe the fingerprinting). My biggest complaint is the amount of restriction for where I can carry. Point being, those steps are because yes, as a concealed carry permit holder, if I exercise that right, there’s no way in hell I’m not liable for what I do.
However, barring negligence and accessory to a crime, it isn’t my fault if someone manages to steal my gun and shoot someone with it. It shouldn’t be my fault if someone jacks my car at gunpoint and runs someone over as they flee from the cops, either. Or should it? They need to sue Ford and the dealership too, I guess.
Persons with a criminal record and those with a history of mental illness should not be issued a license to own a gun.
Persons with a criminal record and those with a history of mental illness aren’t supposed to be able to buy a gun. When I bought my gun, SLED was given a 72-hour window in which they could run a background check and deny the sale. How is that not adequate?
Besides that, again, what stops that criminal or crazy from just grabbing their relative’s gun? What stops them from stealing one, or buying a stolen one?
All of this does little to nothing to stop determined criminals from obtaining weapons and just makes it that much more of a ridiculous pain in the ass for me or anyone else here who hasn’t broken one goddamn law to own a gun. If all of this shit came to pass I’d gladly sell my gun. Why the hell would I want it? Constant checks to make sure it didn’t get stolen, have to get a permit just to own one, have to have some tracking device attached to it, if it gets stolen I’m liable for whatever happens with it? Fuck that. I’d rather invest in some good life insurance instead and if it comes down to it, just get shot.
But hey, at least no one will be able to steal my gun then!
You are wrong. Smirks is right.
Once again the NRA answer is we can’t stop crooks from getting guns no matter how hard we try and no matter what we do, so the only answer is do nothing. Encourage everyone to be armed all the time, because nothing addresses gun violence better than more guns.
To shorten your answer down, its better for some people to die than for me to be inconvenienced by having to do the same thing it takes to get a drivers license.
As for the difference between a car and a gun your argument is bogus. Every time you drive a car you endanger the lives of others. Every time you load a gun you endanger the lives of others. Under your theory, untill someone is injured we should simply trust you to drive a car.
The other fallacies of your arguments are equally clear.
First, what percentage of people killed with guns last year were killed with stolen guns?
While we can’t get an answer to this, I would bet the percentage of people killed last year with guns stolen from a gun safe would be near zero.
The purpose of registration and licensing is so that we can get guns out of the hands of people most of us would agree should not have guns. People with a history of domestic violence, People with a history of mental health issues, people with a criminal record, people who allow people who are violent or who have mental health issues to live in their home. People who have convicted felons living in their home. People who refuse to properly secure their weapons from theft and from those living in their home.
We don’t effectively have that now. For example there is no waiting period or background check in SC if you want to buy a gun from a private citizen or even at a gun show. There is no system for identifying people who have guns and who have committed acts of domestic violence or developed mental health issues since they acquired their guns. We have no way of knowing whether people who acquire guns have people guilty of domestic violence or with mental health issues living in their home. We don’t even have a way of knowing whether people with assault rifles have mentally deranged violent criminals living in their homes or for that matter became mentally deranged violent criminals after they bought a gun.
Lets apply this to the case at hand. If the Mrs. Lanza had been requred to apply for a license to own her assault rifle every year, that license could have been denied when the son living with her was diagnosed with mental illness. She would have been forced to sell her assault rifle, and no assault rifle would have been in the house for her son to take. All of those children may be alive today. We simply can’t trust people to voluntarily give up their guns when they have a problem child in the house or to even tell us they have a problem child in proximity to a gun. But if they do, they should not have a gun.
Licensure and registration are reasonable regulations of your constitutional right to bear arms that does not prevent law abiding citizens from owning guns.
Regarding security. If you fail to properly secure your gun, and its taken by someone else who shoots me, you should be liable. We can have a discussion of what proper security is, but you are not innocent in that case. I am. I’m dead or injured and its partially your fault. You left the gun in the desk next to where your 17 year old son and his drug addict buddy play video games. Or like my dad when I was growing up. In the top drawer of your dresser and the hall closet.
The lack of reasonable regulation leads to extreme results. Assault rifles are an example. We are discussing banning those rifles. But we would not need to if we had a way to know who had those rifles, that they were trained in their use, that we had no reason to believe they might use them to injure others, and that they had a way to secure the rifle so that others could not get to the rifle without great difficulty. i.e. you need a big gun safe and it needs to be inspected to assure it is being properly maintained and used. Since I have a big gun safe, I simply don’t buy the argument a lot of guns are stolen from gun safes.
“Persons with a criminal record and those with a history of mental illness aren’t supposed to be able to buy a gun. When I bought my gun, SLED was given a 72-hour window in which they could run a background check and deny the sale. How is that not adequate?”
The rule does not apply to sales of guns by private citizens or at gun shows. In SC it is not illegal for me to sell my semi-automatic assault rife to a gang member. I don’t have to tell anyone I sold it, or to whom it was sold.
Another reason for registration and licensure is to prevent private citizens from legally selling guns to people who should not have guns.
Regarding the Chip. I don’t buy the argument. Chips are cheap and can easily be place in fire arms in a way that it is difficult to remove them without damaging the weapon. While a determined intelligent criminal can probably find a way to disarm the chip, at least we know the last location of the gun, and a lot of dumb crooks would not be smart enough to do it. Thousands of cars a year are recovered because they have a tracking device on them.
As for keeping your gun stash hidden so you can resist the army when they come to take you away, this is not 1776 or even 1876. You don’t own a gun that is going to allow you to resist. Especially if you can’t own an assault rifle. Civilian guns are worthless against armored personnel carriers, tanks, and drones.
What stops that criminal or crazy from just grabbing their relative’s gun? What stops them from stealing one, or buying a stolen one? Requiring people who own guns to properly secure them will over time reduce gun thefts, and the number of illegal guns in circulation. If you let a unlicensed relative use your gun, you lose your right to own a gun. If your relative steals your gun, its up to you to report the theft. These things are not that hard. A lot of people are letting their criminal relatives use their guns.
Let’s take the guns away from the real killers – the US Military -our Government sponsored murder of harmless non combatant Afghanis and Iraquis makes Newtown look minor. Let’s see you cry about that, Barak.
Dumping such companies represents a potential bargain because buyers can rename them and their products and press on.
Sales will be strong and increase as gun confiscation legislation builds momentum, so expect no reduction in the number of weapons available to citizens.
The last time the wind changed, many businesses stocked up on “pre ban” weapons and components. They aren’t stupid.
>The “news” reports are ambiguous. The police are still investigating. It is pathetic Obama politicized this tragedy before the funerals. What is the obsession with the leftist wackos about guns and ammunition?
The New York Times
December 18, 2012
Wall Street, Invested in Firearms, Is Unlikely to Push for Reform
By ANDREW ROSS SORKIN – DealBook Column
Stephen A. Feinberg, founder of Cerberus Capital.
Haraz N. Ghanbari/Associated PressStephen
5:25 a.m. | Updated
Following the publication of this column, which was critical of the role of private equity firms’ ownership of gun manufacturers, Cerberus announced that it was planning to sell its stake in Freedom Group. “It is apparent that the Sandy Hook tragedy was a watershed event that has raised the national debate on gun control to an unprecedented level,” Cerberus said in a statement on Tuesday.
As the debate over gun control rages following the horrific tragedy in Newtown, Conn., one unlikely group is expected to play a central role in pushing back against any reform effort: the private equity industry.
It is often overlooked, but some of the biggest gun makers in the nation are owned by private equity funds run by Wall Street titans. The .223 Bushmaster semiautomatic rifle that was used on Friday by Adam Lanza to massacre 20 schoolchildren was manufactured by the Freedom Group, a gun behemoth controlled by Cerberus Capital Management, named after the three-headed dog of Greek myth that guarded the gates of Hades. Its founder, Stephen A. Feinberg, hunts regularly on the weekends with a Remington Model 700.
Besides Cerberus, Colt Defense, a spinoff from the manufacturer of the .44-40 Colt revolver made famous by John Wayne, is jointly owned by Sciens Capital Management, a fund advised by the Blackstone Group and another fund run by Credit Suisse.
On Colt Defense’s Web site, it markets weapons for law enforcement and the military, including a 9-millimeter submachine gun that looks like something out of the video game Call of Duty. These are weapons you hope never fall into consumers’ hands.
And then there is MidOcean Partners, a private equity firm that once owned the diet company Jenny Craig that now controls Bushnell Outdoor Products. Bushnell makes just about everything for a gun except the gun itself, for both the hunting and “tactical” markets.
Need a laser scope for your semiautomatic handgun? Bushnell makes one called the Tactical Red Dot: First Strike. How about military-grade night-vision goggles? Yep, it has a subsidiary that makes them.
Looking for a “loader” for your AK-47? It has you covered. Or what about a magazine for bullets? One of its subsidiaries sells the Hot Lips 10-Round Magazine, which is marketed this way: “Put 10 rounds through your 10/22 faster than the blink of an eye, and reload with amazing ease.” (Really, folks. It also makes a 25-round version.)
Perhaps it should not be a surprise, but Wall Street will hardly take a leadership position in the conversation about gun control. The more vocal stances could come from pension funds questioning their investments in gun makers, though they may be loath to take a stand.
Since the killings on Friday, the Freedom Group and other notable gun manufacturers have not commented on the tragedy — not even a basic, “We condemn such violence and pray for the families of Newtown.”
When I called Mr. Feinberg, he declined to comment, as did others. About a year ago, the National Rifle Association issued this statement about Freedom and Cerberus: “The owners and investors involved are strong supporters of the Second Amendment and are avid hunters and shooters.”
Cerberus and other funds with ownership stakes in the gun industry would be in an awkward position if they sought reforms that could hurt their investments. Cerberus invests money in companies like Freedom for other investors, including public pension funds. It has a fiduciary duty to maximize investors’ returns.
However, some of its investors may be rethinking their position on investing in companies like Freedom, which was used as an acquisition vehicle to buy up brands including Remington Arms, as well as Bushmaster Firearms and DPMS Firearms, a leading maker of military-style semiautomatics.
The California State Teachers’ Retirement System, which has a stake in Freedom through a $751.4 million investment in Cerberus’s funds, said Monday it was reviewing its investment. “At this point our investment branch is examining the Cerberus investment to determine how best to move forward given the tragic events of last Friday in Newtown, Conn.,” the company said in a statement to Reuters.
Private equity firms have a long history of investing in “sin” companies, including guns, alcohol, gambling and tobacco, in part because the companies often are inherently discounted. Kohlberg Kravis Roberts acquired RJR Nabisco in 1988; the R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company was later spun off.
On Monday, Eliot L. Spitzer, the former governor of New York and the former New York State attorney general, called on Cerberus’s investors to pressure it to try to reform the gun industry.
“While Cerberus, whose array of holdings is vast, is generally immune to public pressure and the opprobrium of trafficking in products that while legal may be marketed in a loathsome way, Cerberus would not be immune to pressure brought by its own investors,” he wrote on Slate.
He added: “Every student at a university should ask the university if it is invested in Cerberus. Every member of a union should ask their pension-fund managers if they are invested. Information is the key first step. From there, action will quickly follow.”
If Mr. Spitzer is right, the economic impact of such reform may be painful for its investors. About two years ago, when Freedom sought to pursue an I.P.O. (which was later shelved) it identified gun control as one of its biggest “risk factors.”
“The regulation of firearms and ammunition may become more restrictive in the future and any such development might have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations or cash flows,” the company told potential investors. “In addition, regulatory proposals, even if never enacted, may affect firearms or ammunition sales as a result of consumer perceptions.”
A version of this article appeared in print on 12/18/2012, on page B1 of the New York edition with the headline: Gun Reform Not a Cause On Wall St.
Chicago Shootings Spike 49% In November Despite Strict Gun Laws
There were 192 shootings in Chicago throughout the month of November – a 49 percent increase from a year earlier – according to police records obtained by the Chicago Tribune.
In November of 2011, Chicago recorded 129 shootings compared to the 192 shootings this November. Police records also reveal that shootings increased more than 11 percent in the first 11 months of 2012 compared with a year earlier.
Total homicides in Chicago rose to 480 for the first eleven months of 2012; a 21 percent increase from last year. On November 30, 2012, there were four fatal shootings within the city. These murders brought the homicide total to 38 for the month, just above the 37 recorded in November of last year.
Despite having some of the strictest gun laws in the country, Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel plans on restricting gun ownership further by banning individuals with a violent misdemeanor conviction from getting a gun permit for five years. The mayor also hopes to ban convicted felons from ever owning a gun.
Emanuel’s intentions are no doubt well intentioned, but like many cities with strict gun laws, the disarming of law-abiding citizens doesn’t remove guns from the hands of those who wish to do harm. On the contrary, it often leaves innocent victims vulnerable to criminals.
CNSNews.com previously reported that a gun-rights group said that Mayor Emanuel bears some responsibility for the murder rate because of the strict gun-control laws there:
“Rahm Emanuel has some blood on his hands,” said Alan Gottlieb, chairman of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, in a statement.
“He and the city council have done everything possible to prevent law-abiding Chicago residents from exercising their restored Second Amendment rights in the two years since the Supreme Court’s landmark McDonald ruling.”
In June 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5-4 against a handgun ban in the city of Chicago in McDonald v. Chicago.
Four days later however, the Chicago City Council adopted the Responsible Gun Owners Ordinance. This requires prospective gun owners to take a firearm safety course at a gun range in order to obtain a permit to own a gun in a home. The city also placed a virtual ban on gun ranges.
The Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms says that the Chicago City Council has been blocking Chicagoans from obtaining handguns and range-training; the result being that law-abiding citizens are left defenseless.
The Constitution grants all law-abiding Americans the right to bear arms, regardless of what some would lead you to believe. Our Second Amendment right is a fundamental freedom and a cornerstone of our democracy.
As Americans, we have the right to defend ourselves, our families and our property, and the federal government should never interfere with this right. I’ve cosponsored more than half a dozen bills protecting the rights of gun owners, including the Firearms Interstate Commerce Reform Act and the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act.
I remain steadfast in my commitment to uphold our Second Amendment rights.
US Senator Tim Scott (R-SC)
The Wall Street Journal
December 18, 2012
After Shooting, New Pressure on Thriving Gun Industry
By JAMES R. HAGERTY, ANN ZIMMERMAN and SHARON TERLEP
America’s thriving gun industry, which has been riding high on a surge in sales, is under increasing pressure in the wake of Friday’s elementary school massacre.
Private-equity firm Cerberus Capital Management is seeking to sell the company that manufactures a gun used in last week’s shooting in Connecticut. David Benoit has details on Markets Hub.
Responding to a national wave of revulsion over the 27 murders in Newtown, Conn., retail chain Dick’s Sporting Goods Inc. on Tuesday suspended sales of semiautomatic rifles at its 480 stores, while Wal-Mart Stores Inc. WMT +0.43% deleted from its website a listing for one such rifle.
Private-equity firm Cerberus Capital Management LP said Tuesday it would try to sell Freedom Group Inc., the manufacturer of the Bushmaster rifle that police say Adam Lanza used in last week’s shootings.
The AR-15, one of the most popular rifles in America, is under scrutiny after police say the weapon was used in the massacre in Newtown, Conn. WSJ’s Jason Bellini reports.
“We have to get control of this,” said Larry Stone, a member of Dick’s board, in an interview Tuesday. Mr. Stone said he fully supported the decision to remove the semiautomatic guns from Dick’s shelves. “I hope other people follow suit,” he said.
Shares of gun makers and some retailers have been affected. Smith & Wesson Holding Corp., SWHC -9.99% whose stock had nearly doubled this year, fell 10% on Tuesday to $7.79. Shares of Sturm, Ruger RGR -7.73% & Co. fell 7.8% to $40.60. Cabela’s Inc., CAB -5.92% a big gun retailer, fell 6% for a second consecutive day; Dick’s stock rose 2%.
The Connecticut School Shooting
On Tuesday, President Barack Obama spoke about gun control with Sen. Joe Manchin (D., W.Va.), a strong supporter of gun rights who has said he is willing to toughen the nation’s weapon laws in the wake of the shooting spree.
The White House had said Mr. Obama would seek stricter gun-control measures, including limits on high-capacity magazines, and would support efforts to prevent people from buying guns through unlicensed dealers without a background check.
The National Rifle Association, breaking days of silence, issued a statement Tuesday saying it is “shocked, saddened and heartbroken” by the Newtown shooting. “The NRA is prepared to offer meaningful contributions to help make sure this never happens again,” it said.
The gun makers and small gun retailers have in the past relied primarily on the NRA to lobby against gun restrictions.
In recent years, U.S. gun manufacturers have enjoyed fast-growing sales amid an easing of various state and federal restrictions. Making guns can be very profitable, with some leading manufacturers recording operating profit margins of 20% recently, according to Rommel Dionisio, an analyst at Wedbush Securities in New York. Large retailers have been expanding their gun offerings both in-store and online.
“Obviously, public sentiment is swinging” on gun controls, though that doesn’t necessarily mean President Obama can win support from a Republican-led House of Representatives on legislation banning assault guns, said Mr. Dionisio.
In the near term, the threat of tighter controls could spur sales as people rush to buy some types of guns before they can be banned. Fear of crime and greater acceptance of concealed weapons may continue to boost sales of pistols, the hottest gun-sales category, Mr. Dionisio said.
Gun sales have soared in the past year, partly because of concern that the re-election of President Obama would mean tougher controls.
In November, the Federal Bureau of Investigation recorded about two million background checks on prospective gun buyers, the highest monthly total ever. That was up from 1.5 million last November and 888,000 in November 2002. These National Instant Criminal Background checks are a rough proxy for gun demand but don’t all correspond to sales.
The market for hunting rifles isn’t growing, said Mr. Dionisio, but demand has been strong for assault weapons since a federal ban on them ended in 2004. The pistol market has been growing rapidly. Federal government data show that about 2.5 million pistols were made in the U.S. in 2011, quadruple the level of 2001. Production of rifles was 2.3 million in 2011, up 77% from a decade before.
The gun industry had been talking up its growth prospects. At an investor conference in March, P. James Debney, chief executive of Smith & Wesson, another big gun maker, pointed to “a much higher level of social acceptance of firearms than ever before.”
Sentiment changed swiftly after the Newtown massacre. Executives at Cerberus sensed they would face fallout over their ownership of Freedom Group. Stephen A. Feinberg, Cerberus’s co-founder and chief executive, is an avid hunter. His father lives in Newtown.
Mr. Feinberg and his colleagues decided that attempting to sell Freedom Group was best because the firm didn’t want to feel compelled to resist stricter gun control measures to protect business goals. On Tuesday morning, the firm released a statement saying its role was to make investments rather than be “drawn into the national debate” on gun control.
It isn’t clear how a sale of Freedom Group now would affect Cerberus, or whether the firm could find a ready buyer. For the third quarter, Freedom Group’s sales rose 20% from a year earlier to $237.9 million. Freedom Group, based in Madison, N.C., makes brands including Remington, Bushmaster, Marlin and H&R. Freedom has described itself as the largest U.S. maker of firearms. It didn’t respond to a request for comment.
Sales at gun manufacturer Sturm, Ruger in the third quarter were up 47% from a year earlier, to $118.2 million. For the nine months ended Sept. 29, it reported net income of $50.8 million, up 72% from the year-earlier period. A spokesman for Sturm, Ruger didn’t return calls seeking comment.
Smith & Wesson, based in Springfield, Mass., said sales in the second quarter ended Oct. 31 jumped 48% from a year earlier to a record $136.6 million. Net income was $21.2 million, compared with a year-earlier loss of $1.6 million. A Smith & Wesson spokeswoman said company officials weren’t available for comment.
For years, gun enthusiasts and hunters bought their weapons mostly at specialty gun stores. More recently, publicly traded chain stores have dominated the sale of guns and ammunition.
Wal-Mart Stores, which has sold guns nearly since its inception in 1962, is the nation’s largest seller of guns and ammunition. The company does not break out data on its firearm sales. Wal-Mart accounted for 15% of Freedom Group’s sales in 2011, according to that gun maker’s annual report.
In the last year, Wal-Mart has begun carrying semiautomatic rifles, including the Bushmaster M4A3. Wal-Mart removed a listing for that gun from its website on Monday. “We remain dedicated to the safe and responsible sale of firearms in areas of the country where they are sold,” a Wal-Mart spokesman said.
Along with suspending the sales of semiautomatic rifles Tuesday, Dick’s also removed all guns from sale and display in the store nearest to Newtown—nine miles away in Danbury.
“We are extremely saddened by the unspeakable tragedy that occurred last week in Newtown,” the company said in a statement on its website. The company, based in Coraopolis, Pa., didn’t return calls for comment.
Last year, one-fifth of the revenue at Cabela’s, a national chain based in Sydney, Nebraska, came from sales of firearms and ammunition. It sells both semiautomatic assault rifles and high-capacity magazines, according to its website, where the magazines are listed under the heading, “Trick out your AR at Cabela’s.” The company didn’t return calls for comment.
— Vanessa O’Connell, Mike Spector, David Benoit and Devlin Barrett contributed to this article.
A version of this article appeared December 18, 2012, on page A1 in the U.S. edition of The Wall Street Journal, with the headline: After Shooting, New Pressure On Thriving Gun Industry.
Time Names Mitt Romney Man of the Year 1912
NEW YORK (The Borowitz Report) — In an extraordinary gesture of recognition for a losing Presidential nominee, Time magazine today named former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney Man of the Year 1912.
In a press release explaining its decision, Time’s editorial board wrote, “Even though his quest for the Presidency was unsuccessful, Mr. Romney’s ideas about foreign policy, taxation, wealth inequality, and women’s rights typified the year 1912 as no one else has.”
In giving Mr. Romney the nod, Time said that he beat out such other candidates for Man of the Year 1912 as Tsar Nicholas II of Russia, Kaiser Wilhelm II of Germany, and Edward Smith, captain of the Titanic.
“It was very close between but Romney and the Titanic guy, but we gave it to Romney because it took him slightly longer to sink,” Time wrote.
Mr. Romney could not be reached for comment, a spokesman said, because he was traveling around the world visiting his money.
Do you preachers think we’re reading multiple screen length posts?
lmao! My thoughts exactly. Good show.
I feel bad when I do one full screen, if I do multiple’s please go ahead and shoot me.
? Should we use a high capacity magazine in an assault rifle to do it?
Did you know you have a six hundred percent greater chance of being stabbed to death than of being murdered with an assault rifle. The FBI know it to be true, the data comes from their own study.
lol @ Colonel, tell you what-if you’re the one doing the coup de grace just make sure I’m zonked out on Quaaludes or something equally entertaining and you can get creative as long as it’s quick.
I think this is the table you are looking for, it’s pretty interesting:
So all the gun haters are after assault rifles, that add up annually to almost an insignificant number of deaths compared to hand guns…lol…brilliant. (btw, that’s not an endorsement for taking hand guns from people either)