That is a different statement. It’s saying abusers can be more dangerous with a weapon. It does not follow that people who own a weapon are somehow more likely to be an abuser.
To make that argument it would need to say something about what percentage of gun owners commit abuse or some kind violent crime.
You can find higher rates of domestic violence among cops for instance so maybe you could argue cops are more likely to be abusers.
Violence was a thing before guns existed. If I got stabbed I’m not going to think, “Thank goodness I wasn’t shot.” I suppose I’ll have plenty of to think about it while waiting for the cops to show up though.
Cherry picking and a lack of controling for confounding variables is an issue when people try to make the claim you did. There is also a lot more going on than just gun laws. When normal people don’t benefit from our GDP it really isn’t a good benchmark for comparable countries. When people have a lack opportunities or lack social programs there will probably be some social problems.
A lot of domestic violence involving a gun doesn’t mean that most gun owners are abusive.
I suppose the guns hypnotized him and made him do it? He did it because he was a piece of shit.
If he regularly shot pictures of women or something sure but owning a lot of guns or buying ammo in bulk isn’t really any indication of domestic violence. The son even said there wasn’t a history of violence. It seems like the heavy drinking or arguments have more correlation than anything.
Media outlets often cite things like how many guns someone has to freak out people who don’t know about guns. All the dude needed to fuck up was a single handgun and a single bullet. If he was drunk he shouldn’t have even been carrying. And being drunk isn’t really a good argument for why someone got violent.
Criminals don’t care about carry laws as breaking laws is kinda their whole deal.
Normal people carrying isn’t a problem unless you assume normal people get murderous the second they have the opportunity.
It’s just a different mindset. People carrying don’t have to be fearful or stressed out like you assume. They just want to have the ability to defend themselves or loved ones. Police simply cannot protect everyone all the time and violence is a thing that can happen sometimes. Violence certainly doesn’t happen all the time but many people prefer to carry and not need it then need it and not have it.
The people who are actually a danger are still going to be dangerous regardless of how unarmed others choose to be.
Maybe you feel like you can depend on your police or your local criminals are less violent.
The change doesn’t really seem that great and there are years missing.
Also “Gun laws should be stricter” is too vague for the range of policies involved. When a gun control advocate says that they might mean bans. Someone else might be talking about opening up the NICS or want to improve the background checks somehow. There are also a lot of people who don’t actually know the existing laws and want “stricter laws” we already have.
Sure, but legal processes aren’t quick. I would assume they’re trying to be thorough in the process. Probably not a great sign they letting the rule stay but in theory it doesn’t actually do much. 80% manufacturers can still sell products. I can still buy an 80% or a 3d printer.
The real thing would be to just get a ruling to limit how they can change law through changing definitions. Same reason slapping down the bump stock was needed.
Also the issue there ruling on probably won’t actually be a 2a thing but about the rule making effectively side stepping the legislative proceess.
Are you on the younger side? Generally younger people want to be older mostly to be able to do more adult things or have the things in life older people have built over time.
Getting older isn’t just looks although that is just a matter of personal preference. There are health concerns and things like lower energy. Taking care of yourself helps a ton but sometimes you get bad genetics or some kind of aliment anyway. And age will eventually catch up with most people.
I do still recommend things like exercise so you can feel 30 at 60 instead of 60 at 30.
The rule in effect is rather narrow and doesn’t actually ban home manufacturing. All the elements of a kit are still accessible and legal.
The only difference is that all the parts to finish the controlled part can’t be sold together. So like you could by the 80% from one shop online and the jig from a different shop online. All the other parts wouldn’t be affected in general, maybe an issue if sold with the 80%. And there are also other ways to do home manufacturing that would be completely unaffected but the rule.
Also the case isn’t done. The order is a temporary stay where the court is asking the ATF lawyers to explain things.
I have a little pry tool keychain thing. It has a bottle opener and flat head on it. The pry bar bit can also act like a big flat head for things that have a coin slot meant to tighten or open it. It’s not meant for nails or opening wooden crates.
Really it’s useful for any poking of prying that you shouldn’t be using a knife for but have a strange urge to. Also a package opener if people around are nervous about knives. The utility knife thing with a bit of crowbar glued to it probably doesn’t comfort others as it looks like how someone would design a tactical box cutter.
There are a lot of ways to cause mass murder so it certainly isn’t “the only way left”. People have and will used other methods. Something as simple as fire is a weapon with a history of use in terrorism.
Guns do have laws associated with them. You’d know this if you ever went to a shop to buy one or just looked at the laws. I don’t need to pass a background check to buy a car from the dealership. There is no crime for a felon to own a car. A felon could even get a license to operate a car in public. There is no crime for “brandishing” a car in public.
Which law in GA are you talking about? Most states don’t outright ban ownership over a diagnosis or seeking treatment. Making that a criteria becomes tricky when trying to determine what counts or who gets to decide. I’m sure you would find a ban on voting for the mentally ill questionable if say Republican law makers decided what counts.
Involuntary commitment is a problem for gun ownership federally regardless of state laws as well. It should kinda take a lot to restrict a right and there are problems with essentially punishing people for seeking treatment.
Some people like the idea but to me that only makes sense if you are basically doing the nomad thing at a cheap location. You’d want to stay in the place for awhile as you’re still spending most of the “vacation” working all day. On your days off you could do more. On an actual vacation you would actually be enjoying yourself the whole time. Traveling to just spend all your time working seems like a waste.
Also just try to work on just a laptop for a week. It sucks. I’m not doing that.
I feel like that is too on the nose. Prague U and related media is just propaganda and alternative history. I suppose some of it is close to what is already being taught for some parts of US history.
I’ve never heard of a rule. Maybe with booze or smokes? Maybe some states or cities have some weird law like NJ does about gas.
I’ve bagged my own groceries before when it was just the cashier or other baggers were busy or something. Also there is the self checkout. If anyone were to complain I’d just joke, “don’t worry, I was a professional in a previous life”. I did actually work retail and bagged stuff while being a cashier like a decade ago.
They might think you’re odd or think it’s weird if you rebag things like they did it wrong. Maybe be annoyed if you were slow. I don’t think too many employees would actually care or get insulted. No one under management gets paid enough to care.
@crow Not really sure how someone faking it would expect things to work out. Someone could decide they could get a bunch of clout and followers by faking it. But at some point they get shown to be a fraud then they lose any following they had. Are the people who claim to have discovered something notable before this or could they just be riding a wave for a min for a quick buck? I guess there have been cases in more proper scientific circles of faked results.
Reporting on it is kinda whatever as that’s kinda just talking about what someone else claimed.
Another possibility is that some other mechanism is at work or there is a fault in the test setup. At that point the person making the claim could be wrong but not necessarily aware of it. Maybe due to a lack of knowledge.
The ammo/parts thing was more about how without domestic production there room for it to be affected by changes to import laws or sanctions.
Personally I’m not worried about using something that some other group seems to like. I want what’s practical and fits my needs. There is a reason ARs are so common today. They’re just good and can be built/modified to fit a lot of people or use cases. If I really wanted something different just to be different I’d get something like a vz 58 or some kind of space gat. It’s still kinda hard for me to justify the expense for that kind of reason and I have to rein it in a bit as I kinda want all the things.
To me it looks like an over estimation of the capabilities for the tech. Same kind of thinking that led to lawyers submitting fake cases as support in court. The current tech can be useful but has to be verified and generally tweaked a bit to be good enough. It certainly has room for improvement in quality and just not lying. Real world use has some copyright questions with what the training data was. Applying it to something creative is questionable and more or less feels like uninspired remixes.
Also the whole graphic is kinda suspect to me when “Blockchain engineers” is a job category and it’s produced by an org working on AI.
My original statement was that owning a lot of guns wasn’t suggestive of anything. The comment suggested there was a “correlation” with owning guns and domestic violence in response.