Ruger, NRA turn paranoia into big profits
Idaho State Journal Editorial
In times marked by fear and uncertainty about the economy, one American
company has been cashing in – big time.
Among the top 10 fastest growing companies in the U.S. during 2011 was
Sturm Ruger & Co. It has experienced revenue growth of 24 percent
annually since the recession of 2008 and embraced a profit growth that
defies imagination. Profits in a three-year period have reached 848
percent.
Ruger doesn’t manufacture pills to combat cancer or even lessen
depression. Ruger makes guns. More importantly, it makes small handguns.
In addition to the many quality sporting firearms used for hunting and
target shooting, Ruger makes two pistols that generated one-third of its
total sales during the second quarter of 2011 alone. They were the Ruger
LCP in .380 caliber and the LC9 in 9mm. Both are ultra-light, compact
carry pistols that weigh less than a pound fully loaded and can be tucked
in even a small pocket.
The tiny instruments of death are both popular and profitable.
Last May Ruger launched its “million gun challenge,” in which Ruger
promised to donate $1 to the National Rifle Association for every Ruger
weapon sold from April 2011 to March 2012. Its goal was to sell one
million guns in a year. In July, the company reported that it contributed
$279,600 to the NRA.
If the top two guns in the arsenal of products you offer for sale are
concealed carry pistols, it makes sense to divert some of the profits to
an organization that lobbies heavily for the protection of handgun
ownership and more fervently, pushes the need for everyone to carry a
concealed one.
Tucking a bazooka in your BVDs would be uncomfortable, but a
short-barreled weapon that weighs less than a pound fits nicely into any
wardrobe.
Perhaps that helps explain why guns were such a popular holiday purchase
this year. According to the FBI, more than 1.6 million Americans
requested a required background check to purchase firearms in December
alone. It set a new one-month record surpassing the 1.5 million checks
made in November.
Since background checks don’t reveal the number of weapons purchased, how
many guns were purchased leading up to Christmas remains a mystery.
However, the FBI did say that only about 1.3 percent of the criminal
background checks result in denial.
The National Instant Check System for buying guns took effect in
1998, replacing the Brady Act’s five-day waiting period that fell victim
to extensive lobbying by the NRA. The National Instant Check System is designed to handle
most checks in less than two minutes.
In that two minutes, the system is supposed to determine if the would-be
purchaser has been convicted of domestic violence or a crime punishable by
imprisonment for more than one year, is a fugitive
from justice, is addicted to any controlled substance, or suffers from
a mental illness.
On Black Friday the system of weeding out those who shouldn’t buy a gun was
in high gear with 129,166 background searches.
The FBI said it can’t explain the holiday spike in firearm purchases, but
the NRA had an explanation. The National Rifle Association said the
figures indicate more people feel they need guns for self-defense.
“I think there’s an increased realization that when something bad occurs,
it’s going to be between them and the criminal,” NRA spokesman Andrew
Arulanandam told CNN.
The NRA ought to know. It’s a message they’ve been selling just as hard
as Ruger has been selling easily concealed weapons.
It’s a double-barreled approach to creating a demand for firearms that
seems to be right on target.
Smoeky Merkley provided us with an old report (1988) suggesting that carrying a firearm openly would deter 3/5 of convicted felons and that carrying a concealed weapon would not substantially reduce your chance of person injury (decrease to 17% from 25%). It seems that this report would indicate that having a concealed weapon is not a solution unless you are transporting something which you can’t live without (concealed weapons decrease robbery success rate from 88 to 30 %).
Unless someone has a more recent study to contest the above data, I must conclude that Ruger is cashing in on the Paranoia of some Americans and that carrying a concealed weapon is unnecesary for most living in the US.
Mike,
Are you against a law abiding citizen who has met all the legal requirements in their state from carrying a concealed weapon if they choose to do so?
Ruger is responding to market demand in the same manner that any smart manufacturing company will do. Build more product that people want to buy.
As for a CCW being necessary or not for most people, one could argue that wearing a seat belt while driving is not necessary as most drivers will not be in an accident. If it was not a legal requirement to wear a seat belt and only increased your safety by 8% would you wear one or not?
Mike McD –
Your characterization of Ruger’s “cashing in on paranoia” is simply more pejorative verbiage, equivalent to the Journal’s “tiny instruments of death”.
Would you say Ore-Ida and Simplot are catering to consumers’ “starvation paranoia” by marketing Tater Tots and French fries?
Mike,
I’m impressed that you actually read the first report that came out in 1988. Now go back and read each of the ten year reviews of the research by the author.
Stucki:
It seems I was insensitive. Perhaps I should have said profiting off of paranoia. I must admit the two words are the same for me.
Smokey:
I was thinking of looking for more recent research.. Got any more leads for me?
I am interested in comparing statistics to see if things have changed.
Mike,
One other clarification. I never suggested that carrying a weapon openly or concealed, should be a part of everyone’s plan to protect themselves and their families. There are many who should not consider that option.
One of the reasons I would like to see a quality concealed handgun course similar to the ones in Texas and Florida,with a required shooting score, instituted in Idaho, is because those courses prepare people for the psychological and emotional trauma caused by justifiable homocide.
Several of the students I taught in the Texas concealed handgun course, decided they would not be able to use a handgun against another, even in self defense. It was the right decision for them, and we never tried to convince them otherwise.
Mike,
John R. Lott’s Third review of his original study was published in 2010.
It is ,John R. Lott,Jr. “More Guns, Less Crime, Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws”, The University of Chicago Press.
I was able to down load it to my Kindle. It should be in the library, I would think. You could also order it, but that would be more expensive than checking it out at the Library.
Mike McD –
You seem to have missed my point. The two terms are likewise synonymous for me. That wasn’t my point, and hypersensitivity is not one of my many shortcomings.
So to reiterate, are Ore-Ida and Simplot “profiting off paranoia” by selling french fries?
Chuck:
I am not against concealed weapons. I am not against the free market taking advantage of a person’s paranoia either. I am against false advertising. Don’t sell someone a gun telling them it will help keep them from harm in the event of a confrontation. I might not wear a seat belt if it did not significantly offer protection in the event of an accident.(ie; a hard hat can help you when a bolt lands on your head but not piano)
Stucki:
Your literary imagery is lost on me.
Perhaps you have chosen a bad analogy.
Starvation paranoia may be real in that you will die if you don’t eat whereas you may not necessarily be harmed if you don’t have a concealed gun.
You want to say that I am bad for accusing a gun manufacturer for profiting off of paranoia. That is a fine opinion for you but isn’t a retort of the statement. If you want to follow Rick Larsen’s advice in his latest column you should present a case indicating that there is no paranoia or that Ruger doesn’t profit from handgun sales.
I used the stats from a reference supplied by Smokey to indicate that a concealed weapon may not decrease your risk of harm.
Smokey: I only intended to give you credit for supplying the reference not for its contents. It seems Lott has a web page where he shares his data. I’ll try to take a look.
Mike,
Curious as to where this false advertisement is? Can you provide links for this? What I find is reference to options for people who are interested in obtaining a CCW permit and exercising their right to do so. What you call paranoia by people I see as their willingness to to provide for their own protection.
In a posting to CR, are you actually saying that Ruger should not make a profit on the products they sell? Trying to understand if you mean that Ruger should sell their guns at cost (making them less expensive to purchase)or that Ruger not be allowed to manufacture these guns. If the later then in effect you are stating there should be some type of restrictions (gun control)on these types of guns.
Chuck:
I doubt Ruger would overtly advertise that a gun can save your life. The false advertisements comes from individuals making posts like those in this blog:
“As long as there are criminals with guns then the only defense is the same in the hands of those who refuse to be murdered for no valid reason.”
DR was one to point out that buying a gun is just the first step implying that substantial training is recommended before carrying one for self defense. I have found several individual advertisers often miss this key point. There is more to self defense with a gun than just learning how to fire a gun.
What I didn’t know until Smokey’s reference was that data from 1988 indicated there wasn’t a dramatic decrease in the chance of being harmed if you carried a gun.
I am not a gun control advocate. I was seeking to determine if carrying a gun, as a civilian, for protection is an effective means of protecting your life. My answer at this point would be no but I am currently looking to see if the statistics have changed since 1988.
Mike,
I am glad you recognize that having a gun doesn’t equal being a criminal or more guns being held by civilians means a higher crime rate. Unfortunately the Journal has yet to reach that conclusion.
Not sure why you would consider an opinion on a blog to be false advertisement. I certainly have no expectation that what anyone writes in a blog is 100% truthful or that they have done a fact check before posting. Certainly the Journal doesn’t meet this standard with the editorials they publish.
My overall point is that people have the right to decide if they want to carry a concealed weapon or not. If they choose to take on that responsibility and do so in a lawful manner, what is harm caused to others? Like a seat belt, one may go their entire life without needing it but there may be one time they do, it could very well save them from serious harm or save their life.
Mike,
You are correct in your finding that simply carrying a gun doesn’t necessarily make you safer. I’m guessing that would depend on whether criminals in a specific area normally expect people to be carrying a handgun or not.
However, what Lott discovered, was that when concealed or open carry laws were in force in an area, criminals changed from confrontational crimes to non-confrontational crimes because they were put on notice that people might be armed.
So, although it appears that murder, rape, assault, and other confrontational crimes will always be a concern for law enforcement and the rest of society, there is strong evidence that criminals adapt and change the type of crimes they are willing to commit where concealed or open carry laws are passed.
However, I still am a little uncomfortable with the number of people who carry in public with no specific training for doing so.
My concern is not for my own safety because they have been through a background check, and no concerns were raised. My concern is for those people themselves. Many will not be able to bring themselves to use the handgun, even if they are justified in doing so. Others who don’t understand the parameters that determine justification will be pretty nervous(a natural reaction)and will present their handgun and fire when they are not justified in doing so.
Untrained people have a tendancy to think they understand when lethal force is justified, when they really don’t.
If they act on their misunderstanding, they likely will go to court and become very familiar with the term, “Unconscious Incompetence.”
Training in the laws governing justifiable homicide, and carrying a gun, is only a small part of what we as citizens should be doing to protect ourselves, our families,and community from violent crime.
If we are vigilent in the other areas of personal and community security and safety, we make ourselves such hard targets, that we may never have to resort to dealing with a, “Level Five Threat.”
Chuck:
I would be in favor of requiring substantial training for someone applying for a concealed gun permit. We test a persons ability to drive a car before granting a license, perhaps we should test a persons ability to properly use a gun before giving them a permit to carry a concealed gun.
The old statistics I saw indicate that only 2/5 felons would be deterred if they THOUGHT someone was carrying a gun. I conclude that if you succumb to the paranoia and start carrying a concealed gun to protect yourself you might be decreasing your risk exposure to a criminal by 40%. Openly carrying might reduce the risk by 60%.
I wonder if Loft has any data on how your risk of harm changes if you have a lot of training. There was an old statistic saying that the police were 5.5 times more likely to hit a civilian during a confrontation than a person carrying a concealed gun.
Mike,
First of all, I,m surprised that you consider people that carry a weapon paranoid.
An elderly lady in kansas who was speeding, was stoped by an officer, who asked for her drivers license. She also showed him a concealed carry license and informed him she had a .45 in the glove compartment, a 9mm in the console and a .38 in her purse. When asked by the officer,what she was afraid of, she smiled and said,”not a damn thing.”
The main problem we have with requiring people to take a CCW course before carrying concealed is that firearm ownership in the U.S. is an understood inalienable, right, confirmed, but not granted by the Second Amendment.
Driving a car is a priviledge,for which you must qualify,not a right.
Second Amendment advocates, and Constitutionalists will rightly tell you that you are confusing rights and priviledges.
I’m not sure Lott has ever considered the question you asked, but Massad Ayoob,Clint Smith, the late Jeff Cooper,and John Farnam
have produced studies that show that extensive training gives the trained person a big edge if they have to use the gun to protect themselves.
Massad Ayoob has written several books specifically for civillians who want to carry handguns in public. “In The Gravest Extreme,” is the one I would recommend you read.
If you are interested in continuing this discussion You can reach me at mokeydo41245@hotmail.com, or maybe we could meet for lunch.
I realize we probably don’t agree on everything, but you are asking pretty decent questions.
Smokey:
Why do you consider carrying a concealed weapon to be covered by an amendment to the constitution? Is it the “bear arms” part? Why should I bother with a permit if I already have the right to bear a concealed handgun?
My statement about succumbing to paranoia was not reversible. You don’t have to be paranoid to carry a gun but you might carry one because you are paranoid.
Mike McDonald,
If you’re paranoid the last thing you need is a piece in your possession, period. It’s called suicide by policeman down here among other things.
Mike,
As I said above, the Second Amendment does not grant rights, but is a confirmation of understood inalienable rights.
Our Founding Fathers made no distinction between keeping and bearing arms as it relates to the rights of U.S. citizens.
Most of them regularly carried arms with them as they went about their daily routines.
Thomas Jefferson advised,”Let your gun therefore be the constant companion of your walks.”
Due to a question several years ago, I tried to determine what kind of gun Jefferson and others carried with them on their walks. It was an interesting research project, even though I didn’t use every research method that would be necessary in most scholarly research projects, but instead read everything I could get my hands on about the founding fathers. Anyway, it appears most of them at least carried a rifle with them if they were traveling. Many of them owned and at least periodically carried a small pistol. Jefferson himself was known to own and carry a rifle and there is some evidence that he carried a larger flintlock pistol at times. However, I never read anything attributed to him about the flintlock pistol.
The answer to your question is, that the Founding Fathers reguarded the right to Keep or own firarms and the right to bear or carry firearms as inalienable rights that the Federal government had no authority to infringe upon.
That is exactly why Second Amendment advocates and Constitutionalists see no need for one to obtain a concealed carry license, as is the case in Vermont, Arizona, Alaska, and is being considered in Wyoming, the last I heard.
People like myself who essentially agree with the Founding Fathers, but would like to see quality training courses available for those who have decided to carry in public, are usually drowned out by the people who collectively have the power to reject our reasoning on the subject.
Is the United States a great country or what?
At least with guns we can control what we kill and for a good reason. Drug companies kill us when we don’t know about it.