Iconic gun-makers gave sensitive customer information to political operatives(propublica.org)
propublica.org
Iconic gun-makers gave sensitive customer information to political operatives
https://www.propublica.org/article/gunmakers-owners-sensitive-personal-information-glock-remington-nssf
110 comments
[deleted]
The reason gun owners do not like government registries is because they may be used for targeting those owners for compulsory buy-back or confiscation programs. While the deceit of the manufacturers is indeed abhorrent, owners are not afraid of manufacturers showing up at their door.
It is two different things, and both are bad (but one is way worse).
It is two different things, and both are bad (but one is way worse).
Except companies like Palintir show that there's nothing to stop law enforcement from buying exactly those same lists.
That's just conspiracy theory. The government has no appetite for such a thing, not even a tiny bit. The best we could hope for is an extremely well funded voluntary buy-back program. Offer a thousand bucks each no questions asked (and no silly loopholes like turning in empty rocker launcher tubes, and exclusions for newly created weapons) and we could take a huge number of guns off the streets. Would cost a fair amount of money, sure, but at the scale of the federal government as a non-recurring cost it is entirely feasible. Economically, I mean, not politically.
Wow $1000! That sounds like an easy way for me to turn one gun into multiple guns.
Presumably it goes hand in hand with controls on new weapons. I thought that went without saying, but clearly I was mistaken.
But the manufacturers re-shared that information with the government, isn't that the point of the article?
Is there any other civil rights fight going on now that's more vicious than the fight over firearms rights? Maybe abortion rights, although I don't know of Planned Parenthood doing anything like this.
State attorney generals are suing hospitals in other states to obtain information on both transgender and pregnant folk's visits, with the intent to use that information to prosecute those people in the AG's state.
I'm not sure if that counts by your measure, but it involves the government directly.
I'm not sure if that counts by your measure, but it involves the government directly.
Sounds like a quote straight out of The Handmaids Tale! Reminds me of how Stasi operated. It also reminds me of the Signs Of Fascism list, actually.
That's kind of baffling; like, I'd have to assume that _very_ few people, even people who were generally opposed to abortion, would be okay with _that_.
I live in a country (Ireland) which only recently generally legalised abortion; before that people would normally have gone to the UK. If there had been any suggestion of the government prosecuting people who did that, never mind trying to force UK hospitals to divulge records, well... people wouldn't have put up with that. The situation as it was only continued so long because it was easy to ignore; ~no-one was ever actually prosecuted under the law, and the UK was enough of a safety valve that the human cost of the law was largely masked.
Like, doing things like this seems like a very good way to stoke national outrage and be forced to legalise it.
I live in a country (Ireland) which only recently generally legalised abortion; before that people would normally have gone to the UK. If there had been any suggestion of the government prosecuting people who did that, never mind trying to force UK hospitals to divulge records, well... people wouldn't have put up with that. The situation as it was only continued so long because it was easy to ignore; ~no-one was ever actually prosecuted under the law, and the UK was enough of a safety valve that the human cost of the law was largely masked.
Like, doing things like this seems like a very good way to stoke national outrage and be forced to legalise it.
Child rape victims are now being forced to give birth in some states: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/aug/11/chil...
For monsters wearing human skin, the cruelty is the point.
For monsters wearing human skin, the cruelty is the point.
At least many people opposed to abortion ostensibly think that it's murder. Given that framing, trying to collect evidence from hospitals seems reasonable.
(At least they say they they consider it murder. The way they act concerning it makes me think that relatively few really believe it.)
(At least they say they they consider it murder. The way they act concerning it makes me think that relatively few really believe it.)
> The way they act concerning it makes me think that relatively few really believe it.)
Enough people in power believe it:
At least one woman (Marshae Jones) was put in jail for getting shot while pregnant, while the shooter was let free. The woman was accused of not doing more to protect the "unborn baby".
At least one woman (Brittney Poolaw) has been sentenced for having a miscarriage, and others have been arrested and charges brought against them.
Enough people in power believe it:
At least one woman (Marshae Jones) was put in jail for getting shot while pregnant, while the shooter was let free. The woman was accused of not doing more to protect the "unborn baby".
At least one woman (Brittney Poolaw) has been sentenced for having a miscarriage, and others have been arrested and charges brought against them.
I looked up Brittney Poolaw.
> Pregnancy advocates and others on social media are expressing outrage after a 21-year-old Oklahoma woman was convicted of first-degree manslaughter earlier this month for having a miscarriage, which the prosecutor blamed on her alleged use of methamphetamine.[1]
I would argue she should be prosecuted (assuming the drug use can be proved) even if abortion in that state were legal right up until birth. This isn't a miscarriage due to natural causes or some kind of accident but due to drug use. Is the argument that the mother has absolutely no responsibility for the well-being of the fetus?
[1] https://archive.is/QHV3F#selection-1145.0-1145.260
Edit: It seems like the case hinges on the claim that the meth caused the miscarriage.
> Prosecutors argued that the miscarriage Poolaw suffered was from her use of methamphetamine. An autopsy of the fetus showed it had tested positive for methamphetamine, the Associated Press reported, but there was no evidence her use of the substance is what caused the miscarriage. The autopsy showed the miscarriage could have been caused by a congenital abnormality and placental abruption, when the placenta detaches from the womb, the AP said.
> Pregnancy advocates and others on social media are expressing outrage after a 21-year-old Oklahoma woman was convicted of first-degree manslaughter earlier this month for having a miscarriage, which the prosecutor blamed on her alleged use of methamphetamine.[1]
I would argue she should be prosecuted (assuming the drug use can be proved) even if abortion in that state were legal right up until birth. This isn't a miscarriage due to natural causes or some kind of accident but due to drug use. Is the argument that the mother has absolutely no responsibility for the well-being of the fetus?
[1] https://archive.is/QHV3F#selection-1145.0-1145.260
Edit: It seems like the case hinges on the claim that the meth caused the miscarriage.
> Prosecutors argued that the miscarriage Poolaw suffered was from her use of methamphetamine. An autopsy of the fetus showed it had tested positive for methamphetamine, the Associated Press reported, but there was no evidence her use of the substance is what caused the miscarriage. The autopsy showed the miscarriage could have been caused by a congenital abnormality and placental abruption, when the placenta detaches from the womb, the AP said.
> even if abortion in that state were legal right up until birth. This isn't a miscarriage due to natural causes or some kind of accident but due to drug use.
First, in 2020 abortion was not a crime since it is pre-Dobbs.
Second, they don't know why she miscarried. They only assumed (as you've noted).
They simply got creative in the meth charges in an effort to push the "unborn baby" narrative over a "fetus". The fact that the woman was a minority and a criminal simply made it easier.
> Is the argument that the mother has absolutely no responsibility for the well-being of the fetus?
Not really, when it results in a miscarriage. There's just too many reasons that miscarriage can happen, and no real reason to prove why to anything resembling reasonable doubt. If the child had lived to be born and shown problems with meth during pregnancy, they would have been taken from the mother and put in the foster system.
First, in 2020 abortion was not a crime since it is pre-Dobbs.
Second, they don't know why she miscarried. They only assumed (as you've noted).
They simply got creative in the meth charges in an effort to push the "unborn baby" narrative over a "fetus". The fact that the woman was a minority and a criminal simply made it easier.
> Is the argument that the mother has absolutely no responsibility for the well-being of the fetus?
Not really, when it results in a miscarriage. There's just too many reasons that miscarriage can happen, and no real reason to prove why to anything resembling reasonable doubt. If the child had lived to be born and shown problems with meth during pregnancy, they would have been taken from the mother and put in the foster system.
They don't care, hurts the narrative.
I do care, about the woman and prosecutorial misconduct that used her to push an agenda - to promote the idea of "unborn children".
She's a woman, belongs to a minority race, and a criminal. Yet I still believe she should have the same human rights as a white Christian man.
She's a woman, belongs to a minority race, and a criminal. Yet I still believe she should have the same human rights as a white Christian man.
Your argument is a house of cards built on moral relativism. You decry the prosecution of miscarriages while tacitly acknowledging the harm of maternal drug use, a logical pretzel that would make even the most skilled sophist blush. This not only insults the capabilities of modern medicine but also abdicates our societal responsibility to protect the most vulnerable. Until we're prepared to confront the thorny realities of individual rights versus collective obligations, we're doomed to wallow in a quagmire of our own making, where justice is as elusive as the truth you seem so eager to obfuscate.
> At least many people opposed to abortion ostensibly think that it's murder. Given that framing, trying to collect evidence from hospitals seems reasonable.
Is it? I often frame abortion as murder, but even then this goes a little far. If someone travels internationally to Slovenia (or Thailand, whereever), and they rob a bank there then it is more than a bit absurd for my Attorney General to try to prosecute that bank robbery from here in Minnesota. Even if the Slovenian government declines to prosecute and people are generally worried about justice being denied... it just can't happen from here. It doesn't work.
Even that's not the end of it. A prosecutor who attempted it is merely wasting time and money, and maybe there's more than enough time (and though we shouldn't be wasteful, we're a rich country... wasting money's not as big of a deal as we might want it to be). But if it were more than a waste of time and money, if it undermined some principle or another that we should hold dear, then it becomes a big problem. General medical privacy is maybe one of those. How are we supposed to believe that it would only turn up abortion records? Maybe they're trawling for medical info so my insurance can be dropped even though my cancer's in remission.
> The way they act concerning it makes me think that relatively few really believe it.
How are they supposed to act? Like, is there a particular set of behaviors that would preserve your belief in their sincerity and their sanity? As far as they're concerned, they've lived through a half-century holocaust of baby murder, but the abortion clinic bomber was a terrorist and suggesting otherwise should have their names put on a watchlist. They're impotent to fix the greatest moral failing of their lifetime, ridiculed for even speaking out against it, and don't know how to pass their values on to their own offspring successfully.
I suspect that, given their need to cope with something that is intolerable-yet-must-be-tolerated, they've all collectively decided not to bother trying to seem sincere to those who do not agree with them.
Is it? I often frame abortion as murder, but even then this goes a little far. If someone travels internationally to Slovenia (or Thailand, whereever), and they rob a bank there then it is more than a bit absurd for my Attorney General to try to prosecute that bank robbery from here in Minnesota. Even if the Slovenian government declines to prosecute and people are generally worried about justice being denied... it just can't happen from here. It doesn't work.
Even that's not the end of it. A prosecutor who attempted it is merely wasting time and money, and maybe there's more than enough time (and though we shouldn't be wasteful, we're a rich country... wasting money's not as big of a deal as we might want it to be). But if it were more than a waste of time and money, if it undermined some principle or another that we should hold dear, then it becomes a big problem. General medical privacy is maybe one of those. How are we supposed to believe that it would only turn up abortion records? Maybe they're trawling for medical info so my insurance can be dropped even though my cancer's in remission.
> The way they act concerning it makes me think that relatively few really believe it.
How are they supposed to act? Like, is there a particular set of behaviors that would preserve your belief in their sincerity and their sanity? As far as they're concerned, they've lived through a half-century holocaust of baby murder, but the abortion clinic bomber was a terrorist and suggesting otherwise should have their names put on a watchlist. They're impotent to fix the greatest moral failing of their lifetime, ridiculed for even speaking out against it, and don't know how to pass their values on to their own offspring successfully.
I suspect that, given their need to cope with something that is intolerable-yet-must-be-tolerated, they've all collectively decided not to bother trying to seem sincere to those who do not agree with them.
> As far as they're concerned, they've lived through a half-century holocaust of baby murder
It's interesting how this narrative has developed only in the past 40 years or so. At the time of Roe vs. Wade, the Catholic Church did not view a person as being alive until the first breath (a view held today by the Jewish Faith - I've heard they consider the truncated care available to women as an affront to their faith). It wasn't until around Regan that the view really started to change as stopping abortion became a mainstay of the Republican party's policies.
This incorporation into their policies and values is mostly what drove the change in view - going from "it's not a person until it's born" to "fetal personhood". Then after the Dobbs decision and in the leadup to this election, that the phrase murder started being thrown around.
Ever wonder why they're still only prosecuting for the act of abortion, not murder? It's because federal law (which trumps state law) only considers a person as someone who is born.
> they've all collectively decided not to bother trying to seem sincere to those who do not agree with them.
I'd argue that they act quite sincere, and often violently so. Raised voices is the least of what a conversation between a "abortion is murder" and "abortion is health care" tends to result in.
It's interesting how this narrative has developed only in the past 40 years or so. At the time of Roe vs. Wade, the Catholic Church did not view a person as being alive until the first breath (a view held today by the Jewish Faith - I've heard they consider the truncated care available to women as an affront to their faith). It wasn't until around Regan that the view really started to change as stopping abortion became a mainstay of the Republican party's policies.
This incorporation into their policies and values is mostly what drove the change in view - going from "it's not a person until it's born" to "fetal personhood". Then after the Dobbs decision and in the leadup to this election, that the phrase murder started being thrown around.
Ever wonder why they're still only prosecuting for the act of abortion, not murder? It's because federal law (which trumps state law) only considers a person as someone who is born.
> they've all collectively decided not to bother trying to seem sincere to those who do not agree with them.
I'd argue that they act quite sincere, and often violently so. Raised voices is the least of what a conversation between a "abortion is murder" and "abortion is health care" tends to result in.
> the Catholic Church did not view a person as being alive until the first breath
I'm an atheist. All I know is biology. It's made of cells, it metabolizes, excretes, grows, etc. It's alive. I can run a genetics test on it, it will return results that it's human. I know physiology well enough to be certain women do not regularly have four kidneys. The presence of a second pair indicates a second person. Or that women don't have two noses, etc.
We might say, for instance, that religion is evolving (this isn't an absurd position from the standpoint of anthropology). Somehow, collectively, they've come to the realization that maybe their scriptures don't have all the detailed answers they need, and they're "stepping up" and trying to be moral. But this is the one time they shouldn't trust the science, I guess.
> Ever wonder why they're still only prosecuting for the act of abortion, not murder?
Because legally speaking, there are many different types of homicide that consider a dozen or more factors in the crime, and that even amongst the various kinds of manslaughter, society thinks some worse than others or not?
> Raised voices is the least of what a conversation between a "abortion is murder" and "abortion is health care" tends to result in.
Not really. The vast majority of it ends up being stuff the DA doesn't mind pleading down to misdemeanors, other than a few high profile cases over the decades (the Atlanta Olympics were 1996, so that's about the time frame of the bombings/arson, Tiller 10 years later, etc).
I'm an atheist. All I know is biology. It's made of cells, it metabolizes, excretes, grows, etc. It's alive. I can run a genetics test on it, it will return results that it's human. I know physiology well enough to be certain women do not regularly have four kidneys. The presence of a second pair indicates a second person. Or that women don't have two noses, etc.
We might say, for instance, that religion is evolving (this isn't an absurd position from the standpoint of anthropology). Somehow, collectively, they've come to the realization that maybe their scriptures don't have all the detailed answers they need, and they're "stepping up" and trying to be moral. But this is the one time they shouldn't trust the science, I guess.
> Ever wonder why they're still only prosecuting for the act of abortion, not murder?
Because legally speaking, there are many different types of homicide that consider a dozen or more factors in the crime, and that even amongst the various kinds of manslaughter, society thinks some worse than others or not?
> Raised voices is the least of what a conversation between a "abortion is murder" and "abortion is health care" tends to result in.
Not really. The vast majority of it ends up being stuff the DA doesn't mind pleading down to misdemeanors, other than a few high profile cases over the decades (the Atlanta Olympics were 1996, so that's about the time frame of the bombings/arson, Tiller 10 years later, etc).
Do you consider the women that die because they were denied medical care to have been murdered, too?
How many of those are there? If I'm posed with a problem where in a given year 500,000 babies die or 350 women die depending on which of the two options I choose, how am I supposed to choose?
And what if I have reason to believe that those 350 women die because, more often than not, pro-abortionists hold them hostage and then whine "it's not our fault, you wouldn't let us deal with the ectopic pregnancy! only legalized partial-birth abortions could've saved their lives!!!" ?
It's difficult to even take your argument, as presented in the comment above, seriously. Are you just this bad at arguing, or do you just parrot the catchphrases without even thinking about them? Maybe you want me to feel bad about those 350 women? If I cry properly while singing the praises of their brave sacrifice, that's all you were asking for all along, and you'll stop supporting infant massacres? Is it that you've sort of ballparked how much of each occur, and you think the numbers are swapped? Only 350 fetuses aborted per year, but nearly half a million women? Maybe it's not even that one-sided, there's numerical parity?
And what if I have reason to believe that those 350 women die because, more often than not, pro-abortionists hold them hostage and then whine "it's not our fault, you wouldn't let us deal with the ectopic pregnancy! only legalized partial-birth abortions could've saved their lives!!!" ?
It's difficult to even take your argument, as presented in the comment above, seriously. Are you just this bad at arguing, or do you just parrot the catchphrases without even thinking about them? Maybe you want me to feel bad about those 350 women? If I cry properly while singing the praises of their brave sacrifice, that's all you were asking for all along, and you'll stop supporting infant massacres? Is it that you've sort of ballparked how much of each occur, and you think the numbers are swapped? Only 350 fetuses aborted per year, but nearly half a million women? Maybe it's not even that one-sided, there's numerical parity?
Under abortion bans, more women are getting abortions. Under abortion bans, maternal mortality rates have gone up. The infant mortality rate is up in states with abortion bans too.
So even if you consider the flushing of an embryo or fetus to be murder, the abortion bans have not (and likely will not) help the numbers.
So even if you consider the flushing of an embryo or fetus to be murder, the abortion bans have not (and likely will not) help the numbers.
> Under abortion bans, more women are getting abortions.
Strange claim. Don't bother to try to substantiate it... just toss out some hypothesis of the mechanism. You should understand though, that someone like myself wouldn't believe you on that and definitely not without something to back it up. And that if someone like me did end up believing you, it wouldn't change much... just get chalked up as "well, another strange sociological trend".
Strange claim. Don't bother to try to substantiate it... just toss out some hypothesis of the mechanism. You should understand though, that someone like myself wouldn't believe you on that and definitely not without something to back it up. And that if someone like me did end up believing you, it wouldn't change much... just get chalked up as "well, another strange sociological trend".
Also interesting that you weren't able to answer the question.
Ah, I see the problem. You think we're talking about babies. Infanticide is a separate, completely unrelated topic. Maybe that clarifies it for you?
[deleted]
Yeah, the right's response to COVID destroyed any credibility the phrase "pro-life" may have had left.
By the same token, didn't the left's response destroy any credibility of the phrase "my body, my choice"?
No, COVID is a virus. Viruses spread, which affects OTHER people. Like actual people, not imaginary people that only exist in a specific religious context. It did further cement which side is aligned with scientific knowledge, however. Next?
When I said that abortion protestors don't seem sincere in their claim that abortion is murder, I said that because there's a huge gap between the intensity of their rhetoric (claiming that abortion is murder) and the their actions, which 99% of the time amount to little more than whining on social media. A very small minority resort to some form of vigilantism, those few probably believe their own rhetoric but the rest of them are full of hot air.
But this argument also applies to the "You're killing Grandma!" crowd. Very few truly believe that refusing to take a vaccine is a murderous act, and that's why the most they do about it is whine online.
In both cases you have people using very hyperbolic rhetoric to support a position they don't actually feel so strongly about. Very typical of American politics.
But this argument also applies to the "You're killing Grandma!" crowd. Very few truly believe that refusing to take a vaccine is a murderous act, and that's why the most they do about it is whine online.
In both cases you have people using very hyperbolic rhetoric to support a position they don't actually feel so strongly about. Very typical of American politics.
Just curious, what kind of action would the pro-vaccine constituency need to take to demonstrate their sincerity in your view?
[flagged]
The only time people didn't have a choice is when they wanted to interact with society. Something which, thanks to the internet and delivery services, is almost wholly optional in this day and age.
But, the moment you start interacting with society at large, you have to follow that society's laws. Laws which have always included things like quarantining and mandatory vaccinations to prevent the spread of infectious disease.
See, as one example, the 1920 response to the Spanish Flu epidemic.
But, the moment you start interacting with society at large, you have to follow that society's laws. Laws which have always included things like quarantining and mandatory vaccinations to prevent the spread of infectious disease.
See, as one example, the 1920 response to the Spanish Flu epidemic.
That’s where we are in America.
> Like, doing things like this seems like a very good way to stoke national outrage and be forced to legalise it.
That is absolutely happened. As soon as Roe v. Wade was overturned this stuff went on a lot of ballots and in every case the restrictions lost.
There are going to be a bunch of laws about it voted on in the election next Tuesday, as well as it being a very important thing in candidate races. We’ll see how it goes.
The right has pushed this for decades, it was a popular issue for them. As soon as they finally got their way it appears to have backfired big time and galvanized a ton of people against them.
> Like, doing things like this seems like a very good way to stoke national outrage and be forced to legalise it.
That is absolutely happened. As soon as Roe v. Wade was overturned this stuff went on a lot of ballots and in every case the restrictions lost.
There are going to be a bunch of laws about it voted on in the election next Tuesday, as well as it being a very important thing in candidate races. We’ll see how it goes.
The right has pushed this for decades, it was a popular issue for them. As soon as they finally got their way it appears to have backfired big time and galvanized a ton of people against them.
> There are going to be a bunch of laws about it voted on in the election next Tuesday
Also worth looking at is how these state constitutional amendments have been attacked before they were even up for vote, and how many plans are in place to attack the results.
Even so, if the new president decides to, they can effectively destroy the ability to get an abortion anywhere in the US by using the Comstock Act; by enforcing a provision of the Comstock Act which prohibits the shipping of "... every article or thing designed, adapted, or intended for producing abortion."
Also worth looking at is how these state constitutional amendments have been attacked before they were even up for vote, and how many plans are in place to attack the results.
Even so, if the new president decides to, they can effectively destroy the ability to get an abortion anywhere in the US by using the Comstock Act; by enforcing a provision of the Comstock Act which prohibits the shipping of "... every article or thing designed, adapted, or intended for producing abortion."
Not only that, I also know there have been changes/proposed changes to make it harder to submit possible amendments or to allow the legislature to override amendments that people vote for.
All to prevent people from getting their say. Because it’s the “wrong” say.
All to prevent people from getting their say. Because it’s the “wrong” say.
The cruelty is the point.
They and their supporters want to punish people who have the audacity to be unlike them in dress, thought, and deed.
I'm deeply worried that the USA is headed towards a "dark valley" period, just like the Japanese in WW2.
They and their supporters want to punish people who have the audacity to be unlike them in dress, thought, and deed.
I'm deeply worried that the USA is headed towards a "dark valley" period, just like the Japanese in WW2.
I'm holding out hope that we will avoid that kind of a period of time. The polls show a dead heat, but, well, when's the last time you answered a phone call which was marked as 'potential spam' or which came from an unknown number? My phone's been configured to block those entirely. And I'm a xennial.
I think the poll results have been skewed by their reliance on cold calling people, and those cold calls probably only really hit those who are 50+. I don't believe the Republican party has anywhere near the same kind of support from those under 50.
I think the poll results have been skewed by their reliance on cold calling people, and those cold calls probably only really hit those who are 50+. I don't believe the Republican party has anywhere near the same kind of support from those under 50.
I tend to agree that support wanes with decreasing age, but anecdotally (I have kids in the middle school age bracket) there are a lot of young men swinging pretty hard to the right lately.
Prosecute transgender people for what? AFAIK there are no laws against being transgender in any state.
so far
No but gender-reaffirming care could be. So some sort of hormonal treatment or even talk therapy.
Is, unfortunately.
And the biggest consumer of hormonal treatments as children (in the 99% range)? Cisgendered girls and boys who have no desire to transition.
And though you didn't mention it, let's do a quick aside on gender affirming surgery: Boys with gynocomastia get mastectomies while girls get breast enlargements to improve their perception of their bodies.
And the biggest consumer of hormonal treatments as children (in the 99% range)? Cisgendered girls and boys who have no desire to transition.
And though you didn't mention it, let's do a quick aside on gender affirming surgery: Boys with gynocomastia get mastectomies while girls get breast enlargements to improve their perception of their bodies.
There are restrictions and bans on gender affirming care. Most often for minors, but also for adults. It's telling that most of these that are aimed at adults call out exceptions for Viagra.
There are laws prohibiting drag shows which have been written so vaguely that they can be applied to trans people as well, especially those who do any kind of performance.
Next up are laws forcing trans individuals to use the bathroom assigned to them at birth. I'm very curious how they expect women to react to bearded, burly men entering their bathrooms, and how they expect men to react to women presenting individuals (actually I'm quite sure of how they'll react: they'll be SA'ed if not killed).
And then there's the bans on playing sports for Trans individuals - all 40 or so of them.
So no, they're not explicitly outlawed, yet. Just everything about them living their life is. Much like it was never illegal to be gay, they just outlawed sodomy.
There are laws prohibiting drag shows which have been written so vaguely that they can be applied to trans people as well, especially those who do any kind of performance.
Next up are laws forcing trans individuals to use the bathroom assigned to them at birth. I'm very curious how they expect women to react to bearded, burly men entering their bathrooms, and how they expect men to react to women presenting individuals (actually I'm quite sure of how they'll react: they'll be SA'ed if not killed).
And then there's the bans on playing sports for Trans individuals - all 40 or so of them.
So no, they're not explicitly outlawed, yet. Just everything about them living their life is. Much like it was never illegal to be gay, they just outlawed sodomy.
> There are restrictions and bans on gender affirming care. Most often for minors, but also for adults. It's telling that most of these that are aimed at adults call out exceptions for Viagra.
What about hairplugs for balding men? Or cosmetic surgery for, say, gynecomastia? Is that restricted to cis men only in these places? Or facial cosmetic surgery, for that matter. There’s actually quite a bit of gender affirming care for cis men, when you think about it…
(I actually hadn’t realised that anywhere in the US had gone as far as banning gender-affirming care for adults; that’s bonkers.)
> There are laws prohibiting drag shows
Wait, wtf, seriously?
What about hairplugs for balding men? Or cosmetic surgery for, say, gynecomastia? Is that restricted to cis men only in these places? Or facial cosmetic surgery, for that matter. There’s actually quite a bit of gender affirming care for cis men, when you think about it…
(I actually hadn’t realised that anywhere in the US had gone as far as banning gender-affirming care for adults; that’s bonkers.)
> There are laws prohibiting drag shows
Wait, wtf, seriously?
They're probably referring to Texas suing at least one hospital in another state for access children's health information:
> The subpoena demanded the hospital system provide medications prescribed to children who reside in Texas, the children’s diagnosis, the number of Texas children in the hospital’s care and the name of Texas laboratories used to administer tests for those youth, [and] sworn written statements from doctors at Seattle Children’s who treated Texas children, describing the medications prescribed and information related to patients’ diagnoses.
https://www.texastribune.org/2023/12/21/texas-attorney-gener...
> The subpoena demanded the hospital system provide medications prescribed to children who reside in Texas, the children’s diagnosis, the number of Texas children in the hospital’s care and the name of Texas laboratories used to administer tests for those youth, [and] sworn written statements from doctors at Seattle Children’s who treated Texas children, describing the medications prescribed and information related to patients’ diagnoses.
https://www.texastribune.org/2023/12/21/texas-attorney-gener...
jimbob45(1)
[flagged]
It's an actual requirement to give your personal information to gun stores when buying a gun so they can do a background check. They are prohibited by law from using that info for purposes like marketing, but they still have to collect and store it, and I'm sure all of them don't have great privacy policies. Even morons in the 1990s understood that.
This isn't about the data gathered on Form 4473s for the purposes of running background checks. This is about people filling out the warranty cards that came with the guns.
I've always kind of assumed the primary purpose of these is building customer lists. Were they at any point actually important in seeking warranty reimbursement or repair? I suspect that at almost 40 I reached adulthood about the time that the internet shifted the way a lot of old customer service systems worked.
They are only for collecting user data. Firearm manus tend to either cover everything aside from user modifications/damage, no questions asked, or cover nothing.
4473s are a different, far worse, form of privacy invasion. Ostensibly used for background checks, kept forever in order for the ATF to do fishing expeditions.
“The hypocrisy of warning about a governmental registry and at the same time establishing a private registry for political purposes is stunning,”
So does he suggest that databases on advertisement/customer preferences, voters, ... be run by the govt?
All debatable but I'll argue the constitution never gave the govt the right to know who owns guns since the ratification of the 2nd amendment, the purpose of which is exactly to defend against unconstitutional govt acts. So per se, that means if it's legal to be tracked, it has to be done in private registries.
So does he suggest that databases on advertisement/customer preferences, voters, ... be run by the govt?
All debatable but I'll argue the constitution never gave the govt the right to know who owns guns since the ratification of the 2nd amendment, the purpose of which is exactly to defend against unconstitutional govt acts. So per se, that means if it's legal to be tracked, it has to be done in private registries.
While I don't like manufacturers doing this, the comparison to government gun registries is indeed strange.
The manufacturers didn't compel buyers to provide this information with the thread of prison time, and perhaps more importantly, they didn't compel buyers to inform the manufacturer of every subsequent transfer.
The manufacturers didn't compel buyers to provide this information with the thread of prison time, and perhaps more importantly, they didn't compel buyers to inform the manufacturer of every subsequent transfer.
Are there reasons to oppose a government database of guns that don't also apply to a private sector database of guns?
For example, if a future government decided to round up all the guns and needed a database to find them, the fact the database is in a different building ain't going to stop them.
For example, if a future government decided to round up all the guns and needed a database to find them, the fact the database is in a different building ain't going to stop them.
Yes, the government by force of law can wholesale strip citizens of their second amendment rights by having a list of gun owners. The ATF not even 5 years ago was doing this with all sorts of guns that were formerly legal. In particular, ex post facto laws seem to not apply with the ATF. Once they issue a new "opinion" it becomes defacto law because of the Chevron Defense. The result, is ATF door kickers visiting people who were, possibly weeks ago, entirely law abiding citizens. "Ghost guns" in particular were used to justify no-knock raiding several law abiding citizens when the ATF "opinion" came out. In that case however, the ATF more-or-less told manufacturers if you don't give us names we will send you to prison for life.
The government having any list of any kind of person is never good. Ever. The government already "has" a list of gun owners. 4473s are kept forever. If a gun store shuts down, the 4473s are shuttled to storage in the ATF's buildings/containers/whatever. They have, historically, used these for all kinds of questionably legal "enforcement" procedures.
However, since the 4473 list isn't entirely accurate - for example, gun transfers do not require a background check in many states, you could have destroyed the gun, lost it in a literal boating accident, etc there's plausible deniability. A government run list would certainly be designed to eliminate this - and that's a horrible, horrible thing for the 2nd. Presently the only "real list" is for NFA items. I'd imagine a government-run list would have the same privacy invading, civil rights abusing powers the NFA-owners list has.
A manufacturer on the other hand could be coerced, as "ghost gun" 80% lower manufacturers were, to narc on their customer base. However, there are legal avenues to at least slow this process down significantly. It's far better, if we have to choose, to let manufacturers have the data. They have historically been far better stewards of the bill of rights than the ATF ever has.
The government having any list of any kind of person is never good. Ever. The government already "has" a list of gun owners. 4473s are kept forever. If a gun store shuts down, the 4473s are shuttled to storage in the ATF's buildings/containers/whatever. They have, historically, used these for all kinds of questionably legal "enforcement" procedures.
However, since the 4473 list isn't entirely accurate - for example, gun transfers do not require a background check in many states, you could have destroyed the gun, lost it in a literal boating accident, etc there's plausible deniability. A government run list would certainly be designed to eliminate this - and that's a horrible, horrible thing for the 2nd. Presently the only "real list" is for NFA items. I'd imagine a government-run list would have the same privacy invading, civil rights abusing powers the NFA-owners list has.
A manufacturer on the other hand could be coerced, as "ghost gun" 80% lower manufacturers were, to narc on their customer base. However, there are legal avenues to at least slow this process down significantly. It's far better, if we have to choose, to let manufacturers have the data. They have historically been far better stewards of the bill of rights than the ATF ever has.
Sure. The government database presumably covers "all the guns". The private one includes some subset of guns, for example, all those whose owners want to subscribe to a certain gun manufacturer's newsletter, or all guns whose owners opted into a warranty program despite knowing it would get their names in a database.
The fact that this particular database included data collected under false pretenses shouldn't preclude anyone from making a mailing list of gun owners.
The fact that this particular database included data collected under false pretenses shouldn't preclude anyone from making a mailing list of gun owners.
One could reasonably argue intentions matter, and the only possible intention for a government database is explicitly prohibited. If one were worried about such things, then a private database existing is of course problematic in that a ready-made one is there any time the government decides to stop prohibiting itself from doing such a thing...
But this is more bone-headed than sinister.
But this is more bone-headed than sinister.
I don’t think that’s their point.
Their point is that all the hand wringing over privacy they use as the reason to prevent any kind of registration (whatever you think of it) seems very incongruous with giving away warranty information, which often they explicitly said they wouldn’t do, to whatever political cause they want.
It looks extremely hypocritical and in many cases violated a promise to the customers.
Yes the consequence of the government having a list instead of a lobbying group is very different.
The issue is the lobbying group shouldn’t have had it period.
Their point is that all the hand wringing over privacy they use as the reason to prevent any kind of registration (whatever you think of it) seems very incongruous with giving away warranty information, which often they explicitly said they wouldn’t do, to whatever political cause they want.
It looks extremely hypocritical and in many cases violated a promise to the customers.
Yes the consequence of the government having a list instead of a lobbying group is very different.
The issue is the lobbying group shouldn’t have had it period.
To add to this, all it takes is one piece of legislation or one court order for the private registry to end up in the government's hands.
Gun owners who fear a government-run registry should fear a privately-run one just as much, if not more.
Gun owners who fear a government-run registry should fear a privately-run one just as much, if not more.
I've heard a lot over the years about how registries are a step towards confiscation. A bit conspiratorial, but also not totally unfounded.
Now that the government knows that this database exists, it seems like a partially-complete registry could be a lawsuit (and years of appeals) away.
The participants of this may have accidentally built their own Torment Nexus.
Now that the government knows that this database exists, it seems like a partially-complete registry could be a lawsuit (and years of appeals) away.
The participants of this may have accidentally built their own Torment Nexus.
The difference between the two is that a government-mandated registration scheme that mandates up-to-date status can clear a lot of legal bars that a private list compiled from random sources does not. Just because someone filled a warranty card for a gun 10 years ago doesn't mean that they still own that - or, indeed, any - gun today, and courts would generally balk at making such an inference for the purposes of, say, signing a warrant for a search.
I don't personally believe that the data would be good quality by modern standards. Also, with rising levels of minor paranoia among some groups, I'd wager $1 that people these days are less likely to fill out forms like the ones shown in the article.
However, if we presume that the data were of good enough quality and available to government, I believe that at least California would try to do something with it.
However, if we presume that the data were of good enough quality and available to government, I believe that at least California would try to do something with it.
To be fair, it’s just warranty data. It’s always existed. All you have to do is buy something to know it comes with a warranty card. So they could’ve figured it out it was there.
However the fact that they can now get it without having to sue for warranty information is certainly a new twist.
Of course they’d have to get it from a lobbying group, which wouldn’t exactly go over terribly well either.
However the fact that they can now get it without having to sue for warranty information is certainly a new twist.
Of course they’d have to get it from a lobbying group, which wouldn’t exactly go over terribly well either.
What’s wrong with this? If I shop at Joe’s Grocery, then it’s no secret that I’m allowed to tell my county commissioner about the fact that Joe sold me a banana.
Are they saying that Joe can’t tell the county commission that I bought a banana?
This is all just stuff we learn. It’s basic freedom of speech.
Sure, if I paid Joe $2 to keep it secret because my wife thinks I’m allergic… that’s different.
Are they saying that Joe can’t tell the county commission that I bought a banana?
This is all just stuff we learn. It’s basic freedom of speech.
Sure, if I paid Joe $2 to keep it secret because my wife thinks I’m allergic… that’s different.
>Are they saying that Joe can’t tell the county commission that I bought a banana?
Yes, that's what gun-owners have been saying for decades about gun sellers.
Yes, that's what gun-owners have been saying for decades about gun sellers.
It is unlikely that the government is going to send armed men to take away your bananas.
Why? They send armed men to take away my cats and my flowers. Whats to stop fruit from being next?
> They send armed men to take away my cats and my flowers.
Can you please elaborate on that?
Can you please elaborate on that?
Try to keep a pet tiger.
Try to grow a boquet of cannibis indica.
You may just find armed men at your door.
Try to grow a boquet of cannibis indica.
You may just find armed men at your door.
As for tigers, I am not sure - there are some safety standards you'd need to comply to so that your neighbors don't become meals for Fluffy.
As for cannabis, all you need to do is move to one of the more enlightened states that allow cultivation. Given time, I believe all states will recognize the benefits it brings.
As for cannabis, all you need to do is move to one of the more enlightened states that allow cultivation. Given time, I believe all states will recognize the benefits it brings.
It's weird how this article is ostensibly about the violation of gun-owners' privacy, but can't help but wander into the 2nd amendment discussion with sentences like:
> Last month at a high school in Georgia, a 14-year-old used an assault rifle to kill two students and two teachers and wound seven more people.
The assault rifle in question is an "AR-15 style rifle". I.e. not an assault rifle.
> Semi-automatic-only rifles like the Colt AR-15 are not assault rifles; they do not have select-fire capabilities.[1]
In conclusion, I don't know who this article is for. Gun owners and pro 2nd amendment readers will probably be put off by technical errors like this and the thinly veiled contempt for gun ownership. Many non-gun owners and anti-2nd amendment readers will probably think: "good, fuck em".
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle
> Last month at a high school in Georgia, a 14-year-old used an assault rifle to kill two students and two teachers and wound seven more people.
The assault rifle in question is an "AR-15 style rifle". I.e. not an assault rifle.
> Semi-automatic-only rifles like the Colt AR-15 are not assault rifles; they do not have select-fire capabilities.[1]
In conclusion, I don't know who this article is for. Gun owners and pro 2nd amendment readers will probably be put off by technical errors like this and the thinly veiled contempt for gun ownership. Many non-gun owners and anti-2nd amendment readers will probably think: "good, fuck em".
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle
The article is reporting on a privacy violation. If the fact that it also expresses opinions you dislike makes you want to disregard those facts -- then you're making bad decisions and you should do better.
Personally I think it's valuable to have this information out there. Both for the folks whose privacy was violated, and for people who are concerned about how closely the gun industry works to coordinate its customer database with lobbying groups. (PS I own a gun and don't like anything about this news, from either of those perspectives.)
Personally I think it's valuable to have this information out there. Both for the folks whose privacy was violated, and for people who are concerned about how closely the gun industry works to coordinate its customer database with lobbying groups. (PS I own a gun and don't like anything about this news, from either of those perspectives.)
>then you're making bad decisions and you should do better.
Please be mindful that this sort of talking down to people poisons conversation.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
>Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't cross-examine. Edit out swipes.
Please be mindful that this sort of talking down to people poisons conversation.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
>Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't cross-examine. Edit out swipes.
> you're making bad decisions and you should do better.
This part was unnecessary btw.
This part was unnecessary btw.
> Gun owners and pro 2nd amendment readers
I'm a gun owner and I can overlook them using a term in a way that it is popularly used among laypeople, even if it is technically not correct [0]. Discarding the content of the article on that premise would just be abdicating my responsibility to think.
[0] I gotta say, though, who exactly gets to insist on the definition of a general term like assault rifle? Seems like another instance of useless gatekeeping. A distraction.
I'm a gun owner and I can overlook them using a term in a way that it is popularly used among laypeople, even if it is technically not correct [0]. Discarding the content of the article on that premise would just be abdicating my responsibility to think.
[0] I gotta say, though, who exactly gets to insist on the definition of a general term like assault rifle? Seems like another instance of useless gatekeeping. A distraction.
Depending on the state, scary features like a carry handle or a bayonet mount upgrade a semi-auto to banned status. Bayonet on a bolt action? No problem.
[deleted]
Can you really blame people for all of the confusion around whether or not an "AR-something" is 'technically' an "assault rifle"? I mean, if you go to the Wiki article that you cited, the piece you quoted links to the Wiki article about the Colt AR-15, which says:
>The term "AR-15" is a Colt registered trademark which it uses only to refer to its line of semi-automatic rifles.
So, yeah, sure, it's not technically an automatic rifle, but if the manufacturer is going to call it a semi-automatic, I'm not going to fault the average joe for not getting it perfect. "Semi" is halfway there, or at least "is that thing to a degree", after all.
To be entirely honest, the whole semantics debate around "BuT iT'S nOt AuToMaTiC" misses the forest for the trees and shouldn't be given much space. As another person said, a distraction.
>The term "AR-15" is a Colt registered trademark which it uses only to refer to its line of semi-automatic rifles.
So, yeah, sure, it's not technically an automatic rifle, but if the manufacturer is going to call it a semi-automatic, I'm not going to fault the average joe for not getting it perfect. "Semi" is halfway there, or at least "is that thing to a degree", after all.
To be entirely honest, the whole semantics debate around "BuT iT'S nOt AuToMaTiC" misses the forest for the trees and shouldn't be given much space. As another person said, a distraction.
>To be entirely honest, the whole semantics debate around "BuT iT'S nOt AuToMaTiC" misses the forest for the trees and shouldn't be given much space. As another person said, a distraction.
It's not a distraction. The government is always trying to reduce functionality of available firearms as well as increase costs. There is a huge difference between fully automatic weapons and semiauto. Nearly all guns on the civilian market are semiautomatic, aside from some antique designs, and full auto weapons manufactured prior to the NFA. I don't agree with the NFA's infringements on our 2A rights but I think a fair number of gun enthusiasts might agree with restricting full auto somehow. Semiauto is a big step down from that, and going away from semiauto is a HUGE step down from there.
The AR-15 has been vilified to an unfair extent. There is no particular feature about it that makes it more dangerous than other semiautomatic rifles that shoot ammunition in the same ballpark as far as caliber and velocity. Moreover, the whole point of having a weapon like that is for it to efficiently and accurately hit whatever you need it to hit. The only real way to protect your rights is to be adequately armed. The Founders knew that. The right solution to be secure is not to ban guns, it is to get more guns in more hands. Without a gun you will always be victim to someone who is bigger than you, groups of thugs, and any criminal who doesn't let the state dictate his choice of weapons.
It's not a distraction. The government is always trying to reduce functionality of available firearms as well as increase costs. There is a huge difference between fully automatic weapons and semiauto. Nearly all guns on the civilian market are semiautomatic, aside from some antique designs, and full auto weapons manufactured prior to the NFA. I don't agree with the NFA's infringements on our 2A rights but I think a fair number of gun enthusiasts might agree with restricting full auto somehow. Semiauto is a big step down from that, and going away from semiauto is a HUGE step down from there.
The AR-15 has been vilified to an unfair extent. There is no particular feature about it that makes it more dangerous than other semiautomatic rifles that shoot ammunition in the same ballpark as far as caliber and velocity. Moreover, the whole point of having a weapon like that is for it to efficiently and accurately hit whatever you need it to hit. The only real way to protect your rights is to be adequately armed. The Founders knew that. The right solution to be secure is not to ban guns, it is to get more guns in more hands. Without a gun you will always be victim to someone who is bigger than you, groups of thugs, and any criminal who doesn't let the state dictate his choice of weapons.
> any criminal who doesn't let the state dictate his choice of weapons.
As someone who lives in a society where firearm ownership is heavily regulated, I can tell you serious crime is not rampant, that I don't feel unprotected, and that I am confident very few criminals do have firearms, and that those criminals who do are very conscious about firearm usage and only employ them against similarly armed criminals.
As an added bonus, my kids don't need to go through active shooter drills at school.
It is a completely different cultural background, I understand. It's, however, always possible to change a culture, and that's something I always remind my American friends it can be done.
As someone who lives in a society where firearm ownership is heavily regulated, I can tell you serious crime is not rampant, that I don't feel unprotected, and that I am confident very few criminals do have firearms, and that those criminals who do are very conscious about firearm usage and only employ them against similarly armed criminals.
As an added bonus, my kids don't need to go through active shooter drills at school.
It is a completely different cultural background, I understand. It's, however, always possible to change a culture, and that's something I always remind my American friends it can be done.
I don't accept that the government can be trusted to keep me safe, but you do. That is the fundamental difference. Guns used to be everywhere in the US, including in schools, and nobody was overly concerned about crazies with guns attacking schools. The reason is, anyone going crazy with a gun would be shot dead by any self-respecting person rather quickly. Our kids are more likely to die from any number of freak accidents than school shootings. If schools kept a few armed guards or even armed teachers and had secure fences and doors, the chances of someone doing a mass shooting there would be near zero. We have gun free zones that render everyone but criminals completely defenseless. It's a shame that people do not understand or appreciate the many benefits of being armed.
The classic gun-free society is the UK where even decorative knives or anything resembling an effective weapon will land you in prison. The place that sends people to jail for such things as witnessing a protest, or posting mean tweets online. Once you give up your guns, you have given up any hope of actually curtailing government power. The people who want to take our guns all have guns and professional armed security.
Another point to consider is, guns are only one possible weapon. In gun-free societies like China, they face mass stabbings instead. Then there's always someone willing to run people over with a car. Too bad the victims of those crimes did not have guns. They might have had a chance.
So in summary, I don't want gun-free culture. I want everyone but known violent criminals and mentally deficient individuals to be armed. The gun is the great equalizer, and it insures your freedom against all kinds of brutes. Without a gun, the average person doesn't have a chance against a typical criminal.
The classic gun-free society is the UK where even decorative knives or anything resembling an effective weapon will land you in prison. The place that sends people to jail for such things as witnessing a protest, or posting mean tweets online. Once you give up your guns, you have given up any hope of actually curtailing government power. The people who want to take our guns all have guns and professional armed security.
Another point to consider is, guns are only one possible weapon. In gun-free societies like China, they face mass stabbings instead. Then there's always someone willing to run people over with a car. Too bad the victims of those crimes did not have guns. They might have had a chance.
So in summary, I don't want gun-free culture. I want everyone but known violent criminals and mentally deficient individuals to be armed. The gun is the great equalizer, and it insures your freedom against all kinds of brutes. Without a gun, the average person doesn't have a chance against a typical criminal.
> they face mass stabbings instead
It is much easier to stop a stabber than someone armed with an assault rifle, and it’s much harder for the assailant to stab a dozen people.
Is there any other country in the world where there are more mass killings per inhabitant than the US?
It is much easier to stop a stabber than someone armed with an assault rifle, and it’s much harder for the assailant to stab a dozen people.
Is there any other country in the world where there are more mass killings per inhabitant than the US?
>It is much easier to stop a stabber than someone armed with an assault rifle, and it’s much harder for the assailant to stab a dozen people.
You're wrong about this. A knife does not need to be reloaded and many knife wounds can be more deadly than gunshot wounds. A person with a knife can stab random people in the back and run off, probably indefinitely. If they decided to stab them all at once then they might have a bit of difficulty and have to do it in a confined space. But this does happen in China.
As for stopping someone with basically any gun, any other person could stop them with a gun. It doesn't matter if the guy with the gun is an elite soldier and the defender is a little old lady, so long as the lady has decent aim. Guns are only a problem because people scoff at their right and duty to defend themselves.
>Is there any other country in the world where there are more mass killings per inhabitant than the US?
So-called "mass shootings" are not the only violent crime you need to worry about. The definition is skewed to make the problem sound worse than it is, by including gang violence and gang wars in there. You need to consider violent crimes vs. violent crimes. And frankly, the agencies that report violent crime have a conflict of interest when it comes to that. You also don't get stats about violence prevented or mitigated because of guns, because it is not tracked.
I think there are other factors that go into violent crime prevalence beyond gun availability, that make it impossible to reach any meaningful conclusion about whether banning guns would lower crime overall. Guns were very common in the entire world until recently, and nobody was really concerned about mass shootings. Any perceived violence problem is really a cultural issue or a perception issue. Even if banning guns did lower crime somehow I would not be interested, any more than I would be interested in banning cars because someone might get run over or banning printing presses because they can print offensive words. Self-defense is a human right and we all need effective tools to defend ourselves from all enemies. Some amount of regulation seems to be a necessary evil, but a ban on guns is as preposterous to me as a ban on pointy sticks.
You're wrong about this. A knife does not need to be reloaded and many knife wounds can be more deadly than gunshot wounds. A person with a knife can stab random people in the back and run off, probably indefinitely. If they decided to stab them all at once then they might have a bit of difficulty and have to do it in a confined space. But this does happen in China.
As for stopping someone with basically any gun, any other person could stop them with a gun. It doesn't matter if the guy with the gun is an elite soldier and the defender is a little old lady, so long as the lady has decent aim. Guns are only a problem because people scoff at their right and duty to defend themselves.
>Is there any other country in the world where there are more mass killings per inhabitant than the US?
So-called "mass shootings" are not the only violent crime you need to worry about. The definition is skewed to make the problem sound worse than it is, by including gang violence and gang wars in there. You need to consider violent crimes vs. violent crimes. And frankly, the agencies that report violent crime have a conflict of interest when it comes to that. You also don't get stats about violence prevented or mitigated because of guns, because it is not tracked.
I think there are other factors that go into violent crime prevalence beyond gun availability, that make it impossible to reach any meaningful conclusion about whether banning guns would lower crime overall. Guns were very common in the entire world until recently, and nobody was really concerned about mass shootings. Any perceived violence problem is really a cultural issue or a perception issue. Even if banning guns did lower crime somehow I would not be interested, any more than I would be interested in banning cars because someone might get run over or banning printing presses because they can print offensive words. Self-defense is a human right and we all need effective tools to defend ourselves from all enemies. Some amount of regulation seems to be a necessary evil, but a ban on guns is as preposterous to me as a ban on pointy sticks.
>It's not a distraction.
It absolutely is. It asks people to engage in a frivolous debate about semantics when, in reality, the issue is much larger and far more complex, with more intrinsically important and impactful aspects to it than that.
It absolutely is. It asks people to engage in a frivolous debate about semantics when, in reality, the issue is much larger and far more complex, with more intrinsically important and impactful aspects to it than that.
AR meant Armalite, the original designing company IIRC. Is the AR-19 an assault rifle too?
>Is the AR-19 an assault rifle too?
If this is something that you're genuinely asking me for my opinion on, then I'd ask you to re-read my comment, because you've missed my point entirely.
If this is something that you're genuinely asking me for my opinion on, then I'd ask you to re-read my comment, because you've missed my point entirely.
> At least 10 gun industry businesses, including Glock, Smith & Wesson, Remington, Marlin and Mossberg, handed over names, addresses and other private data to the gun industry’s chief lobbying group, the National Shooting Sports Foundation.