In the last 10 or so months about 70% of the guns I sold in the pawn shop where I work were to first time owners. The down side is that at the same time the ranges were shut down due to COVID-19 restrictions, so there was no where for most to get instruction, practice or learn to enjoy the sport. So I figure a lot of these are destined to become sock drawer guns that will be back in the shop in a year.
A thought about new gun buyers......
- Thread starter rwsmith
- Start date
- Status
A perfect example of the type of new gun buyer we are seeing.many of now, is my deceased father in law. Bought a Beretta 22 semi back in the late 50s. And sometime in the early 80s bought a charter arms 38 snub. Before he passed he gave me both. He had no shells for the 22 and had one box of 38s with 10 shells missing.
I think that's what you'll see with many of these new buyers. That gun, and most of whatever ammo they bought, likely 2 boxes at most, will be handed down some day. There isn't that much money in one to drive a big move to unload them in a year or two.
Robert
I think that's what you'll see with many of these new buyers. That gun, and most of whatever ammo they bought, likely 2 boxes at most, will be handed down some day. There isn't that much money in one to drive a big move to unload them in a year or two.
Robert
cmort666
Member
LVSteve
Member
I'm not. I'll bet there are a lot of new buyers who have yet to shoot their new guns, and have no intention of trying to do so until the front door gets kicked in. Practice takes time and money.
cmort666
Member
...and ammunition.
cmort666
Member
From the people advocating these things. Have you not been paying attention?
The desire for a ban on "semi-automatic weapons" has been repeated ad nauseum for DECADES. There is EVERY likelihood that we could see one in the next six months.
Are you denying that there is a VERY vocal constituency for such a ban, with very likely the legislative ability to effectuate it?
Or are you denying that a Glock 19 (or an M1911, or a P-38) is a semi-automatic firearm?
How do you feel about magazine bans?
How about confiscation of AR15s? That's EXPLICITLY on the table.
Or were all of these things said in "jest"?
Last edited:
I disagree, and you haven't cited a credible source, just the rampant unfounded paranoia in the public zeitgeist . . .
Last edited:
cmort666
Member
That's like saying "I disagree with the sunrise".
You get to have your own opinions.
You don't get to have your own facts.
The facts are not your friends in this.
I'm reminded of a guy in a beret talking about how American tanks would never enter Baghdad... as American tanks roll past in the distance, live on camera.
The RECORDED statements from just the last two years alone are too numerous to count.
What is your purpose in denying the undeniable?
Joe Biden's Plan to End Gun Violence | Joe Biden for President
- Ban the manufacture and sale of assault weapons and high-capacity magazines.
- Regulate possession of existing assault weapons under the National Firearms Act "This will give individuals who now possess assault weapons or high-capacity magazines two options: sell the weapons to the government, or register them under the National Firearms Act."
- Buy back the assault weapons and high-capacity magazines already in our communities.
- End the online sale of firearms and ammunitions. Biden will enact legislation to prohibit all online sales of firearms, ammunition, kits, and gun parts.
- Incentivize state "extreme risk" laws.
- Give states incentives to set up gun licensing programs.
cmort666
Member
You mean the "rampant unfounded paranoia" of the people who are BOTH proposing these things and in days may have the power to effectuate them?
Any time I see somebody denying the existence of YEARS of RECORDED STATEMENTS, I see an agenda at work.
cmort666
Member
Ματθιας;141014820 said:
Are you going to believe your lying eyes or the narrative?
I imagine that at some point contradicting the narrative will make you a prohibited person.
We've already survived this once. The President doesn't pass legislation. At most, we'll see a return of the 1994 law. . .
Ματθιας;141014820 said:
cmort666
Member
But a President and both Houses of Congress DO.
Presidents also sign Executive Orders... like EO9066.
That's like telling a Pole, "At most we'll see a repeat of 1939."
But of course you KNOW they're promising MUCH more and MUCH worse. What's to stop them? Magic wands and fairy dust? Or do you even really want to stop them at all?
What's your purpose in denying ESTABLISHED FACT?
Last edited:
That's not the point. You asked for a credible source, I gave you one.
We only survived the last AWB because there was a sunset clause. There won't be one in the next ban you can bet it will be much, much more restrictive and punitive. The question then becomes, who will comply or become a criminal.
"I believe what I'm told to believe. Don't you"
Charles Manson.
cmort666
Member
No, dismissed without a shred of contrary evidence.
Do you deny that the proponents have said these things?
Do you deny that the proponents are mere millimeters from being able to enact them?
There isn't one IOTA of doubt about what's intended and what's likely coming.
One has to wonder at the motivation for denying it.
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
