Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[petej0]

I think the issue here is that the people who are talking about gun control don't care about the specifics in the bigger picture, but the people defending gun ownership do. I want to put that out there and hear your take on it before going further, if that makes sense. I don't mean it in a hostile way - just as a perspective conversation, fi that makes sense.

That, my friend, is the biggest problem. You cant debate a topic, much less legislate it, if you dont take the time to educate yourself on the specifics. (not YOU, but "you" in general) We have politicians and talk heads either lying or mischaracterizing the capabilities of types of weapons which misinforms your lay person. They use terms like Semi-Auto "assault rifle" as a way to stoke emotions from the uninformed. They constantly confuse Full-Auto with Semi-Auto or mix the two as in Full Semi-Auto. They say things like "Nobody needs a Semi-Auto" fire arm etc.. These are very very very basic terms anyone could research and educate themself on.

One other thing, I hear this alot, is that the uninformed love to comment on the speed you can fire an "assault rifle". Unless modified, the majority of semi-Autos owned by Americans fire at the rate at which the user can pull the trigger. That means that scary "assault rifle" fires at the same rate as a basic hunting rifle.

So...I must ask, if This is ok to own and is functionally the same as This, what are we trying to accomplish?

[Breccia]

The free market has spoken.

Colt ends production of AR-15s for civilians

They have done so, because they're not selling.

Given this level of manufacturing capacity, we believe there is adequate supply for modern sporting rifles for the foreseeable future

Colt's AR-15 is expensive, according to the article I cited and not my personal research. Other AR-15s will probably remain on the market. Of course, I'm no gun owner, so I have no idea if their weapons are worth the price.

You can probably still get one at a gun show.

[Roxinius]

The free market has spoken.



They have done so, because they're not selling.



Colt's AR-15 is expensive, according to the article I cited and not my personal research. Other AR-15s will probably remain on the market. Of course, I'm no gun owner, so I have no idea if their weapons are worth the price.

You can probably still get one at a gun show.

they arent selling because there are cheaper models that are just as good of quality colt priced themselves out of the market

[Stormdash]

The very article that Robert the furry linked in bragging on this said Colt felt there were enough of their ARs in market to satisfy civilian demand and they were focusing on their military backlog.

As a practical matter, Colt is not the brand of choice in the civilian market anyway; overpriced, under featured.

This isn't the triumph you might be hoping out there lol.

[PACOX]

WEST HARTFORD, Conn. (AP) — Gun-maker Colt is suspending its production of rifles for the civilian market including the popular AR-15, the company said Thursday in a shift it attributed to changes in consumer demand and a market already saturated with similar weapons.

The company said it will focus instead on fulfilling contracts with military and police customers for rifles.

“The fact of the matter is that over the last few years, the market for modern sporting rifles has experienced significant excess manufacturing capacity,” Colt’s chief executive officer, Dennis Veilleux, said in a written statement. “Given this level of manufacturing capacity, we believe there is adequate supply for modern sporting rifles for the foreseeable future.”

Veilleux said the company, which emerged from bankruptcy in 2016, remains committed to the Second Amendment. He said the company is expanding its lines of pistols and revolvers.

Despite a national debate on gun control, Colt’s decision seems driven by business considerations rather than politics, said Adam Winkler, a gun policy expert at the University of California, Los Angeles School of Law.

FBI statistics show more than 2.3 million people applied for background checks to purchase guns in August, up from just over 1.8 million in July. Those applications, the best available statistic from tracking gun sales, has have been rising steadily, with a slight decline after Donald Trump was elected president in 2016, something call the “Trump slump.”

Gun sales usually go up when guy buyers feel their access to such weapons are being threatened, Winkler said.

“Given these sales and the history of Colt being a completely disorganized, dysfunctional company that goes into bankruptcy and can’t keep anything going properly, my assumption is that this is a business decision that is being driven by their own business problems,” he said.

Still, Winkler said the company’s decision risks alienating and angering its remaining customer base.

“We’ve seen in the past that when gun manufacturers are viewed to have given in to gun-safety advocates, gun owners will boycott them and really hurt their business,” he said. “If they think a company like Colt is disrespecting their identity or giving in to the other side, Colt’s likely going to see serious damage to its other firearms brands too.”

The debate on gun control has focused in particular on assault-style rifles like AR-15s that have been used in mass shootings.

Democratic presidential candidate and former Texas congressman Beto O’Rourke, whose hometown of El Paso was the site of a shooting in August left 22 people dead, has been pushing for mandatory rifle buybacks over the last few weeks.

“Hell, yes, we’re going to take your AR-15, your AK-47, and we’re not going to allow it to be used against your fellow Americans anymore,” O’Rourke, a said during a Democratic presidential debate this month.

The parents of a young woman killed in the 2017 Las Vegas massacre filed a wrongful death lawsuit in July against Colt and seven other gun manufacturers, along with gun shops in Nevada and Utah, arguing their weapons are designed to be easily modified to fire like automatic weapons.

In Connecticut, gun-maker Remington is facing a lawsuit involving liability for the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting in which a Bushmaster AR-15-style rifle used to kill 20 first graders and six educators on Dec. 14, 2012.

___

Associated Press Writer Lisa Marie Pane contributed to this story from Boise, Idaho.

Copyright © The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

https://ktar.com/story/2748666/colt-...vilian-market/

What do you guys think of gun sellers and manufacturers restricting access to guns without the behest of the government?

[Redwyrm]

https://ktar.com/story/2748666/colt-...vilian-market/

What do you guys think of gun sellers and manufacturers restricting access to guns without the behest of the government?

At this point they are about the only ones that have the power and ability to do anything about getting those types of weapons off the streets. So good on them. Unfortunately the other gun manufacturers will use it as a chance to increase their sales. So we end up at neutral

[Ghostpanther]

First off, this should have been posted in the Mega Thread on gun control, as it is not only about gun control, but guns in general. And it also has been mentioned in that Mega thread today.

But anyway, Colt overpriced their AR-15 when there are just as good, if not better options for a cheaper price. Take the Ruger AR-15, at less then $600 is just as good and only cost about half what a Colt would. Then there is the S&W which is also close to that price range and just as good. Not to mention some more brands which are less then those two and function fine.

[Mistame]

They're basically just saying that there's enough sport rifle manufacturers pumping out product, so they're going to focus on LE/military supply. Nothing wrong with it. Not sure how that qualifies as "restricting access".

[Shadowferal]

pfft...yeah, there are other options out there anyway...however, this doesn't remove AR-15s already in the market, of which there are plenty.

[Ooid]

Ok? It’s not profitable because of market saturation so they’re stopping civilian production. Big whoop.

[Doctor Amadeus]

Yeah this isn't the victory some might suggest, this is a business decision.

[Spectral]

“Given these sales and the history of Colt being a completely disorganized, dysfunctional company that goes into bankruptcy and can’t keep anything going properly, my assumption is that this is a business decision that is being driven by their own business problems,” he said.

That's quite the slam. I'd guess that it's correct though.

[Jonnusthegreat]

https://ktar.com/story/2748666/colt-...vilian-market/

What do you guys think of gun sellers and manufacturers restricting access to guns without the behest of the government?

It was a decision based purely on money, nothing else. Reading further into it sounds like naivety.

[Thekri]

That's quite the slam. I'd guess that it's correct though.

Yep, lol. I liked that part too, and it is completely accurate. Colt has made a shit product for decades now, and only very lucrative government contracts have kept them afloat (Sort of?) because they suck on the civilian market.

So yeah, this isn't any sort of gun policy change, this is just a business that is bad at being a business and trying to save money by withdrawing from a market they couldn't compete in. Don't expect Ruger or Bushmaster to follow.

[Svifnymr]

Colt is one of the only gun manufacturers with a union and has declared bankruptcy quite a few times. It's hard to make enough profit in their situation.

Their AR's have many advantages over other AR15's, but those differences don't matter to most people. The amount of testing and inspection done on their bolt heads is more than most cheaper makers put into their entire guns. Most other makers don't even machine their own parts, and even Colt farms out a lot more than they used to. So, Colt has to maintain a price above $800, and has tried various things in the past to lower the price to no real success. Meanwhile, Ruger and S&W make $500-600 guns that perform just as well, and no one really CARES how many inspections Colt does on their bolts other than the militaries that require such...

But those militaries (US and otherwise) see the value in Colt's process and order from Colt.

So, yeah, Colt had a bunch of AR's sitting at the distributors. They told the distributors they were just not going to keep cranking them out to sit there in a warehouse. They will focus on filling other contracts and if the civilian market rebounds or they need to, they can swap over and make more rifles later.

It's just $.

[PhaelixWW]

The free market has spoken.

They have done so, because they're not selling.

Why do people even bother to link articles that they don't even bother to read?

Literally TWENTY words into the article, you have:

Colt cites excess market capacity as its reason for shutting down the line...

As in: There are so many manufacturers making AR-15 models now, because they're so popular, that it's hard for Colt to maintain a competitive market share with their good but ultimately overpriced product.

[Adam Jensen]

Yeah this isn't the victory some might suggest, this is a business decision.

Yep.

There's nothing "liberal" about this. Definitely sounds more like "we're not getting as much revenue from this" and a lot less like "we don't like guns anymore."

[Breccia]

it's hard for Colt to maintain a competitive market share with their good but ultimately overpriced product.

So...what you're saying is...they're not selling?

[PhaelixWW]

So...what you're saying is...they're not selling?

No, what I'm saying is that there are many others, selling much better.

Are you suggesting that you can't comprehend the distinction?

[Bryntrollian]

I guess it's hard when you're trying to sell a product that is 2x more expensive than your competition in such an overcrowded market.