Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

Tophat665 · 11-21-2003, 05:44 PM

OK, let's look at it this way: With cigarettes, there are only so many people of legal smoking age, only so many of whom smoke, and one can determine by statisitical sampling how many cigarettes they smoke (within a smallish margin of error. 3 to 5% at a guess). Tobacco degrades to unusable over time, so smokers who buy in bulk will tend to buy just as much as they can smoke before the cigarettes go stale (within a larger margin of error. Longtime smokers will be closer, new smokers will be both less likely to buy the correct amount and less likely to buy in bulk at all). The upshot of this long digression is that the demand for cigarettes can be guaged pretty closely. If the cigarette companies poduce more than that, it is either bad business practice, and the shareholders should take them to task, or supplying an illegal demand, and the gov't should penalize them heavily.

Same principal with guns, but even more so, since guns are durable. How many handguns does one need? Beyond a few armed professionals (PIs, Police, rent-a-cops), target shooting enthusiasts, and collectors, the answer is either zero or one. Further, the number of people who will need more than one of the same gun would have to be vanishingly small. In fact, the only reasons anyone would have for buying more than two of the same gun would be to arm others with that gun, either as legally as a licensed dealer, or illegally.

It has almost got to be the contention of this lawsuit (I am too lazy to read legalese on my leisure time) that the oversupply of guns is so dramatic that it admits of no other possibility but that some significant potion of them cannot be absorbeed by legal demand without it generating a marked downward pressure on hand gun prices as a whole, and, since the prices are not dropping rapidly (a la DVD player or Pentium CPU prices) the demand seviced must be greater than the possible legal demand and further, it must be so much greater that the manufacturers and distributors would be grossly negligent or wilfully blind (which amounts to the same thing) to not notice it.

Now, without actually looking at the data and the lawsuit, I can be sure that this is the case, but it doesn't seem to me to be an unreasonable contention - not ridiculous, merely arguable.

Some of you have been trying to do the reductio ad absurdum thing by saying they should go after the steel makers. Big difference: Steel can be made into a myriad of products, a bare few of which are designed exclusively for killing.

Guns, and particularly handguns, and more particularly the cheap handguns that these lawsuits are about, are designed solely to kill people. They are not accurate enough for target shooting at any kind of range, or for hunting, and, besides, an economically challenged urbanite who says they are buying a handgun for hunting is either deluded or dishonest. Buyinf for protection is another thing entirely, but I do not dispute the legal market, merely that it seems likely that the gum manufacturers are producing more than that market will absorb, yet not seeing downward cost pressure, implying a second market....

My argument has begun to repeat itself, but I hope I have made my points.

11-21-2003, 05:44 PM	#13 (permalink)
Tophat665 Minion of the scaléd ones Location: Northeast Jesusland	OK, let's look at it this way: With cigarettes, there are only so many people of legal smoking age, only so many of whom smoke, and one can determine by statisitical sampling how many cigarettes they smoke (within a smallish margin of error. 3 to 5% at a guess). Tobacco degrades to unusable over time, so smokers who buy in bulk will tend to buy just as much as they can smoke before the cigarettes go stale (within a larger margin of error. Longtime smokers will be closer, new smokers will be both less likely to buy the correct amount and less likely to buy in bulk at all). The upshot of this long digression is that the demand for cigarettes can be guaged pretty closely. If the cigarette companies poduce more than that, it is either bad business practice, and the shareholders should take them to task, or supplying an illegal demand, and the gov't should penalize them heavily. Same principal with guns, but even more so, since guns are durable. How many handguns does one need? Beyond a few armed professionals (PIs, Police, rent-a-cops), target shooting enthusiasts, and collectors, the answer is either zero or one. Further, the number of people who will need more than one of the same gun would have to be vanishingly small. In fact, the only reasons anyone would have for buying more than two of the same gun would be to arm others with that gun, either as legally as a licensed dealer, or illegally. It has almost got to be the contention of this lawsuit (I am too lazy to read legalese on my leisure time) that the oversupply of guns is so dramatic that it admits of no other possibility but that some significant potion of them cannot be absorbeed by legal demand without it generating a marked downward pressure on hand gun prices as a whole, and, since the prices are not dropping rapidly (a la DVD player or Pentium CPU prices) the demand seviced must be greater than the possible legal demand and further, it must be so much greater that the manufacturers and distributors would be grossly negligent or wilfully blind (which amounts to the same thing) to not notice it. Now, without actually looking at the data and the lawsuit, I can be sure that this is the case, but it doesn't seem to me to be an unreasonable contention - not ridiculous, merely arguable. Some of you have been trying to do the reductio ad absurdum thing by saying they should go after the steel makers. Big difference: Steel can be made into a myriad of products, a bare few of which are designed exclusively for killing. Guns, and particularly handguns, and more particularly the cheap handguns that these lawsuits are about, are designed solely to kill people. They are not accurate enough for target shooting at any kind of range, or for hunting, and, besides, an economically challenged urbanite who says they are buying a handgun for hunting is either deluded or dishonest. Buyinf for protection is another thing entirely, but I do not dispute the legal market, merely that it seems likely that the gum manufacturers are producing more than that market will absorb, yet not seeing downward cost pressure, implying a second market.... My argument has begun to repeat itself, but I hope I have made my points. __________________ Light a man a fire, and he will be warm while it burns. Set a man on fire, and he will be warm for the rest of his life.