

A creative, non-legislative way to get guns off the street - kiddo
http://www.slate.com/id/2217117/

======
patrickg-zill
This was tried back in the days of the Clinton administration with Smith and
Wesson.

<http://clinton4.nara.gov/WH/New/html/20000317_2.html>

The rest of the gun-buying public declared a "S&W Death Penalty" and stopped
buying anything from S&W.

Smith and Wesson nearly went bankrupt and the British company that owned S&W
sold it off for a pittance to a small American gunmaker.

~~~
Kadin
Yeah that's what I was thinking about as I was reading the article, too. Maybe
Spitzer should have spent a little less time with his mistresses and a little
more actually understanding the firearms industry in the U.S.

First, there are a lot of companies that sell exclusively or almost-
exclusively to the civilian market, or are kept alive in between periods of
major government purchasing by the civilian market. E.g.: Bushmaster, who is
almost certainly one of those companies that Spitzer would like to punish,
doesn't shy away from military/LEO orders but is primarily a civilian arms
company.

Given the choice between relatively consistent sales on the civilian market or
feast-and-famine by selling to the government (who can inundate you with
orders one year and leave you with nothing the next), it wouldn't surprise me
if some manufacturers just turned down government orders if they came with too
much red tape.

The net result of Spitzer's plan might be a decrease in the number of
suppliers willing to deal with the government, rather than the civilian
market; it might also cause companies to split off rough parts production and
have the finish work done by separate companies -- one for the government and
one for the civilian market.

Of course, if such a scheme keeps people like Spitzer occupied and from making
a real mess, more power to it. Gun control isn't a vote-getter because, for a
great many people anyway, it really isn't a significant or pressing problem.

~~~
defen
You really would think he would know, especially considering his previous
(totally failed and backfired) attempts at gun-control.
[http://www.nytimes.com/2000/03/30/us/gun-maker-s-accord-
on-c...](http://www.nytimes.com/2000/03/30/us/gun-maker-s-accord-on-curbs-
brings-pressure-from-industry.html)

------
iigs
There is a cognitive gap here:

 _Those of us who were in law enforcement in New York City in the late '80s
and early '90s remember how drug dealers pioneered the use of 9-mm guns. We
heard over and over from our friends in the police department that they were
outgunned, that their service revolvers were no match for semi-automatics in a
shootout. So what did the police do? The New York City Police Department
finally bought 9-mms, too. It was a classic arms race, with the gun
manufacturers in the economically enviable position of selling bigger and
better guns to both sides._

So the proposal, then, is to restrict the government from escalating the arms
race by either creating policies or internal politics in such a way that the
police can't purchase the weapons that they otherwise would?

"Police friendly" arms manufacturers would continue to sell guns that they
think the police want. They're expensive, dated, and proprietary. This is
roughly analogous to the state of government tech procurement before the large
push for open systems. They will always be behind the curve because they will
have no market for their innovative designs since their hands will be tied
compared to "police unfriendly" manufacturers.

The police were behind the 8-ball because they failed to innovate. If you take
the divisive stigma of firearms out of the picture and look at it as a
strategic game, it seems obvious to me that messing with the incremental
demand of one (albeit large) customer isn't going to bend the industry to your
will.

 _The Obama White House recently made it clear—abandoning a campaign
pledge—that it won't push for a legislative ban on the sale of assault
weapons. Yet a series of provocative recent events has revived the gun debate:
the international tension arising from Mexican drug gangs using guns purchased
at American stores, the 10th anniversary of Columbine, and a Supreme Court
case invalidating a District of Columbia law prohibiting the possession of
guns at home._

Let's enumerate these events:

1) A foreign country has problems sealing its borders at both ends. Drugs on
the south and firearms, allegedly, on the north. It's interesting to point out
that the automatic weapons that the Mexican gangs are using are incredibly
hard to find in stores here -- they're not the guns you buy at a rural Wal-
Mart. It also conveniently ignores the elephant in the room -- pervasive
corruption of Mexican officials.

2) Tenth anniversary of a tragedy. Referring to Columbine as a "recent" event
is incredibly disingenuous.

3) Supreme court case invalidating an unconstitutional law. The letter of the
law was upheld but you'd endeavor to attack the spirit of it?

This is a shameful attempt to take Obama to task on, frankly, a minor
component of his platform at a time when he inherited a complex and severe
economic mess unheard of in generations, if ever.

------
donaq
Ok this is a not-so-serious solution Chris Rock proposed to the problem.
Potentially NSFW.

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xr8PQDoZXSo>

~~~
vaksel
It wouldn't work anyways, people would just make their own bullets.

~~~
Radix
That video proposed knives for guns. A less "cowardly" way to kill. I like it
better than the expensive bullets bit.

------
vozoscuro
how about disarm the police and legalize all now prohibited fun-time
activities which the american puritanical streak requires we punish and
extirpate ...funny how an ex-cop thinks the WAY cops buy guns can change the
game, totally retarded

