DoubleStar joins the gun ban ban

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by MuddyPaws1, Feb 20, 2013.

  1. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2012
    #1
    DoubleStar Corp. announced via facebook yesterday and also posted on their home page, that they have changed policy. They will no longer sell their firearms to law enforcement personnel in states where private citizens cannot own the same weapons. This is one more company on the list.

    We'll see how this rolls on.
     
  2. Guest

    eric/

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2011
    Location:
    Ohio, United States
    #2
    Hope it keeps on rolling until the police can't buy weapons in states where the citizens can't.
     
  3. macrumors 68020

    Thomas Veil

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Location:
    Reality
    #3
    Law enforcement will buy their weapons elsewhere, and this company will lose business of its own free will.

    Win/win.
     
  4. thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2012
    #4
    Kind of like the criminals will still get those weapons no matter if they are banned or not right?
     
  5. macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2006
    Location:
    Atlanta, GA
    #5
    Yes, from law-abiding citizens. ;)
     
  6. macrumors 68020

    Thomas Veil

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Location:
    Reality
    #6
    Maybe DoubleStar's next decision will be to sell to criminals but not cops.
     
  7. thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2012
    #7
    Yea because it's so hard to get them on the black market.:rolleyes:
     
  8. macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2006
    Location:
    Atlanta, GA
    #8
    And how did they get on the black market? Are all guns on the black market stolen? Even most of them? Doubtful. I could go out tomorrow, buy a gun, and then pretty much sell it to pretty much whoever i want, legally, right? Isn't that how private sales work?
     
  9. thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2012
    #9
    Actually that's a straw purchase if you sell it to someone that is not allowed to have a gun. Which is already illegal but still happens.
     
  10. Guest

    eric/

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2011
    Location:
    Ohio, United States
    #10
    Well the company just sells their products to other people in other states. The only ones who lose out here are LEO.
     
  11. macrumors 68020

    Macky-Mac

    Joined:
    May 18, 2004
    #11
    if the police have any trouble buying then there will be a rush of people who will be happy to make a buck purchasing guns elsewhere and reselling to the police......Americans love making money selling to the government :p

    the gun cultists are simply living in fantasy land if they think otherwise
     
  12. macrumors Core

    MacNut

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Location:
    CT
    #12
    So police will no longer be able to buy a rocket launcher?:confused:
     
  13. Guest

    eric/

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2011
    Location:
    Ohio, United States
    #13
    Well I doubt LEO will purchase second hand guns from citizens. And companies could just refuse to deal with those who would attempt to sell weapons to LEO in states that ban firearms.

    idk what you're talking about
     
  14. macrumors 68020

    Macky-Mac

    Joined:
    May 18, 2004
    #14
    police would rather not have guns than buy new guns purchased from a reseller....right :rolleyes:


    clearly you're not a business oriented person or you'd know that businesses routinely buy and resell goods.....like the corn flakes you buy at the grocery store. Do you really think you're buying "used" corn flakes since you're not buying them direct from the manufacturer?




    clearly you don't
     
  15. macrumors 6502a

    xShane

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2012
    Location:
    United States
    #15
    First, many guns are legally obtained and then stolen and/or registration "wiped".

    Second, why do conservatives act like we shouldn't make it illegal because "criminals are still going to do it anyhow"? By the same logic, we should have never made bank robberies, murder, or rape illegal, because criminals are still going to do those things anyhow... Right.

    And yes, I agree with what was said above. The company is just going to lose out on sales and profit because of this. Law enforcement is going to get their weapons one way or another.
     
  16. Guest

    eric/

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2011
    Location:
    Ohio, United States
    #16
    Obviously you've never worked for the government. The government doesn't operate like a normal business, so things that easily make sense, such as purchasing the guns from a second hang source, end up being not allowed for silly reasons. Also, the company could just not sell to resuppliers who would sell it to banned LEO, so that takes care of that.

    Yeah I don't know what your second comment was supposed to mean
     
  17. thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2012
    #17
    And that's ALREADY illegal, but it still happens as you say.

    And because it's illegal that means that no one rapes or murders right? Oh wait...

    ----------

    Actually there are many LEO's that are allowed, and in many cases the funds are provided to them, to purchase weapons from whatever legal source they want.
     
  18. Guest

    eric/

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2011
    Location:
    Ohio, United States
    #18
    Well sure but the companies could just not sell to them, and if certain weapons are banned, they can't buy them as individuals anyway.
     
  19. macrumors 68020

    Macky-Mac

    Joined:
    May 18, 2004
    #19
    you're wrong again.......I have indeed worked for the government which is just one reason why I know that Americans love selling things to the government. There's good profit to be made. And the government is quite adept at buying things (not always wisely of course, but they sure do know how to spend)

    Police will simply buy from other suppliers and other manufactures; there are so many sources for guns out there that buying guns isn't a problem in America.....even criminals who aren't supposed to be able to buy guns have no problem getting them.
     
  20. macrumors 65816

    citizenzen

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #20
    Should car companies refuse to sell to police until civilians can drive with sirens and lights?

    Just asking.
     
  21. Guest

    eric/

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2011
    Location:
    Ohio, United States
    #21
    But if you had actually worked for the government you would understand how difficult and inefficient it is to change suppliers, or purchase things that aren't through approved supply channels. And if manufacturers collectively stopped selling to LEO in a state, they are SOL. And sure companies and Americans want to make money, but not always over morals.

    ----------

    You can have both on your car. But if police start banning cars in a state for some dumb reason, yeah they should.
     
  22. xShane, Feb 21, 2013
    Last edited: Feb 21, 2013

    macrumors 6502a

    xShane

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2012
    Location:
    United States
    #22
    So you're basically saying we should have rape or murder laws? Obviously if it were allowed people would murder and rape much more knowing there's no penalty for it. What if Joe Schmo started killing people that made him mad?

    And seriously, what's the big deal with gun restriction laws? It's not like all guns are going to get banned. It's just going to make them harder to get for potential criminals. Anyone with good intentions and no "bad" past shouldn't have anything to worry about.

    Norway:
    Guns per 100 people: 31.3
    2010 Gun Deaths per 100,000: 1.78

    United States:
    Guns per 100 people: 88.8
    2010 Gun Deaths per 100,000: 10.26

    Source: Here and Here.

    In Norway, guns are considered tightly restricted (as can be seen by these stats). Care to explain this correlation?

    By the way, these guns are private ownership. This isn't even counting all the illegal ones in the United States that were most likely legal at one point.
     
  23. macrumors 68020

    Macky-Mac

    Joined:
    May 18, 2004
    #23
    So you're saying I'm lying? :rolleyes: No, you're wrong in that.

    Well I'm saying you don't know what you're talking about. Government agencies frequently purchase by an open process of soliciting bids from suppliers. In many situations Government agencies are even required law to use the bidding process. The low bidder gets the contract. It's a method that's assumed to help prevent corruption and very common....but obviously you're unaware off any of that. And when it comes to "changing suppliers", if a supplier refuses to supply per their contract, then they're going to get dropped and replaced.
     
  24. macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2007
    #24
    What DoubleStar did should be a law. I'd support restrictions on any kind of firearms as long as they applied to the police and military equally.
     
  25. Guest

    eric/

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2011
    Location:
    Ohio, United States
    #25
    Right, they sure do solicit bids. But when all of a sudden they lose out on a supplier, or need to purchase in a way that isn't the standard, thigns get messed up.

    And you're missing the part of the conversation where their suppliers won't sell to them in the first place, so it wouldn't matter if they wanted to change or not.
     

Share This Page