Slashdot Mirror
GunTV Aims To Premier 24-Hour Shopping Channel For Firearms
HughPickens.com writes: Mike McPhate reports in the NY Times that two home shopping industry veterans, Valerie Castle and Doug Bornstein, are set to premier GunTV, a new 24-Hour shopping channel for guns, that aims to take the QVC approach of peppy hosts pitching "a vast array of firearms," as well as related items like bullets, holsters and two-way radios. The new cable channel hopes to help satisfy Americans' insatiable appetite for firearms. The channel's forthcoming debut might seem remarkably ill-timed, given recent shootings at a Planned Parenthood in Colorado Springs and at a social services center in San Bernardino, California but gun sales have been rising for years, with nearly 21 million background checks performed in 2014, and they appear on track to a new record this year. The boom has lately been helped by a drumbeat of mass shootings, whose attendant anxiety has only driven more people into the gun store. The proposed schedule of programming allots an eight-minute segment each hour to safety public service announcements in between proposed segments on topics like women's concealed weapon's apparel, big-game hunting and camping. Buying a Glock on GunTV won't be quite be like ordering a pizza. When a firearm is purchased, a distributor will send it to a retailer near the buyer, where it has to be picked up in person and a federal background check performed. "We saw an opportunity in filling a need, not creating one," says Castle. "The vast majority of people who own and use guns in this country, whether it's home protection, recreation or hunting, are responsible . I don't really know that it's going to put more guns on the streets."
Actually, the NRA and gun manufacturers don't HAVE to do any marketing after a tragedy like this...the Democrats, led by Mr. Obama himself, often have their first or second words out of their mouths.."We need 'sensible' gun control"....they want to ban semi-automatic weapons that "look scary", etc.
The second something happens, many US citizens are afraid with good reason from many of our elected officials, that they want to start banning and removing weapons.
I added the removing of weapons, in that...if they banned the AR-15 tomorrow and the AK-47....unless they confiscate the existing ones, you'll not see a drop in their numbers for decades upon decades upon decades. There are just too many out there!!
So, yes, for gun owners, the left start jumping up and down about more restrictive gun laws while the corpses are still warm minutes after a tragedy like this occurs.
Funny thing is...it appears that overall, gun violence in the US has been in a downturn over the past number of years. It is just these "spree" killings that has seemed to have popped up lately.
I'm still wanting to know what "sensible" gun laws will be. So far, this last one, happened in CA which has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the US, yet all weapons seem to this point to have been made legally. What laws would they introduce to prevent the recent shooting? Any more changes over the CA laws and you start to seriously impede law abiding citizens' rights to buy, own and use weapons, which are the vast majority of gun owners.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life.
I don't care who said it. That quote is demonstrably false and the notion behind it is asinine. If you really need a gun to get people to speak "politely" to you then you are doing something REALLY wrong.
A sensible start would be, all guns locked away in gun clubs and in homes, jail time for carrying one outside the home or gun club.
How in the world is that going to make the slightest bit of a difference? Assume that these people obey all the laws on the books, and never carry a gun outside the home, so they never get in trouble. Then, when they want to commit mass murder, the law prohibiting them from taking the gun out of the home is going to stop them and make them think "well, I was going to shoot a bunch of people but it would be against the law to take the guns our of the house, so I'm stuck."
Here's one interesting data point:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
This is a European country with probably the most liberal gun laws in Europe (they even have shall-issue concealed carry). Yet it doesn't seem to have a gun violence problem - they only had one killing spree in 25 years since they enacted those laws after the fall of communism, and their overall murder rate is lower than UK, France and Canada, to name a few. So it seems that they're doing things right.
Of note are the things that they don't have:
- assault weapon ban
- ban on handguns
- ban on carrying firearms
- magazine capacity limits
- gun-free zones
And they do have:
- stand your ground (not as law, but as absence of duty to retreat)
- somewhat limited form of castle doctrine
So what else do they have? Universal licensing for gun ownership (and not just carry) with a "shall-issue" but thorough vetting process, complete with psych exam.
Perhaps we should start there, and see how well that works, before piling more restrictions, many of which (like AWB) are evidently absurd to anyone who knows how guns work.
While we're at it, universal background checks have massive popular support. 92% of all Americans support them. 90% of gun owners support them. 86% of Republicans support them. There's no excuse not to implement this.
Full disclosure: I am a gun owner with over 30 firearms in possession, including several "assault weapons".