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.
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.
Not sure how that is really going to help.
In theory a person with medical debt would be more likely to get the loan if credit agencies ignored the debt but without considering the debt the new loan may not be something they can actually afford. If the debt was paid then it likely wouldn’t affect their ability to afford new debt and ignoring it makes more sense.
Maybe we could address why people are going into medical debt instead of trying to ignore it so people can take on new debts?
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.
deleted by creator
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.
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.
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.