Shooting at Wisconsin Sikh temple


Recommended Posts

My fiancee' is Sikh and thankfully none of the victims were friends or family members of hers. Once again it's tragic to see what destruction a nutcase can cause. I want to attempt to clarify a few things said in this thread as well as share my opinion.

First of all, the whole "Guns don't kill people, people kill people" is a truism. That is certainly the case. But, while this may be true, guns, while not the most efficient or devastating means of murdering someone, do enable people to kill quickly and in numbers.

Again, they're not the most efficient means of killing. But, they are the most efficient means which are readily available to the general populace. The two sides of this debate have valid points. However, for the pro-gun side not to admit that homicides would be drastically reduced were there no guns, is being willfully na?ve.

Now, I said if there were no guns. That is, if guns didn't exist. People WILL find a way to kill each other. It's part of being a primitive, and far too often, barbaric species. But, I can say with almost no equivocation that there would be nowhere near 16,000 murders in the U.S. if guns didn't exist.

Number of Murders, United States, 2009: 15,241

Number of Murders by Firearms, US, 2009: 9,146

That's 60 some odd percent of all murders in the US via firearm. Is there a possibility that without guns we'd still kill this number of people? Sure. But, in my opinion, I'd say it's not very probable.

Just from these statistics alone, wouldn't most critically thinking individuals acknowledge something needs to be done? Or, are you content with the status quo? Is that something an outright ban? Probably not. I'd say no. It would take decades upon decades to attempt to do this plus many, many other factors would have to come into play as well.

So, perhaps a different sort of firearm regulation needs to be looked at as what we're doing now has no effect whatsoever. Now, there are those making the arguments that criminals will still have guns no matter what. And, you are correct... some criminals would. And, there's been talk about gunrunners etc. here. This is one of the main misconceptions that I won't to clear up.

First of all... the vast majority of violent criminals obtain their guns indirectly through legal means. Now, I say indirectly because most don't go and buy them at your local gun shop (some actually do). Allow me to explain to you how the majority of violent criminals get their guns and no, it's not from gunrunners as you might think. More on that later.

Gun Shops/Dealers - Most guns that are currently in the hands of violent criminals originated from legal sources which includes gun shops and/or other dealers. These guns were either stolen from their original sources or sold by those original sources. Yes... some dealers do sell their stock to criminals who never fill out weapons transfer sheets or undergo any sort of background check. Trust me when I say this happens.

Gun Shows - this is a big one. Here in Texas there's a gun show somewhere every weekend. There are many collectors and private sellers there who rent booths and sell off their weapons. There are also "dealers" (people with FFLs) that have no shops, but instead sell their merchandise at these shows.

Many gangs, or other would be criminals will send a proxy in to these shows with cash to purchase multiple weapons. Again, no checks, no paperwork.

Legal Gun Owners - these people, also, sell their weapons. However, these guns are often times stolen obviously without any paperwork. ;)

I can tell you for a fact that the above three avenues are how most violent criminals in this country come by their firearms.

Gunrunners - now to address this myth. I know people here watch a lot of TV and movies. And, to a degree, some of that stuff is true. But, gunrunners are people who usually operate in bulk and they are relatively few in number.

The weapons they sell come from three different sources: Military, Law Enforcement Agencies, and Gun Manufacturers. These weapons are usually surplus stock which is set to be destroyed. In some instances, these weapons have slight imperfections. While functional, they do not meet the standards of whatever agency they're going to or whatever manufacturer is producing them.

Another source for gunrunners' stock is theft. These guns are stolen from the above group or made to seem as though they were stolen. This seldom happens for several reasons I won't get into.

For the most part gangs and common criminals do not have guns sold to them by real gunrunners. Has it happened? Sure. But, most of these guns are going toward cartels, and various wars and skirmishes around the world.

It was suggested that the Aurora shooter, if he wanted to get a gun and they were illegal, could roll on down to the hood and hit up some gangbangers and buy himself a gun. A more likely scenario would be to rob this guy flat out, or take his money and leave him hanging. He's not a source for consistent revenue, he's out of his element, and these individuals have no incentive to part with a GOOD gun when they can keep the gun and his money.

I'm a gun owner, but I don't count myself in the pro-gun camp or the anti-gun camp as I see validity for both sides. But... the status quo CANNOT continue as is. Something needs to be done.

TL;DR Guns don't come from where you think they come from, if guns were banned most people couldn't get them even common criminals would have a hard time, a outright ban isn't the answer, something must be done the status quo cannot continue.

P.S. I know people on the internet always say, trust me I know what I'm talking about. But, trust me, I know what I'm talking about. There is no source that I could or would be willing to post. So, take it as you will.

  • Like 2

TL;DR Guns don't come from where you think they come from, if guns were banned most people couldn't get them even common criminals would have a hard time, a outright ban isn't the answer, something must be done the status quo cannot continue.

Glad to see some people in USA still knows how to think.

Wasn't an AR15 used in the Aurora massacre? OK, you got me. Automatic, semi-automatic, I'm not a gun expert. My mistake for not using proper terminology.

Still doesn' really answer the question of why anyone needs one or wants one.

Something that is useless if you have an individual who has an undiagnosed psychiatric disorder. Which I imagine a lot of people do.

And if you don't have a uniform laws across the country couldn't someone just go to a neighbouring state which don't require background checks and procure firearms?

AR-15's can be used to hunt and are often used in varmint hunting as well. It was used in the Aurura shooting yes but it jammed quickly after he tried using it. He used a shotgun and a glock .40 for the majority of the shootings. It looks military to you so that means we can't have them right?

Any criticism of any part of American culture gets one labelled as anti-American these days. Just ignore it ;)

And you seem to do a lot of it. Wasn't I told that it was your choice to have restrictions on guns? Yes, well we don't want restrictions on ours. If you want me to respect your decision them I'd suggest you respect ours but in all likelihood you wont respect that and continue you're bashing at any opportunity you can.

And you seem to do a lot of it. Wasn't I told that it was your choice to have restrictions on guns? Yes, well we don't want restrictions on ours. If you want me to respect your decision them I'd suggest you respect ours but in all likelihood you wont respect that and continue you're bashing at any opportunity you can.

Hilarious as usual.

USA doing this to plenty of other countries, but it is never reciprocal.

P.S. look up dictionary if you don't know reciprocal.

Hilarious as usual.

USA doing this to plenty of other countries, but it is never reciprocal.

P.S. look up dictionary if you don't know reciprocal.

Oh its always our government. Is the people doing it? How can you blame citizens for what the government does? If you want the honest truth I think the majority of Americans disapprove with how our country is run both from a domestic and foreign policy stand point. A lot of people would change what the government is doing. But they go ahead and dig on the American people as always.We're either too fat or too skiny, we're too religious, we're blood thirsty gun owners obsessed with death. We eat nothing but fast food and are hill billy rednecks. There's nothing that we can do to get them to stop. They will find some excuse to trash us.

Oh its always our government. Is the people doing it? How can you blame citizens for what the government does? If you want the honest truth I think the majority of Americans disapprove with how our country is run both from a domestic and foreign policy stand point. A lot of people would change what the government is doing. But go ahead use that as an excuse to dig on the American people..

Yes, majority disapprove....ROFL

OK, How about some action with the gun rights that your founding father fought for it?

I distinctively remember some of your kind spew that the gun rights are for overthrowing mediocre government.

According to your post I assume an uprising is soon?

Yes, majority disapprove....ROFL

OK, How about some action with the gun rights that your founding father fought for it?

I distinctively remember some of your kind spew that the gun rights are for overthrowing mediocre government.

According to your post I assume an uprising is soon?

I don't know. Probably not. But I do know there's a lot of people that wouldn't give up their guns willingly and by willingly I mean will go down in a hail of gun fire. Once the contract with the American people is broken and that contract is the bill of rights. Once that contract is broken the U.S will cease to be the U.S. Are you from the U.S? Because I noticed you said your founding fathers. I notice it says your from Wisconsin is that correct?

this just in. Reports by multiple eye witnesses state it was multiple gunmen and in a "well coordinated" attack. Me thinks this wasn't an incident that was perpetrated by a crazy wild eyed gunman as we are led to believe

An eyewitness to the Sikh temple shooting in Wisconsin says that a team of four men dressed in black carried out the massacre, contradicting the official narrative that a lone gunman was the culprit.

http://youtu.be/zYCurbSAsd4

and:

http://youtu.be/9ecdSKi9_fs

I don't know. Probably not. But I do know there's a lot of people that wouldn't give up their guns willingly and by willingly I mean will go down in a hail of gun fire. Once the contract with the American people is broken and that contract is the bill of rights. Once that contract is broken the U.S will cease to be the U.S. Are you from the U.S? Because I noticed you said your founding fathers. I notice it says your from Wisconsin is that correct?

So to put it simply: you love your gun more than your country and your people.

Case closed.

Gun nut identified.

this just in. Reports by multiple eye witnesses state it was multiple gunmen and in a "well coordinated" attack. Me thinks this wasn't an incident that was perpetrated by a crazy wild eyed gunman as we are led to believe

An eyewitness to the Sikh temple shooting in Wisconsin says that a team of four men dressed in black carried out the massacre, contradicting the official narrative that a lone gunman was the culprit.

http://youtu.be/zYCurbSAsd4

and:

http://youtu.be/9ecdSKi9_fs

Well of course the media wants to downplay it...blame it on everything but twisted America culture.

So to put it simply: you love your gun more than your country and your people.

Case closed.

Gun nut identified.

Well of course the media wants to downplay it...blame it on everything but twisted America culture.

I love my country just as much as I love my guns.

Yes, majority disapprove....ROFL

OK, How about some action with the gun rights that your founding father fought for it?

I distinctively remember some of your kind spew that the gun rights are for overthrowing mediocre government.

According to your post I assume an uprising is soon?

a solicitation by DHS to order riot gear: https://www.fbo.gov/...b=core&_cview=0

and: another agreeing article: http://rt.com/usa/ne...-riot-gear-431/

It?s more than just stockpiling surveillance drones to spy on US citizens: the United States Army is attempting to procure an arsenal of riot gear in case the military must go toe-to-toe with civilians on US soil.
Richteralan, on 05 August 2012 - 22:35, said:

Yes, majority disapprove....ROFL

OK, How about some action with the gun rights that your founding father fought for it?

I distinctively remember some of your kind spew that the gun rights are for overthrowing mediocre government.

According to your post I assume an uprising is soon?

so yes, the government is expecting civil unrest.

I don't know. Probably not. But I do know there's a lot of people that wouldn't give up their guns willingly and by willingly I mean will go down in a hail of gun fire. Once the contract with the American people is broken and that contract is the bill of rights. Once that contract is broken the U.S will cease to be the U.S. Are you from the U.S? Because I noticed you said your founding fathers. I notice it says your from Wisconsin is that correct?

"Over my cold dead hand"? Probably there are some. But I won't for a second believe that a significant portion of people will going to go down in a shower of bullets, And anyone with half a brain would realise taking away guns would be a terrible idea anyway. A lot of countries are plotting towards being smokefree (as in smoking), but none of them go and went "no more tobacco for sale". As for an effective way, now that is the better question but it would be a generational thing.

As for US cease to be the US. Just reeks of paranoia there I'm sorry.

Side track Rant: Way too many people treat founding papers way too importantly. Maybe I'm not religious and never had an all-conquering document to abide to like a bible or a koran. But surely a country is held together by more than mere amendments written by people who probably never envisioned the future as what it is today. I can't pretend I know American history much, but I assume the amendments were written at a time that is still pretty lawless and British presence was still fresh in their minds. America back then is not America now. The whole "Founding" document thing just seem to handcuff progress, and very often ends debate without even pursuing the issue just because it is "in the constitution". It is really backwards thinking.

And I'm sure there are much more holding the country together than some mere words. A country won't become not the same country in a blink of an eye, a country where it may be always evolve.

"Over my cold dead hand"? Probably there are some. But I won't for a second believe that a significant portion of people will going to go down in a shower of bullets, And anyone with half a brain would realise taking away guns would be a terrible idea anyway. A lot of countries are plotting towards being smokefree (as in smoking), but none of them go and went "no more tobacco for sale". As for an effective way, now that is the better question but it would be a generational thing.

As for US cease to be the US. Just reeks of paranoia there I'm sorry.

Side track Rant: Way too many people treat founding papers way too importantly. Maybe I'm not religious and never had an all-conquering document to abide to like a bible or a koran. But surely a country is held together by more than mere amendments written by people who probably never envisioned the future as what it is today. I can't pretend I know American history much, but I assume the amendments were written at a time that is still pretty lawless and British presence was still fresh in their minds. America back then is not America now. The whole "Founding" document thing just seem to handcuff progress, and very often ends debate without even pursuing the issue just because it is "in the constitution". It is really backwards thinking.

And I'm sure there are much more holding the country together than some mere words. A country won't become not the same country in a blink of an eye, a country where it may be always evolve.

No it's patriotism. he loves his country and the ideals it has had for the last roughly 235 years. He and I both care about our country and the freedoms we enjoyed.

it's good to see people express sadness at the lost lives before they go into partisan rhetoric... oh wait. :whistle:

If I didn't care I wouldn't be posting here. But my position is that restricting access to guns would reduce the number of tragedies like this occurring. You simply don't see shootings like this occurring in the UK and the last time we did - back in 1996 with the Dunblane massacre, in which 18 people were killed - we responded by tightening gun control laws, including the outright ban of handguns. That was 16yrs ago and thankfully we haven't seen anything like that since. That's not to say we don't have gun crime and that's not to say that there won't be shootings in the future - I'm not that naive - but we have taken sensible safeguards to minimise the risk.

The US response is the opposite. Rather than restricting guns we see groups and politicians pushing for more weapons, for more access and large increases in the number of people buying guns. So yes, I won't apologise for being critical of the US position - I think it's moronic. It flies in the face of common sense. This is the second high profile mass shooting in less than a month and yet is anything going to be done? Of course not. Politicians will put on their sad faces for a few days and then continue on as if nothing has happened.

PS - I've said it before but I have several shotguns in my house, including a semi-automatic. I go out shooting with them and was a member of a local rifle shooting club for a while. I'm not an anti-gun nut by any stretch of the imagination. However, I'm a strong believer in strict firearms restrictions.

  • Like 1

"Over my cold dead hand"? Probably there are some. But I won't for a second believe that a significant portion of people will going to go down in a shower of bullets, And anyone with half a brain would realise taking away guns would be a terrible idea anyway. A lot of countries are plotting towards being smokefree (as in smoking), but none of them go and went "no more tobacco for sale". As for an effective way, now that is the better question but it would be a generational thing.

As for US cease to be the US. Just reeks of paranoia there I'm sorry.

Side track Rant: Way too many people treat founding papers way too importantly. Maybe I'm not religious and never had an all-conquering document to abide to like a bible or a koran. But surely a country is held together by more than mere amendments written by people who probably never envisioned the future as what it is today. I can't pretend I know American history much, but I assume the amendments were written at a time that is still pretty lawless and British presence was still fresh in their minds. America back then is not America now. The whole "Founding" document thing just seem to handcuff progress, and very often ends debate without even pursuing the issue just because it is "in the constitution". It is really backwards thinking.

And I'm sure there are much more holding the country together than some mere words. A country won't become not the same country in a blink of an eye, a country where it may be always evolve.

There would be quite a few that would indeed go down fighting believe me. I don't just say that to sensationalize it. The founding fathers knew what an all powerful government could do. The idea's the founding fathers had back then are still very relevant today.They didn't write the documents based on lawlessness they based it on ideals they found to be self evident. Back then as today governments if given the chance would love to rule over its people with as much power as possible. Look no further than North Korea for instance. They wrote those documents to keep us from becoming countries like North Korea.

If I didn't care I wouldn't be posting here. But my position is that restricting access to guns would reduce the number of tragedies like this occurring. You simply don't see shootings like this occurring in the UK and the last time we did - back in 1996 with the Dunblane massacre, in which 18 people were killed - we responded by tightening gun control laws. That was 16yrs ago and thankfully we haven't seen anything like that since. That's not to say we don't have gun crime and that's not to say that there won't be shootings in the future - I'm not that naive - but we have taken sensible safeguards to mitigate the risk.

The US response is the opposite. Rather than restricting guns we see groups and politicians pushing for more weapons, for more access and large increases in the number of people buying guns. So yes, I won't apologise for being critical of the US position - I think it's moronic. It flies in the face of common sense. This is the second high profile mass shooting in less than a month and yet is anything going to be done? Of course not. Politicians will put on their sad faces for a few days and then continue on as if nothing has happened.

PS - I've said it before but I have several shotguns in my house, including a semi-automatic. I go out shooting with them and was a member of a local rifle shooting club for a while. I'm not an anti-gun nut by any stretch of the imagination. However, I'm a strong believer in strict firearms restrictions.

I disagree. case in point. There's a HUGE push for control or banning going on. mix with that the fast and furious government gun running, Aurora and now this along with the UN gun treaty to remove the 2nd amendment.

as for you being in the UK. do you see the bad in that? when a government has guns and the people can't defend themselves if the government gets out of hand, you'll wish you had arms to protect your loved ones.

If I didn't care I wouldn't be posting here. But my position is that restricting access to guns would reduce the number of tragedies like this occurring. You simply don't see shootings like this occurring in the UK and the last time we did - back in 1996 with the Dunblane massacre, in which 18 people were killed - we responded by tightening gun control laws, including the outright ban of handguns. That was 16yrs ago and thankfully we haven't seen anything like that since. That's not to say we don't have gun crime and that's not to say that there won't be shootings in the future - I'm not that naive - but we have taken sensible safeguards to minimise the risk.

The US response is the opposite. Rather than restricting guns we see groups and politicians pushing for more weapons, for more access and large increases in the number of people buying guns. So yes, I won't apologise for being critical of the US position - I think it's moronic. It flies in the face of common sense. This is the second high profile mass shooting in less than a month and yet is anything going to be done? Of course not. Politicians will put on their sad faces for a few days and then continue on as if nothing has happened.

PS - I've said it before but I have several shotguns in my house, including a semi-automatic. I go out shooting with them and was a member of a local rifle shooting club for a while. I'm not an anti-gun nut by any stretch of the imagination. However, I'm a strong believer in strict firearms restrictions.

Yet you criticize me for talking about your gun laws and the response was. We voted for it, its freedom... We want to keep our guns so let us alone.

I disagree. case in point. There's a HUGE push for control or banning going on. mix with that the fast and furious government gun running, Aurora and now this along with the UN gun treaty to remove the 2nd amendment.

as for you being in the UK. do you see the bad in that? when a government has guns and the people can't defend themselves if the government gets out of hand, you'll wish you had arms to protect your loved ones.

The U.N gun treaty wasn't signed by the u.s thankfully. The high cap magazine ban failed too. But I see that coming up again because it was tied in with a cyber security bill. Wait till its tied to something more relevant to guns and it'll be passed probably.

And yet now Germany has a very low rate of firearms fatalities. Even if the US were to introduce proper restrictions on guns tomorrow it would take years, if not decades to start to make a difference. Nobody is claiming that this is an overnight fix.

Good plan, lets sacrifice more people now so that it MIGHT be better later, no thanks, I choose to be responsible for my own safety.

Last time gun control worked in Germany, a genocide occurred because no one could stop it.

Stop watching Fox News.

Thats hilarious, I ve never watched fox news. good try though.

You know nothing about me, so making bad assumptions about me only serve to discredit your own already poor arguments.

Seriously. If there were adequate gun restrictions in place you wouldn't need to worry about such attacks, so you wouldn't have anything to defend yourself from.

Are you that disconnected from reality?

The ONLY way to create a place where these attacks couldn't exist would be to create a big-brother police state similar to path the UK is taking, and the thought police clamp down on you for even thinking "gun". Something like that would cause a second American Revolution.

Guns exist, what has been made, cannot be unmade. Even in a country with massively restrictive laws like Norway bad people can and DO still get guns, and all that the gun laws did was to create an easy to slaughter population. You cannot even point to "the police will protect you" because Brevik was able to slaughter an unprecidented number of people and children before law enforcement could even react at all. With more people able to carry, it may have given him pause, or at least given them more of a chance than cows being led to slaughter.

It's really bizarre that people would advocate more guns and more places to allow them as a solution. That's not addressing the problem - that's contributing to it!

I disagree, in fact its more bizarre that you think the idea that "Laws" will prevent gun crime when things like Norway happen, highlighting the fact that restrictive laws only allow greater numbers of people to be slaughtered.

Laws havn't exactly stopped drugs or murder have they?

Why do you think James Holmes chose a "Gun free zone"? He could have gone to a gun show and tried the same thing, but I would imagine that would not have worked out so well in his favor.

Let me repeat it since you are not getting it: Gun control ONLY punishes the 187 million gun owners that are not murdering anyone and following the law already

Good plan, lets sacrifice more people now so that it MIGHT be better later, no thanks, I choose to be responsible for my own safety.

Last time gun control worked in Germany, a genocide occurred because no one could stop it.

Thats hilarious, I ve never watched fox news. good try though.

You know nothing about me, so making bad assumptions about me only serve to discredit your own already poor arguments.

Are you that disconnected from reality?

The ONLY way to create a place where these attacks couldn't exist would be to create a big-brother police state similar to path the UK is taking, and the thought police clamp down on you for even thinking "gun". Something like that would cause a second American Revolution.

Guns exist, what has been made, cannot be unmade. Even in a country with massively restrictive laws like Norway bad people can and DO still get guns, and all that the gun laws did was to create an easy to slaughter population. You cannot even point to "the police will protect you" because Brevik was able to slaughter an unprecidented number of people and children before law enforcement could even react at all. With more people able to carry, it may have given him pause, or at least given them more of a chance than cows being led to slaughter.

I disagree, in fact its more bizarre that you think the idea that "Laws" will prevent gun crime when things like Norway happen, highlighting the fact that restrictive laws only allow greater numbers of people to be slaughtered.

Laws havn't exactly stopped drugs or murder have they?

Why do you think James Holmes chose a "Gun free zone"? He could have gone to a gun show and tried the same thing, but I would imagine that would not have worked out so well in his favor.

Let me repeat it since you are not getting it: Gun control ONLY punishes the 187 million gun owners that are not murdering anyone and following the law already

They don't understand. They don't have to deal with gang members willing to kill you over the things you own or kill you just because you're on their turf. They don't have the same problems we do.

as for you being in the UK. do you see the bad in that? when a government has guns and the people can't defend themselves if the government gets out of hand, you'll wish you had arms to protect your loved ones.

What utter nonsense. A few handguns and automatic weapons aren't going to do anything against a government willing to use tanks, jets, helicopter gunships, chemical weapons or drone strikes against its citizens. Yet firearms restrictions do reduce the number of firearms fatalities... dramatically.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • All these CEOs got the biggest boners thinking about firing employees for AI. Turned out it was just a wet dream.
    • And the fact that the majority of people from Poland are white European Christians while the people you are complaining about in post after post are not is just a coincidence... Every sentence in your post I am replying to is racist nonsense. None of it is actually based on any facts whatsoever. All immigrants are seeking a better life too. It's literally the only reason they would risk everything and leave their homes, families, and homeland. They are working and contributing to the economy too, as you even admit. They get the same benefits your partner did AND that YOU are eligible for as well. That is one of the key things of the EU and a mark of a civilization. That is the definition of a society where everyone is given a chance, treated equally and fairly, and is judged by the content of their character, not their different skin color or which version of ignorant superstitious nonsense their parents lied about as children. Racists around the world said the same things about the Irish and Jews and Poles (like your partner) and...every other immigrant movement over the centuries. What's your family's heritage, by the way? Were your ancestors lied about with racist fearmongering crapola by self-entitled locals the same way as you are now? If someone like that said the same things about all people from Poland, like your partner, would they be right? Or would you want them to judge your partner based on who they actually were, not where they just happened to come from?
    • Again, this is an irrelevant attempt to attack the messenger. The truth does not require any justification.
    • Removed the blue and underline as you did not post a link. This would also  be considered spamming.
    • Why it's almost impossible to produce a smartphone in the United States by Hamid Ganji If you look at the back of some Apple products, you can see the famous phrase “Designed by Apple in California, Assembled in China.” This phrase appears on products from one of the largest smartphone brands in the United States. These products are designed in the U.S., but their manufacturing takes place in China, India, Vietnam, or even Brazil. But why can’t Apple, as one of the largest American tech companies, produce its iPhones on U.S. soil? The idea for this topic came to me after the Trump Foundation launched a smartphone called the T1 and claimed that it was designed and built with American values in mind. However, this claim did not last long, as it was revealed that Trump’s phone was actually a rebranded HTC U24 Pro, with only a gold case and minor internal component changes. You see? Even a phone that is supposed to represent American values is manufactured in China. With a gross domestic product (GDP) exceeding $32 trillion, the United States is currently the world’s largest economy, while China ranks second with around $20 trillion. On the other hand, the United States is by a wide margin the global leader in various technological fields, and American companies spend hundreds of billions of dollars annually on research and development. From Apple and Google to Microsoft, Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and others, American tech and industrial giants lead their foreign competitors in many sectors. The United States also has no shortage of smartphone brands. Apple, Google, and Motorola are among the major brands in the smartphone market, collectively holding a significant share. However, the vast majority of their products are manufactured outside the United States. So why is it that the world’s largest economy, home to the most advanced technology companies and industrial powers, cannot produce a smartphone on its own soil? Let’s explore this question together. Even threats to impose tariffs won’t work After Trump entered the White House as the 47th President of the United States, his administration adopted strict tariff policies. One of these policies was the imposition of a 25% tariff on smartphones manufactured outside the United States. Trump said he “had a little problem” with Apple CEO Tim Cook over producing smartphones outside the U.S. So he thought that threatening a 25% tax on imported phones might force Apple to bring manufacturing back to the United States. “I have long ago informed Tim Cook of Apple that I expect their iPhones that will be sold in the United States of America will be manufactured and built in the United States, not India, or anyplace else,” Trump wrote on Truth Social. Image via The White House Although Apple currently manufactures some of the iPhone’s chips in the United States with TSMC's help, it still shows no willingness to shift full iPhone production to the country. At the time, renowned Apple supply chain analyst Ming-Chi Kuo wrote on X, “In terms of profitability, it’s way better for Apple to take the hit of a 25% tariff on iPhones sold in the US market than to move iPhone assembly lines back to the US.” However, manufacturing a smartphone in the United States is not as easy as it might seem, and many technical and economic barriers are involved. The lack of necessary manufacturing hubs There is a clear reason why many companies prefer to manufacture their products in China. China has established itself as the main global manufacturing hub for international companies, and over the past few decades, large contract manufacturers have emerged there, allowing companies like Apple to outsource production. One such example is Foxconn, which also manufactures some Apple products in India. Building the infrastructure required to produce smartphones in the United States would require tens of billions of dollars in new investment. Factories would need to be built, essential manufacturing equipment would have to be installed, and, most importantly, a skilled workforce capable of operating these systems would need to be recruited and trained. The United States currently lacks the core infrastructure needed to manufacture smartphones, and for this reason, many companies prefer to outsource production to Chinese contractors rather than spend tens of billions of dollars to build that infrastructure, which is significantly more economically efficient. Additionally, building such infrastructure in the United States could take up to a decade, ultimately leading to a significant increase in the product's final price for consumers. Shortage of trained labor in the U.S. compared to China Decades of serving as a global manufacturing hub have allowed China to build a massive talent pool in the production sector that is almost unmatched worldwide. Today, if a company chooses to manufacture its products in China, it can be confident that the workers involved in production have years of experience in their respective roles and are capable of producing high-quality goods with minimal errors. Even if we assume that tens of billions of dollars were invested in building smartphone manufacturing infrastructure in the United States, finding skilled workers would remain highly challenging. Apple CEO Tim Cook visiting the iPhone 6 assembly line in China in 2014. Image: Tim Cook on X In a 2015 interview on CBS’s 60 Minutes, Tim Cook said the main reason Apple isn’t producing in the US is a lack of skills. "China put an enormous focus on manufacturing, in what you and I would call vocational kind of skills. The US over time began to stop having as many vocational kinds of skills. I mean you could take every tool and die maker in the United States and probably put them in the room that we're currently sitting in. In China you would have to have multiple football fields,” Cook said. Also, in 2017, at the Fortune Global Forum in Guangzhou, Cook once again emphasized the importance of highly skilled Chinese workers. “China has moved into very advanced manufacturing, so you find in China the intersection of craftsman kind of skill, and sophisticated robotics and the computer science world. That intersection, which is very rare to find anywhere, that kind of skill, is very important to our business because of the precision and quality level that we like. The thing that most people focus on if they’re a foreigner coming to China is the size of the market, and obviously, it’s the biggest market in the world in so many areas. But for us, the number one attraction is the quality of the people,” Apple CEO said. Higher labor costs in the United States Producing almost any product in the United States is more expensive than in many other countries, and one of the main reasons is the higher cost of labor in the U.S. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, median weekly earnings of full-time workers in the United States were $1,235 in the first quarter of 2026. Meanwhile, the average annual salary in China's private sector in 2025 was RMB 71,590 (US$9,961). In many parts of the world, the weekly wage of an American worker is equivalent to several months of income. Another important factor to consider is that in the United States, the workforce capable of working on a smartphone assembly line is highly specialized and therefore commands higher-than-average wages. According to an estimate by Bank of America, producing an iPhone in the U.S. is technically possible, but “iPhone cost can increase 25% purely on higher labor cost in the U.S.” However, this 25% increase applies only if final assembly is performed in the United States while components are still sourced from China or elsewhere. In this case, the price of a base iPhone would rise from $799 to around $1,000. But in another scenario, if Apple were to produce the required components for the iPhone within the United States, production costs could increase by more than 90%. Trump’s dream for a “Made in the USA” iPhone might never come true In a free-market capitalist economy, one of the primary responsibilities of any CEO is to maximize profit. Using Apple as an example, Tim Cook’s role is to maximize the company’s profits so that it can fund research and development for new products and invest in areas such as artificial intelligence, while also keeping shareholders satisfied. Therefore, it is entirely understandable that Apple would choose not to bring its manufacturing back to the United States and instead keep production in countries where labor is cheaper, and products can be manufactured at a lower cost, thereby maximizing its profit margins. What is your opinion about manufacturing smartphones in the United States? If you are an American citizen, would you be willing to pay hundreds of dollars more for a smartphone made domestically in the USA? Let us know in the comments.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Conversation Starter
      jessse3334 earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
    • Reacting Well
      JuvenileDelinquent earned a badge
      Reacting Well
    • One Month Later
      Excellence2025 earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Week One Done
      Excellence2025 earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      flexorcist earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      506
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      196
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      153
    4. 4
      Steven P.
      72
    5. 5
      FloatingFatMan
      65
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!