Rudy Giuliani Teaches Economics 101

Here is a puzzling Rudy Giuliani quote from the June 2000 radio show I mentioned in my column yesterday. Mayor Giuliani had this to say regarding gun manufacturers:

They've acted negligently by overproducing guns, way beyond the number that's necessary for hunting and for law enforcement, maybe by factors of 3 and 4 to 1. In doing that, they have knowingly made a calculation that they're selling to an illegal market, and that's negligence....In fact, it would be more in their business interest to produce less guns, because the price of guns would go up if there were less guns, just like we were talking about with OPEC, you know, Economics 101. Instead of producing less guns, they produce 6, 7 times more guns than the legal market actually would demand. Therefore they have to know that they're supplying an illegal market.

Notice, first of all, that the ratio by which gun production supposedly exceeds the legitimate market increases by 100 percent or so in the space of a few sentences. And what are we to make of Giuliani's claim that manufacturers could make more money by producing fewer guns? Presumably he imagines that gun makers have formed a cartel that can in effect dictate prices, without fear of defection by existing companies or competition from new ones. Granting this implausible scenario, why would gun makers choose not to exercise this power? By Giuliani's account, instead of producing fewer guns at higher prices, which would be in their financial interest, they are producing lots of guns at relatively low prices (almost as if they are competing against each other for customers). What could account for such seemingly irrational behavior? Either gun makers don't know their own bottom lines, or they are so determined to make sure criminals are well armed that they are willing to lose money in the process. 

Comments

ChrisO | April 12, 2007, 3:33pm | #

No matter how hard he tries, the inner fascist in Rudy keeps peeking out.

Postmodern Sleaze | April 12, 2007, 3:36pm | #

Chris:

Il Rudi has no inner fascist; it's all hanging out.

Hooked on Innuendo | April 12, 2007, 3:39pm | #

I don't follow Rudy's math either but he's probably got a point that the gun industry profits from illegal activity and therefore has an incentive to see that said activity increases.

Assuming that's his point. Maybe not.

de stijl | April 12, 2007, 3:42pm | #

Econ 101: Guns or Butter?

Rudy G's Econ 101: Less guns = mo' money.

It's like mega-ultra underpants gnomism! New and updated! Now with two question marks!

Lamar | April 12, 2007, 3:43pm | #

Rudy has a point about the industry making a lot of money by turning a blind eye to supplying thugs and gangs. We all laugh at Rudy's confused economics and incentive patterns, yet we assume that gun makers don't want a thug's money.

Jennifer | April 12, 2007, 3:43pm | #

By Rudy's logic, it would also be in food manufacturers' best interest to underproduce food so as to make the price go higher. And why the hell does America have more cars than licensed drivers?

Friggin' cartels.

Dee | April 12, 2007, 3:44pm | #

I wonder how many hired guns Rudy has protecting him at any given time? Another double talking bullshit artist spinning his web to the general public.

All these politician idiots who would strip you of your right to bear arms even in your own home are more than happy to be protected by people carrying guns to defend them. What gets me is why they would expect the rest of the country to live without the ability to protect themselves. If we all have nothing to fear then they no longer need protection by guns paid for by tax payers. Those same tax payers the pols claim are not responsible enough to arm themselves.

Chickenshit plain and simple. Why can no politician speak his mind without waffling back and forth. Say what you fucking mean and mean what you say. If you can't do either we have no place for you in politics since your destined to screw us no matter what you SAID before you got elected.

Rudy can suck some booty as far as I am concerned. And to think you will rid the country of guns is a crack pipe dream all the same as thinking you can rid the country of drugs. These pols must be the most intoxicated people on earth to believe they can and if they are not intoxicated we are really in for a long life with leaders who have such strong convictions they are unwilling to compromise on. Unless of course you have money than all options are on the table.

Sorry Rudy but to my NY is still a big shit hole even after your saving graces. Now its just a big shit hole minus everyones freedom.

NY NY NY.. If I can fake it there I can fake it anywhere (DC Oval Office) its up to you.

ed | April 12, 2007, 3:45pm | #

I'd like to work less and get paid more. Is this the same principle? Think my boss will buy it?

Adam W. | April 12, 2007, 3:45pm | #

And at the right of my screen is an ad for www.joinrudy2008.com Go figure.

de stijl | April 12, 2007, 3:46pm | #

Shorter Rudy G: DEMAND KURVVVVV!

fish | April 12, 2007, 3:46pm | #

.....yet we assume that gun makers don't want a thug's money.


I'm glad that the government has decided to take the high road and not collect the thugs' taxes!

John | April 12, 2007, 3:48pm | #

"Presumably he imagines that gun makers have formed a cartel that can in effect dictate prices, without fear of defection by existing companies or competition from new ones."

Considering how well that has worked for R.J. Reynolds and company I would say Rudy is giving some pretty solid business advice.

What is most disturbing about this is Rudy says guns are useful for hunting and law enforcment but doesn't say a damn thing about lawful self defense. How many guns is too many or too cheap when it comes to self defense? The fact is that a really good expensive handgun, say a Glock or well made Colt ACP is overkill for self defense. Unless you like to go to the range a lot, what good does the extra quality of a Glock buy you? The gun only has to work once. I like high quality handguns as much as anyone. But I am a gun nut. If I were a poor person living a terrible neighborhood, the thought of shelling out $500+ for a handgun wouldn't be too appealing. In that case, where money is at a premium, I would thank God for the $150 Saturday Night Special that people like Rudy deplore.

Umbriel | April 12, 2007, 3:49pm | #

I, for one, don't assume that Libertarians don't want a Fascist's money, Adam W.

Nick M. | April 12, 2007, 3:52pm | #

Rudy has no clue about gun owners. For most gun owners, they are collectors too. Shit, you should see some of the gun safes I have seen. Guys with 3 or 4 safes, filled with different rifles, handguns, and shotguns. Sometimes, the rifles are the same type, with different variations: This is my AR-15 that is is set up to look like a Vietnam era standard issue M-16. THis is my uber-tacticool AR-15 with a 6-position stock, 4-rail hanguard with tactical light, and EOTech Sight, with an 11" barrel. THis is my AK that I have for when I want to go shoot a lot of rounds for cheap. Gun owners are a lot like some music buffs I know. Gotta have 5 different versions of something to be happy.

Nick

pdog | April 12, 2007, 3:52pm | #

How does one get so far in their political career and display such sheer ignorance and stupidity like this?

David | April 12, 2007, 3:53pm | #

They've acted negligently by overproducing guns, way beyond the number that's necessary for hunting and for law enforcement, maybe by factors of 3 and 4 to 1

It's telling that these are the only uses that Rudy considers legal. In the interview, does he offer any explanation of how manufacturers are making any money off illegal sales? Do they sell in bulk to people who'll smuggle the guns back into the country?

Kwix | April 12, 2007, 3:53pm | #

Rudy has a point about the industry making a lot of money by turning a blind eye to supplying thugs and gangs. We all laugh at Rudy's confused economics and incentive patterns, yet we assume that gun makers don't want a thug's money.

Sure gun maker's want the "thugs'" money but the number of law abiding citizens outnumbers the number of "thugs" by large factor. I think the bigger market is in making sure that the average citizen can obtain a gun NY or DC bans be damned.

Timothy | April 12, 2007, 3:53pm | #

Guns as Giffen goods,
Demand kurve slopes upwards now?
Rudy full of shit.

Kwix | April 12, 2007, 3:54pm | #

How does one get so far in their political career and display such sheer ignorance and stupidity like this?

Stupid voters?

joe | April 12, 2007, 3:54pm | #

Guiliani makes it clear that he's talking about manufacturer's LEGAL profits being higher if they cut their supply. Look at the quote:

"In fact, it would be more in their business interest to produce less guns, because the price of guns would go up if there were less guns, just like we were talking about with OPEC, you know, Economics 101. Instead of producing less guns, they produce 6, 7 times more guns than the legal market actually would demand. Therefore they have to know that they're supplying an illegal market."

"...than the legal market would demand."

I can see having a beef about his stance on gun control, but to read a misunderstanding of economics into this is a serious misreading.

JLM | April 12, 2007, 3:58pm | #

"If I were a poor person living a terrible neighborhood, the thought of shelling out $500+ for a handgun wouldn't be too appealing. In that case, where money is at a premium, I would thank God for the $150 Saturday Night Special that people like Rudy deplore."

You are better off using something inexpensive for a defensive firearm. If you are ever unfortunate enough that you actually have to shoot somebody in self defense, your gun will be confiscated. Even if it is decided that your actions were justified and no charges are brought, you will be lucky to get it back. You don't want it to be a $3000 custom 1911 that ends up in some cop's private collection.

Nick M. | April 12, 2007, 4:00pm | #

JLM | April 12, 2007, 3:58pm | #

"If I were a poor person living a terrible neighborhood, the thought of shelling out $500+ for a handgun wouldn't be too appealing. In that case, where money is at a premium, I would thank God for the $150 Saturday Night Special that people like Rudy deplore."

You are better off using something inexpensive for a defensive firearm. If you are ever unfortunate enough that you actually have to shoot somebody in self defense, your gun will be confiscated. Even if it is decided that your actions were justified and no charges are brought, you will be lucky to get it back. You don't want it to be a $3000 custom 1911 that ends up in some cop's private collection.

Not to mention that most shootings occur within 10' so that snub nose revolver is just as useful as that custom 1911.

Nick

Russ 2000 | April 12, 2007, 4:00pm | #

but he's probably got a point that the gun industry profits from illegal activity and therefore has an incentive to see that said activity increases.

Talk about being in the category of "it takes one to know one." Rudy himself was elected on the perceived threat of illegal activity and made damn sure that whenever there was an improvement is some areas, such as rape and murder", there were commensurate failings in other areas such as burglaries and truancy.

Postmodern Sleaze | April 12, 2007, 4:01pm | #

pdog:

I've asked that same question during every state of the union address I've suffered through for the last six years...

John | April 12, 2007, 4:02pm | #

Implicit in all of this is the idea that every gun sold "legally" is never used for a crime and every gun sold "illegally" automatically is used to mow down six year olds at recess. The truth of course is a lot more complex. First, thanks to bullshit unconstitutional laws in places like DC a lot of gun purchases that should be legal are not. Second, just because someone can't legally own a gun, like say a felon, doesn't mean that they are going to use the gun for a crime. Not all felons re-offend and they have the same need to defend themselves as everyone else.

The government can no more stop illegal gun purchases than they can stop illegal drug purchases. If you banned the production of guns in the U.S., people would just import them. The whole focus on "stopping illegal guns" is a complete waste of time. What Rudy should be doing is what he was pretty good at while Mayor of New York; locking people who are dangerous up. That stops crime and violence, not bullshit gun laws.

violent_k | April 12, 2007, 4:04pm | #

I have an idea! Oh, this so smart of me.

We could combine all the gun makers into one company and then have the government run it. They would then produce the "right" number of guns.

Whada ya think?

Kwix | April 12, 2007, 4:05pm | #

Joe,
The problem is he views personal ownership of a non-hunting gun as "illegal".

As for his econ, the difference between OPEC and Colt is that OPEC has the corner on a market and can set the price but Colt is just one of many gun manufacturers. In order for Il Guiliani's plan to work, every gun manufacturer that sells in the US would have to curtail production and raise prices. That is called collusion and is illegal.

wsdave | April 12, 2007, 4:08pm | #

joe,

Rudy said: "...they produce 6, 7 times more guns than the legal market actually would demand."

So is he saying (since you seem to understand what he's saying), that for every legal gun purchased, there are 6 or 7 already produced guns laying around gun stores and wherehouses? And every time another gun is legally purchased, the gun manufactures ramp up to make 6 replacements?

Or is he saying that 6 or 7 ILLEGAL guns purchases are made (each of unique guns, not the same gun sold twice) for each legal one?

I'm confused. What is he saying?

ellipsis | April 12, 2007, 4:09pm | #

I hope to zeus that Rudy doesn't win the nomination. I'd take Hillary over him, but I don't think Hillary is electable.

Fascist Republican presidents are particularly bad for America, because the GOP congress falls over themselves to suck said prez's dick, and the Dems are fearful to do anything about preventing overreach.

Kwix | April 12, 2007, 4:09pm | #

Second, just because someone can't legally own a gun, like say a felon, doesn't mean that they are going to use the gun for a crime. Not all felons re-offend and they have the same need to defend themselves as everyone else.

Not to mention that in many states there is no distinction made between violent and non-violent felons when it comes to gun ownership. Someone who embezzles $10k, gets caught with an ounce too much weed or walks the street one too many times is grouped with the violent murderer.

martin | April 12, 2007, 4:10pm | #

First, Mr. Giuliani, it's "fewer" guns, not "less". How about taking grammar 101?

Second, this precious logic of righteousness is hilarious! Do I understand this correctly: It is negligent to "overproduce" something, whatever that means, if that something can at all be used for unlawful purposes. So,lets see, GM "overproducing" vehicles results in a ready supply in get-away vehicles? I guess if guns were "underpoduced" and scarce, the first segment to drop out of the gun market would be the criminals. After all they are cash-strapped and can no longer afford the heat, right?
Looks like Big G's ideology got away from him and made him speak his true mind.
Voters beware!

Chris S. | April 12, 2007, 4:12pm | #

It would be more in American gunmakers' interests to act like OPEC?

Right, never mind the freaking Sherman Act, you moron!

Russ 2000 | April 12, 2007, 4:12pm | #

The other point to be made is that anyone who legally purchaes a gun and later commits a crime with it is incentivized to dispose of the gun immediately after use. It isn't the illegal "ownership", it's the illegal use. So while Rudy is correct that illegal activity increases demand for guns, that's like Rudy being correct in saying 1+1 = 2. IOW, no shit sherlock.

The point Rudy chooses to gloss over is that by making more and more activities illegal, it is government that is creating the demand the guns.

martin | April 12, 2007, 4:13pm | #

violent_k

Heh, heh...

Best proposal I've heard in a while. I'll get Big G on the line now. You need to be his top consultant.

JLM | April 12, 2007, 4:15pm | #

If Zig-zag would just cut production in half, there would only be enough rolling papers for the tobacco smokers.

What a fucktard.

Rudy Guiliani | April 12, 2007, 4:26pm | #

They've acted negligently by overproducing cars, way beyond the number that's necessary for legal travel and for business, maybe by factors of 3 and 4 to 1. In doing that, they have knowingly made a calculation that they're selling to an illegal market - getaway drivers, smugglers, drive-by shooters, anthropogenic gobal warmers and the like - and that's negligence.... In fact, it would be more in their business interest to produce less cars, because the price of cars would go up if there were less cars, just like we were talking about with OPEC, you know, Economics 101. Instead of producing less cars, they produce 6, 7 times more cars than the legal market actually would demand. Therefore they have to know that they're supplying an illegal market.

John | April 12, 2007, 4:28pm | #

Rudy,

You forget, they over produced cars and SUVs in particular, knowing that people would buy needless vanity cars, rather than the small hybrid penalty boxes they should be driving, and that these people would be taking these cars to work and on trips rather than using mass transit, thus creating global warming. Clearly, the overproduction of cars is a crime on the part of the auto industry.

VM | April 12, 2007, 4:31pm | #

"Timothy | April 12, 2007, 3:53pm | #
Guns as Giffen goods,
Demand kurve slopes upwards now?
Rudy full of shit."

LOL!!!

Hey RUDY! SLUTSKY EQUATION!!!

anon | April 12, 2007, 4:35pm | #

As for his econ, the difference between OPEC and Colt is that OPEC has the corner on a market and can set the price but Colt is just one of many gun manufacturers.

OPEC controls less than 35% of the world wide oil production. Don't know much about gun manufacturers, but I'll not be surprised if one company controls something close to 35% of the production.

stephen the goldberger | April 12, 2007, 4:39pm | #

this is a scary quote but come on a radio show from 2000???? I'm no Rudy fan but I think I can cut him some slack on this one, especially when he begins to hopelessly pander to free market economists when the election starts.

Dave | April 12, 2007, 4:41pm | #

Nick hit the nail on the head. Rudy's logic is what? You need one gun for hunting, one for law enforcement (we'll call that the same category as self defense), and therefore everything else goes to criminals? Uhh, no. At 2 handguns, a shotgun, and a rifle, I have one of the smallest collections of anyone I know who is into shooting, and none of us are criminals.
Jay Leno only needs one car, so I guess the rest of his collection goes towards facilitating vehicular homicides.

joe | April 12, 2007, 4:42pm | #

wsdave,

While Rudy's ideas may be muddled, his language was pretty straightforward. "Instead of producing less guns, they produce 6, 7 times more guns than the legal market actually would demand." I see the word "produced" in that sentence - you know, the sentence that appears in a paragraph about what gunmakers produce? While he's discussing gun manufacturers?

Kwix,

"The problem is he views personal ownership of a non-hunting gun as "illegal"." Or maybe he just forgot to add a reference to legal ownership of guns for personal defense. I don't know.

"In order for Il Guiliani's plan to work..."

What is this plan you're speaking of? I didn't see him put forward a plan, just note the (alleged) business practices of gun manufacturers.

JLM | April 12, 2007, 4:43pm | #

"Don't know much about gun manufacturers, but I'll not be surprised if one company controls something close to 35% of the production."

I highly doubt that. There have to be at least 3 dozen companies in the world that make variations of the 1911 platform alone. Gun manufacturers do not tend to be that big.

Jim | April 12, 2007, 4:44pm | #

Does Rudy think the manufacturers are selling guns off the loading dock behind the factory in the dark of night? By federal law they must distribute their products almost exclusively through federally licensed dealers. Seems an odd way of distributing into the illegal market (unless the government is issuing licenses top criminals).

TrickyVic | April 12, 2007, 4:47pm | #

John, if raising prices is a good business model, why are businesses or makers not doing it?

But I think you hit the real issue here.
""" If I were a poor person living a terrible neighborhood, the thought of shelling out $500+ for a handgun wouldn't be too appealing. In that case, where money is at a premium, I would thank God for the $150 Saturday Night Special that people like Rudy deplore."""

Rudy believes gun crime can be reduced by keeping them out of the hands of the poor. Make guns so expensive that only a privileged few can own ONE.

grumpy realist | April 12, 2007, 4:49pm | #

I think we can chalk this one up to Rudy's attempt to talk out of both sides of his mouth the same time.

I'm for some form of gun control. Mainly because up in my section of NY we've had to deal too many times with drunk weekend warrior hunters who stumble around in the woods and end up shooting some farmer's cow. And there are far too many asshole hunters who ignore no trespassing signs, shoot far too close to human habitation, build blinds on other people's property without asking, etc., etc., and so forth.

Hooked on Innuendo | April 12, 2007, 4:52pm | #

For an issue that's not really very important, guns really get people going. Even a city mayor's comment from seven years ago seems to stir up the masses.

wsdave | April 12, 2007, 4:54pm | #

joe,
"While Rudy's ideas may be muddled, his language was pretty straightforward. "Instead of producing less guns, they produce 6, 7 times more guns than the legal market actually would demand." I see the word "produced" in that sentence - you know, the sentence that appears in a paragraph about what gunmakers produce? While he's discussing gun manufacturers?"

Ok, I'm not big on muddle. So your saying that he's saying that 6 to 7 times the number of marketable (what the market would demand) have already been produced?

So, are there already 6 or 7 gun out there in criminal hands for every legal gun?

joe | April 12, 2007, 4:57pm | #

Jim,

"Does Rudy think the manufacturers are selling guns off the loading dock behind the factory in the dark of night? By federal law they must distribute their products almost exclusively through federally licensed dealers."

Actually, IIRC, Rudy supported investigations of and suits against federally licensed gun dealers, as well as manufacturers, on the grounds that they, too, were providing guns to the black market.

People filling up their trunks with guns in Virginia and driving up I-95 to sell them. Straw purchases and whatnot.

Jennifer | April 12, 2007, 4:57pm | #

And there are far too many asshole hunters who ignore no trespassing signs, shoot far too close to human habitation, build blinds on other people's property without asking, etc., etc., and so forth.

And without guns, these people would miraculously cease to be assholes?

joe | April 12, 2007, 4:59pm | #

wsd,

"So your saying that he's saying that 6 to 7 times the number of marketable (what the market would demand) have already been produced?" The legal market, yes.

"So, are there already 6 or 7 gun out there in criminal hands for every legal gun?" Beats me. I think he's overestimating. You should ask him if you get the chance. His numbers seem funny.

Mo | April 12, 2007, 4:59pm | #

Rudy's a moron. OPEC can pull it off because the demand for oil is relatively inelastic. Gun demand is relatively elastic. As price goes up, quantity goes down. You can make higher total profits (at a lower per unit profit) by selling more for cheaper.

Example: Selling 10 items for a $5 profit gives you $50 or profit. Selling 20 items for only a $3 profit nets you $60.

The most idiotic part of this is that Guiliani claims to be a supply sider. The entire Laffer Curve is predicated that revenues go up when taxes are lowered to the level corresponding to the peak of the curve. Since as taxes on income are reduced, people will be incented to increase income. Lower rates on more income equals more money. Somehow this works only for taxes, but not in industry.

uncle sam | April 12, 2007, 5:00pm | #

Rudy has a point about the industry making a lot of money by turning a blind eye to supplying thugs and gangs. We all laugh at Rudy's confused economics and incentive patterns, yet we assume that gun makers don't want a thug's money.

Say, maybe we can eliminate the criminal element by starving them out if we get food producers to only make enough for law-abiding citizens. I mean, how can they get away with producing food for criminals?

Jennifer | April 12, 2007, 5:00pm | #

If California's incandescent lightbulb ban goes through, I expect Giuliani to make an interesting diatribe against legal versus illegal lightbulb manufacturing.

Hooked on Innuendo | April 12, 2007, 5:01pm | #

And without guns, these people would miraculously cease to be assholes?

Actually, it's quite possible. Guns have a strange effect on some people.

Franklin David Marks | April 12, 2007, 5:01pm | #

For an issue that's not really very important, guns really get people going. Even a city mayor's comment from seven years ago seems to stir up the masses.

Guns are crucially important. The balance of force is what determines the politics of a nation. When defensive force in the populace overshadows central .gov, you get free societies. When it is the opposite, dictatorships.

Kap | April 12, 2007, 5:04pm | #

Don't know much about gun manufacturers, but I'll not be surprised if one company controls something close to 35% of the production.

If there is, it's only because it's making guns for the government. Talkin' 'bout you, Colt. (Who in contemporary times is poorly regarded in the civilian market, and enjoys an infinitesimally small market share.)

Lesse here: Something like 200 million firearms in America, about 12k firearms murders per year, carry the one... that's about one murder per 17,000 guns. So Rudy's numbers are just a little bit off.

Jennifer | April 12, 2007, 5:05pm | #

Guns have a strange effect on some people.

Like the ones who insist I'd be much safer if my short skinny undersized little self were forbidden to possess the only item that would enable me to defend myself against a person bigger and stronger than I am (i.e., the entire double-digit-aged non-quadriplegic population of the world).

Hooked on Innuendo | April 12, 2007, 5:07pm | #

Guns are crucially important. The balance of force is what determines the politics of a nation. When defensive force in the populace overshadows central .gov, you get free societies. When it is the opposite, dictatorships.

I'm not sure about that - there are many countries that have pretty strict gun control laws that are not dictatorships in any sense of the word.

TrickyVic | April 12, 2007, 5:10pm | #

"""Since as taxes on income are reduced, people will be incented to increase income. """

I've never know anyone to decline to accept a higher paying job because of the taxes. Nor have I ever heard of anyone waiting till taxes went down before looking for a better job. As for myself, I can think of a hundred reasons to get a new job, and "hey, taxes are down" is not one of them.

Kap | April 12, 2007, 5:13pm | #

For an issue that's not really very important, guns really get people going. Even a city mayor's comment from seven years ago seems to stir up the masses.

I've said this before in other gun threads, but I believe that guns are controversial inasmuch as they are a symbolic refutation of statism.

The likes of Rudy and Hillary are not threatened by the thought of a gun in the hands of a thug.

They are threatened by the thought of not being the skirt you are clinging to.

Pro Libertate | April 12, 2007, 5:14pm | #

I'd have less of a problem with gun control if it weren't clearly the thin wedge for sword control. Not going to happen on my watch, that's for sure!

Hooked on Innuendo | April 12, 2007, 5:17pm | #

I've said this before in other gun threads, but I believe that guns are controversial inasmuch as they are a symbolic refutation of statism.

They're a symbol of something, all right. But I think it's more primal than anything to do with philisophical differences as to the role of government.

Mo | April 12, 2007, 5:24pm | #

I've never know anyone to decline to accept a higher paying job because of the taxes. Nor have I ever heard of anyone waiting till taxes went down before looking for a better job. As for myself, I can think of a hundred reasons to get a new job, and "hey, taxes are down" is not one of them.

TrickyVic,
I agree, though it's primarily at the margins. Hours worked will be 0 at a tax rate of 100%, so taxes will be $0 there. Same goes for a tax rate of 0% ($0 in taxes collected). The middle is a mess outside of that. I don't buy the full Laffer Curve, merely stating what Rudy believes and how it contradicts what he says about the gun industry.

However, I'm sure if the marginal tax rate was 80% and I got a job that paid me more for longer hours, I may decline to take the extra hours/wages due to the net income being insufficient for me to reduce my free time.

jw | April 12, 2007, 5:30pm | #

"You are better off using something inexpensive for a defensive firearm. If you are ever unfortunate enough that you actually have to shoot somebody in self defense, your gun will be confiscated. Even if it is decided that your actions were justified and no charges are brought, you will be lucky to get it back. You don't want it to be a $3000 custom 1911 that ends up in some cop's private collection."

JLM,
Man, you got that right! It's been nearly two years since my brother shot himself and we still haven't been able to get his gun back. The detective keeps giving us some bullshit about how the crime lab has to check it to see if it has ever been used in a crime. (It was purchased from a pawn shop where such determinations would have already been made.)
Given that they also towed his vehicle and robbed us on getting that back, I don't expect that the pistol will ever be returned. That's $450 that could have gone to his estate and funeral expenses. (Even though it was a Springfield 1911 model .45 we certainly would not want to keep that particular gun!)
Cops are a bunch of sleazebag thieves who really aren't much better than who they're supposedly protecting us from. Just sorry motherfuckers.

Stevo Darkly | April 12, 2007, 5:33pm | #

They've acted negligently by overproducing guns, way beyond the number that's necessary for hunting and for law enforcement, maybe by factors of 3 and 4 to 1. In doing that, they have knowingly made a calculation that they're selling to an illegal market, and that's negligence....In fact, it would be more in their business interest to produce less guns, because the price of guns would go up if there were less guns, just like we were talking about with OPEC, you know, Economics 101. Instead of producing less guns, they produce 6, 7 times more guns than the legal market actually would demand. Therefore they have to know that they're supplying an illegal market.

OMG. Remember poster "Jersey McJones"?

THAT WAS RUDY GIULIANI!!!

Kwix | April 12, 2007, 5:35pm | #

You know Stevo, you might be onto something there.

John | April 12, 2007, 5:37pm | #

JW,

I can't say how sorry I am about your brother. You have to understand that cops are brainwashed into this us against them mentality. I am sure that detective is thinking in the back of his head "I can't let this gun back on the street where it could be used to harm people" as he is robbing your berieved family. I know that is nuts and I am not defending it but I bet that is what the dumb ass is thinking.

Stevo Darkly | April 12, 2007, 5:38pm | #

The Giuliani Plan for Turning Around General Motors:

1) Drastically reduce costs to a few million dollars a year by laying off almost all employees and selling off all facilities, equipment and other capital, retaining only enough to produce one (1) car per year.

2) Reduction in supply = opportunity to increase price, per Giuliani. A "one of a kind" car would bring an extremely high price. Sell car for, say, $5 trillion.

3) Profit!!!

John | April 12, 2007, 5:39pm | #

Stevo,

You might be right.

Kwix | April 12, 2007, 5:40pm | #

I'm not sure about that - there are many countries that have pretty strict gun control laws that are not dictatorships in any sense of the word.

The only thing preventing them from becoming one is the good will of the elected (or appointed) government. It would be too easy for a dictator to usurp the Government, particularly if he controls the only source of firepower around, the military. Sorry, I don't like things that have a single point of failure no matter how stable they may seem.

uncle sam | April 12, 2007, 5:41pm | #

You have to understand that cops are rainwashed into this us against them mentality.

It's called socialization.

FDM | April 12, 2007, 5:41pm | #

I'm not sure about that - there are many countries that have pretty strict gun control laws that are not dictatorships in any sense of the word.

I said "balance of force" not guns. But even if we restrict to guns only, the conversation is similar:

Guess you haven't been to Big Brother Britain lately, or crime-ridden Australia, or tried to do something not government approved in Singapore lately....

jw | April 12, 2007, 5:52pm | #

[John | April 12, 2007, 5:37pm | #

JW,

I can't say how sorry I am about your brother. You have to understand that cops are brainwashed into this us against them mentality. I am sure that detective is thinking in the back of his head "I can't let this gun back on the street where it could be used to harm people" as he is robbing your berieved family. I know that is nuts and I am not defending it but I bet that is what the dumb ass is thinking.]

Thanks for your sympathy, John. I wonder what was going through the cops' minds when they towed my brother's jeep Cherokee and didn't bother telling us where they had it stored. And when we found it in some "private" storage yard and they did their best to stall us on giving it back until they had extorted several hundred dollars from us. Yup! They were probably just thinking that they had to keep that dangerous vehicle off the street so someone didn't have an accident or something with it. Sure they were.

Say, I've got some lush, green farm land out in west Texas that I could let you have real cheap! ;-)

VM | April 12, 2007, 5:57pm | #

Sympathies to you and your family, JW.

Well said, John.

James Madison | April 12, 2007, 5:59pm | #

From the Federalist #46:

That the people and the States should, for a sufficient period of time, elect an uninterupted succession of men ready to betray both; that the traitors should, throughout this period, uniformly and systematically pursue some fixed plan for the extension of the military establishment; that the governments and the people of the States should silently and patiently behold the gathering storm, and continue to supply the materials, until it should be prepared to burst on their own heads, must appear to every one more like the incoherent dreams of a delirious jealousy, or the misjudged exaggerations of a counterfeit zeal, than like the sober apprehensions of genuine patriotism. Extravagant as the supposition is, let it however be made. Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands*, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. ... Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it. Let us not insult the free and gallant citizens of America with the suspicion, that they would be less able to defend the rights of which they would be in actual possession, than the debased subjects of arbitrary power would be to rescue theirs from the hands of their oppressors. Let us rather no longer insult them with the supposition that they can ever reduce themselves to the necessity of making the experiment, by a blind and tame submission to the long train of insidious measures which must precede and produce it.

*Repeated for emphasis: "to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands"

jw | April 12, 2007, 5:59pm | #

Thanks, VM.

Stevo Darkly | April 12, 2007, 5:59pm | #

Sorry about your brother and everything you were put through, JW.

Nick M. | April 12, 2007, 6:13pm | #

Shit, I forgot about how many different manufacturers of the same damn gun there are. I mean, hell, sure I've got my Sig SP2340 for everyday carry, but then I've got my Kimber, Taurus, Springfield, Colt, and Sig 1911 variations. Then, I have my real custom 1911's by Les Baer and Yost-Bonitz. Then, of course, for my rifles, I've got my DPMS, Bushmaster, Armalite, Ameetec, and Colt AR variations. And no rifle collection is complete wihout FAL's and AK's from different countries. Then you've got revolvers with different length barrels and in different calibers, western style, Dirty Harry style.
Don't forget the hunting/long range guns and the various guage shotguns.

I'm just trying to figure how all of this fits into legal/illegal market.

Like I said, guns are like songs. Different variations done by various artists.

Nick

Gray Ghost | April 12, 2007, 6:14pm | #

Am surprised that mediageek or LarryA have not yet turned up in this thread. It will be interesting reading their commentary.

I lack the stats, but I was under the impression the vast majority of guns used in stranger violent crime (as opposed to your drunken relation plugging you at the family BBQ.) were obtained illegally---the weapon was either stolen in the first place or transferred illegally. If they're stolen or transferred illegally, I have a hard time laying the mess at Colt, Glock, or S&W's feet.

My condolences for your loss J.W. I can't imagine how it must feel to bury a sibling. Nevermind also having some bureaucratic troll continue to mess with you.

Please help me out with this, N.Y. residents while Giuliani was mayor, but didn't Giuliani achieve a large measure of his crime reduction from warrantless weapons searches of people on the street? I understand that a police officer is allowed for safety reasons to frisk for weapons---after he's decided to stop you for something else. It was my impression that the 'something else' was largely pretextual--with the blessing of the mayor's office, but NY'ers mostly didn't care: crime was going down, and carrying a weapon was a crime anyway so what was the big deal?

If my impressions are largely correct, then I don't think such a man should be allowed anywhere near the Presidency.

Lastly, regarding the probable forfeiture of a successfully used defensive firearm, how much is your life worth? Moreover, the cost of the lawyer(s) you'll have to retain, both for the criminal and civil litigation from any shooting, will far outweigh the value of the impounded weapon.

jw | April 12, 2007, 6:16pm | #

Thank you, too, Stevo. It's appreciated. (and thanks to anyone else who extends their sympathies.) My brother and I had not been close for a number of years - in fact, he was not close to anyone as far as I know - but it's still a hard thing to get past sometimes. Especially when no note was left and no one had a clue that anything like suicide was going through his mind. He certainly had no discernable reason that we've been able to figure. Probably a waste of time asking "why". I don't think we'll ever find an answer to that. Best just to forget about it and keep on truckin'.

Paul | April 12, 2007, 7:32pm | #

interest to produce less guns

Hey, Tim Cavanaugh once corrected me on this use of grammar, indicating it should be "fewer guns". Just sayin'.

mediageek | April 12, 2007, 8:46pm | #

The last time I ran the numbers, which was several years ago, I came to the conclusion that even assuming every violent crime committed with a gun was committed with a different gun, that it still only accounted for about 1/10 of 1% of all guns in the country.

Giuliani is clearly full of it.

The various gun makers are all simply responding to their particular market demand. In the case of a company like Hi-Point, which makes low-cost, bare-bones pistols, they are filling the basic needs of those who have very little disposable income for a defensive arm.

On the other hand, Les Baer makes far fewer firearms, at roughly 13 times the cost of a Hi-Point for those with more discriminating taste and disposable income.

Giuliani clearly believes that you, me, or anyone who isn't a member of the aristocracy shouldn't be allowed the most effective means of self-defense.

LarryA | April 12, 2007, 9:00pm | #

They've acted negligently by overproducing guns, way beyond the number that's necessary for hunting and for law enforcement, maybe by factors of 3 and 4 to 1.

Somewhat true. In addition to hunting and law enforcement you have all the firearms sold to target shooters, collectors, and folks interested in self-defense. I would submit that, despite Guiliani’s opinion, these are legitimate markets. Then there’s the U.S. military. Wouldn’t want our soldiers shortchanged in the arms department.

In doing that, they have knowingly made a calculation that they're selling to an illegal market, and that's negligence....

In fact, firearm manufacturers are heavily regulated to minimize illegal sales. In addition the firearm industry has for decades backed initiatives to reduce “selling to an illegal market” with programs like Don’t lie for the other guy (http://www.dontlie.org/) aimed at straw purchases.

Reducing the availability of legal firearms would impact criminals about like reducing the availability of beer would impact drunk drivers.

In fact, it would be more in their business interest to produce less guns, because the price of guns would go up if there were less guns, just like we were talking about with OPEC, you know, Economics 101.

Half true. If gun manufacturing were greatly reduced due to the kind of gun control laws promoted by Guiliani the price of legal guns would rise acutely, particularly for law enforcement and the military. IOW it would cost us taxpayers more to not own guns.

It would also greatly reduce the ability of U.S. arms industry to respond to crises. For instance, when the military recently ran short of 5.56mm NATO due to burning ammo in Iraq, they simply let contracts to ammo manufacturers who usually supply the civilian market. Converting machines producing .223 Remington hunting cartridges to military configuration is a matter of a few adjustments and a different bullet.

The other half is the effect on the criminal market. The current poster boy for this is Britain, where a total ban on legal possession of handguns was followed by increasing gun crime and expanded availability of illegal handguns on the black market. As well as increased popularity for choosing crime as a profession, given a disarmed pool of victims.

Instead of producing less guns, they produce 6, 7 times more guns than the legal market actually would demand. Therefore they have to know that they're supplying an illegal market.

Really? Felons make up about 4% of the U.S. population, while gun owners total at least 40%. So for every firearm a legitimate gun owner purchases, a typical felon acquires sixty or seventy? Bullshit.

Gray Ghost, sorry, busy day. I have two concealed handgun classes coming up Friday and Saturday. Another eighteen licensees certified.

Lastly, regarding the probable forfeiture of a successfully used defensive firearm, how much is your life worth? Moreover, the cost of the lawyer(s) you'll have to retain, both for the criminal and civil litigation from any shooting, will far outweigh the value of the impounded weapon.

That’s why I have a legal services contract covering the cost of representation in criminal matters through the grand jury process, and live in a state like Texas where civil litigants can’t recover once a shooting is justified.

mediageek | April 12, 2007, 9:02pm | #

"Actually, IIRC, Rudy supported investigations of and suits against federally licensed gun dealers, as well as manufacturers, on the grounds that they, too, were providing guns to the black market."

Suits which were all a patented attempt to lay the groundwork in an attempt to foist New York-style gun control on places outside of New York.

"For an issue that's not really very important, guns really get people going."

Nobody's twisting your arm to make you participate in this thread. If you have no truck with the gun issue, why even chime in?

mediageek | April 12, 2007, 9:05pm | #

patent. Not patented. Unless the USPTO received a submission from Rudy.

juris imprudent | April 12, 2007, 9:54pm | #

They're a symbol of something, all right. But I think it's more primal than anything to do with philisophical differences as to the role of government.

Awww, hooked is thinking about his wee-wee. Now we know what strange effect grabbed him when he touched a gun.

JLM | April 12, 2007, 10:05pm | #

JW- I'm terribly sorry to hear about your brother.

JLM | April 12, 2007, 10:19pm | #

"Lastly, regarding the probable forfeiture of a successfully used defensive firearm, how much is your life worth? Moreover, the cost of the lawyer(s) you'll have to retain, both for the criminal and civil litigation from any shooting, will far outweigh the value of the impounded weapon."

I agree. I'm sure that after the fact, the value of the lost weapon would be the least of your worries. On top of the legal and financial hassles, you would have to deal with the emotional burdon of knowing that somebody just tried to kill you, and that you had to kill them to save your ass.

Bsty | April 12, 2007, 11:38pm | #

Hey, Rudy... remember that time cartels (like OPEC) were illegal in the United States. That's right. Why are politicans such collasal idiots?

joe | April 13, 2007, 9:42am | #

JW,

I hope you and your family can find peace.

grumpy realist | April 13, 2007, 12:42pm | #

Jennifer, I'm just saying that we have a lot of drunk assholes running around with guns every hunting season causing problems. Yeah, taking their guns away from them wouldn't keep them from being assholes, but they'd be far less likely to a) shoot farmers' cows b) shoot people "by accident." As that idiot did in New Hampshire killing a woman who was hanging up her wash outside her house. He said he thought she was a white-tailed deer and didn't have the foggiest idea he was so close to human habitation.

Frankly, I think if you end up shooting and killing someone "by accident" you should be banned from guns for life for being such a dumb idiot.

Unfortunately, we usually can't identify the idiots and the assholes until after they've wounded/killed someone. Life will always be such.

Jennifer | April 13, 2007, 1:24pm | #

we usually can't identify the idiots and the assholes until after they've wounded/killed someone. Life will always be such.

Whether guns remain legal or not.

Isaac Bartram | April 13, 2007, 3:47pm | #

Frankly, I think if you end up shooting and killing someone "by accident" you should be banned from guns for life for being such a dumb idiot.

And you probably will be.

Because in all likelihood you will be convicted of manslaughter or negligent homicide (possibly even merder 2) in which case you will be a felon.

And then if you are caught in possession of a firearm you'll be looking at federal time.

Isaac Bartram | April 13, 2007, 3:48pm | #

d'oh, I forgot how to spell "murder".

Pro Libertate | April 14, 2007, 2:29pm | #

Isaac Bartram,

Redrum.

Tom H. | April 14, 2007, 5:06pm | #

The 2nd ammendment has nothing to do with hunting, BUT if it did Rudy would still be way off. I'm a hunter and I can tell you that different prey require different weapons. You don't go duck hunting with a 7MM Mag and you don't go Elk hunting with .22 short.

On top of that you can be hunting an animal in very different types of terrain and need to switch your weapon. I've used several types of weapons on different animals in different types of terrain.

The only guy that makes that kind of statement is the kind that wears an occaisional skirt instead of camo.

Nevermind the whole "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 " part of things.

Rudy is very confused and very liberal.

Nobody Important | April 15, 2007, 4:17pm | #

Isaac Bartram | April 13, 2007, 3:47pm
Frankly, I think if you end up shooting and killing someone "by accident" you should be banned from guns for life for being such a dumb idiot.
And you probably will be.
Because in all likelihood you will be convicted of manslaughter or negligent homicide (possibly even merder 2) in which case you will be a felon.

Unless the accidental shooter is a cop.