Remington Is Planning to File for Bankruptcy
bloomberg.com
bloomberg.com
I think that's part of the reason for all the gear and "tactical" stuff and expensive assault rifles... they tend to keep the revenue flowing.
And I also think that's why people who are against guns in general want assault rifles banned -- they drive the success of the gun industry. If you just go by the numbers, I don't see any justification for banning really any kind of rifle (unless it's full auto or something)[1].
[1] Around 5% of murders and probably lower for accidents and suicides https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2014/crime-in-the-u.s.-...
"assault weapon" is a vague political term made up by the anti-gun lobby to ban weapons that are "like" assault rifles but are limited to semi-auto fire (one trigger pull = one boom) - http://assaultweapon.info is a quick slideshow presentation explaining the history
An "Assault Rifle" is an automatic weapon with a detachable magazine. One trigger pull = more than one bullet. Contrary to popular belief, an AR-15 is not an Assault Rifle (AR = Armalite Rifle, Armalite being a company). It is possible for individuals to own an automatic weapon, but the legal supply there of was frozen in 1986. If you want one, you need to reside in a state that allows individuals to own one (not all do), you also need to get a Class III firearms license from BATFE (prepare your butthole for a thorough examination for 6+ months). Since the supply is frozen at 1986 levels, you can expect to spend $10-40k for a single automatic rifle. All of this is outlined in the National Firearms Act (NFA). I am not aware of any legally owned NFA rifle being used in any crime because they are so expensive/rare.
An "Assault Weapon" is a semi-automatic rifle with a detachable magazine and 2 of 5 cosmetic features that do not in any appreciable way effect the dangerousness of the rifle (pistol grip, telescoping stock, etc . Semi-automatic means one trigger pull = one bullet. Assault Weapons like the AR-15 are frequently demonized because they look scary and are functionally identical to most non-bolt-action hunting rifles. They are used in very few crimes. For more information, google "Federal Assault Weapons Ban".
Pre AWB items don’t need any special licensing but they cost an arm, leg and like 5 kidneys.
Outside of very narrow exceptions, such as dealers purchasing weapons for demo purposes while marketing to police departments, it is impossible to legally own an automatic weapon in the US manufactured and registered after 1986.
The gun industry loves when people rally for guns to be banned, it's why the NRA takes such a hardliner stand. Conflict will drive sales. I think the general populous has come to the notion that guns will never be banned (if it was going to happen, it'd have happened after Vegas. What a fucked up world we live in...), so there is no reason to stockpile. Also, the 2nd hand market is booming, which I think is a major factor.
>I think that's part of the reason for all the gear and "tactical" stuff and expensive assault rifles... they tend to keep the revenue flowing.
Fear sells. In the case of ARs and the vast accessory market, it's been quite lucrative since 2008 or so.
>And I also think that's why people who are against guns in general want assault rifles banned
As people on both sides of this debate are bound to point out, "assault rifle" doesn't mean much in terms of operating characteristics. It means a lot in terms of marketability, though!
I honestly don't recall the last time I saw a gun company market something as an "assault _____".
Many pro-gun folks have been trying to get the term "Modern Sporting Rifle" to stick. I find it kind of silly, myself. They're just "ARs" (for AR-15-pattern rifles) or "AKs" (for AKM-pattern rifles).
They're not "assault rifles" because that definition requires select-fire capability.
It would be nice to have a catchall term that means "semi-automatic detachable-magazine-fed rifle chambered in an intermediate cartridge" but is a bit less of a mouthful, and doesn't have an inaccurate, negative, politically charged connotation like "assault weapon" does.
I think you're both mixing up assault rifles and assault weapons. Assault rifles are full-auto or burst fire, medium length rifles. Assault weapons are guns that happen to fall under very specific and changing laws.
In my experience, what reasonable gun control advocates mean when they talk about ARs are rifles equipped with gas powered repeating actions.
There is a fundamental difference between a bolt-action rifle, which has no practical way to be converted to an automatic weapon, and gas powered semi automatic that anyone who knows how to type "youtube" into the browser bar can turn into a bullet hose.
There was a good writeup on this here: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/06/opinion/banning-bump-stoc...
Instead, they typically argue that semi-automatic rifles are too deadly in their original configuration. While I can understand the argument, it doesn't seem to be very rooted in reality given that their use in crime is exceedingly rare. The vast majority of crimes committed using firearms involve handguns.
I think it's likely the people pushing for restrictions or bans on semi-automatic rifles want them as a stepping stone to additional firearms restrictions, as the data available suggests it would not have a significant impact on crime even if a ban greatly reduced the availability of such rifles. They're being targeted for bans because they're an easy target; it's easy to argue to the average person that there's no legitimate reason for civilians to have them.
I think it's more like a culture war -- go after the enthusiasts and influencers first. Take away someone's rifle when they got it from their grandfather, and you take away one rifle. Take away all of the young enthusiasts' rifles, and you also take their friends and family out of the picture for generations hence; and take away a lot of revenue from the industry as well.
Why? Sincere question. I think it would shed some light on why our political discourse has taken a turn for the worse.
Just say what you want to say. Others should give you the benefit of the doubt that you aren't evil, and ask for clarification as required.
(Note: by "clarification" I don't mean "clarify which side you are on so I know whether to be outraged or not", I mean to clarify whatever unique perspectives you have to offer.)
Money, more importantly. That's why people who want to starve the gun industry make them illegal; not because they are dangerous, but because they are a good revenue source for the industry.
Also, assault rifles are favored by younger enthusiasts, so banning them is a way to nip the market in the bud.
I've long thought that if possible, banning handguns and allowing rifles would get us a long way towards some sane medium. Most the sport/safety features of having a gun are still present in rifle form, and many of the problems are mitigated, since it's much harder to hide.
The problem is that when I've brought it up, many 2nd amendment proponents come up with odd and not very convincing reasons why they are still important, and if you press them come around to just admitting they believe it's all just a slippery slope and a play by politicians to complete gun bans (just like any other reforms).
I'm not convinced any forward progress can be made on this issue when such distrust exists between at least one side of the issue, and the other often willfully ignores any valid points against their position.
That would be an interesting compromise, but there are a bunch of things to consider:
* You'd need really strong protections for all kinds of semi-auto rifles to convince people that it's not just a gun-grabbing conspiracy.
* Home defense might be more complicated. It would seem that long guns could work -- though perhaps we'd need to redefine them down to a little smaller size. But keeping a rifle ready, yet away from children is a little more complicated than for a pistol I think.
* A lot of people aren't really protected by police, and it would trouble me to take away their handguns. But maybe that ship has already sailed because carrying a gun is not recognized as a right in some states.
* Recent estimates suggest there are about a zillion handguns in the country. Even with 100% compliance, that suggests a logistical challenge. And with less than 100% compliance, that creates a lot of interesting challenges.
Really, I'd be OK with your proposal. It crossed my mind before. I think it could be OK constitutionally speaking (and I'm fairly strict as far as the Constitution goes), largely because rifles are just a lot better for pretty much anything other than carrying. So, given that carrying isn't really protected, pistols don't really seem so important in areas you can't carry anyway.
Then again, some people like pistols, and that's reason enough to respect their rights (if you believe such a right exists). Freedom means you don't always get an answer to the question "why?". As long as we want Oklahoma to be a state, rather than some kind of landlocked territory, we have to have some deference to their way of life.
I'd support that. There are many valid uses for guns, and I do believe in their protection under the constitution (and I believe they have a good reason to be protected). I just don't think handguns are a useful progression of those reasons.
> Home defense might be more complicated.
In execution, possibly. It's slightly more unwieldy. I'm not sure a shotgun isn't a better choice in that situation anyway (and it has less lethal ammo options for those that want that).
> But keeping a rifle ready, yet away from children is a little more complicated than for a pistol I think.
I'm not sure it is when you are taking what I believe most people would say are appropriate steps to secure a gun when there are children in the house. Lock the gun somehow or lock up the gun in a gun safe. A safe would have to be bigger for a rifle, but a trigger guard should be fairly cheap. It may not help with theft, but I'm not sure the incentives apply quite the same with stealing rifles as handguns.
> A lot of people aren't really protected by police, and it would trouble me to take away their handguns.
An exchange program, possibly?
> Recent estimates suggest there are about a zillion handguns in the country. Even with 100% compliance, that suggests a logistical challenge.
It does, and this proposal might be entirely infeasible. That said, if we reduce the number of handguns to the point that they are much less common and/or worth much more money, we might find their use in a lot of crimes diminished. Banning sale of handguns and a generous federally funded turn-in program (e.g. 50% over MSRP for anything bought over a year prior to law passing with serial and registration showing such, 90% MSRP for more recent, adjust for inflation as the program runs in the future and there is no longer a recent MSRP).
As people turn things in over time, or guns get stolen and turned in for quick cash with few questions (and no returns to the owner, sorry), handgun supply might go low enough that the more lucrative way to use them is to sell them to a private collector willing to pay a lot of money rather that keep them for actual use (whether that be illegal or protective). I'm not sure how that would work with the turn in program.
> Then again, some people like pistols, and that's reason enough to respect their rights (if you believe such a right exists).
Huh? Since when does what some people like play into a discussion about national safety? Some people like driving at extremely high speeds as well, but we don't protect their preference by allowing that everywhere, we cordon that behavior to small specific venues. I'm not opposed to special licenses for gun ranges to carry their own handguns for in-house rental use.
All our laws that restrict liberties are a trade-off for safety, and should be viewed in that light. In that argument, what people like carries fairly little weight with me. What is functionally equivalent in the most acceptable ways while achieving the safety gains we are looking for is where the argument should center, in my opinion.
> Really, I'd be OK with your proposal. It crossed my mind before.
Thanks. It's nice to hear what sounds like an honest assessment. While I fully admit it's logistically challenging to say the least (but let's admit it, what solution or event partial solution to this won't be?), I think it might be the best "bang for our buck", in that it has the least impact of actual use for most the reasons people cite they want a gun while eventually providing a nice boost in safety. It definitely wouldn't be cheap or easy though.
The majority of my rifles are old...30+ years and are as new. I haven't purchased a new rifle in many many years.
Add a lag in that insanity to the pump and dump mismanagement of private equity guys sucking the place dry and poof.
I guess the obvious answer is "money". Seems sad that the spirit of independence is so shallow.
It looks like Remington got picked up by an equity group that bought the firm, borrowed as much as possible, paid itself as much as possible and is now liquidating.
It’s a common business model. See Toys R Us and even the KMart/Sears shitshow as recent variants on the theme. The movie Wall St described similar strategies from the 80s.
The company's current market capitalization is over half a billion dollars.
It's due to two things, in my opinion: the expiration of the "Assault Weapons Ban" in 2004, and the rise of first-person shooter video games.
For typical civilian usages, firearms were essentially perfected over a half-century ago.
* more expensive
* amenable to more gear of various kinds ("tactical")
* the ammo is much more expensive, and much easier to fire quickly
* used more among enthusiasts, a.k.a. "influencers"
So basically, you sell a pistol to someone, get a $500 sale in a competitive market (probably low margins), and sell some ammo and range time a few times a year.
But if you sell the tactical stuff (e.g. assault rifles and other gear-accomodating stuff), you are likely to get a few high-margin follow up sales and a more enthusiastic customer who might involve their friends, use more ammo, etc.
There are casual gun control proponents who likely don't know this about the gun industry.
There is another, much smaller, but potentially more effective, cohort that very much do. I've read literature from and spoken to activists that very much are attacking assault weapons strategically. Both because of them being an easier target, especially after a mass shooting, and because of the revenue implications.
Interesting. So there are really two target markets - people who want one gun for use, and people who are into guns as a hobby.
Guns are cheaper (on average) than motorcycles, they last longer, have been around longer, and tend to get passed down by generations (so one might find themselves with their grandfather's collection of 20 guns, and then add another 20 over their lifetime, then pass them along to their grandchild), so the skew is going to be much stronger.
I wonder if this effect has a name and whether it can be applied to computer security too? For instance, having a pro-encryption-backdoor president inadvertently increasing security.
*republican in name only
Arms sales are a big market. I think what happened here is that Remington took a bet on the Civilian Market in the US and lost.
That's a bit much. Rifling barrels is not a trivial task.