Posts Tagged ‘gun control’

CNN Money Tries to Cast Shadow On Gun Manufacturers

April 18, 2013

CNN Money published this article today:

Gun stocks lag after gun control bill fails

The article starts with a very ominous statement:

Gun sales have been driven by many new buyers, including women, who feared more gun restrictions. But with this incentive gone, the industry could be in trouble.

The author then tries to use statistics to convince you of this fact. I love statistics, because they allow liars to paint themselves into obvious corners. The article lists five companies, and their recent change in stock prices, from best to worst:

Company Stock Price Change
Smith & Wesson gained 1.3%
Ruger lost less than 1%
Olin Corp. lost 1.2%
Alliant Techsystems lost over 2%
Cabela’s lost almost 5%

First, you can’t measure ANYTHING on a single day’s stock movement. But let’s say you can. The theory is that gun/ammo sales have been hurt by the end of the “gun scare”, right? Then why is it that the three companies that sell guns/ammo exclusively have done the best out of these five, one of them even gaining stock price? In fact, the two that have dropped the most only get a *portion* of their sales from guns and ammo.

You’d think if gun/ammo sales were dropping off, the companies who ONLY deal in guns and ammo would be hit the worst, and companies who sell lots of other things might be affected very little, if at all.  But the reverse is true.

Why would the interwebs lie?

CNN is left-leaning, and this article is in their Money/Investing section. What better way to try to force a drop in stock for the companies you think are “evil”, than to take advantage of an arbitrary dip to try to scare shareholders into panic selling?

Concealed Carry Amendment Defeated in the Senate

July 22, 2009

Yahoo today reported that the amendment to mandate concealed carry reciprocity among states was defeated by the slimmest of margins.  While the article is unusually objective sounding for being part of the popular media, it does make this defeat out as more than it is, by saying “opponents prevailed in their argument…”

To me, “prevailed” means they really swayed general opinion.  They didn’t.  Votes were actually in favor of the amendment, 58 – 39.  However, the senate requires 60 “for” votes in order to pass legislation, so this measure failed.  But I think this misleading tone is due more to the need for media to overdramatize.  A story saying “despite growing support, things stay the same for now” doesn’t sell.

One part of the article really interested me.  It was the anti-gun crowd’s sudden concern for “state’s rights” that they wholeheartedly ignore when they’re trying to eliminate the whole country’s second amendment right to bear arms.  Are we being hypocritical?  I firmly believe in state’s rights, and I know we’re not.

The right of individual states to make their own laws and govern their own people is invaluable.  I dare say when it comes to legislation, the smaller level the better.  But those laws are not allowed to infringe on constitutional rights, and the right to self defense is one of them.

Private businesses and private residences are the only places that should have the right to enforce stricter gun rules on their own property.  I have no problem with that.  I’ve seen news reports with bar owners who complain about lax gun law.  In my state, and most I believe, bars are like any other private business and have to right to restrict guns, or anything else, as much as they want.  Heck, put up a “no republicans” sign, I don’t care – I’ll simply take my business elsewhere.