Gunmaker's "Inaugural Special"

Sometimes context is everything.

Yesterday Connecticut gunmaker Sturm, Ruger & Co. announced an "Inaugural Special" for high-capacity ammunition magazines for its Mini-14 rifles, a weapon nicknamed the "poor man's assault rifle." According to Ruger:

From November 4, 2008 to January 20, 2009, fans of the Ruger Mini-14 Target Rifles and Mini-14 Ranch Rifles, both chambered for .223 Remington, can purchase Ruger manufactured 20-round magazines (regularly priced at $39.95) for only $29.95. This special offer is only available through the Ruger On-line Store. Please note that these magazines are not available where state or local regulations limit magazine capacity to less than 20 rounds.

The Ruger Mini-14 series of rifles has been extremely popular since first introduced in 1974. Long considered simple, rugged, and reliable, these rifles have proven so popular around the woods, farm, and ranch that they earned the nickname "Ranch Rifle." All Mini-14 rifles come from the factory with integral scope mounts.

For 2008 only, Ruger is offering a special edition NRA Mini-14 rifle. This rifle ships with two, 20-round magazines and a portion of the sales from each rifle is donated to the NRA Institute for Legislative Action to support its ongoing efforts in defending our Second Amendment rights.

"Inaugural Special"?

"Target Rifle"?

"Integral Scope Mounts"?

The gun industry's attempts to exploit outside events--in this case, the pro-gun fear that a Democratic Congress and Administration will result in a ban on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines--to sell more firearms and related products to a continually shrinking base of gun owners is well documented.

But Ruger's exploitation of gun lobby-stoked fears of an Obama presidency don't occur in a vacuum, as illustrated by this posting from www.keepandbeararms.com:

Comment by: markht@bellsouthdotnet (11/4/2008)

As I write this it's 11:03PM Central time, and I've known for about 1 hour that Obamarx is president-elect. We all need to get ready mentally for the rough times ahead. We need to make peace with our God for what we might have to do to save what is left of this once fine republic. Or decide if it's even worth saving. Buy what you need NOW. There's a window of opportunity between now and 1/20/09. There may be time after ... but don't count on it. If you don't have what you need now you haven't much time left. May God bless this once great country.

Pro-gun critics will argue that all of this--from Ruger's promo to comments posted on keepandbeararms.com--are just words, the intersection of opportunistic commerce and pro-gun puffery.

And 99.99 percent of the time that's the case. But as we saw when Timothy McVeigh bombed the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City in 1995, stoking the fear of government can provoke violent acts.

And that's the .01 percent we have to worry about.

Comments

[Schaz]

I saw "Inaugural Special" in the context of guns and immediately thought "assassination". WTF?

(And I'm not anti-gun, I own several myself.)

[Thirdpower]

Which is exactly the 'context' Josh wants you to take away from his latest hit piece.

Of course you have to ignore the fact that the real 'context' is that an Obama administration has stated they want to make banning these firearms an issue, which Josh claims is just 'exploiting pro-gun fears'. Nevermind that it's part of both the Obama and DNC platforms.

Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain. Ignore inconvenient facts.

[45superman]

Josh says, in reference to Timothy McVeigh: "And that's the .01 percent we have to worry about."

The ".01 percent," eh? That would be 1 in ten thousand, I believe. The figure I often see for the number of gun owners in the U.S. is eighty million. I know Josh likes to contest that, and what the hell--that's not an argument worth having, and I can make my point even if I am enormously generous, and cut that number in half--call it forty million. Forty million divided by ten thousand would be four thousand Timothy McVeighs.

And I can't think of a single additional domestic terrorism incident remotely similar to the Oklahoma City bombing. Gee--we must be lucky.

[45superman]

I think Josh is just feeling like a jilted lover. Once, of course, Ruger was the citizen disarmament advocates' darling, when Bill Ruger, Sr. said:
"No honest man needs more than 10 rounds in any gun."
. . . and, "I never meant for simple civilians to have my 20 or 30 round magazines or my folding stock."
. . . and, "I see nothing wrong with waiting periods." http://www.thegunzone.com/rkba/papabill.htmll)

Now, Ruger is evil.

We also have Smith and Wesson, who in their own Quisling moment, signed a Faustian bargain with HUD http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0003/17/bn.02.htmll), thus gaining their own moment in the sunshine of the citizen disarmament advocates' love.

But the love affair was not to last http://www.vpc.org/graphics/S&W500%20final.pdff and http://www.huffingtonpost.com/josh-sugarmann/smith-wesson-snubs-police_b_114348.html).

Don't feel bad, Josh. It's not you--it's them ;-).

[JerseyBound]

Thanks for the heads up Josh........Since I'm a new gun owner, finding quality information can sometimes be difficult with various companies competing for my money, it's almost as difficult as buying a new car, but for some odd reason, the anti gun crowd always has the scoop, and is quite helpful in advertising, with regards to new quality firearms, and accessories.

[45superman]

Maybe Josh is just trying to line up some sales--he is one of the very few people in DC with a Federal Firearms License, after all.

http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/2008/02/the_quintessenc.php

[Thirdpower]

The myth of the decreasing gun owners Pt I

According to the VPC link:

During the period 1972 to 2006, the percentage of American households that reported
having any guns in the home has dropped nearly 20 percentage points: from a high of
54 percent in 1977 to 34.5 percent in 2006.

That's all well and good. Now let's look at the real numbers. In 1970, the number of households was 63,450 according to the Census Bureau. In 2002, the number of households was 111,278.

For those of you math impaired, that's an increase of 75% . Totaling about 34,000 homes in 1972 vs. over 38,000 homes with firearms in 2006. Now remember, that's households.

Their next claim is:

During the period 1980 to 2006, the percentage of Americans who reported personally
owning a gun dropped more than nine percentage points: from a high of 30.7 percent
in 1985 to a low during the period of 21.6 percent in 2006.

Once again, all well and good.

Population of the US in 1980 :225, 349,000
Population of the US in 2006 : 299,400,000

That's an increase of 25% in population. Or 65.25 million owners in 1980 vs. 64.5 million in 2006. That's statistically insignificant.

[Dfwwalker]

Thirdpower,

I noticed one thing...it is the number of "reported" gun owners.

How many people during that time frame stopped telling someone on the phone whether or not they owned firearms....we may never know.

[Thirdpower]

The Myth of the Decreasing Firearm Owner Pt II:

Notice the way they worded that though. "From a high in 1985" after claiming a period from 1980. If you look at the data, the reported numbers from '84-'85 jumped up 5%. An increase in ownership of nearly 12 million in one year? Followed by a drop of almost 6 million two years after and another 6 million the year after that? I'ld like to see the numbers proving that one.

So as much authority is given to the GSS, it's still all based on what people choose to answer on a phone survey.

Update: To show this even more clearly, another phone survey of a similar number of people has personal ownership at 28% and "in home" at 42%. That's a difference of nearly 20 million people.

[Thirdpower]

"high-capacity ammunition magazines" ?

"assault rifle" ?

"Timothy McVeigh" ?

Talk about "stoking fears" using 'context'.

The level of Irony can drown a person:

"The gun industry's attempts to exploit outside events--"

Followed by:

"as we saw when Timothy McVeigh bombed the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City in 1995, stoking the fear of government can provoke violent acts.

And that's the .01 percent we have to worry about."

Really Josh.

[seatea1967]

Don't much recall Timothy McVeigh using an M-14 to kill anyone. Seems like he used a truck full of fertilizer, racing fuel and a Ryder rental truck.

I guess it's easier to whip up anti-gun hysteria, but I'd love it if you'd write a blog here calling for legislation against fertilizer or racing fuel... or rental trucks.

It would show these tactics for the irrational fear-mongering they really are.

[revenant]

What is the problem with integral scope mounts?

[seatea1967]

What's the problem with a target rifle? What's the problem with a barrel shroud? What's the problem with a pistol grip?

It's consistently amazing to me that the left can be so perceptive when the right is using scare tactics to mobilize their base, but most can't see it at all when it's being done by our own among our own ranks.

Perhaps if you're scared enough you'll buy his book.

[djkrlsn]

Target rifles, barrel shrouds, pistol grips, scope mounts etc are only "problems" if you are someone like Josh looking for reasons to ban that particular gun.

[Thirdpower]

It's connected to the "shoulder thing that goes up" therefore they must be banned.

Seriously though, the VPC has advocated banning scopes and any associated hardware.