Never owned a Remington myself, but they've not been held in high regard for a while. Some say it was linked to it's acquisition by Cerberus Capital. Ultimately, though, it seem alike the company was asking customers to pay premium prices for average guns. What justifies spending 800 - 1200 dollars on a Remington 700 as compared to $500 on a Ruger American?
Remington's 700 trigger mechanism has a design flaw that's caused dozens of deaths and hundreds of serious injuries. The company covered up the flaw and engaged in all sorts of shady business as opposed to issuing a massive recall. Remington's ammo on the other hand isn't bad and seems to be sold everywhere you can still buy bullets.
The supposed defect of the Remington 700 trigger is not nearly clear cut as it's portrayed. The supposed failures often could not be replicated, and many were found to have had their triggers adjusted out of normal tolerances or otherwise modified. As far as I know, an unmodified Remington 700 trigger has not been demonstrated to fire without actuating the trigger.
People often allege malfunction and sue gun manufacturers for accidental discharges resulting in death or injury, when in reality they mishandled a loaded gun and pulled the trigger.
Among people I know who track modern firearm technology I don't know a single person who would even contemplate buying a Remington. They are to modern guns what a Harley Davidson is to a modern motorcycle.
People who care about good tech and value are buying things like CZs, aero precision and Anderson AR10/15 lowers and uppers, etc. Even the canik pistol from turkey is remarkably good quality. Savage offers good value for traditional bolt action rifles that can be used for many purposes.
"Among people I know who track modern firearm technology I don't know a single person who would even contemplate buying a Remington."
Anecdotal, but we needed several workhorse .308 rifles and even considering the previous issues with the Rem 700 triggers, etc., I still chose that model.
In addition to being a simple mechanism and easy to clean and maintain, it has a very high adoption rate which means parts and chassis replacements are readily available.
Those attributes, combined with a very reasonable price, made it easy to select.
If it were a single rifle, just for myself, I may have chosen a Savage model instead. On the other hand, my personal rifle now matches, and parts shares, and has identical maintenance, with all of the rest of them. I find that valuable.
I like that logic. Something a lot of enthusiats, fire arms, cars, etc.., don't get. Servicability and maintainability of a large fleet of X is such a big deal that you chose X for these reasons over Y. even if Y would, on the single unit level, be a tad better.
But why pick Remington 700 over one of the countless other Mauser derivatives? Mechanically it's essentially identical to a Savage Axis, which costs half as much. You can get a Ruger Hawkeye or Winchester model 70 for the same price as the Remington, but from a company that isn't having quality issues. Is parts availability really significant?
Lysdexia for the lose. You’re spot on. I read this article thinking of Ruger for some stupid reason. The Ruger Precision Rifle (I have one chambered to 6.5mm creedmoor) is an excellent and affordable distance shooting rifle.
What would make you prefer a Remington 870 over a Mossberg 500? For me, the two were equal — similar in price, reliability, and customizability — except that the Mossberg was a better physical fit for me. I haven't had reason to regret my choice.
The 870 has a smoother action and the position of the safety is a better fit for pistol grip configurations. The 500 is generally considered more reliable and the safety is in a better position for non-pistol grip configurations.
The Tikka T3 is quite possibly the best value for money bolt action rifle on the market.
In general, I've almost always found outdoor equipment from European companies to be superior to American (regardless of where it's actually manufactured). I've always got the impression from their marketing material that the Europeans are selling a product, whereas the Americans are always selling a lifestyle.
The Tikka T3 is a fantastic rifle, but a Ruger American is competitive. If you get one of the Ruger Americans with a muzzle brake, it can give you a better overall experience, especially in the punchy calibers common in this type of rifle, like 308. The Tikka will probably be more accurate out of the box, but very few shooters can do their part to the level of either gun.
The big old school companies like Remington or Marlin have become lifestyle brands, for sure, but there are still some US companies making quality products. This is particularly true for more traditional American guns: you'd have a hard time beating a S&W or Ruger revolver, or a Henry lever action, with a foreign brand.
> I've always got the impression from their marketing material that the Europeans are selling a product, whereas the Americans are always selling a lifestyle.
A lot of people say the same thing about Harley-Davidson motorcycles. FortNine had a video made the rounds a little while ago:
HD clearly shifted to a "lifestyle" brand in the 1980's, and along with the Reagan era tariff protection it probably saved the company in the post AMF years... but now they have dug themselves into a hole they probably can't get out of, although they are finally trying, a decade or two late.
> I've always got the impression from their marketing material that the Europeans are selling a product, whereas the Americans are always selling a lifestyle.
Reminds me of “We Don’t Sell Saddles Here” by Stewart Butterfield around the time Slack launched.
Good buy! I have a Sako finnlight 300 WSM and kinda wish I went with the WM just for ease of finding ammo, but the kick on the finnlight is pretty fatiguing as is. Completely pays off in the mountains though, How is 300wm on the tikka lite?
Painful. Rifle weighs around 6.5lbs. it needs a stock pad to be usable. And if you go through a box of ammo at the range you will be sore for a week. But it's accurate to around .5 MOA and I stick a giant Burris eliminator 3 scope on there to take some of the bite out of the recoil.
A muzzle brake might do wonders for you. I can't speak for 300WSM, but in 308, a muzzle brake takes it from "I'll shoot 10 rounds and regret it the next day", to "I'll shoot 50 rounds and stop from soreness, but have no shoulder bruising the next day."
Yup I've got a fancy brake on my PTR 91. Can shoot .308 through that sucker all day. The Tikka doesn't have a threaded barrel though so I'd have to take it to a gunsmith. Which I'll eventually get around to...
I don't know why Limbsaver Airtech recoil pads aren't more popular. I put one on my T3x Lite after my first visit to the range and since then I can shoot a couple of boxes without issue. It's an inexpensive and practical fix.
>>Some say it was linked to it's acquisition by Cerberus Capital.
History repeats itself. As if these companies care about the brand reputation over decades, they just want to milk it and then sell it to idiots (public) that recognize the name. People are buying more guns than ever, so it was probably a planned bankruptcy
As if these companies care about the brand reputation over decades, they just want to milk it and then sell it to idiots (public) that recognize the name.
To be fair it's not just corporate raiders who do this to companies. IBM and HP quite happily did it to themselves.
I can only point to the public knowledge of the outcomes: either, under far stricter management, the new company alienates workers and long time customers... or, those companies do not survive, and are stripped down for their valuable assets and debtors get as little as possible due to bankruptcy.
People describe companies like Cerberus sort of like the undertaker of companies in a capitalist society, but I don't entirely agree with that metaphor.
Often these companies end up back in the hands of the PE firms after being stripped of pension and other obligations in bankruptcy. Maybe they would have done better with a successful turnaround. But they usually manage to set it up so it's a heads I win tails you lose kind of game.
Remington has been on the rocks for awhile. Low quality, high prices, and outdated technology. Today's buyer wants a lightened AR-15 with holographic sights, not grandpa's double-barrel shotgun.
I suspect you're being downvoted from the "less gun companies is a good thing" comment.
You would be surprised how popular shooting has become in the US, especially, over the last decade or so, and how diverse the gun community has become.
Not to mention how many new brands there are.
Twenty years ago, you'd walk into a gun shop, and it'd be... well, let's be kind and say "massively sketchy", with a lot of graying beards and a not-insignificant inventory of items with confederate branding.
Nowadays, that's not really the case in most places (which is good!). My favorite range has an espresso bar, and reminds me more of an early-stage WeWork than a gun range.
The median age has trended sharply downwards, and although this data isn't tracked, I strongly suspect that there are a lot of first-time gun owners as well.
Anecdotally, I'm sort of the "liberal gun guy" amongst my circle of friends, and people that I never thought would want to purchase a firearm have been reaching out to me for advice. Which usually starts with "don't buy a gun unless you plan to train with it"
Concerns over civil unrest have significantly factored into this, but there's also things like 3Gun[1][2] (think Ninja Warrior plus firearms) and cowboy action[3] (the same, but with old-timey firearms), which are massively popular.
I can't think of two more dissimilar stories than Remington and Intel. This is like saying "The Color Purple" feels very similar to "The Da Vinci Code."
Sounds eerily similar to the Harley situation. I had the displeasure of renting a Harley something - street 500 or something along those lines - just to see what all the fuss was about. Seems much ado about nothing, why would I drop 8,000$ on a slab of iron, not even made in the USA anymore, when I could get twice the bike at half the weight for the same price from Suzuki?
Speaking as someone who owns a 64 panhead and owned a 72 ironhead (rebuilt both from parts): Harleys have almost always been inferior bikes that have a strange sort of charm. Realistically, they occupy the same place as Ural, outdated bikes that have appeal mostly for style. The last time that Harley had anything cutting-edge (ignoring Buell) was likely the knucklehead, which was developed in the 30s.
$8k will buy you a used one (not new), but there is a damn good reason there are used Harleys with essentially zero miles avaliable everywhere. I have fun riding my antique crap, but the new ones are such crappy bikes for the money. A new BMW is the same money, for a more comfortable bike that is less maintenance cost. However, I used to live on the route to Sturgis for most of Colorado, Arizona, and western Texas, and I saw probably 80% trailers vs bikes. People don't buy them to ride them, they buy them to fulfill their midlife crisis.
To further derail, I would argue Jack Daniel's, Levis, and REI are in the same boat- they are grossly overpriced compared to superior competitors and mostly trade on name brand and perception of past quality.
REI, really? What are the superior competitors? And do you mean specifically the house-branded gear or the store as a whole?
Genuinely curious, since I still shop there. Prices aren't the best but I like the selection and the return policy. Plus the salesdroids actually seem familiar with the gear.
They sell almost entirely 'outdoor apparel' that is geared at people wanting to wear the brand. REI used to loon almost like an army-surplus store rather than a clothing store, and the clothing was fully functional but unfashionable. Think 100% wool garments, the scratchy stuff that never wore out and was warmer wet than dry and more equipment than clothing.
My last REI hiking frame was a huge disappointment, it started to have welds cracking after 40 fairly easy miles. They do still have a decent warranty policy, but if I'm up in the wilderness that doesn't do me any good, I just want the same quality as they used to have (I.E. I have inherited gear that is still good after years of abuse, but have bought gear that has worn out in 3 years).
As far as superior competitors, unfortunately they are hard to find. I've had the best luck just searching for army-surplus equipment on ebay, as all the army surplus stores seem to have disappeared. But for apparel, definitely look for vintage Woolrich or wool milsurp. It's scratchy, but that's what undergarments are for, and when you accidentally slide down 200' of snow and get covered it's absolutely the best, none of the more modern gear I've tried even compares.
Hmmmm, I wonder if this just isn't changing market preferences.
I also grew up backpacking with external frame packs, PMS boots, and scratchy wool shirts. My current outfit is nowhere near as durable, but it's 5-10 lbs lighter. Thinner nylons, smaller zippers, internal frames, synthetic boot materials, lightweight fabrics, etc... the weight has to come from somewhere.
I still have my old Kelty external frame pack. I haven't used it in 20 years and I probably never will again. It's just more fun traveling with less weight. If that means I have to replace gear more often... it's worth it.
As another poster said, ultralight is the wave of the future. But Patagonia makes the kind of gear you're looking for. It's not cheap but it's damn near bullet proof.
I can't speak for the REI brand, as I have no experience with it. However, most of their inventory in-store is not REI brand, but higher end brands. I go there for running and biking equipment. While stuff is going to cost an arm and a leg, I can rely on it.
I remember balking at the $110 price tag on a Craft long sleeve running shirt about three years ago. I bought it anyway. I wear it 4x a week from October through March, and it goes through the washer after every use. It's as good as the day I bought it. Best $110 I ever spent.
I’m with you- REI does premium retail really well and that involves more then being just a brand. You can save money elsewhere for equivalent gear, but you won’t get the same service.
I’m a big REI fan. I’m not one of those people who hikes every week or anything, but I like to go backpacking and hiking when I can. I also have met lots of people who do the same, and REI is pretty highly regarded among most people. Their products might not be the top-end in every category, but I’ve rarely had an issue with anything bought from them. Plus their service is so outstanding, I’ve been taken care of any time there’s been a problem. It’s totally worth it to me to spend a little more, to get the peace of mind that it’s a fairly good product (they don’t sell anything horrible like you’ll get on amazon or a dept store), and that they’ll take care of any issue that does happen.
If you're patient, and buy exclusively at sales, REI gear is usually an decent deal for the quality when 25%-50% off. I’ve abused a number of REI bags and tents over past few years when camping with scouts, with no failures yet.
Same here. My REI Hobitat and Kingdom tents are 10 years into being the last tents I buy. High enough quality to break the 3-4 year replacement cycle of everything else I tried.
You literally cannot go wrong with a Honda, Kawasaki, Yamaha or Suzuki cruiser. They're almost universally fantastic machines. The market for Yamaha V-Stars from the 00s right now is amazing, too- all of the midlife crisis bikes bought during the fad era of 2002-2008 are now at the bottom of their depreciation curve and flooding the market. Many of them look like they just rolled off the showroom floor.
If you must buy American, everything Indian makes except the FTR1200 has a great classic look. (The FTR is cool too but very modernized).
Off the top of my head: Indian Scout, Indian FTR 1200, BMW RNineT, Yamaha Bolt, Yamaha XSR900/XSR700, Honda Rebel 500, Honda CB650R, Kawasaki Z900RS, Suzuki Boulevard
Plenty of factors are helping humans to move on from brand worship:
1. More information. The iconning brands like Harley or Marlboro are from pre-internet era and heavily relied on freedom image. It was just accepted as an expression of culture. This doesn't really work when wages are not rising with GDP. In other words, people care less about brand and more about utility and price.
2. Better and more accessible competition from around the world.
3. Influencers. I know it is cool to hate them, but there are many building a brand around "one of us". As an example, one of the most popular female youtubers is doing shopping "hauls" in regular shops. You probably don't know that, why would HN watch beauty youtubers. But consider this. Linus Tech Tips is also influence marketing and you can see him talking about Linux, cheap peripherals, bashing Intel. Every category has its Linus. These people have tremendous pull, especially since younger people don't watch TV at all.
4. COVID-19. I speculate that the pandemic exposed how many companies have no reserves (either to low profits or simple because the executives are draining profits).
> Plenty of factors are helping humans to move on from brand worship
I only buy major brand-named items on Amazon, and only with Amazon as the seller. The one indispensable characteristic of branding, reputation, is more important than ever eventhough most brands' reputations are in the dumpster. Knock-offs of unknown or unreliable provenance just happen to be evenworse. And even when you find a good non-branded item, reputation is still worse as non-branded items seem to change suppliers more regularly than the branded versions, and supply chain integrity is less trustworthy.
In brick & mortar stores I always reach for the generic, in-house brand (assuming the price is lower) knowing that invariably they're made by the same manufacturer as one of the major brands. But contrast that with Amazon's in-house brands, where it's unlikely they source from the same manufacturer as the major brands, and also seem to change suppliers more regularly.
American gun manufacturers have been outsourcing production for years. But that doesn't mean people no longer care about brands. Rather, many of those suppliers have made a name for themselves outright, or improved upon their previously lackluster reputation; those are the brands you often hear about today when people give recommendations.
This has mostly been my experience (discounting the guns, as I don't have any interest in them). Amazon's actual brands like AmazonBasics seem to be relatively consistent in quality, but they have an awful lot of stuff sold by resellers whose names are clearly random capital letters strung together. During the pandemic, I've shifted more and more of my online shopping to Walmart.com, which -- while it has an increasing share of weird third-party sellers -- doesn't seem to have nearly the same level of out-and-out scams, and to ordering from manufacturers directly. Not only do I feel I'm more likely to get the real thing when I'm ordering that way, it's become surprisingly common for me to find cheaper prices than Amazon's.
More information. The iconning brands like Harley or Marlboro are from pre-internet era and heavily relied on freedom image. It was just accepted as an expression of culture. This doesn't really work when wages are not rising with GDP. In other words, people care less about brand and more about utility and price.
It's also a factor that so many companies nowadays see their brand built over decades by previous generations of workers and management as just another resource to suck dry. Shareholders are blinded to this but they ought to be angry, that is the long-term value of their investment being burnt to paper over management's lack of strategic vision.
I love amazon for the ability to buy unbranded cheap clothes. Tshirt costs me 10 bucks, and they are better quality than anything I find in a brick and mortar store for double that price. All I wear is plain tshirts so they are great. Same with the basketball style shorts I wear sitting around the house all day (I work remotely) I still buy branded jeans though, but 1 pair of jeans for $100 lasts me 5 years. I will probably try an amazon pair of jeans one of these days.
I'll do ya 1 better: I had the displeasure of actually buying a new Harley (I was young and stupid). The street 500/750 are the worst of the worst from HD. The Iron 883 is the smallest "real" harley. And it's a completely different feel from the streets.
However, it was a trashcan of a bike. I was always fixing weird issues, the HD dealership absolutely sucked in every facet from timeliness of service, to prices, to the guy at the service desk just not being a cunt. I upgraded many parts just to get the damn thing to perform at a reasonable level.
Thankfully, I was hit by a car and my bike was totalled. This freed me to purchase a KTM 790 duke which is 160lbs lighter, with double the horsepower, 20% more torque, 80% longer service intervals, all for significantly less than the Iron 883.
Harley-Davidson is literally hemmorhaging cash. Their main demo is aging out of the market and they haven't been able to sell to millenials because millenials aren't stupid and go buy a Yamaha MT-09 or Suzuki, etc for waaay less. And I'm hearing whispers that H-D willl be axing their new forays into ADV, standard, and E-bikes.
You know reliability is bad when the KTM is an upgrade! (Former 390 owner who had to warranty their bike...)
Even if you stay in cruisers- Honda, Kawasaki, Yamaha and Indian quality compared to Harley is insane. It's as if the bikes were made in a different century.
Lol, well, their bikes __were__ made in a different century. Harley engines are downright agricultural. Hell, even john deere would make a better engine than H-D
My buddy has a 1290 SADV S and i've got the 790 and neither of us have had a single issue. We'll see how its long-term reliability pans out, but it's honestly the best naked bike on the market, unless you count the supernakeds like the MT-10 or 1290SDR. Or it was until the 890 R came out.
>I'm hearing whispers that H-D willl be axing their new forays into ADV, standard, and E-bikes.
At that point they might as well start winding down the company. I read reviews of the Livewire (their e-bike) and most people seemed to like it despite the very high price.
Yeah, sure. The fit and finish on the Livewire is great. But who can afford a $30k+ ebike? Especially one that gets barely 100 miles to the tank?
Not young americans, that's for sure. Personally, I can't wait until H-D bites the dust. Hopefully once and for all. They're incredibly overpriced, underpowered, overweight, technologically obsolete bikes (aside from their 1 electric model that sold terribly) with dealerships that suck at customer service (and also charge way too much per hour)
Harley screwed themselves in a lot of different ways.
First, they fought to protect their market with tariffs on imported bikes -- okay, fair enough -- but then did absolutely nothing to either grow that market, or innovate on their products at all.
They just kept making the same bike, the same way, for a looooooooong time.
Harley's branding was 100% focused on the "60's Rebel". The Hells Angel, or the dentist that wanted to pretend he was.
The plethora of Japanese manufacturers, instead, worked to bring bikes to the masses. They made more reliable bikes, which were cheaper and easier to own, and marketed them to everybody. Dads. Moms. University students. Normal people, the kind that aren't keen on a Friday-night bar fight.
If Harley had been run by forward-thinking management, they would have worked to create affiliate brands aimed at a variety of different demographics, and really worked to innovate on their reliability and quality. Buell was an attempt at this, but it was too little, too late.
I know you were joking, but having ridden a Fat Boy and currently owning a 1l V-Strom I can say that the ridiculously noisy cans on my Suki are nicer to listen to at anything over 1,200 RPM.
The Harley burbling away is really cool, but not when you're draging it up to cruising speed.
Eh… I was just in a Harley dealer last weekend and a salescritter was riding one around the showroom (…yeah…) and it was loud. I know they have db requirements to be imported or whatever, but I don't get the sense that Harley-Davidson is just now building quiet bikes.
Sounds eerily similar to the Harley situation. I had the displeasure of renting a Harley something - street 500 or something along those lines - just to see what all the fuss was about. Seems much ado about nothing, why would I drop 8,000$ on a slab of iron, not even made in the USA anymore, when I could get twice the bike at half the weight for the same price from Suzuki?
I have an 870 which is a fine shotgun and not so expensive. I've got better guns in the safe, but when I want something to hunt rabbits or squirrel its still my go to.
Maverick 88 is cheaper and doesn't have Remington stigma. Fit and finish isn't amazing but I haven't heard anything bad about Mossberg triggers themselves. Mossberg has plastic safeties and plastic trigger guards, though :/
If I'm not mistaken, Mossberg 500 parts are compatible with the 88. Both the safety and trigger guard are upgradeable to metal Mossberg 500 components. This gives you an inexpensive entry with an upgrade path. I'm not sure of my memory here so fact-check me with your gun shop before buying.
Remington levered up and took on a ton of debt at the wrong time. The owners gambled and lost. It's a shame that people will lose their jobs over this.
It was actually strategic by the private equity that bought them. They leveraged Remington to the hilt, extracted all of the value and then bankrupted the shell. Not that I am an advocate of what they do but it was actually brilliant. Gun companies on average don't go bankrupt, so they where able to significantly leverage Remington while hollowing it out and moving the assets to other companies. Leaving the shell for the debtors.
Maybe I'm biased because everything I know about guns comes from Forgotten Weapons [1], but my impression is the opposite: Very few guns are ever a commercial success, and absolutely loads of gun makers go out of business.
Prototype guns are like startups you get a bunch of ideas and few stick. I probably should have clarified established gun companies and gun companies manufacturing established popular weapons. If I start a company building 1911's, AR's and AK's. Chances are the venture will be commercially successful. If I try to reintroduce the Bren-10 or a new concept gun, then I am playing a game of long odds unless I am an established gun designer with a track record of reliable designs e.g John Browning. Gun owners, other than collectors can be pretty fickle about reliability, it is why SIG, Glock and SAIGA do so well, due to the fact that they have multi-decade history of producing reliable guns.
I never understood how this works. If you're a bank, why would you lend money to Remington knowing that there's a good chance the owner strips the company and leaves you holding the bag?
Same, as far as firearms are concerned. But I do own several other Remington products and the quality is astonishing. One of which is a pocket knife and it's staggering how well made it is. And how outrageously sharp it is for that matter. 3 days before the pandemic started I nearly cut off my left index finger with it...
I will say, those are licensed products. They may be good, but that's luck of the draw, they have just sold the brand name off to some 3rd party to make a specific product.
For what it's worth, I bought a remington-branded bone saw ~3 years back, and it was absolute garbage. It failed to even finish field dressing an elk, and all that was required was one cut of a few inches. It's a shame, their older products were right up there with the likes of Starrett as the pinnacle of precision manufacturing in the US, but poor management can kill any company regardless of the quality of their products.
It is sort of ironic that, even given the US's crazy gun culture, most of the iconic American brands have been acquired (Winchester->FN) by other firms or been diluted to irrelevance (Marlin->Remington).
Marlin is really sad. A Marlin 336 from 1985 and a Marlin 336 from 2019 look the same at first glance, but you only have to cycle the lever once to realize something has changed for the worse. Old timers will tell you that the lever will smooth out with use, which may be true, but my experience is that it will break and require a gunsmith before that happens.
> American brands have been acquired (Winchester->FN)
FN still makes good stuff, though.
They're also solvent -- no pump-and-dump investing games here -- and supply lots of gear to global militarizes, including the US military, e.g. the SAW is the FN Minimi, which is made under license in South Carolina.
I wouldn’t say the company is held in high regard, they’ve been sort of the Walmart of manufacturing for well over 100 years. Overpriced weapons, little innovation, where is companies like Ruger have continue to innovate for a reasonable price
They seem a little overpriced when you can buy a Mossberg 500 with an extra barrel for like 2/5 the cost. Sure it ain't machined from a piece of steel; who cares? It also ain't as heavy.
Am sure this will be downvoted but just commenting that I find discussion in these threads fascinating, terrifying, fundamentally foreign.
Having lived in large cities all my life I cannot conceive of owning a gun, or of other nearby city dwellers owning guns, or even being allowed to in a non law enforcement capacity. There are apartments in NYC with working fireplaces- seems almost equally insane to me, though gun more so because of the active harm it can induce.
Please- no disrepect intended, and not interested in starting argument/debate. Know all the arguments and the history and not advocating any position. Just sharing experience, my own lack of slots for this very large component of american life. Cheers folks.
For a similarly opposite perspective as someone who's currently in a rural area:
I can go out back, set up target(s) and plink away basically anytime I want. Might even do it this evening if the ammo I ordered finally gets delivered today. There's a safe direction to aim in and the distant neighbors don't mind, they do the same!
For longer range, there's various outdoor ranges around, both formal and informal (you may shoot on nearly all large tracts of public land and private land that isn't posted against it, provided you're an appropriate distance from structures and all that).
The occasional sound of gunfire here doesn't alarm anyone. One or two is someone killing a pest or hunting, lots is some target shooting.
If I put my trash outside without it being in something fully bear-proof, it will have a bear into it within a few days. Cook something nice, leave a door/window open to just the screen, and you might have a bear, moose, or something else in your kitchen one day. Police response time is 30 minutes on a good day.
(far) Northern New England. And you would be right, that's an important consideration if there isn't an appropriate backstop.
The topography up here has granted plenty of appropriate natural backstops, however. (And some not so natural, the various old gravel pits and quarries are popular for that purpose as well).
There won't be "stray bullets" unless you shoot straight up or at high angles, which is a no-no. Otherwise gravity does a great job grounding the lead on your property.
A .30-06 round, aimed high, with the goal of getting it as far as possible, is generally going to max out at 1.5-1.7 miles, assuming favorable winds and no obstacles.
For most practical shooting, at a target that's roughly chest level, ranges aren't going to exceed ~500 yards, and are often a moot point with a decent backstop.
From wikipedia: "The acre is related to the square mile, with 640 acres making up one square mile. One mile is 5280 feet (1760 yards)"
Stray bullets cause a lot of harm, generally in the city to innocent bystanders. Even in hunting season when many people take to the woods with guns, stray bullets rarely cause harm, though people who shoot at movement before identifying an animal do hurt and kill people.
As a very pro-2A gun owner, I'm upvoting you and hope at least people stop downvoting you. Downvoting this comment, which in no way attacks other people or their points of view, goes against the spirit of HN. Save that crap for reddit.
Back to your comment, though, I grew up in the San Francisco suburbs. I have pretty much lived in either metropolitan suburbs or urban center of medium sized cities. I never even shot a gun until my 30's. I guess my feeling on guns was that I was neutral until I moved to the Southern US and some coworkers took me shooting. After actually using them, and being taught safety protocols, I saw guns as what they were - hunks of metal. I didn't feel attaching emotion to inanimate objects was particularly constructive.
Also around that time, I had a few friends that were victims of violent crimes. Two of them were in supposed "safe" areas in the NYC suburbs. Pretty much changed my views on police and personal safety completely.
Isn't calling a gun "a hunk of metal" the same as, say, calling a book "a stack of paper"? Why would a hunk of metal be such a popular prop in so many movies? Obviously, philosophy of owning and using a gun goes far, far beyond seeing it merely as a piece of metal, and calling it that on purpose, as I am sure you do, is plain disingenuous.
It is absolutely not disingenuous because I'm not talking about the philosophy of owning or using a gun. OP uses the word "terrifying" in describing these comments. That's the same word many people use to describe how they feel about a gun. It's not unreasonable to see those trains of thoughts connected, and again, I personally don't think it's productive to attach emotion to an inanimate object.
If you look at how hacking is portrayed in various media, there is a massive amount of dramatization compared to the "real" thing; it's the same with guns.
I'm pro 2nd Amendment, but anti-gun. With the equipment a modern military has at it's disposal, I fail to see how the right to own small arms is going to help keep our government in check.
Both the Soviet Union and the United States, sporting the most powerful armies the world has ever seen, failed to conquer a bunch of farmers and goat herders using 60-100 year old rifles in Afghanistan.
I'm a little confused, aren't those positions a bit contradictory? I would be interested in reading a bit more of your views here.
> With the equipment a modern military has at it's disposal, I fail to see how the right to own small arms is going to help keep our government in check.
After seeing various militaries (is that the right word?) fight for the last 19 years in Afghanistan (and spending some time there myself), it seems to me that availability of superior weapons and equipment isn't the only factor.
My idea is that "the right to bear arms" should be reconsidered. One way or the other is fine, but I think that with military technology advancements we are in a poor middle ground right now. If we as Americans affirm the 2nd amendment, then the right to bear arms should be relaxed considerably (meaning, more military equipment should be allowed to civilians. If we reject the 2nd amendment then guns should be restricted to a greater degree (maybe like Canada)
The 2nd amendment is not a right to own a gun. Here is it's text:
> A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
so what I'm arguing is that "small arms" are now basically ineffective arms.
If for some reason the USA Military became Americas enemy there's no way a credible opposition could rise without another military backing it. The point of the 2nd amendment is impossible today, so I think we should either fix it, or abolish it.
Are you sure? Half of the grunts in an US infantry platoon carry only weapons (specifically the M-4) available to civilians.
Civilians' having small arms greatly increases the number of soldiers needed to repress them, and the more soldiers needed, the more likely soldiers will revolt against the repression.
> And don't try to tell me an AR-15 is the same thing as an M4.
For all intents and purposes, they are the same. An M4 has a barrel that is 1.5" shorter than most civilian AR15s and it has a 3-round burst setting that is almost never used because it's worthless.
I've spent a considerable amount of time behind both of them and I assure you they are functionally identical in basically every real-world use case.
Tens of millions of armed citizens is absolutely an effective counter to any threat. Imagine keeping supply lines moving across a country this large if you knew millions of armed people would try to shut you down.
How exactly do you plan on keeping occupation of a country when the entire place is full of armed citizens that don't like you? That's the point. A military coup in the USA is unlikely to succeed.
For those of us who grew up around guns, your abject horror at an object is as puzzling as someone being terrified of knives or slingshots. Would be nice if cops were all good and could teleport to your location in time of need. Drive an hour outside your city of choice and that ain't gonna happen. Just sharing my own experience, cheers.
Even within cities, people have been having that realization over the past two months with how the cops have been unable to keep up with the rioting. Permit applications are up 500% in Illinois, and sales are skyrocketing all over.
Even before all this, unless a cop just happens to be right outside, you are going to wait a long time. The number of stories where someone calls the police while a crime is in progress and the police arrive before the criminal is long gone are near non-existent except in cases of domestic abuse.
They often won't show up in a timely manner in the city, either. I once called them because I had broken up a fight and one of the people involved ran back to his apartment to get a pistol and was out in the parking lot with his friends searching for me, pistol in hand.
There was a police station less than a mile away and it took them 45 minutes to arrive. No doubt they intended to let events play out however they may and then roll in and take statements, which is their only actual legal obligation.
That incident really drove home for me exactly what I'm not getting for my tax dollars.
Indeed! Though even in non-rural environments their response times are too low to generally be of assistance in life-threatening violent altercations; and that response time is typically lower in predominantly african american neighbourhoods.
It's kind of a mark of white privilege to believe that the police will arrive in time to protect you, and that when they arrive they won't harm you.
Even for de-escalating domestic disputes and dealing with petty vandalism and neighbourly feuds they are likely a worse tool than social workers and such.
Is your direct experience that you have actually held/brandished/used a firearm during an event when you were physically threatened? Or is this strictly theoretical?
I have. A couple guys came into the house late at night while I was in bed. I was upstairs and they were downstairs. I didn't have a means to escape. Cops can't help in that situation.
I confronted them at the stairs and the whole thing de-escalated very quickly. Nobody got hurt. As far as someone sneaking into your house while you sleep, it was pretty much a best case scenario.
Stories like this sound so weird to me. Breaking into an occupied house sounds like suicidal behavior. What kind of thought process goes into doing something like that?
It's borderline suicidal where I live because quite a few houses have guns in them. Every house on my street does. It still happens.
I wouldn't say it's often because car break-ins and empty house burglaries are much more common, but it does happen. Attackers pushing their way in as you open the door, attackers posing as some kind of official or salesperson. When the pandemic started, we had guys going around in lab coats saying they were with the CDC.
Police response times are generally very good where I live, but guns are still very common and so is concealed carry. The thought behind it for many people is sort of the same as keeping a fire extinguisher in the kitchen. You're not the fire department, but you want to be able to control an emergency until they get there or avoid having an emergency become a catastrophe.
around where I live its usually meth addicts trying to steal something to pawn and buy more drugs. The meth addicts in that state are not the most rational forward thinking people.
My parents did while my house was being broken into one night by multiple men. Semi-rural area. Thankfully they left before anything happened. I have close friends with darker stories.
Most developed nations allow gun ownership to some degree, with large variations in the regulations and limits around it. The US though are quite unique in seeing gun ownership as a basic right, not a privilege granted/earned.
Why do most developed nations not protect free speech?
The concept of liberty is relatively new, most of the world has lived under monarchs, dictators, etc until relatively recently in the grand scheme of things. The ideas and mechanisms of freedom are still being learned.
I've never understood the "most developed nations _______" argument. So what? "Most" parties doing something doesn't make it the right choice. In any other discussion this would be rightfully called out as an "appeal to the majority" fallacy.
You're making my point for me. Every single one of those is a stupid argument.
There are plenty of good arguments to be made for all of those things, but "everyone else does it" is not one of them.
Look, if every other country legalizes murder tomorrow, does that mean we should, too? No? Then whether everyone else is doing it is clearly irrelevant.
Somebody will probably sic dang on me for saying this, but it is mind boggling to me that I have to explain this.
Your argument really sounds like those first year students that just attended psychology 101 or theology 101, debate 101, philosophy 101 and suddenly felt "woke" and decided to go "meta" for the discussion and mentioning "majority fallacy" instead of discussing the issue. Yeah, try that with your professors.
I wouldn't have the opportunity, because none of my professors ever used such poor reasoning. I'm not surprised to learn that yours do, though.
Also, psychology and theology have nothing to do with any of this, and you clearly have no idea what "woke" and "meta" mean.
You can call my post "low effort" but at least it isn't a word salad.
I regret wasting my time talking to you. Have a good night.
Well, hunting riffles, even if there are extremely common in most countries, specially in rural areas, are hardly in the same class of weapon as a bolt action/(semi-)automatic riffle or an handgun.
The latter also has a different goal in mind, being generally used for self protection/deterrence.
Also, carrying a gun all the time is extremely uncommon if not forbidden in most European countries if you don't have the proper permits. For example in France, IIRC, you can only get such permit if your professional activity justifies it (Police, Security Guards, etc).
Even for recreational/hunting uses you need to be registered, and maybe have a permit, depending on the type of gun. And that's just for ownership, it doesn't grant you the right to carry the weapon loaded and ready to fire.
> hunting riffles, even if there are extremely common in most countries, specially in rural areas, are hardly in the same class of weapon as a bolt action
It's definitely framed by where you live. I had a buddy in rural West Texas who had a loaded AR-15 mounted on the wall of his living room. I thought it was some insane gun nut thing, until I asked him about it. He explained that the nearest sheriff was 45 minutes away and he'd also had problems with coyotes attacking his chickens. For him, it would be crazy not have a high-powered weapon at the ready since there was no one nearby to help and there was significant wildlife in the area.
On the other hand, having an AR-15 in NYC would be a nightmare for obvious reasons.
I think folks on both sides of gun debate forget this - that there are dramatically different living situations across America. In this respect, it really doesn't make sense to talk about gun laws at the federal level (I know, 2nd Amendment), because what makes good sense in New York is ridiculous to someone living in rural Texas and vice-versa. It's not purely political, there's a very real practical element that doesn't often get discussed.
It's not nearly that sensible and straighforward. Drive south of DC to the point where subdivisions give way to farms and you can shoot all day without being bothered.
Drive the same distance outside of Boston or NYC and you've got the same low population density but if you shoot anything in your back yard you'll get a visit from the SWAT team.
This kind of stuff really should depend on population density but we've gutted all legislative capacity at the county level and pushed it to the state level so you get a dumb situation where a state has to go entirely one way or the other which is not very efficient when it comes to making people live under sensible laws for their living situation.
There's really no fundamental reason the cities and rural areas shouldn't be able to just do their own thing on this issue. It's just that people insist on having this legislation be at the state level.
>The North American headquarters for Sig Sauer is only an hour from Boston
NH is a different state and much more friendly to shooting. Also having a corporate HQ doesn't really mean much.
>It's not a big deal at all. Not just in NH, but in MA too.
There's probably a couple pockets in MA further east but for the most part you need to get to the Western edge of Worcester county (which is definitely more than an hour from Boston) before you can be pretty assured none of your neighbors will call the cops. Even then it's kind of iffy because of the laws. You really don't want to have the cops called on you even if you're just target shooting (unlike in NH where getting the cops called wouldn't be a big deal).
>Do you live in New England?
The crappy half. But I've lived all over the east coast.
Why do American people put up with the authorities breaking the law instead of simply having the law changed? The constitution is not a bible, it can be updated. (Or, perhaps, it is indeed a "bible", in a sense?)
And, incidentally, the constitution says nothing about hunting, sporting, or even self-defense as the "legal" justification for gun ownership.
You don't know much about firearms based on your response. An AR-15 is a high-powered rifle that has a lot of stopping power even at long range and is very accurate - that's why my buddy had one. It also doesn't have the spread of a shotgun, which is important if you need to shoot a coyote that's too close to your chickens -- you don't want to fire a round of buckshot and take out a bunch of your chickens in the process. The AR is not materially different from other semi-automatic hunting rifles you can buy.
The AR has become a political symbol because it happened to be used in mass shootings, but there's nothing about it that makes it unique in terms of it's ability to do harm. Even if you live in a state that's banned the AR-15, you can get a gun that's virtually identical that's not an AR. This speaks to the fact that Democrats talking about guns are like Republicans talking about tech. They're trying to control an industry and have made zero effort to understand anything about it.
> An AR-15 is a high-powered rifle that has a lot of stopping power even at long range
This clause is untrue. The most common chamberings of .223 Remington or 5.56x45mm NATO are not "high-powered". That is an intermediate-power cartridge. More power than a plinking/training round like .22 or .17 HMR, or common handgun rounds, but still less power than a traditional full-size rifle round. Furthermore, the action and magazine well of an AR-15 are too short to even physically accommodate full-size rifle rounds like .308 Winchster / 7.62x51mm NATO, .270, .30-06, etc, to say nothing of rounds that would actually be justifiably called "high-power", like .300 Winchester Magnum or .338 Laupa.
The rest of your post is spot-on, but the meme that the AR-15 is "high-powered" is factually wrong and needs to die.
AR-15 isn't high powered. It's not considered suitable for hunting many types of game in many states.
30-06 was introduced in 1906 (the -06 bit) to fix the 30-03 (making it a hair shorter and a lighter 150 grain spitzer "pointy" bullet instead of the 220 grain round nose). The result was faster, lighter, and a flatter trajectory at a weight of around 27 grams per cartridge (I don't know the weight of the 30-30, but I think around 30 grams is probably accurate).
The 7.62x51 went down a little to 147 grain, but shaved almost a half inch off the length reducing weight to around 24 grams at a somewhat minor expense of velocity, range, and impact strength (very few people could make use of the extra range and power in combat).
The first 5.56x45 was all about reducing size. 55 grain bullet was a fraction of the size while the overall length dropped by almost 3/4 of an inch resulting in around an 11.5 gram cartridge (the 62 grain version adds another half gram or so). The effective range dropped dramatically and kinetic energy was cut in half, but once again, very few people can shoot that far in combat and the kinetic energy was deemed sufficient (though that's debated by some soldiers today). Double the ammo for the same weight is a much more important metric for the army.
It's a good cartridge for a lot of things, but it's the weakest rifle cartridge the US army has ever used and probably the weakest intermediate cartridge used in any army in the world.
There was a Washington Post article a few years ago that referred to a Ruger 10/22 (which shoots .22LR) as a "high powered rifle". By all means keep trying, but I've found that efforts to inject facts into the gun control debate are often poorly received. Folks have their preconceived notions, and it's easiest to just cling to them.
AR-15 isn't a specific rifle. Why do people talk this way? There are AR-15 that can shoot .22LR, and 9mm. They're decently accurate when configured properly.
Unless you mean the real "ArmaLite AR-15", or a clone, which shoots https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.223_Remington. Now that round will absolutely wreck things. But even then, it's not really a high-powered round...
Having neither coyote nor rifles where I live, I'm curious: what is the practical range for shooting a coyote approaching a farm? If accuracy and stopping power "at long range" make a difference, wouldn't a larger caliber hunting rifle be equally suitable?
The fun of an affected machismo and showing up your friends at the target range notwithstanding, there is such a thing as overkill, and there comes a point where it is economically silly to address varmint problems with higher-power, longer-range cartridges. A cartridge that will humanely drop an elk at 300 meters will, without question, ruin a coyote's day just as thoroughly. But why spend $2-$3 per shot when $0.50-$1 will do just as well?
So there is a significant market segment of people who buy an AR-15 or a similar intermediate caliber rifle for genuine animal defense purposes, because they aren't interested in a more expensive hunting rifle for actual hunting use? Or coyote and bears are a convenient excuse for a gun that is very suitable to kill people?
Also cost, they are mass printed, you can get a solid albiet boring AR for 500$. I think you'd be hard pressed to get a higher powered rifle without spending 800$+.
IMO, this post betrays both a biased assumption -- that real reason anyone would buy an AR-pattern rifle is a desire to kill others, with varmint management as an excuse, and an ignorance -- that bears would fall under varmint management.
I'll address the latter first. The wildlife that tends to be classified as varmints, prairie dogs, rabbits, possums, raccoons, coyotes, wild hogs etc, all tend to have less body mass than humans. Any intermediate cartridge is sufficient. Any common handgun cartridge would probably also be sufficient, though there are at least two problems with the that: 1. A handgun cartridge may not have enough power to quickly drop larger varmints like coyotes or hogs. 2. And even out of something like a pistol-caliber carbine (think an AR or similar compact rifle chambered for pistol rounds) handgun rounds tend to be limited in their practical effective range compared intermediate cartridges. This forces one to get closer to the varmint in question to take the shot. For smaller varmints, like prairie dogs or rabbits, this means that they bolt away and you won't be able to take the shot. For larger varmints, like raccoons, coyotes, or hogs, this means that the critter might decide it's sick of your shit and attack. You might not think it, given the relative size between raccoons and humans, but raccoons can punch well above their weight and absolutely can cause significant injuries to a human.
All of the critters above tend to top-out at body masses less than a human. Compare bears, which can equal the body mass of a human as juveniles, and tend to top out at body masses well in excess thereof. If you shot a bear with an intermediate cartridge and didn't have the luck to have your first shot be a lethal one, you have now wounded, and angered, the bear. You thought raccoons or hogs were dangerous when pissed off.
Now for motivation -- that the real reason to own an AR-pattern rifle is to have something very suitable for killing people. Um, I don't know how to break this to you, but just about any common handgun cartridge bigger than .32 ACP is very suitable for killing people, this is not something unique or special about an AR-15. But I won't pretend that it isn't quite capable of such -- it absolutely is. Were I to find myself in a home defense situation, I would reach for an AR over a handgun or shotgun -- more power than the former, and more precise than the latter. I'm not going to pretend that such is any more likely a scenario than a global plague disrupting food supply chains. But, I suppose keeping a few weeks of water, food and batteries on hand also makes me an irrational weirdo.
Finally, you may have heard the phrase, "all interesting behavior is overdetermined". With regards to the large market for AR-pattern rifles, this means that for any one AR owner, they will have one or more of a myriad of reasons to own an AR -- including as a raised middle finger to those who would wring their hands about the AR's unique suitability for murder and that its ownership should be banned or restricted. For good or for ill, open defiance of overbearing busybodies has been a part of the American psyche for a long time.
I do think this is a bit unfair. When the average person says "AR-15", they mean "rifle with a big ol' external mag", and it's a pretty new phenomenon for the average gun owner to have those. Until the assault weapons ban expired in 2004, even gun enthusiasts really did tend to think that a "normal" rifle was one with a wood stock and a fixed internal magazine.
It's unfairly targeted and irrational. Pistols kill more in Chicago on any given weekend then die from a mass shooting annually. You can get a pistol with 17 rounds and fit that in your pocket. It's targeted because it looks scary. Gun enthusiasts have been purchasing and owning 'assault rifles' since they were invented. The ban was temporary and sunset from the beginning because of the outrage of the alternative indicating a market need and desire. They are extremely versatile stable shooting platform. And there are millions of law abiding gun owners around the country and tens of thousands of them stop crimes with their guns every yearp
Whether it's rational (or correct) to ban them is a very different question. I think it's simply false as a matter of fact that AR-style rifles have been common since they were invented. They hit the civilian market in 1964, but I've never seen information suggesting they were common or popular until the 90s.
Your first paragraph describes the ways the AR-15 is unique in its ability to do harm, and your second paragraph claims there is nothing that makes it unique in its ability to do harm.
AR15 is a lighter, lower powered gun than your typical hunting rifle; the energy of a .223 bullet is a lot lower than a .30. The capacity is almost irrelevant, changing multiple mags is no problem for anyone with decent training. I am the kind of guy that loads only 5 rounds in each 10 round mag (sport shooting), so changing mags is as natural as firing the next round. People telling that "high-capacity overpowered mass destruction weapons" should be forbidden, on the other side...
Don't underestimate the Mauser Kar 98, it is a lot more lethal than an AR15, it is bolt action and a good shooter is very effective with it. I really don't understand the impression that low-capacity, low-speed action rifles are protecting anyone from a bad guy with bad intentions; it is not.
People who don't own guns tend to think of AR-15s as something exotic or particularly dangerous. Those of us who own guns tend to just think of them as the default rifle, for various reasons.
You're saying "why wouldn't some other firearm suffice", while we just buy ARs unless that default is somehow unsuitable.
I can see why you would have that point of view living in your situation. If I may Let me share with you a different perspective.
I have grown up around firearms but with reason. I have spent the majority of my life living in rural areas, as a kid/teen I lived far out of town with acres of woodlands, swamps, forest, interspersed with occasional pastures for miles in every discretion. I have had multiple encounters with apex predictors in my backyard. I have had mountain lion in my woodshed, a bear wander into my yard, and other smaller predators such as coyotes bobcat, and feral dogs try to eat my pets/animals. I also enjoy many outdoor activities such as fishing camping and hiking in the backwoods, and have encountered more predators there (the above but also various venomous snakes and wolves). I started carrying .22 loaded with snake shot as defense against rattle snakes when fishing around age 12. But before I was allowed near my fathers guns he took me out to the range for safety training. The lesson I learned that day have stuck with me.
He placed a watermelon out on the range. He then shot the melon. Next he walked out with me to its pieces and told me to put it back together. I stared at him like he was insane, He then got down at eye level with me and told me that it would do that same to a person and to never point it at anyone, that it would kill them, that guns were deadly weapons not toys.
We spent the rest of the day going over gun use and safety.
While today I don't live out in the country I still own firearms mostly used for sport shooting and defense when in the wilderness. But I take gun safety very seriously. My firearms are kept in a locked gunsafe bolted to the floor, inside the case they are all kept unloaded and all have a trigger lock of are kept in a locked case inside the safe.
I think you are right, but it is a sign of a problem: the disconnect from reality for some people. I had a colleague (and friend) that saw the first real life cow at the age of 16 and it was a shock for him because it did not look like what he imagined as size (he thought it is as big as a pork).
The problem is that these people are missing a lot of information about the world outside and they have opinions and vote missing relevant and sometimes essential information. They are most of the time nice and well intentioned people supporting or voting for what can be very bad things.
For example my country has the largest bear population in EU, but we are not allowed to hunt them even if they come in villages and attack people. Why? Because urban "nature-lovers" are against shooting bears: bears don't come in their large cities, they don't ever meet a bear bare-handed (this is the quotes for), so for them bears are not a problem. For the people with damages ffrom bears, they are not enough to make their voice heard and over-vote the urban people.
Foreigners have a lot of fear when the discussion turns to guns in America, but you have to realize that most Americans will never brandish a gun at someone nor have a gun brandished at them.
No more than a foreigner will brandish a knife at someone or have a knife brandished at them.
The media/Hollywood helps augment fears by misrepresenting the lethality of guns and also by cherry picking gun death statistics. Watch a movie and you'd think it was the easiest thing in the world to kill a dozen people with an AK-47 in seconds or take out a helicopter with a handgun. Actually go to a shooting range and you'll see what reality is like.
The chances of getting killed in a school shooting by an AR-15 for example are infintesimal compared to dying by suicide via a handgun.
First, I really like your comment because it is honest and highlights how different Urban and Rural issues are. Lots of guns in the hands of non-law enforcement people is scary in a big city and most of the reasons are really good (i.e. accidents, crime, etc). In the country, not owning a gun is scary because of the inability of law enforcement to respond quickly when called... even suburbs often have slow police compared to dense urban areas.
I'm from Australia so am missing your context. Is violent crime such a high risk for you that the proximity of law enforcement is a factor, or are you talking about using law enforcemnet to deal with dangerous animials?
My experience here and having travelled much of this country is that I've never felt at risk of violent crime whilst in remote areas and rairly in urban areas when in an area near a pub or "drug" area.
I mean, as a gun owner, if you told me you lived in a NYC apartment and owned a gun for in-home, self defense I'd ask "why?". You're putting the lives of a lot of people around you in jeopardy if you miss (which you almost certainly will at least once). I think if I lived in NYC, in an a place where I was concerned about that, I'd reinforce entryways so I could shelter in place somewhere.
In the fact that somebody who is not experienced handling and firing a weapon in a stressfull situation is more likely to hurt themselves or an innocent bystander, I think you are correct.
I would think that, beyond waking up to find you have an intruder, that having a gun in your house is not going to to you much good if you have a voilent intruder. If somebody decides to bash down your door in a violent range, you are not likely to have the instant access to a weapon that would be required to deal with the situation.
I live in Los Angeles and I used to feel that way until this pandemic hit - I'm not saying you'll change your mind living in NYC, just sharing my change in perspective. I bugged out mid-March to a family farm to wait out the pandemic and since then its been a nonstop string of events reinforcing why - at least outside of cities - guns are absolutely necessary. Now, mind you, one member of the household works at a research institute in San Diego with a 40 minute commute so this isn't even really rural, just exurban, but we've got septic, well, propane tank, and depend on 4G internet.
The nearest police station is 15 minutes away if I drive 100mph but writing this post is the first time I've thought about that fact. The bigger problem is animals: we've never once been able to reach our area's animal control or get a call back from them, no matter when we call. Most situations we can handle ourselves like dealing with rattlesnakes but last year a mountain lion ate our neighbor's goat and the only way to get rid of it was to shoot at it (or over it, as I found most people here won't kill rare animals unless absolutely forced to).
We've got several pets and feral cat decided to make herself home in our shed, giving birth to a full litter right before a large group of giant raccoons migrated to our area. If the raccoons in NYC are anything like the ones here, they're huge with the mammalian equivalent of alligator hide. Scaring them doesn't really work without a gun and nothing but a proper firearm will do more than piss it off and wound it, which will just make it more dangerous. The options are a) put your pets at risk every time you let them out at night, b) weapons that will only cause inhumane damage to the animal, or c) a real gun. If you're the kind of individual that values life as an inherent good but prioritizes the safety of family and pets, guns become the only realistic humane option.
Now, the ironic part is that most people I know here should absolutely not be allowed to own a gun if they lived in the city. Some of them have really warped views of human civilization that led them to live further out (rapists and murderers around every corner) and seem to relish the idea of "defending themselves" with a gun. However, the very idea of them getting enough warning to get to their gun fast enough to actually manage to load it and shoot an assailant is just laughable. Most people here use their guns so infrequently outside of LARPing at a shooting range that when it comes time to use the workhorse gun instead of their assault rifle props, they spend 15 minutes trying to figure out how to use it while the animal just stands there, confused.
As far as I know, most countries with strict gun control still leave a loophole for rural residents big enough to drive a train through. However, most of those countries have sane gun cultures where they treat them as dangerous tools and not as religious idols. Now having experienced the damage guns do in inner cities and their necessity further out from civilization, I'm torn on the issue and I don't see a way out.
> Some of them have really warped views of human civilization that led them to live further out (rapists and murderers around every corner) and seem to relish the idea of "defending themselves" with a gun
It's unfortunate how true that statement is. Every time I've attended a class for a concealed carry permit it seems to be filled with wanna-be vigilantes. Which is ironic because almost every CCP class is a gun advocate instructor saying "do not shoot people! even if you're in the right you'll go bankrupt defending yourself in civil court". And everytime they get asked "But what if...?" "You'll still get sued..." "but what.." repeat ad nausea
Right, and really here's how you have to think of it: If you are in a situation where you are concerned with being sued into bankruptcy, or going to prison, then you're not in enough fear of your life to justify shooting someone in the first place.
The guns rural people tend to need are rifles. The guns that you see used in cities are almost entirely handguns. The concentration on scary black rifles is misguided unless you only focus on mass shootings, which make up a tiny fraction of firearm homicides.
A sibling comment mentioned the value of an AR15 for shooting at coyotes near a chicken coup without collateral damage which I hadn't even considered so I think this also depends on the geography and community. I'm in a mountainous part of the county with mostly 2-10 acre properties that often butt up against each other with buildings clustered on the largest available pieces of continuous flat land. Shooting a high powered rifle in this environment would be extremely dangerous because we've got half a dozen neighbors' houses well within the range of a rifle, all at weird angles above and below the horizon on one side of the property. Someone who hasn't had proper training in fire arm use - as in training under pressure, not just gun range safety - could easily fire off a shot that kills a neighbor. Everyone here who shoots rifles does it into an unpopulated distant mountain side or into a big hill on their property.
> The concentration on scary black rifles is misguided unless you only focus on mass shootings, which make up a tiny fraction of firearm homicides.
I disagree. The key to understanding the different sides gun control issue is exactly what I've been talking about - understanding different perspectives. The suburban white mom who worries about her child accidentally shooting themselves at a friend's house, the young adult who is worried about getting shot at the mall, and the urban black mom who is mostly worried about her child catching a stray bullet from a street or gang dispute are only ostensibly fighting for the same thing. Those are really three separate issues with their own really complex interactions with constitutional law, mental health, social justice, and community. The three groups are forced under one banner largely because of our two party system, but their views should be analyzed independently.
That the media focuses on the group with the most disposable income and the most visceral imagery shouldn't surprise anyone
> most countries with strict gun control still leave a loophole for rural residents
The primary loophole being the ability and willingness of countries other than the rich ones to enforce laws like that in their rural areas. People having guns (or anything really) they shouldn't per the letter of the law is like bottom of the priority list. The local police in rural South America, Asia and Eastern Europe have much bigger fish to fry.
If we are talking about practicality, you could expand this to all suburbs (towns bordering cities) as well. The practical use case is marginal for them, same for wood fireplaces and horses.
I wonder about the process here. If they filed for bankruptcy in 2018, and have to file again today in the middle of the hottest gun market in years... doesn't that mean they screwed up the first restructuring?
(I guess I don't know how many of the people rushing to the store are actually buying the kind of expensive guns Remington sells, though. I'd believe a story where it's few to none.)
This is just financial engineering from a private equity company. They are simply bleeding out the brand reputation for as long as they can.
Same playbook as every other one.
Buy a brand. Cut costs and ship all work to the cheapest labor market. Count on brand loyalty and reputation to carry sales as the quality goes down. Eventually the brand will no longer be worth much due to the lower quality product, but by then the private equity firm has made solid returns on its investment. At that point they sell off the last scraps and find another quality brand with quality products and good jobs to destroy.
Which owner of Remington are you referring to? I’m not sure I follow the theory that they experienced irrecoverable quality decline at the hands of one owner, unless you mean DuPont, and that’s hard to measure given the major changes in the retail rifle and pistol market during that time that were not favorable to Remington.
People are buying bolt actions like there's no tomorrow. Just not from Remington. Tikka, for instance, has been a sleepy brand here in the US for a while, but their popularity has exploded in recent years.
Remington's owners have stripped away many of the skilled gunsmiths they used to have. A new Remington is not a very well machined firearm, and enthusiasts have found this out and no longer buy their products.
Even the concept of gunsmiths making serial production guns is weird to me. Gunsmiths should do repair, factories with robots and CNC machines should make high precision gear.
CNC machines do the bulk manufacturing. In high end shops, gunsmiths do the final finish work. It used to be that high production firearms still had gunsmiths overseeing production. Now, in places like Remington, firearms come off the machines and get put right into the box.
A range friend of mine is on his 3rd new Remington 700. He sent the original new unit back and they shipped him a new one. It was defective, he sent it back. They sent him another one. This was in the last 6 months. These were all issues with the machining of the chamber that should never have been shipped in the first place. A simple check with a flashlight would have revealed the problems that were plainly visible to the naked eye.
Conversely, I have 7 Remington products that I purchased new as late as 2005 and they have all been perfect.
So the problem is mostly lack of quality assurance, rather than an intrinsically bad product? With proper quality control, where would the Remington 700 fall in the scale from cheap to average to good? Is it overpriced, or technically inferior, or strange, compared to the competition?
It's interesting because removing people who inspect shotguns is quick, easy and relatively reversible, while declining product quality and loss of design and production skills are normally gradual trends with an eventful story of bad decisions.
The Remington 700 is an excellent platform and used to be highly regarded for precision rifles. It was the basis of both the US Army and Marine Corps' bolt-action sniper rifles for many decades (M24 and M40, respectively). Remington's manufacturing quality has just gone downhill in recent years.
There are other manufacturers that still make them to a high standard. I'm not sure whether they're licensed copies or just clones, but I recently heard someone joke that "these days everyone makes a great Remington 700 except Remington".
Industry is very strong, but PE-controlled Remington has lost their way. What's interesting to me is the 700 action design is becoming the dominant default pattern from custom manufacturers. Bighorn, ARC, Defiance, GAP, Kelbly's, Curtis, Ultimatum, Stiller, Surgeon, BAT Machine, Terminus, Impact, Falcor, Vudoo, etc. - all are compatible with a huge variety of stocks and triggers designed for the Remington 700 action specs. It will be odd if the actual Remington 700 is not in that list anymore, given the popularity of the design.
Remington tried to pivot into the semi-auto handgun market with the R51. It’s a good design, but one that doesn’t mesh well with modern manufacturing techniques. They pumped a ton of money into getting it to market, and they just couldn’t make it profitable.
I'd never heard of the R51, but after Googling it...good lord. I'd never buy it just based on its appearance. It looks more like a hot glue gun than a pistol.
Once known as industry leaders then moves in production and cost savings meant an inferior product. Eventually people caught on and the brand was done.
Honestly no. If anything the gun industry holds a substantial bit of political power considering the average American doesn't even own a gun.
Edit:. Touchy subject but it's a fact the average American doesn't own a gun. The political influence is substantial on the other hand. I'm not anti gun because it should be an inconsequential topic. It's like vegans had the big seat at the table.
30% of American adults own a gun and 43% live in a gun household [1] and only about 40% of Americans bother to vote in presidential elections. Gun owners are more political than non-owners [2] so it's not unlikely that half of all voters or more are gun owners or live in gun households. That's a significant political force.
Vegans, in contrast, make up around 0.4-3% of Americans depending on the poll [3].
I was being absurd in my comparison to veganism
But 70 percent of Americans do not own a gun. Am I being obtuse to say a minority of Americans own a gun?
70% of Americans are white but we still care about the minority vote. (Living in a gun-owning household is not irrelevant. For the reasons people buy guns—hunting, self-defense, etc., you don’t need everyone to have a gun in their own name.)
So was I incorrect in my statementt that a minority of Americans own a gun.
And yes it is irrelevant. I do not control, perhaps do not even know what a roommate owns and vice versa. And that only pushed the needle up a but, to still being in the minority. You mention minorities? Gun owners are a minority
> I do not control, perhaps do not even know what a roommate owns and vice versa.
Households with "roommates" are a small minority of all households. About 40 million of 250 million adults live in a household with other people that they're not related to or romantically involved with. The vast majority of households that aren't individuals living alone are are families or unmarried couples. In those contexts, it would be typical for one member of the household to own the firearms as a legal matter, but others might use it or rely on it. For example, Breonna Taylor was living with her boyfriend, who was licensed to own a firearm. If the couple bought a gun for self-defense, it seems fair to attribute the gun to the whole household, not just the individual who purchased it. Or in another example, a parent might purchase a firearm that other adult family members in the household use for hunting or target practice.
You're also forgetting about voting. Gun owners are much more likely to be older, married, and live outside the city. (Many people who don't own a gun when they're young and living in the city purchase one when they move out to the 'burbs and start af family!) The same groups of people are also more likely to vote.
You were not incorrect to say they are a minority. Nobody factually disputed you on this detail. However, other folks added relevant details to show the prevalence of fun ownership and to give context to the political influence of gun owners.
If you have a gun owner in a household (a traditional family with kids) everyone that have voting rights will vote pro guns, that is 2-3-4 times that minority of owners translating in a majority of voters.
In my case if I would own a gun there would be 7 voters supporting it. Quite a multiplier.
It's definitely touchy, but I think even in abstract it's a bit misleading to say in isolation that the average American doesn't own a gun. There are areas of the country where guns are rare, but there are also many areas where they're very normalized and most households have one.
IIRC they did it as a political statement and have a bunch of exceptions/loopholes that more or less make it so that anyone who doesn't want to doesn't have to.
If you've got a valid green card you can own a gun, no question. Pretty sure you can own a gun on working visas as well, though there is the logistical issue of if/when the visa expires -- chances are you're not taking it with you.
The same way in some town in Maryland you can't feed ducks on Sunday. Its a law that is left on the book, completely ignored and largely forgotten about
Most comment seem to agree that Remington stopped making quality guns, with the obvious effects on profitability.
When did this happen? Is it a cause or an effect of the mentioned private equity funds? Is it an Intel-like bad period on the product design and R&D front?
Private equity, mostly. That's shorthand for corporate raiders taking over, cutting QA and other costs, trying to diversify the product lines, and banking hard on the brand to keep things going. If it worked, great, keep making that money, and if not then milk the sucker and run -- which is what we're seeing.
Problem is that modern manufacturing has gotten cheaper and more effective, and offerings from China, Turkey, Japan, and other brands in the US are only getting better, while Remington stayed the same (or even declined). I think the trigger thing was more hype than reality, but why risk getting a bad one when there are so many good choices on the market that are at or below the Remington price?
It is private equity. I have a bunch of Thompson Center guns. I love them and found the quality to be quite good. They were then rolled up into Smith & Wessen in 2010. They cut most of their line and the quality is now shite. I wouldn't buy one anymore. So sad.
This grossly (and incorrectly) oversimplifies an enormous industry with a number of different approaches. Some PE firms absolutely strip the assets out of businesses and maximize their short term profits, while others buy and hold for the long term and others add value to companies they buy then sell them or take them public.
I hate the whole "PE is evil" attitude from people who don't understand it. Often there are headlines about how a PE firm has taken a firm over and fired hundreds or thousands of people, and the connotation is very much that they are evil and greedy for profit at the expense of people's livelihoods, while the reality is the business in its current form was going to fail and take everyone's job with it, and it was necessary to cut jobs in order to save the business (and thus save the jobs that remain).
I know the industry is an easy target because it's a bunch of rich guys and some of them are definitely greedy profiteers, but it's just unhelpful to label the whole industry based on those. If you go by that logic then the whole tech industry is very much evil because it exploits cheap labor (Uber, DoorDash, etc.).
> while the reality is the business in its current form was going to fail and take everyone's job with it, and it was necessary to cut jobs in order to save the business
As a rate, how many business are actually "saved" by PE firms?
> (and thus save the jobs that remain)
Wouldn't that be simpler with a general bankruptcy? What is gained when a third party, often encumbered with leverage, gets involved?
> but it's just unhelpful to label the whole industry based on those
It's equally unhelpful to expect the minority players in an industry to define that industry.
> the whole tech industry is very much evil because it exploits cheap labor (Uber, DoorDash, etc.).
To engage the hyperbole, the current iteration of it may well be. I expected flying cars and trips to the moon, not face recognition surveillance, deep fakes and manipulative social networks.
Realistically... PE on it's own, and tech on it's own may be neutral concepts, but our current lack of regulation of their specific markets really shows.
You're obviously coming in with an anti-PE bent here, so if you're that interested you can pull up some statistics on PE outcomes and leave them here. My point was that OP's labeling of PE firms is overgeneralized - if you want to talk about percentages of outcomes and what type of PE is the minority then you're welcome to bring that info with you to discuss. I'm not going to do it for you.
> Wouldn't that be simpler with a general bankruptcy? What is gained when a third party, often encumbered with leverage, gets involved?
A bankruptcy is getting a third party (a court) involved to redistribute ownership or sell off assets and redistribute the proceeds and to decide how the company will be run while all of that is happening.
That is a good deal more complicated than simply selling the company to someone who wants to run it differently.
>I know the industry is an easy target because it's a bunch of rich guys and some of them are definitely greedy profiteers, but it's just unhelpful to label the whole industry based on those. If you go by that logic then the whole tech industry is very much evil because it exploits cheap labor (Uber, DoorDash, etc.).
In this case, they were given the kiss of death. Cerberus Capital right as/after they were done striping Chrysler to the bones. They used the same executive to do it, although his name eludes me now. Paid obnoxious amounts of money for niche brands like AAC, then immediately ran them into the ground. Failed to miss every single opportunity to make money by creating a military-only section that ad functionally identical guns they were selling on the civilian side in configurations people actually wanted. Dropped the ball on quality in every plant - then refocused almost everything to an Alabama facility where they continued to drop the ball but all together now. And just generally did everything wrong.
There have been so many chances to sell. The Navajo Nation offered almost a billion in 2014 or so, couple years later a friend of mine in that industry was on a team that looked into buying with another capital company that everyone here would know, and the books showed that the 250 million they were asking was extremely optimistic for their sales and debt.
I have no doubt someone will pick it up now, but at dirt cheap, for name and maybe 20 IP designs that will keep getting made. The 870 and some Marlins will stay, all of DPMS is probably gone, dumb things like the R51 will finally see the garbage pale. The military contracts are worth something, but they largely weren’t suppling much to US mil, except some precision rifle components, and suppressors, their M4 carbines were going overseas.
So... IDK. Left and right and all over just the wrong way to run a gun company.
This is popular to say, but doesn't hold up to reality.
An analysis of "17,171 worldwide leveraged buyout transactions that include every transaction with a financial sponsor in the CapitalIQ database announced between 1/1/1970 and 6/30/2007" found bankruptcy rates around 6% [1]. This isn't exceptionally high.
Gun stores, which have largely stayed open during the Covid-19 pandemic, are selling to many first-time buyers worried about personal safety over the civil unrest that followed the killing of George Floyd in police custody and the ensuing movement to reduce police funding.
I’m just upset Marlin was sold to Remington. The Model 39A is my favorite firearm. Once Remington took over, and they moved the factory, the quality went bad.
Shotguns being the exception, the 870 and other models are popular and reliable shotguns that many of my gun-owning friends have in their collection, as do I (two of them).
And, I agree with your comment on the ammo. Have gone through many green and yellow boxes of Remington ammo. Good stuff.
You truly need to be shit at running your business to declare bankruptcy at a time when people are buying so many guns all the gun stores are sold out of anything decent.
Before anyone jumps to conclusions, it seems their trouble began well before COVID:
> Firearms maker Remington Arms Co. filed for bankruptcy protection for the second time since 2018, weighed down by more debt than it can repay even as fearful Americans buy more guns than ever.
Same thing for Gibson Guitars, bought by KKR in 2013 and BK in 2018.
Gibson Guitars was founded in 1894, but a lot of the guitars they make today don't work, and are way overpriced also.
KKR renamed them to "Gibson Brands", so I guess some MBA with a PowerPoint thought related merchandise was more important than, you know, making guitars.
IDK about Gibson but back in the '00s I tried someone else's brand new First Act from Walmart (or wherever, but probably there) and it'd be fair to say it didn't work.
[EDIT] that is, I could play a large number of tunes such that they were recognizable and even pleasant-sounding on an ordinary cheap (say, $300-400 used or dent & ding) guitar, but was unable to do so at all on the First Act, which probably needed at least couple hundred dollars of work and parts replacement by a luthier to render it even minimally playable, let alone good-sounding. The neck definitely needed some adjustment, the frets probably needed attention (filing down, perhaps) and the tuners just needed to be replaced with ones that worked. I'm am quite certain almost no otherwise-well-motivated kid could have learned to play on that instrument. It simply did not work.
Well, if the lending institutions want to take on that debt, even if it would result in it being paid out in dividend and not recoverable in a bankruptcy, that's probably their right to do so - it's the lender's money to risk as they want in hopes of profit.
>With bankruptcy, Remington means to halt the Sandy Hook litigation from continuing in Connecticut state court.Notable timing, it comes after a series of decisions by the trial judge refusing to let Remington dodge discovery.
No harm done here. That case was stupid on all counts and just an excuse to try to dredge up some bad PR during investigation.
The mom -- not the shooter -- bought the guns, so the advertising aspect is dumb in that regard let alone that the reputation of the weapon isn't set by Remington in any significant way.
Next, Remington sells to dealers. If anyone was "selling" someone on a Remington, it was the gun dealer (if you're already going to the store, you've already been sold on the idea of a gun and are just negotiating the details).
There has to be better ways to use a judges time (even better cases involving guns and gun manufacturers).
Are there any other industries/ cases where the manufacturer is liable for damage due to misuse by the consumer? It seems something like this is weak to begin with.
Can't tell from the article (due to the paywall), but any sign that the Navajo Nation might still buy 'em? I've heard before that they want to (specifically to address rampant unemployment/poverty among tribal members).
metapost: this is the first gun related thread I've seen on the front page, I wish it happened more often. Similarly I always get excited when I see a gardening related thread, I like reading HN perspective on "non/low-tech" hobbies.
Plenty of other domestic brands to buy, Savage or Mossberg or Henry or whatever.
These are bolt action deer-getters, not Pantsir S1's. And outside of a handful of countries, no one is buying Pantsirs except Algeria (and maybe Iraq, which means half of them are going to end up as NATO playthings).
I wouldn't disagree, overall, but it may not be that clear-cut. I heard Sig Sauer is closing a German factory and the US plant will be exporting US-made Sigs. Reminds me of the Accord I used to have, made in Ohio. Are these wins for foreign companies? I tend to think of them as domestic wins with foreign owners getting a slice off the top.
Surprising, since lockdowns and "protests" have greatly increased the rate of gun purchasing. In my state, all firearms were out of stock at the local shops for months.
I generally agree with the message of the protests but I feel like what's going on in Portland isn't being widely covered by the media.
I am a long standing democrat for many years and it is becoming really difficult to stand behind the message when the activists have no agenda, want to continue doing this and there is no end in sight.
I absolutely resent federal forces defending the courthouse. If protestors want to burn it down (there are many videos of them trying to), what do you do? May be we just allow these people to burn it down if that means it is going to bring change.
Then there is this: How do you defend protestors who want to overthrow the United States?
Had to create throwaway account just to hide my identity - I am kind of terrified of everything right now. Both left and right are going insane, truth is smeared and it is difficult to have a level headed, HN-like conversion which is what makes this place wonderful.
We need to be extremely vigilant. Please I beg every one of you. I know it is pretty taboo to even be centrist around here, my plea is to fact check everything. What I am seeing as a 10 year subscriber to NYT is simply no coverage of extreme violence and absurdity of demands these protestors are creating. I have and stand by a lot majority of protestors that are actually peaceful - like the NY City march and SF protests, but Portland is on another level. I no longer support it.
The protesters were attacked. They did not escalate before this. After being attacked, their options are to continue being attacked with no recourse, or counterattack.
I personally have 0 issue with burning the courthouse. As with the previous violent protests, my issue comes with damage to civilian property.
The protestors were not attacked. They have a well established process of “peaceful” used as a shield for provocateurs, as though individuals are not responsible for the whole mob. The peaceful have recourse to identify and expel the violent, but don’t.
I have major issues with burning a courthouse - the nexus of polite functioning society, the recourse of civilian peace. Burn that, and the recourse for civilian property damage is vigilante violence - don’t go there.
What we see is outright insurrection, from mob to mayor, attempting to break our lawful government for an admitted imposition of communism. Don’t go there.
All of the protests started peacefully, including Portland. It was police violence that escalated things in the beginning. I recognize that they were not attacked _at that site_, but they were definitely attacked.
> They have a well established process of “peaceful” used as a shield for provocateurs
If you are breaking laws you will get hit with the laws. I'm not denying that. No one with their head on straight is calling violent protest peaceful.
In addition, there is evidence for PD's/alt-right inciting violence at protests to discredit them. I don't know if this is happening at Portland however.
> I have major issues with burning a courthouse ... the recourse of civilian peace.
The whole point of the protests is that this recourse has already failed.
> What we see is outright insurrection ... for an admitted imposition of communism.
While individuals may feel that way, I don't and I'm pretty sure most protesters don't. The fact that some of the leaders have talked about socialized health care
A) Doesn't mean that's the point of the protests.
B) Isn't communism.
By this logic, Trumps support of the white power movement [1] displays on the entire Republican party.
Edit: I'm not looking for confrontation here, I'd really like to get a better understanding of the situation. Right now, it really does look to me like the protesters -- not rioters attacking private property -- are in the right.
The protestors and rioters are largely indistinguishable. The former do not renounce & expel the latter. The former provide cover for the latter. Legally, each individual is culpable for the act of the mob, the mob is culpable for each individual.
If you’re part of a violent siege, you’re part if a violent siege. Retreat or be targeted.
No no no. That only applies if you aren't a cop. :)
Sarcasm aside, I do think it varies by PD. My local department had zero issues when protests went on, even going so far as to take part, and then _not_ turn right around and start beating people.
Seems kinda like a bare minimum, but at least they hit that.
I would say, that if there are large scale protests which are interrupted with brutality from government entities, burning down government buildings is not a wise action, but also not an unreasonable one -- from an ethical point of view.
I personally believe that there need to be large changes across the structure of gov, but to the direction of less, and not more.
I have not followed the protests in Portland in depth, just enough to know that in at least portions (block? blocks?) the fed has completely reignited brutality in response to protests. Is there more info you have to available to share, or a good place to find unbiased info? I lurk Reddit, but that is very biased in either direction at any given thread.
> hurled an open pocketknife at the officers guarding the courthouse; they have used power tools, crowbars and bolt cutters to yank down a fence
Yep, this is going on definitely. And now we have some level of coverage.
Edit: removed the link to that twitter account, I checked the messages he is posting, totally insane. "Unknown liquid" hurled at cops, it's just water. Then the guy is talking about how masks are harmful to lungs. I am sorry.
The pocketknife attack appears to be according to the Portland Police Bureau. As this is a non-neutral party, I'm not sure what to believe barring video evidence.
I could lean either way on that incident, or violence in general. What it comes down to in my mind is which side is the aggressor. In this particular instance, the protesters appear to be the initial aggressors, attacking the building (Which I don't really care about) while people were still inside (Which I do care about).
That being said, most of the violence that I have seen from these protests has been firmly instigated by police, so if you take that into consideration, the police could (should?) be considered to be the initial aggressors.
In short, it's a mixed up situation with no good answers I can see. Thoughts?
Edit: Also this --
> bricks were lobbed at firefighters who were attempting to extinguish the blaze. He said he suspected that white supremacists were behind the violence.
Context for above quote: Protesters/"Protesters" set a dump truck on fire in Richmond VA.
Any thoughts on something similar to this happening in Portland to discredit protests?
Second edit: Going offline now. Will read/continue any further discussion tomorrow, if anyone wishes to.
I would say probably destruction of civilian property.
Most of the protests could be considered as violent, due to the police shooting tear gas etc. into crowds of peaceful protest.
Protests where the protesters get violent would in my mind involve
A) Actual retaliation vs police, not just water bottles.
or
B) Destruction of government property.
or
C) Both.
Protests where it devolves into looting private property are not protests, they are riots -- that have at least partially been caused by people who _definitely_ do not agree with the protesters.
Edit: Just noticed your edit, no worries. I understood your intent fine.
I've participated in countless protests when I was younger. Not one them involved a police station getting set on fire. There are peaceful protests and there are riots. We've seen both this year.
Not sure why this is getting down-voted. The individual is stating a fact that speaks to the current boom that the firearms industry is experiencing right now as result of a a pandemic coupled with civil unrest.
People would absolutely panic buy a Remington 870, if it was still good. A 12GA pump is a classic "don't know much about guns but want something to keep at home" purchase, and the 870 used to be THE industry standard. But they don't make 'em like they used to.
It doesn't help Remington that the quality guns they made for decades still exist on the secondary market and work just fine. So they are not only competing against their counterparts on the new gun market like Mossberg, but against their past, generally agreed to be better, output.
There hasn't been anything new, tech-wise, in guns for the past 40 years, so you can't beat the old guns with features like how a new phone has a faster processor and better camera. You have to stay on par in terms of quality and hope that people will prefer to buy new for the customer service, parts availability, and aftermarket support.
Reminds me of when Suzuki switched manufacturing of their GN250 to Chinese factories, and suddenly second hand Japanese built Ginnies were attracting a premium over brand new models.
The 870 is still fine (I must have at least a 1000 rounds through mine) and is still something you can buy with a modest panic markup. The more ubiquitous Glock 19, which I would argue is a much less effective home defense weapon, is pretty much gone. The causes of that are more interesting than than Remington's bankruptcy.
