9 Likes
Well if you bring in a licensing system for ammunition (which you said you could live with right here).
Then why would you leave a loop hole. To anyone who has a familiarity with how bullets work. What license do you want?
Why would they because they can currently easily access ammunition. The point is to make that access harder. That’s what most other countries do. Not make access impossible but make access difficult. Showing a license isn’t hard unless you don’t have one. In most of the world gun owners understand this. That’s the ‘gun culture’ I’m talking about. (That and for a country that is so obsessed with guns you don’t show it at tournaments. /s)
2 Likes
We find out that vapes may have killed people- they’re becoming unavailable in days.
We certainly wouldn’t approve of them being sold as something intended to kill people.
Guns absolutely kill many, many people. And we approved of them being sold as something intended to kill people.
8 Likes
heb .22 gums up my volver summin fierce
2a supports my right to vape. love it or leave it.
* exhales cloud of vapor and dies *
10 Likes
I can understand analogies not being interpreted the same way I meant them, so I re-illustrated the point with other examples that weren’t linked to inherent traits. If you missed that, then ok. If you refuse to listen to my clarification and claim that I am saying something I’m not, then that is on you.
That reasoning is baloney. So with this logic people who killed someone with a knife is intrinsically a subset of knife owners? Someone who killed someone with their hands is intrinsically a subset of everyone with hands? And thus because of this relation these murderers are somehow linked to everyone else who is a knife owner or has both their hands (i.e. everyone)?
Well, thanks for your honesty.
I’m not keen on open carry and not going to waste energy on that hill. Go ahead and deride it. And I have ZERO problem with Walmart banning open carry.
I disagree that a significant number of people think and act this way. I mean, I know the tropes and the sayings you’re thinking about. But the average owner doesn’t condone the idea of a gun is “an acceptable mechanism for solving problems under pretty much every circumstance.” Quite the contrary, it is typically seen as the last resort.
I mean, is someone invovled in MMA, boxing, or martial arts more likely to punch someone out over a perceived slight? You know some people are like that. We see the videos of meat heads throwing punches on the street. Do I think the average person into these sports are more likely to throw down? No, I think it is actually the opposite. The people I know into martial arts, one of them even teaches it, are some of the least confrontational people I know. I know a dozen people whose kids take various classes and part of that training is learning the responsibility to act correctly.
I’ll agree toxic masculinity can be exacerbated with gun ownership. But the problem is toxic masculinity. If they don’t have a gun, they will use what ever the next level of “force” is available.
It’s been “normal” since the invention of the “general store”. Shit, you bought it with your other gear in Oregon Trail. You can get ammo at some Walmarts in Canada, or are they crazy now?
Oh, ok, it’s just the bad ones. So who is/was buying ammo from Walmart? Ammosexuals, or nice grandpas with dangerous tools they respect and keep locked away when not in use?
And for the record, firearms don’t define my identity. It’s just a right I care about. Hell I’ve gone out like once this year.
I’ll concede that availability has some effect. If that is what YOU mean by a “problem with gun culture”, I believe you. But but other people don’t see it as the only or main “problem with gun culture”.
Obviously. Does being a gun owner make one more likely to commit “crime, violence, or terror”?
I need this clarified. What is not a small percentage? The number of gun owners who are violent murders? Or violent murders who owned guns?
I suppose that’s one way to look at it.
Well in the UK you can legally buy any of the COMPONENTS with out a licenses, but if you want to put them together you need the same license you need to purchase ammo normally. But yeah, sure, if you pass a law requiring a license for ammo, add that to the primer component.
I don’t know what that means, even from a sarcastic angle. I usually love sarcasm too.
BOTH. That’s the point.
Again, if Walmart started selling dynamite over the counter the majority of their customers would probably be nice highly qualified safety-minded demolition workers, but SOME of those customers would be people that no reasonable society would ever want to have access to dynamite. That’s basically where we are with guns.
11 Likes
You’re being deliberately obtuse here.
Obviously when crimes, terror and large scale violence are almost exclusively carried out with firearms this is true- not by virtue of individual character, but by virtue of the killing power afforded by firearms.
I understand that you are trying to seperate the violence, crime, terror and accidents invovling guns from guns themselves, and to draw a distinction between “good” and “bad” gun owners.
They are absolutely linked. You cannot seperate them anymore than you can seperate “responsible drinkers” from “irresponsible drinkers” everyone is responsible until they aren’t. No one cares that some people can drive drunk and never get in an accident. We care that there will always be people that will get in accidents, and to mitigate the needless loss of human life, we have collectively taken steps to make that choice much more difficult to make.
7 Likes
OK, good, both, right.
I don’t think dynamite is a fair comparison in the least. But from the comparison are you saying one would err on the side of the worst case scenario? “Yes most of them are nice grandpas and annoying but harmless ammosexuals - but it just takes one mass murderer to ruin it?”
Or if one is just suggesting more limits (which isn’t really what Walmarts Policies are about) I’ve conceded living with a license scheme. It should reduce some access to prohibited uses and combined with NICS create a system that can be more easily flagged due to something changing their status.
What steps? Age limits and checks that you are old enough? They have that with buying guns and ammo as well. I’ve known people with drinking problems - there was NOTHING stopping them drinking other than a bar they got banned from, or getting cut off towards the end of the night. Their friends clucked their tongues at them, but actually enabled their behavior. Society tries to shame them to a degree, but if you can afford a lawyer you can even get in to quite a lot of trouble before the law actually perks up and reacts.
Moreover, we don’t treat people buying booze as irresponsible drinkers, even though a full all 25% of 18-34 year old drinkers binge drink. No one is suggesting we limit the proof limits - limit the amount one may purchase at a time, etc. If we treated drinkers like they are likely to be irresponsible we would put breathalyzers in every car and save ~10,000 people year.
I agree there is link - I said from the start there is overlap. But we don’t typically treat a group of people based on the worst actors - or if we do, people rightly call it out as BS.
source on binge drinking:
https://www.cdc.gov/alcohol/fact-sheets/binge-drinking.htm
Wake up. It hasn’t been just one.
I’m done here for now. I’m sure we’ll probably revisit the topic in another day or two when the next psychopath shoots up a preschool or something.
11 Likes
You still haven’t admitted that your first list was offensive in the extreme. The second attempt looked like you adding new items to the list, not starting over with a better one.
And it’s still flawed. Most of the groups in that list are still identities, what and who those people are. As you’ve pointed out, gun owners are a diverse group. It’s not an identity; it’s not part of who you are as a person.
And maybe that’s what people are pointing out about what is inherently toxic about American gun culture - too many people see firearms as part of their identity, instead of a tool to do a task with. If you can’t separate your self-image from the tool, it’s time to walk away.
10 Likes
Laws are based on worst case scenarios. When I brought up laws around alcohol it wasn’t because I was sugessting that I thought gun laws should be modeled after alcohol laws (although I am certain you understood this)- it was to demonstate that as a society we choose the levels of risk we are willing to tolerate around choices in which people might harm themselves or others, and right now, the scales have been tipped too far in one direction.
Edited to add:
In an era of mass shootings, not knowing whether the armed individual next to you is a “law-abiding citizen” or an internet-addled murderer is its own kind of trauma.
Advocates of gun control (or gun safety, if you prefer) have been attempting for years to do an end-run by persuading chain stores and restaurants—which can be more responsive to national, general-public opinion than legislators in gerrymandered states—to ban open carry, with some success.
None of their efforts, though, have been as instantly effective as Andreychenko’s stunt in making the point that wearing military protective gear and carrying a semi-automatic weapon should perhaps not be considered an acceptable way to behave, during peacetime, around people who are shopping for paper towels. Inadvertently, the Missouri man—who, according to his wife, kept his assault rifle and tactical vest in his car at all times—became a physical reductio ad absurdum of the idea that constantly being in the presence of loaded, three-foot-long weapons should make the average person feel more safe than they otherwise would. Walmart’s CEO even referenced Andreychenko indirectly in his statement announcing the policy.
If the proprietors of such canonically red-state institutions as Walmart can conclude that their customers prefer not to encounter assault rifles, what’s to stop red-state politicians from also realizing that “public safety” can outweigh “self-protection” in other contexts as well—like when it comes to letting convicted stalkers and domestic abusers and mentally unstable white-pride extremists have unrestricted access to weapons and ammunition? Nothing (except the powerful weapons-manufacturer lobby and years of indoctrination in the floridly paranoid logic of the American right wing), that’s what!
8 Likes
That comparison is baloney because virtually every adult citizen is a knife owner, as knifes have multiple uses in daily life beyond maiming and killing beings or simulating maiming and killing beings.
4 Likes
Well, of course, not just one. But it is still a small minority - and gun homicides have been trending downward (yes, a slight up tick last year) with them being nearly half what they were in the 90s. Mass shootings are up - and that is concerning. But the equipment for that has been around for decades and the availability the same or even easier to get back pre 1968 - why is it now becoming more common?
Me too, I have to actually shower and seize they day and figure out how to get the kiddo to her voice lessons after the closed a 7 mile stretch of the most heavily traveled highway in the metro area.
https://www.kansascity.com/news/local/article234701532.html
OK - evidently I am terrible at making acceptable analogies. I’ll just reiterate my point that I have made before and the analogies were supposed to give examples of.
We shouldn’t be treating a whole group based on the worst bad actors within it. Or conflate the idea that the group and bad actors really have much to do with one another other than obvious overlap with something in common they share.
This statement originally wasn’t about laws, but comments filled with contempt that lumped in the average person who just wanted to grab a box of ammo at Walmart with murders. Like this policy change was some how going to stop murders when it won’t. All it really does is largely inconvenience some shooters.
I disagree, per my comment above. But everyone is entitled to their opinion. I encourage vigorous debate about new laws and such, and encourage everyone to write their congress critter and vote for who they think will do the job they want them to do.
But this didn’t even start out about laws. It was about a stores policy and some of the negative comments. YMMV.
If your exposure to guns is only TV, movies, and the news, I can see how you think that. But if you think the majority of guns are being used to maiming and kill everyday, you are mistaken. The vast majority of users are hurting no one and yet manage to user their guns in a variety of activities. Though with your last comment I guess you will shoot back that shooting clay targets is a simulation of maiming and killing, right?
Moreover, why do you think knives were invented? To maim and kill. Now you probably don’t use it for that, it is to cut your food, open packagers, or maybe hack back some brush. Cleaning a fish or cutting up raw meat is as grisly as you get with it. But the people butchering your food sure use it for that. Halal and Kosher butchers still use the old school throat cutting. Make no mistake, knives are still used to kill and maim and butcher. And they are still used in crime - in the UK and especially London they have massive campaigns targeting “knife crime”.
But your protest illustrates that we don’t think of the average person who owns a knife going around stabbing people and therefore all knife owners are potential dangers.
Unfortunately, we often have to. There’s even a phrase for it, when someone does something evil or stupid with something other people enjoy: “This is why we can’t have nice things!”
If it inconveniences a mass shooter, then excellent.
But it isn’t just about inconveniencing some shooters. It’s about de-normalizing the use of firearms. Because they are a tool with a small set of fringe legitimate uses. There is no reason for firearms to be as ubiquitous as flashlights.
Um, that’s what it is. It’s a simulation of upland game bird hunting. I like me some grouse as much as the next person, but it’s still killing.
Are you sure? Because I’d need to consult an archaeologist, but it seems like the original knives, just chipped stones, would be shitty at killing but pretty good at working wood and possibly cutting hide for clothes. Even so, just one of a myriad of uses. If you’re using guns for making clothes or preparing food, you might be doing it wrong.
8 Likes
Wally World has a kind of notoriety that such a gesture won’t even come close to improving their “optics,” let alone prevent their eventual demise.
1 Like
I’m actually in favor of this.
5 Likes
Fun game, may I play?
Not all Jewish people like fried chicken.
Not all guitar players don’t know how to swim.
Not all lawyers are Muslim.
Not all alcoholics own cats.
Not all men are #NotAllMen.
Not all fish are made of wood.
Not all ravens are like writing desks.
∃a∈A∍a∉B
Not all nonsense is nonsense.
8 Likes
Yeah. Knives have a million and one uses, in cooking, crafts, everyday convenience, etc. Guns are for shooting things dead, or simulating that via target shooting or gun sports.
8 Likes
