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.
Many cultures have issues with depression or suicide. Including ones with a focus on collectivism.
Work-life balance could be a part of the issue. That can be an issue for individualism or collectism. Although I feel like with individualism it’s easier to set your own standard.
The affordability of life is a problem as well but money being a thing won’t go away anytime soon.
One aspect you might have to separate is the gun control advocates who just want to cite another reason for X or Y policies. Those people aren’t necessarily advocating for mental health.
As an example take waiting periods. They might do something for first time buyers but the policy doesn’t really make sense for the people who already have a safe full of guns to pick from. I don’t hear those people talk about programs like “hold my guns” either.
If you’re not getting interviews then the issue probably has to do your resume. Maybe formatting. Maybe the contents or job history. Have you been out of work for a long time? Lack newer tools/knowledge? Too much job hopping?
If you are getting interviews then the resume and where you’re applying is fine. Either you’re probably lacking in soft skills, interview skills, or not impressing them. There could also be a mismatch between the salary you want and what they want to offer.
The main issue is that the Republican party has tied themselves to single issue voters and the kind of religious people who support a ban. They need those voting blocks to keep getting elected.
For a single issue voter their pet issue is the only thing that matters. They will vote based on that one issue alone. There are a few issues like that but anti-abortion is a big one. If the Republican party dropped it they stand to loose a lot of votes and thus elections. No, they wouldn’t necessarily attract a lot of pro-choice people. Maybe a few if the person is mostly conservative but was pro-choice.
The reasons someone would actually support a ban on it basically comes down to how they view it as morally wrong. Almost always it is based on the person’s religious views.
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.
Could buy a bunch of cheap gas station knives then put sand in the pivots. Ideal loosing them up first then tighting them after. Maybe wash them to remove oils and let them rust some.
That might be over board. Especially if the dude is a knife guy. Not sure if messing up a new $100 knife would be worse though.
Seems like people shouldn’t underestimate the nutters/fascists.
If they’re actually harmless/useless then whatever. If not then treating them like they pose no danger has ramifications I’d personally like to avoid.
In theory it has some kind of affect but not anything anyone would notice. Like I’m not even sure it would show up on a scale and anyone trying to measure it with something sensitive enough to do so would have a hell of a time separating the change from normal things like eating, going to the bathroom, sweating, or just breathing.
If we say for a moment that it does have an affect on people the next question would be what effect might there be. Again I think a major issue would be measuring results when there would be so many other things at play. Also what are we measuring? What might the proposed effect be?
This idea mostly sounds like pseudo science or a half assed attempt at supporting some new age idea.
Ads have gotten worse and worse overtime. Some websites are so stuffed with ads the performance of the website suffers. Then there are risks associated with ads when many have become malicious or used to track people. Then what is advertised can also be extremely questionable. Everything from useless products to addictive mobile games to harmful “health” products to crypto scams show up on ads.
I’m fine with some ads on free websites/service if they’re not crazy but too many sites have gone nuts. I’m not ok with ads with paid services. Ads during shows/movies are a no go when I paid for them.
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.
Ideally we should find a replacement for that horseshoe crab blood or perhaps a way to raise them in captivity. Maybe someone could come up with something to give the crabs to offset the damage caused by taking the blood. The issue might not even be primarily due to the blood with everything else happening climate change wise.
There might be ways to improve things for the birds but animals with super specific niches just kinda run the risk of becoming extinct. I feel similar about Pandas and Koalas.
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.