Hunting weapons as economic drivers

[TargetRick]

There is an article in the Edmonton Journal online today, about how guns are economic drivers. I will comment on this later, as I've had the same thought for years, but I want to hear your comments first.

https://edmontonjournal.com/news/loc...onomic-drivers

[32-40win]

Think about all the things you would not buy if you did not want or need them to go to the range or hunting, where you bought them, where they were made and how that spreads thru the economy. Would you buy the stuff you have acquired otherwise? Boots, socks, camo clothes, target frame material and targets, clays, clay throwers, chokes, scopes, irons, cleaning rods, cleaning chems, patches, lubes, gun cases. Think about people employed in making ammo boxes for the factory ammo, be it cardboard or plastic or metal. People designing graphics for those boxes. List goes on and on.

[1899b]

God i hate the word weapon. To me when the term weapon is used it’s to use the object against a human. It’s only a weapon then to me.

[badbrass]

X2!!!!!!!

Originally Posted by 32-40win

Think about all the things you would not buy if you did not want or need them to go to the range or hunting, where you bought them, where they were made and how that spreads thru the economy. Would you buy the stuff you have acquired otherwise? Boots, socks, camo clothes, target frame material and targets, clays, clay throwers, chokes, scopes, irons, cleaning rods, cleaning chems, patches, lubes, gun cases. Think about people employed in making ammo boxes for the factory ammo, be it cardboard or plastic or metal. People designing graphics for those boxes. List goes on and on.

[260 Rem]

"WE" should never refer to a firearm as a weapon unless it is used for that purpose.

[NCC]

I think it’s more of an economic indicator than an economic driver. I killed
more stuff with my hand me down Remington 760 pump, rubber boots and lumberjack coat than I do with all of the crap I have now. Most of the hunting accessories are limited in how they affect the success of a hunt and without Alberta’s high standard of living, would be considered completely unnecessary. I don’t believe that shooting sports have any significant affect on Canada’s GDP.

[TargetRick]

I used to work in marketing (yes, I was one of those... but I did put hard work into it lol) and one of the WORST arguments for anything was known to be how much economic benefit it. For example, the irrigation system provides X million $ in economic benefit for Alberta's economy. That was in fact one of the projects I worked on.

The reason it's the WORST statistic to use is that people in favour of cutting it could just say, yeah, well so what? Couldn't that money be provided just as well by turning the land into golf courses and private acreages and such? Screw the irrigated farms, let's do some development instead! And the hell of it is, they are right.

So what's this got to do with guns, you ask? Thing is, if the gun people start using this "we are an economic driver" thing, like in this article, they are setting themselves up for one hell of a punch to the face. Anti-gun people can then say "yeah, well, so what? Screw the gun folk, let's ban guns and those people can sell golf clubs, and speedboats, and vacation cottages and whatnot." And they would be right.

My 2 cents worth is that if we hear this "economic driver" thing being said, we should recognize it's a loser's claim. We should agree, say no more about it, and move on to more solid stuff, like guns are good sport, and provide outdoors game protection, are part of the Canadian heritage, and all that.

Make sense?

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by 32-40win

Think about all the things you would not buy if you did not want or need them to go to the range or hunting, where you bought them, where they were made and how that spreads thru the economy. Would you buy the stuff you have acquired otherwise? Boots, socks, camo clothes, target frame material and targets, clays, clay throwers, chokes, scopes, irons, cleaning rods, cleaning chems, patches, lubes, gun cases. Think about people employed in making ammo boxes for the factory ammo, be it cardboard or plastic or metal. People designing graphics for those boxes. List goes on and on.

It goes way beyond the actual firearms and accessories, how many fewer atvs would be sold, how many fewer 4x4 vehicles and accessories, how about hunting clothing and optics, hunting dog supplies, and camping gear? And of course the money spent on travel, lodging and food , to hunt or to shoot in competitions. Then there is taxidermy and meat processing. If they were no firearms or bows/arrows, people would spend far less on these things.

[CaberTosser]

The firearms themselves are not the economic drivers, they are just economic indicators. The real economic driver is peoples desire to own them and spend their disposable income on them (they’re not really different from musical instruments: an electric guitar purchase means you now need an amplifier, cables, effects pedals, guitar strap, picks, etc) once they are purchased then of course there are all of the related support purchases even including vehicles and fuel.

[Big Grey Wolf]

Latest concern is Blairing-Blair announced $340+ million over next few years of Tax payer money $$ to go after guns. Hope they are not going spend our money to buy our guns back if elected!

[Big Racks]

While I do see the vast amount of money that firearms sports spending pours into the economy, I also see it as people spending their disposable income. The key word there being disposable. If I didn't spend this disposable income on firearms related activities (and I'll use that as broadly as possible, whether it's firearms themselves, other gear, gas, etc...), I know I'd spend it elsewhere, on another hobby/pasttime/activity of my choosing. It's disposable income, so I've decided I'll spend it on somethings I don't really need, or something nicer than what I really need. If I didn't spend it on this, I most likely wouldn't tuck it away outside of my normal savings plan, I'd buy something pretty for myself, whether it be a new fly rod and reel, tickets to games, a week at a fishing lodge, etc... I guess my point being, is that it can be a pretty weak argument if that money is going to end up being pumped back into the tank anyways, just from a different inlet. Now foreign shooters travelling to Canada specifically to hunt or participate in shooting sports is a different matter, as their visit is sport specific and wouldn't happen otherwise.

[oldgutpile]

Any argument that supports the owning and use of firearms should be supported. They don't have to be the "end-all" excuse, just another reason why we should be allowed to keep doing what we are doing.
Turdeau claims that the Lavalin scandal was all about the jobs, and here we have some data showing how many jobs are affected by the firearms community. NOT just in the west, but Canada wide.
Using the economic driver statement should just assist in promoting the whole firearms culture. The spin-offs are endless, but ultimately they all come down to our desire to enjoy the sport, be it to continue our hunting heritage, or just target shooting for the relaxation that it provides.

[32-40win]

Not just Canada, it is an international ripple effect. Granted, it is a small one. Somebody outside of Canada may actually notice it, once.