by Tyler Durden via Sott
Several days after releasing a historic front-page Op-Ed calling for gun control in the aftermath of the San Bernardino shooting, the NYT decided to actually do the analysis to find out just what it is that drives gun sales.
In an article title “What Drives Gun Sales“, the NYT tries to spread the blame around, accusing everything from loose restrictions, to higher handgun sales, to hurricanes, but the real reason is a simple one.
It begins with the letter O, ends in bama, and has made the crusade for gun control one of the core prerogatives of its presidency, as the following chart from the NYT itself shows.
Which, incidentally, is what we showed just a few days ago:
So in case Smith & Wesson, whose stock just hit an all time high today, wants to thank someone, just thank the top gun salesman of the century.
From the White House we hear that:
President Obama’s spokesman said Thursday that the record number of Americans seeking to buy guns in recent weeks is “a tragedy” that the White House is at a loss to explain.
“The more that we see this kind of violence on our streets, the more people go out and buy guns,” said White House press secretary Josh Earnest. “That is both ironic and tragic.”
But what if this is all bullshit? If it is common knowledge that Obama’s incessant calls for more control legislation only drive up the purchasing of guns then why keep harping on about more gun control?
Could it be that the people who pull the strings behind the White House are that clueless? If this induced demand is intentional, then this begs the question: Why might the puppet masters be manipulating the masses into buying guns (not that having one used judiciously and for protection is necessarily a bad idea)?
Is it possible that the snakes in power anticipate a situation in the US where they actually want a well armed public battling the Police State apparatus and Federal forces? And if so, why?
Or, a more simple explanation, the puppet masters still anticipate major social unrest and are trying to do all they can to maintain their positions via their own firepower and therefore really just want less guns available for when that happens — but are going about it in a counterproductive way?
