Glock exec testified he would keep doing business with indicted dealers because... wait for it...

[krispos42]

25. Of course they are

They're soulless, amoral corporate entities. The fact that they are bloodsuckers is a given, just like every other corporation. That's not the issue.


The issue is that the gun makers are 2 steps removed from the gun dealers. Gun maker -> gun distributor -> gun dealer -> gun's first retail sale.


What you're asking them to do, essentially, is when a gun dealer is merely accused of selling guns illegally to people, the gun makers should stop selling guns to the distributor that supplies the gun dealer... and dozens or hundreds or thousands of other dealers.

Obviously, that's a hard sell to make. "Sorry, New England, you don't get our guns because Big Roy's Gun Distribution sold guns to Jimbo's Second Amendment Warehouse, and Jimbo sold a gun illegally, so we're not selling guns to Big Roy anymore, indefinitely, forever."



And I don't think it's more than few thousand guns a year.

In 2010, with a gun, there were about 122k robberies, 136k aggravated assaults, 66k rapes, and 8.5k homicides.

The total is in the region of 333k violent crimes where a gun was used.

That is 2.08% of all guns sold in the US, give or take.

Now, since something like 80-plus percent of all crime guns are either stolen or purchased with straw buyers, and the most of the balance is stuff like intra-family violence with a legally-purchased gun, then that can only leave a couple of percentage points of that 333k open to new guns (or even used guns) sold illegally by a dealer to a disqualified person.

So, assuming that 2% of all gun-related violent crime are committed, each with a gun that was purchased by a disqualified person by a shady gun dealer, you have about 6,500 guns. Assuming the gun isn't re-used during the year, of course.


That's how I look at it. Now, there is no doubt that gun dealers are deliberately selling both new and used guns to disqualified persons for some under-the-table cash. Of course some are doing it; statistically, how could it be otherwise?

It just seems unlikely that it's more than tiny fraction of gun sales.