In recent corporate presentations, leading gun makers celebrated the fact that consumers bought more firearms because of the December terrorist attack in San Bernardino. And, prior to the massacre at a gay nightclub in Orlando on Saturday night, executives were telling investors to expect another big bump — because of the upcoming elections.
The surge in sales after mass shootings, as we’ve reported, is nothing new: Mass shootings lead to talk of gun control; the National Rifle Association — the gun advocacy group funded significantly by gun and ammunition manufacturers — uses its influence in Congress to block any legislative action; but gun owners, irrationally terrified that the government will restrict or ban firearms, rush out to buy more guns and ammo.
Sturm, Ruger & Co. Chief Executive Michael Fifer, speaking at his company’s annual meeting in May, noted that his company — the largest handgun manufacturer in the U.S. — saw a spike in demand that “was strongly correlated to the tragic terrorist activities in Paris and San Bernardino.” Sales eventually slowed down, but Fifer called that a “big opportunity for the distributors to step up and take on inventory” to be ready for election-related sales.
In February, on an investor conference call, Fifer had predicted that “we’ll see a step up of demand if a Democrat wins” the presidency. And if Democrats win control of the Senate, he added, gun sales will increase dramatically based on fears that a more liberal Supreme Court might restrict gun rights.
Stephen Nolan, executive vice president of Vista Outdoors, a gun distributor, said the election cycle might drive a “mini surge” in sales. Nolan, speaking at the RBC Capital Markets conference earlier this month, noted that “political reaction to the tragedy in San Bernardino” and the talk of “further gun control” appeared to drive recent sales.
Smith & Wesson Chief Executive P. James Debney, speaking at the UBS Global Consumer Conference in March, explained that recent terrorist attacks had pushed firearms “back into the world of politics, talking about increasing legislation in gun control,” which “no doubt” encouraged “a very strong buying period.” He speculated that the election cycle might be having an effect as well.
Following the mass killing on Saturday evening, a number of legislators stepped up calls for gun control legislation. “Congress has become complicit in these murders by its total, unconscionable deafening silence,” said Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., in a statement.
But there is little hope for meaningful gun control legislation this year.
Meanwhile, as CNBC reports, “Shares of gunmakers Smith & Wesson and Sturm Ruger rose 9.8 percent and 3.7 percent, respectively, in premarket trading Monday following the massacre in Orlando, Florida.”
Related:
I find it interesting in the capitalist and terrorist capital of the planet that the gun industry is vilified for wanting to maximize profit. After all what would happen to the small arms industry if violent intensions suddenly vanished? The whole culture of America is infused with violence from the very beginning of the country. So, if politicians want to make the US safe for it’s citizens maybe the govt should quit inflicting violence on any country that doesn’t embrace being exploited or democracy corporate style. The fat hens are coming home to roost, so to speak, so instead of inflicting more misery on the rest of the planet tone it down some and the US citizenry just might be safer in it’s own backyard. This govt has been out of control for far too long and I feel it’s days are indeed numbered and violence will probably keep escalating, after all the US has at least 2-3 hundred million firearms amongst it’s citizenry.
In Friedman vs Highland Park, Thomas wrote “Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles.” That number will rise, post this fucking mess.
Oh and,…
Well we’d just continue selling fully automatic rifles (the real military rifles) to kids in Africa and other parts unknown… which I believe TI has reported that HRC supports, right?
“The greatest purveyor of violence in the world : My own Government, I can not be Silent.” —Martin Luther King Jr.
It’s absurd to think that attitudes of the general population will be altered magically merely by crossing imaginary lines drawn by States, usually established after bloody conflict.
Americans are violent and accepting of violence wherever they are; they will not be less violent anywhere if they cannot be less violent everywhere.
Time to send the second the way of the first and fourth, eh?
Lee, there are a number of people carrying weapons we probably don’t know in huge numbers. Bolt and lever action rifles, and shotguns, are all we should own as citizens. Better chances of a takedown esp with no extra magazines.
That’s an interesting fantasy you have, there. Are you at all concerned that it is totally unrelated both to present reality and to any realistic future that can be projected for America?
Or do you just like living with your fantasy?
Another silly whine about an industry being pleased that sales are increasing/are likely to increase. Don’t like it? Don’t approve? Work for an economic system based upon principles other than endless profit and perpetual growth.
As for the knee-jerk “sales are going up because people are scared new restrictions are coming,” try an alternative: more people are buying weapons to protect themselves as mass shootings are given blood-curdling 24/7 coverage by every media outlet on the planet, including the obvious little detail that the authorities failed to protect the victims.
And while yo report that there is little hope for meaningful gun-control legislation this year, you fail, as stories like this virtually always fail, to note that (1) there is little likelihood of “meaningful” (if the “meaning” is to keep weapons out of the hands of people wanting to use them to harm innocents) gun-control legislation ever passing in the United States, because our culture, our Constitution, many of our state constitutions, and the fact that there are already nearly as many guns in private hands as there are people in the population make such a thing effectively impossible.
I guess I don’t see it so much as a silly whine as a documentation of a perpetuated cycle of myths, corruption and influence peddling that has extremely adverse impacts on public health.
You’re right, the issue is systemic and has little possibility of being rectified through legislation. Unfortunately, the solution isn’t a legislative one, it’s a social one. Like advances in civial rights, the work of exploding the myth that guns promote safety lands largely on the people. Western worship of violence and the way of the gun as solution to conflict is and, hopefully, will continue to be slowly chipped away at.
“Western worship of violence and the way of the gun as solution to conflict is and, hopefully, will continue to be slowly chipped away at.”
I think that’s correct, and I think we need to recognize that it’s going to be a long, slow process.
Meanwhile, the only effective step I think we can take is early and comprehensive intervention and treatment for mental health issues. We know how to do this — our schools of psychology and psychiatry have the tools for treatment and our schools of public health have the surveillance (no need to freak out about this meaning, civil libertarians) and epidemiology skills.
What we don’t have is funding and a societal commitment to address the problem in the only meaningful way we can. We would, apparently, rather spend money on prisons and military adventures.
My characterization of the piece as a “silly whine” is probably just a demonstration of my increasing frustration and disgust at the utterly wrongheaded and perpetually ineffective ways we’ve been approaching the issue. I’m old enough to have been observing it for quite a long time — and also old enough to not always feel inclined to mince words.
Well said.
as i cogitate on this matter, from all perspectives i can muster, it occurs to me that the jihadi whatsits gotta be saying “Americans love this shit!”.
Oh look. Now everyone can be armed and dangerous. Then, when the shooting starts, everyone can shoot back at the person they think is shooting at them. What is this, a twisted effort to reduce the population? Guns are like arsenic. Using either is a dead end. Self defence on a mass scale is self offence.
Using either is a dead end? So shall we just roll over and make sure we’re “armed with reason” the next time a shooter opens fire in a soft target location? You go ahead and start trying to reason with a shooter while they’re busy gunning down people…
I’ll be over here hoping there’s a good guy armed (with a gun) nearby since the Supreme Court has already ruled that you can’t rely on the police to protect you (Warren vs. DC).
better security at the front door is the answer.
look at it this way, one guy fires, then another fires back, a third turns and sees a shootout breaking out, who ya gonna shoot. IT’S NUTS. And you can be easily gamed… IT’S NUTS.
Mr. Fang,
Your biased, loaded ‘reporting’ tarnishes what I find to be an otherwise interesting site. Take this garbage to HuffPo.
P.R.O.P.A.G.A.N.D.A.
ALL THE WAY…
Tel Aviv
Orlando
LA
all in a week of one another…
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2016/06/12/orlando/
Orlando Nightclub Shooting Yet Another False Flag?
http://aanirfan.blogspot.com/2016/06/orlando-shooting-false-flag.html
B7. where are the demolition permits? ;)
The moral I take from this story is prohibition doesn’t work. If the government had never banned marijuana, it would be nothing but a minor human interest story at Latino festivals. And if the government had not declared nightclubs gun-free zones… maybe there would be more like 2 or 3 dead at Pulse.
I feel sleazy even for arguing this now, but I have to. You don’t get to use every big shooting as an opportunity to take away American rights. If gun control made sense, it would make sense without its headline cheerleader from Afghanistan. And the same is true if it doesn’t.
Dongdong– rights to belong to a welllregulated militia condition met? No t just willynilly do what iwant with the most destructive item ever made! Learn how to read, please. Regulation works, it saves lives, wtf is talking “prohibition”? No one!
i am for and against gun rights. it’s complicated.
but if we actually owned and controlled our govt AND our currency (OUR currency system), we would not have these problems.
The new continental congress must be called for and convened.
“But there is little hope for meaningful gun control legislation this year.”
Well, of course not. If 20 dead first-graders weren’t enough to bring meaningful gun control, then, 50 dead faggots won’t, either. As a member of that latter community, I know very well what value that Congress places on our lives, and they will weigh less, in the balance, than the unrestrained right to brandish firearms.
It seems that since the American culture now values competition above anything else, including the value of human life, we can expect another shooting to top that in Orlando. After, what could be more important than being the focal point of Twitter, Facebook or Snapchat?
Having a gun makes a woman more powerful, equal to men; having a gun makes a man have a longer, stronger more powerful dick. Of course, Congress is not going to enact legislation that is against the very law of nature.
American culture now values competition above anything else
That’s it. Competition is not the law of nature. It is the creation of the rothschild currency scheme in use in the US and elsewhere. See, believe, change.
I put my solution out on we the people.
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov//petition/executive-order-requiring-mandatory-surveillance-gun-owners
Combining several of the favorite topics of the TI community. If we are already living in a full surveillance state, it should be no problem to actually define a focus for that surveillance which would actually save lives.
Speak up, Sign the petition!
Good idea. But to be fair and realistic “gun owners” would have to include security detail workers, FBI, police, etc. .. because wasn’t the Orlando shooter a former security guard?
“National Rifle Association — the gun advocacy group funded significantly by gun and ammunition manufacturers…”
I was hoping you would have a better source for that assertion than a piece in “The Huffington Post”. I wouldn’t exactly rely on them as an accurate source of information on this matter. However, they did admit the following:
“While the bond between the NRA and the gun industry has tightened, the NRA’s annual budget of about $250 million is still largely derived from other sources, including membership dues, merchandising and ads in NRA magazines.”
Yes. The overwhelming majority of the NRA’s fundraising comes from membership dues.
The size of the industry donations in the article sound big: e.g. “Brownells is in an elite group of donors that have given between $1 million and $4.9 million since 2005.”
Between $1M and $4.9M? Quite a bit of uncertainty in that estimate. Nevertheless, that’s spread over an 8 year period, so even if it was $4.9 million, it’s a tiny fraction of the annual budget.
Obviously the interests of the NRA and firearms manufacturers will be largely aligned. Anti-gun forces have failed to enact gun control through the legislative process, so going after the manufacturers and sellers is just another way for the them to restrict access to firearms and ammunition. Despite the common interest, claiming that the NRA operates on behalf of the industry as opposed to the membership is categorically false.
I’m not sure I understand the point of this article. Is TI dissing the firearms industry for market forcasting and discussing best practices for meeting customer demand? Show me a firearms manufacturer purposefully arming nut jobs or making political contributions to Democrats in favor of gun control and I might be concerned…
Strangely, I believe the NRA does favor gun control. Their lawyers have said so in court. Which serves the purpose, intentional or not, of boosting sales.
You, apparently, have never been on the receiving end of NRA political correspondence…
Mr. Fang
This was an extreme hate crime with a political and religious motive (terrorism). This is the second article at the Intercept that attempts to deflect from the causes of the horrific terrorist attack in Orlando. First of all, neither article called the Orlando massacre a “terrorist” attack. This must be based on the idea that there was no known political motive for the attack on innocent civilians by a Muslim who – as reported by major news networks – pledged his allegiance to ISIS during the assault. That sounds an awful lot like a political motive to me.
Second of all, it’s not our gun laws or that the FBI is searching for the wrong potential Muslim killers. It doesn’t have anything to do with our support for Israel. Omar Mateen probably doesn’t have a clue about our sanctions on Iraq in the 90’s. These are all common reasons promoted by the Intercept for Islamic “blow-back”. However, Omar’s father, Seddique Mateen appears to be a Taliban supporter (an extreme radical) based on information at the Daily Mail (today):
“…..In videos posted online, he has expressed gratitude toward the Afghan Taliban, while denouncing the Pakistani government……..And in another, according to the Washington Post, he tells the camera: ‘Our brothers in Waziristan, our warrior brothers in [the] Taliban movement and national Afghan Taliban are rising up. Inshallah the Durand Line issue will be solved soon.’……..”
So it is possible that there is a Afghanistan aspect to the killing spree although one must question why a radicalized Muslim opposed to US operations in Afghanistan would pledge allegiance to ISIS if that was the case.
This was also clearly a hate crime to begin with. There are still 10 Muslim majority countries with the death penalty for homosexuality (never reported by the Intercept). While most religions are opposed to homosexuality, Islam is by far the worst. Even Omar’s father said “In a video posted on Facebook early this morning……….his 29-year-old son, Omar Mateen, shouldn’t have gone on the killing spree because ‘God himself will punish those involved in homosexuality’”. Right, let God punish them.
If you pledge your allegiance to ISIS, you have been clearly brainwashed based on their record of brutality directed at civilians and particularly Shiites (and other minorities like the Yazidis). However, an estimated 5000 Muslims have made the trip from western countries to Iraq and Syria to fight on their behalf – so this is not a rare occurrence. Spare me all the garbage about marginalized Muslims in western society who join a murderous terrorist organization to kill. There are lots of poor marginalized people throughout the world. Most don’t join a terrorist organization that specializes in decapitation. Possibly this was motivated by US bombing of ISIS in Iraq and Syria, or related to the US invasion of Afghanistan (if your father supports the Taliban). None the less, this was clearly, in part, politically motivated and therefore “terrorism”.
1st time have read mention about the DurandLine, yes, absolutely hasto go!
“Most don’t join a terrorist organization that specializes in decapitation.”
Yet the US government is happy to sell weapons to an entire country (Saudi Arabia) that decapitates homosexuals.
Indeed.
Yep. Next week… Grenade launchers. Don’t leave home without one.
The gun culture in the US is truly a sick sight to behold.
Have you noticed how it behaves in other countries? It’s exponentially more gruesome though it doesn’t make the news.
Yes, truly sick. 200+ years of a improving republic while the rest of the world sees mass murder over and over by oppressive governments.
After all the Intercept and it’s readers fully trust the government to have ALL the power, right?
You’re wrong. That’s the sight of true and God-given freedom & liberty. That you can’t see that means you’re either blind and can’t see or you’re from…somewhere else. Our gun rights didn’t come nor are they granted from the Govt. Nor can they “legally” infringe on them either. It’s written in stone so get over it. While it may not be perfect in the eyes of others it’s better than anywhere else and we don’t care if you understand it or not because those that are interested in staying free understand it all to well…the 2nd Amendment and guns in the hands of every American who desires one, keeps America free just like they always have and always will. An armed populace is a free populace. Maybe you’ve heard of that concept?
What have we learned from TI, and in particular Fang’s reporting: there is no difference, essentially, between Rep/Dem.
Who is more likely to ban guns: HRC or DJT? Probably neither, really. On that basis it may be fair to state gun owners / 2nd Am hawks are “irrationally terrified that the government will restrict or ban firearms, [and] rush out to buy more guns and ammo”
I further question whether the NRA is even actually for gun rights.
Nevertheless, here we go again right? Somehow magically we can create some kind of law that will do precog policing for us and save us from violence or violent deaths. That is irrational too.
Hillary Clinton has publicly stated that Australia-style weapons confiscation is an idea “worth considering”. There’s no doubt that she is the most extreme anti-gun candidate in this race.
The NRA has compromised too much, but I think they’re now holding the line on gun rights. I don’t like some of the things they have done, but they’re playing the political game the way it’s been set up for them. As an individual, I can take a principled position and support Libertarian candidates. The NRA is basically stuck working within the two party system. They can’t afford to make enemies of both main political parties, so they sometimes have to do distasteful things like supporting Mitt Romney for president.
And she was so pro-gun in 2008 that Obama called her Annie Oakley. She says whatever she thinks she needs to say. She doesn’t believe any of it. She will do what she is paid to do. Nothing more, nothing less.
Let’s do a thought experiment: if 1% of the 360 patrons and one bar tender had their guns on them. Could Omar have murdered 50 of them?
Seriously, think about it. I do understand that many would like to be protected by the benevolent government because protecting the disarmed citizens is government first priority (not!!!) but maybe you should teach yourself to act as responsible, free and proud human beings and take care of yourselves and your immediate family and friends.
By the way, I happen to live in ‘evil’ Pennsylvania where I can have all the guns I want in my house without even a permit and a carry permit costs like $25. I don’t recall last time we locked the doors, except for times we all go out on vacations.
So, yeah, everyone around here and their girlfriend are armed to the teeth and… zero violence, no burglaries, some suicides usually by not so young people whose jobs got outsourced.
“I don’t recall last time we locked the doors, … So, yeah, everyone around here and their girlfriend are armed to the teeth and… zero violence, no burglaries, some suicides …”
Let me take a wild guess, because small town Pennsylvania can’t be too different than the small town Texas I knew. There are no jobs for a dwindling population with no future — just rotting buildings and a tax base teetering on a speed trap. Pretty close, eh? And how did this happen to your godly and militarized paradise? Who voted for that? You and almost everyone you know? Do you like the outcome?
Hmmm…. I dunno…
Seriously, I live about 1 mile from a sky resort, have a 60-ft long swimming pool in backyard – and, yes, there are dozens of kids splashing in in in the summer because not everyone has one.
I don’t see where you got the ‘militarized paradise’ idea. Sure, hunting seasons are big things but hunting does not equal ‘military’.
Are there jobs around? Well… it depends. I have a job that pays well into the six figures. Do we have ‘industry’? Not so much anymore. Old Bethlehem Steel is down to making lighter flints I believe but there’s a lot of energy related stuff now, both natural gas related and wind turbines.
And, yes, we are all sitting on multi-acre, properties. It feels so good not to have to smell your neighbor’s poop, turn up the volume as high as you wish when there’s a party and even camp on your own property in the summer.
Again, everyone’s got guns or at least could have them and there’s no crime or even fear of crime.
Ski not sky.
Mutual fear, neighbor against neighbor, what a great way to live. Mutually assured destruction –MAD– is what they call that mind set in the nuclear arms race. Life in the US had come to this. How many 3 year old’s in your community will accidently shoot themselves with mommy’s gun? How many incidents of domestic violence will turn deadly because of the availability of a gun? You can protect yourself from your neighbor. Who’s going to protect you from yourself?
lol larry :)))
You are making so many assumptions…
Like I said, no murders, not even one since anyone remembers, kids don’t shoot themselves with mommy’s guns and I haven’t heard of any domestic OK Corral firefights.
And, no, I do not protect myself from my neighbor – actually, I only have ONE neighbor within a quarter-mile radius – but we neighbors do care for each other and I do ‘know’ who my neighbors are for 2-3 miles around.
I do understand how possession of firearms can be a problem in overcrowded big cities where people are constantly stressed out and afraid because I lived in rat, crime and cockroach-infested New York for 10 years but, please, don’t assume that everyone has to live the same terrible life that people in big cities must endure.
Hopefully, more people will have the opportunity to escape the urban zoos as telecommuting becomes more mainstream. My office is over 80 miles from where I live but I only show up there physically less than once a week so it’s good because I spent my lunch hour by the pool today, watching the hummingbirds.
Oh, and one more thing.
If Omar came here, I’d be surprised if he could have gunned down more than one or 2 residents or maybe he would have failed completely.
I am no fan of the right, or of guns, but anyone with a brain should be far more concerned with the militarizing of the police and the imperialism of our government.
America is violent nation, we are conditioned to be this way, and have been for decades. Our leaders export war and destruction around the world, yet in America, the little princesses don’t want guns/violence here.
If you are paying attention, this in not a random event but another in a long line of manipulation. Perhaps its used to limit gun rights, and self protection, or its about giving away more of our privacy, most likely it is to promote Zionist efforts to involve the US in Syria, in the guise we are fighting ISIS…I mean who calls 911 to promote ISIS, come on.
The whole cycle has become one huge, demented exercise in greed and stupidity. It’s obscene.
Tragedy aside for a moment, it’s of interest to me in what moves the ‘market,’ the emotional associations and triggers. Paying attention, mindfully, one can read the underlying cultural narratives, understand (competing) cultural values, and see how structures are connected and influenced. This necessitates asking ourselves serious questions and taking actions ‘where we are’ if we desire change.
From ~my~ heart, I intend: peace to the souls of those whose lives were taken, rapid healing to those injured, and a balm of comfort for all those in mourning.
“gun owners irrationally terrified that the government will restrict or ban firearms”
I thought you guys stood for objective, unbiased journalism.
Yes, after decades of disagreeably unavoidable, first hand observations, I can also subjectively say many American gun fetishists habitually express irrational fear and hate. (You can’t miss it if you live in Texas for long enough.) And I am pretty certain the point has been belabored here, at least indirectly, that there has never been nor ever will be any such thing as objective journalism. Do you care to let let anyone know where you believe such a thing is being manufactured?
No kidding. A ban has happened in most of our lifetimes, yet we’re all ‘irrational’ for thinking it could possibly happen again.
Gun control or “Rights” is a divisive issue used to divide and conquer and sale more guns. I live in Maryland strict gun and concealed carry laws and within 3 miles of the Pennsylvania boarder with very opposite gun laws. There is very little difference in gun crime, guns in the hands of the law-abiding makes little difference. Gun and other laws such as murder are not obeyed by criminals or the insane.
Which is why you have to make sure that they can’t get implements of destruction in the first place. It’s amusing how people seem to think that when an anti-gun area is only a few miles away from a pro-gun one, that it’ll make any difference.
Buying a gun to protect oneself from gun violence is like carrying a blow torch to keep safe from forest fires.
That is one foolish analogy… Had any one of the 300 people in that nightclub been armed, the end would have been different. Maybe even armed with a blow torch.
Blow torches are used by firefighters to set backfires, in order to starve the main fire from fuel; a good thing!
They can also be used to start fires. See?
Perhaps, but then there’s this:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2962540/Pharmacist-shoots-kills-masked-armed-robber-counter-conceal-carry-permitted-weapon-failed-heist.html
“Don Radcliff was working at Good Pharmacy in Pinch, West Virginia, on Wednesday when Terry Gillenwater, 25, walked in wearing a mask while eight other customers were in the store.”
I was not their so his call, but if the guy was not an imminent danger I would have given him the money and called the cops; avoiding risk to my customers and self. When you initiate the stakes go up.
In the video: it appears to be a very fluid motion on his part as Radcliff comes in the frame. Armed robber walks in and seemingly seconds later is on the ground. The guy (it would seem) clearly had training to do that.
If we look at armed robbery statistics in WV do you think they went up or down? Accidental shootings up or down? etc..
What I am saying, not necessarily in this case, even if you got the gun and the skill sometimes the best choose is not to engage. Think Dirty Harry when he called the cops and was hoping the “cavalry” would handle the bank robbery before he had to. When to engage is a key part of training.
Your statement sounds excellent if you’re part of the anti-gun cult. It’s also meaningless otherwise.
‘Anti-gun cult’ sounds a bit strange, sort of like being against war is engaging in ‘anti-war cultism’. Guns are offensive weapons, not shields. They are used to kill animals for food and sport, and humans out of fear or vengeance. A six-shooter is technically a weapon of mass destruction.
right on……..