Vista Outdoor's brands include Giro, Camelbak, Blackburn, and Savage Arms.
Amidst the heated gun control debate that's currently taking place in North America in the wake of a mass shooting in Parkland, Florida, sporting goods retailers and consumers are facing difficult decisions concerning the brands they purchase from.
Vista Outdoor, the parent company of Bell, Giro, Blackburn, and Camelbak, also lists Savage Arms, a rifle and shotgun manufacturer, and Federal Ammunition among its brands. This, along with Vista Outdoor's support of the National Rifle Association, has spurred a social media uproar along with boycotts and petitions urging retailers and consumers to cease their support of the company and its affiliated brands.
After a petition on Change.org that was created with the goal of convincing Mountain Equipment Co-op (MEC) to stop selling products made by Vista Outdoor received over 50,000 signatures, MEC, Canada's largest outdoor retailer, decided to stop any orders with the Vista Outdoor brands (Bollé, Bushnell, CamelBak, Camp Chef, Jimmy Styks) that they carried. In an
open letter, David Labistour, MEC's CEO, wrote, "I hope that you will see that the decision we made today is balanced and considered and positions us to inspire a wider discussion throughout our industry and North America."
Vista is a relatively new owner of Bell, Giro, and Blackburn – they purchased the
companies in 2016 from BRG Sports for $400 million, while Camelbak was
purchased in 2015 for $412.5 million from Compass Diversified Holdings.
Many of the employees of the cycling-related companies worked for the brands before they were owned by a parent company with ties to the NRA.
On the other side of the debate, the NRA released this response to the growing number of companies who have cut ties with the organization:
“Some corporations have decided to punish NRA membership in a shameful display of political and civic cowardice. In time, these brands will be replaced by others who recognize that patriotism and determined commitment to Constitutional freedoms are characteristics of a marketplace they very much want to serve.”Along with the petitions, several bike shops have taken steps to support the boycott. Erik Tonkin, the owner of
Sellwood Cycles in Portland, Oregon, issued the following statement:
“Sellwood Cycle Repair will support a boycott of Vista Outdoor. This means we will not buy products from Bell, Giro, Blackburn and CoPilot — and that we could even return existing inventory, which is substantial.”Editor's Note: the gun control debate is an extremely contentious issue. Comments that devolve into name-calling, trolling, and hate speech will not be tolerated.
Updated 3/1/18, 9:00am PST to reflect MEC's decision to stop carrying Vista Outdoor brands.
Y'all crazy. The same people that want to give up their guns are the people that think Donald Trump is "literally Hitler".
Literally, we could ban all guns tomorrow, yet, people with mental health issues that want to hurt a person or persons will follow their feelings through, as witnessed recently.
In the last 50 years the majority of "mass homicides", with and without guns, were created by people with mental health issues. Of that, the majority of those cases were violent crimes without a firearm.
The media is just good at steering non-critical thinking people in a particular direction.
Maybe if our government had not been gutting funding to mental health programs the last 40'ish years we might have more people NOT losing their coping mechanisms, and then killing a person or persons?
--We can only put so many band-aids on the wound before we bleed out.
1. Guns should be legal to own in the US.
2. Guns should not be legal to own in the US.
If the question is correct then the only logical answer is (unless you want never ending masscares of innocent people) is 2. If not, and you still think people should have the right to own guns, then you are in someway responsible for the deaths.
Simple as that.
And its not just about mass shooting (even though thats what drives the news). Its about all shootings. Yes some are carried out by people with documented mental health issues, but many are not. Many times people just snap. Do you think there aren't people out there who have killed someone and regret it? Who if even given even a few days before being able to act on their aggression would have chosen not to do what they did? Or people that commit suicide? Same thing.
To act like the easy availability of guns isn't a major contributing factor all the gun related deaths we have in this country is a cop out.
Oh and also
"various epidemiological studies over the past two decades show that the vast majority of people with severe mental illnesses, such as schizophrenia, bipolar disorder or severe depression, are no more likely to be violent than anyone else."
www.cnn.com/2017/11/06/health/guns-mental-health-texas-trump/index.html
Wamp wamp
Bad events are always going to happen. Awesome events happen when Giro, Camelbak are there.
also what changes would you suggest?
Pretty sure you can't buy that in Canada.
Arming yourself to protect yourself from people who are armed and want to harm you.
Absolute insanity.
@XCMark: it's both. The fact that there is a mental health crisis in the US is the reason we need control. and by control I don't mean ban them, because lets face it, they're fun as hell, but we do need to figure out a way to stop people who do this from getting their hands on guns.
prevention is the best weapon
BTW Savage makes a pretty competitive line up,,, def check them out.
I'll come up with 340,000 signatures to squash MEC by the weekend without leaving my county.
"In the last 50 years the majority of "mass homicides", with and without guns, were created by people with mental health issues. Of that, the majority of those cases were violent crimes without a firearm."
Couldn't people wanting guns to feel safe or free be looked at as a mental health issue.
www.quora.com/In-which-states-is-it-legal-to-own-a-fully-automatic-weapon
also what would you define as a assault weapon?
M1 garand?
This is just fueling the fires of misinformation and damaging sales of good brands... and the jobs of good people.
I'm always surprised how many Americans are willfully blind to the patently obvious solution. After the Bosnian conflict the UN, funded by the US, built a bunch of incinerators in Bosnia and Croatia and went door to door and gathered up all the weapons and destroyed them. It was the only way to stop people, who were formerly neighbors, from killing each other. Guess what? It worked.
Also do you actually prefer having to wait on someone to get to you and also having to call them instead of being able to defend your own life from ill-intentioned people / corrupt governments?
A: Idiots who don’t know what they’re talking about
B: Actually wanting to ban ALL guns but don’t have the balls to say that upfront. @thehardtail:
Beyond that... wtf is a mass shooting weapon? Because... hand guns, hunting rifles, home made explosives, shot guns and kitchen knives have all been used in mass homicides.
Amazing me how many people that don't know wtf they're talking about preach like their opinion is gospel.
It’s absolutely the culture here. Americans suffer from a variety of previously unseen, hard to diagnose spiritual (not religious, but the core spirit of our country) ailments, hence our current President.
It’s not the guns, it’s something far more insidious. Common sense gun control will help. But the sickness will remain for some time I’m afraid.
That’s what happens when you raise a people to think they deserve everything without having to earn any of it. We’ve somewhat lost our way, and it will take another generation or two to find it again.
If people want to kill people they're gonna find weapons through any means they can. Sometimes that's legal, sometimes that's stealing family members legal fire arms... sometimes that illegally purchasing fire arms.
You don't see europeans banning delivery trucks.
But just so you're pleased... neither. I'm not armed. Why the hell would I fight someone armed with anything? And beyond that it depends on conditions.
Seriously man... that was a ridiculous question.
In mine... dude got shot right next to the damned hospital last night. Pretty sure it wasn't an AR-15 and not a legally purchased gun.
I'm all for regulating fire arm purchases. But selection one type of weapon and making it illegal isn't the way to go about it. Forcing law abiding citizens to turn over weapons isn't the answer.
Things that work on one populace won't always work on another.
This generation is screwed up.
I'd love to disarm American gangs and criminals. I have tons of friends in law enforcement who I'd love to know weren't facing armed criminals daily.
Believe me... I do believe there's a better solution. But what's being proposed now isn't it.
No. Common sense gun control is not in place. I guess calling it “common sense” assumes that all people hold the same amount of sense. Which is increasingly less evident with each passing day.
Why do people not understand this? Why are you committed to boiling it down into something so simplistic?
It’s about REDUCING the number of people killed. Is that really that hard to understand?
If a kid has a handgun, sure, he’s gonna kill people. But he sure as hell isnt going to be able to kill as MANY people as quickly.
Do you contend that the Vegas shooter could’ve killed that many people with a handgun?
Having an opinion is fine man, but at least be informed as to what’s being talked about.
Pretty funny that you can't drink alcohol before 21 but you can buy a gun at Wal-Mart !!! lol In Canada, wal-mart is for cheap clothing, food, sport goods, etc but no damn f*cking guns!! You crazy mericans! :O lol
Remember when a truck ploughed through a crowd in France? Or when some dude went on a stabbing rampage in a Chinese school? Bad people will always find a way...BUT the easiest way to kill en masse is a firearm. They are killing machines, nothing more. America's obsession with them is beyond unhealthy, it's pure insanity now.
I'm only calling you out on this point because, as someone who I agree with, it's important you've got all the facts straight in this debate!
Yes. This is what many gun owners can’t seem to grasp. ‘Cuz yer tryin’ to take there guns derrr-duh-derrr!
There is simply no sound argument for any civilian to have an assault weapon. “But we need our guns to fight the gubment derr-duh-derr!” Never mind the fact that these exact people (generalizing here) put a man in the White House who is committed to destroying our day to day civil liberties that actually mean something.
So the people who are afraid of their guns being taken away by a fanciful tyrannical government, are the ones who elected the actually real (in real f*cking life, not in some gun nut’s rebellion fantasy) autocrat!
I’m sorry, but this is how ignorant these people are.
Completely aside from the gun issue, I will boycott any companies associated with the NRA because of their ever more hateful, anti-American false patriotism and demagoguery.
If it comes to fighting our government, I'll be much better off stopping sending them money than taking on the twelve biggest standing military complexes (the totality of the US military) than with an AR-15.
The NRA is just like Evangelical Christianity. A rabid, uncompromising, hate-filled ideology that is much more in line with Nazism, and Communism than it is with “freedom” or love for one’s fellow countryman.
But it is through these ideological portals, which hold so much sway for the small and weak minded, that they do become cancers in society.
There are good gun owners and good Christians. But man, these gun nuts are giving y’all a bad name.
@freestyIAM: "So other developed countries have similar rates of mental illness as the US."
Good point! Now I ask, have those countries been "gutting the funding to mental health programs" the last 40'ish years like the USA?
One country has access to weapons including assault rifles. This country had 18 school shootings in the first 2 month of 2018.
The rest of the civilized world like the whole of Europe or Australia has highly restrictive regulations when it comes to guns. Neither Place had a single shooting. Neither place had dead Children.
So what's saver for people to live? More guns or Less?
Well anyway, thanks for pointing it out. i am going to stay away from vist brands for now.
If we are going to talk about that, and not fix our foreign policy, I believe scarier times are coming!
But thank you for making things up for yourself to believe. It's always comforting, 100% of the time.
www.google.com/amp/s/www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/new-york-terror-attack-authorities-struggle-to-prevent-attacks-with-rented-trucks
www.abc15.com/news/data/school-shootings-in-u-s-when-where-each-shooting-has-occurred-in-2018
and yes australia did a good job not completely due to lack of gun acess it will also be because they raise people correctly there.
And Europe they had the bombings and the truck rammings etc. people finding ways around it because they're raised wrongly and by islam not saying all are bad just that most who follow it strictly will be more violent.
It’s not paranoia so much as it’s a narrative that has been built and sold by gun makers here in the US. That the mostly poor and uneducated have bought into.
The NRA isn’t interested so much in gun ownership, as they are in controlling the minds of those gun owners.
The kind of person who buys again either needs to for their profession, or by someone who has decided they are prepared to kill something, whether or not they ever do. It’s the latter set that feeds off the narrative of needing an enemy to defend against.
Maybe we should stop cutting funding on mental health programs? Though, you are probably to young to realize that the US government has gutted social mental health programs...
... But by all means, please give me another example of how you would fix things and not upset those that believe in the constitution, for protecting you and the rest, from a government that is blowing up brown people so you can have opium and oil.
This country is on the wrong path, as many are letting the media make their thoughts for them!
Most Americans who want more regulation do not want to "take all the guns away", we simply want laws similar to those you have in Canada: background checks and licensing, waiting periods, and magazine capacity limits.
Anyway neither you or I will lose on this because people wont stop riding with bike helmets. They will just buy their backpacks and helmets at companies that don't sell guns as well. So those company will earn more and will hire more freelancers, more athletes and employees...
Press blames the NRA?! they are a collection of gun manufacturers who want and need to sell more guns. They actively smear any candidate who dampens their prospects and promote (fund) candidates who share their interest. If US citizens want gun control and health care legislation, then vote out your representatives in congress/senate who do not take action. Data suggests gun-control legislation does deliver material results, but US citizens have not been willing (or to your point; able) to hold their representatives accountable, so the death spiral continues...
I don’t think anyone’s job is at stake here. Either Vista will lose a handful of gun nut customers. Or they’ll lose a shit ton of people who care a lot about gun control. I don’t personally care about that specific company either way.
But generally, corporate social responsibility is something that needs to be taken more seriously and if Vista takes a stand I will be more likely to purchase from their brands.
James D Walk 1956. Blew up a school because he was fired. Killed 28 staff and self.
Charlottesville truck murder. Killed 7.
Then I also have the BATF report on violent altercations since 1995. Where since 1995 there has been 1928 violent altercations from people with a mental illness. Of that, 386 were with a weapon. Of those weapons used in violent altercations by people with mental illnesses as reported by the BATF, only 108 have been with a firearm. In that 108 violent altercations with a firearm, only 64 had multiple victims... So in 23 years there has been 64 reported incidents of violence with a firearm by a mentally ill person toward multiple people...
... The media is just really good at getting non-critical thinking people to think what they want them to think.
Unfortunately yeah, boycot also hurts innocent employees. But consumers have the right to, and have to, do what's right for them. That is free market capitalism. And it can be very effective.
but what has that to do with americans gunning down americans on a weekly bases? even if it was "just" eight where people got killed. Its end of February now. That means every week children are dying somewhere in teh United states. how can any sane person think this is normal??????
Judging by our foreign policy, Americans are not going to do shit, but blow up more brown people for their resources; opium & oil.
Or, as is becoming increasingly evident, we need to at least minimize the number of people killed. A handgun vs. an assault weapon/small magazine vs. larger magazine is what ultimately needs to happen to REDUCE the number of deaths, because clearly avoiding deaths is entirely fanciful.
I'm young but I do realise the cuts that have been made in mental health funding across all of the western world in the last ten years. I know you're a bit old but do you realise we've had the same cuts in this country lol. From that first comment you made about mental health I can see you have little understanding of the reality of it.
I don't profess to have an answer to please everyone you talk of, I think it's naive to think there is such a thing.
If anything you're the one believing the media stuff about it being a mental health issue that can one day be solved and not a gun problem.
That’s the problem. The first reaction from all these reasonable, sane gun owners is “you’ll never take my guns!” When all people are asking for is to limit the lethality of these instances. Not take away anyone’s guns...
Seriously, if my gov can go over 'there' and blow up brown people for resources, then it's highly likely that our lives mean just as little to the people creating and maintaining our foreign -death- policy.
And, we(US of A) have been cutting social mental health programs for the last 40 years. What we are witnessing is a symptom of derailing social mental health programs for four decades.
... You see, our[sic] problems will eventually catch up with us!
If they were to come for you the would send a drone in the middle of the night and bomb down your house just like they do it in countries that have oil.
Seriously, government forces would be equality impressed if you throw old tomatoes at them
I'd like to see that list? Linky?
@michibretz Put down the rifle and use what they use. However, the majority of service personnel would not go against their countrymen. So, it would be like a few thousand bootlickers against, what, 170ml to 250ml people in opposition.
We could literally take our government back from an illegal insurrection with 2x4's that have 4 penny nails in them.
----The lack of education from the opinionated young here is getting out of hand. So, there may be intelligence on the net, but there is no wisdom to keep it from hurting itself.----
Yes, but the gun nuts NEED to believe in these absurd Red Dawn fantasies for some reason.
I don’t care if you give every single person in the US a rocket launcher. It’s not gonna be worth spit.
But they’ll never stop trotting out the same tired notion that they’d be able to regroup in the woods somewhere and stage a resistance against this fanciful tyranny. Never mind the fact that they’re the ones who put a legit tyrant in the white house.
Respectfully, you and so many others commenting here are not informed in regards to the number of shootings that occur in defense of a crime.
The number of lives saved because a legal gun owner legally used his weapon to scare away, injure or kill a violent criminal FAR OUTNUMBERS violent crimes committed with guns. By a factor of roughly 16:1.
Doing away with guns is simply throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
But because the whole gun control argument is not really about saving lives, but rather stripping freedoms and exercising control, the following Facts won’t matter, and the proponents of gun control will continue with emotional rhetoric in the face of facts to the contrary:
The following statistics are taken directly from the FBI:
* Roughly 16,459 murders were committed in the United States during 2016. Of these, about 11,961 or 73% were committed with firearms.[17] [18]
* A 1993 nationwide survey of 4,977 households found that over the previous five years, at least 0.5% of households had members who had used a gun for defense during a situation in which they thought someone “almost certainly would have been killed” if they “had not used a gun for protection.” This amounted to 162,000 such incidents per year. This excludes all “military service, police work, or work as a security guard.”[19]
* Based on survey data from the U.S. Department of Justice, roughly 5.9 million violent crimes were committed in the United States during 2014.[20] [21] These include simple/aggravated assaults, robberies, sexual assaults, rapes, and murders.[22] Of these, about 600,000 or 10% were committed by offenders visibly armed with a gun.[23]
* Based on survey data from a 2000 study published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology,[24] U.S. civilians use guns to defend themselves and others from crime at least 989,883 times per year.[25]
* A 1993 nationwide survey of 4,977 households found that over the previous five years, at least 3.5% of households had members who had used a gun “for self-protection or for the protection of property at home, work, or elsewhere.” This amounted to 1,029,615 such incidents per year. This excludes all “military service, police work, or work as a security guard.”[26]
* A 1994 survey conducted by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that Americans use guns to frighten away intruders who are breaking into their homes about 498,000 times per year.[27
Background checks are performed by licensed firearm dealers, but private sellers can sell without background checks, including at "gun shows". If the check takes longer than 3 days, the purchaser is allowed to buy the gun, even if the check has not returned a verdict.
There is no federal waiting period, although some states have waiting periods.
There are also no federal magazine capacity limits. A few states regulate, but most do not.
You can also buy ammo unrestricted in the US, compared to Canada, where you have to obtain a license to both own a gun and purchase ammo.
Allowing the use of assault weapons can only enhance the damage of this "Mental health crisis".
Go check out #oneless folks. This is how change happens
"Those who cannot remember their past are condemned to repeat it." - George Santayana
It's bizarre what these yahoos think they're going to achieve against the most militarized police and advanced military in the world if the shit really hit the fan.
Cmon man... you’re referencing things that happened 80 years or more before drones, attack helicopters, night vision, etc etc.
Please provide a more recent example that actually applies to reality. Because a bunch of guys with AR-15’s isn’t gonna accomplish anything in the face of a modern military.
Do yourself a favor and go read about the Russian mercenaries that just got literally pulverized in Syria a few weeks ago. Oh wait! They all had assault weapons, so they must’ve really put up a good fight! No, no the did not. About 200 of them were literally turned into hamburger meat by US forces.
So hit me with something else that actually is based in reality.
As others have posted: France, truck. 9-11, box cutters and airplanes. Bombings. Or in China and Japan, mass murders with knives are not at all uncommon.
For example Kunming, China in 2014... over 130 stabbed, 28 dead in a ....knife ....attack
That we actually belonged in?
There was an armed resource officer (ex-cop) at the school in Parkland. Which accomplished exactly NOTHING.
So your point was what?
The company owns a company that sells assault weapons to children.
Nothing bandwagon about it. People are tired of all this and if boycotts on social irresponsible companies helps, then so be it.
The boycotted companies will be forced to adjust on their own. They're held responsible for their own performance. All vista is going to do is lay people off, cut r&d budgets, etc. They wont be able to sell the companies because their sales will be down. And there is no guarantee another company you dont like wont buy them.
This boycott is neive as hell. Its media controlling the puppets.
You want vista to take a stand againt fire arms when the majority of their money comes from that industry?
Bell. Giro. Blackburn. Camelbak. All if them have a history if supporting great causes... not the nra.
Doesn't make any more sense than boycotting them because you dont like football.
Ok, so ignoring that you didn’t answer the question that disqualifies your argument let’s just list some even if we weren’t entirely justified in our participation.
Iraq... twice
Lybia
World War II
Korea was a win if you consider the fact that the North didn’t succeed in taking over the south.
Afghanistan is completely different by the way. We’re not there to utterly crush an entire people. Which is what the conspiracy oriented gun nuts think is gonna happen.
Well, that just makes you another one of the sheeple man! Can’t trust the government man!
(note sarcastic tone)
History has prove many times over that it can happen.
Great history lesson! Thanks!
Oh, and the colonials, who you so modestly compare yourself to in terms of courage, were aided extensively by the french.
Also, colonial troops outnumber British soldiers by about 30,000.
And the weaponry was mostly similar.
Anything else I can shoot down for you?
(See what I did there?!)
Violent culture, combined with lack of social services and easy access to attack weapons means attacks will continue. The NRA is the only one winning, gun sales and membership go up with each attack. Their strategy has increased attacks thus increasing gun sales, they won't change unless forced.
The statistics and information you are referencing is not an accurate representation. "A 1993 nationwide study of 4,977 homes". In 1993 there were approx. 96 million homes in the US, in 2017 there were approx. 126 million. This proves that the numbers don't add up, you cannot extrapolate numbers like this from such a small sample size and call it representative of the whole population. The math speaks for itself, 4,977 homes out of 96,000,000 = .0052% of the population... Catch what I am saying?
So much f*ckin eh.
Extreme example but if you throw enough munitions at a country you either wipe it out or demoralize the people enough that they don't think it's worth fighting for anymore.
You actually think the United States government will nukes its own citizens and country to stop a armed uprising?
Could I see a bunch of yahoos in an ad hoc bunker getting flattened by a drone strike?
Yep.
How do you print gun powder?
Going to print your own ammunition as well?
What if he had been able to pick up an AR-15 at Canadian Tire and just unload on that crowd?
Just so happens, you can buy an AR-15 style rifle from Canadian Tire. Only thing is, in Canada you need to undergo security clearance by a CFO (Chief Firearms Officer), including reference checks, only after taking and passing a firearms safety course, to get a license to do so.
What if?
You said, “Why can’t it be both?”
That reads pretty clear to me.
And yes there are plenty of politicians and laymen who would love to do away with guns - it is not paranoid to recognize that, rather it is naive to think otherwise.
Again, if the issue for a large portion of the gun control crowd was truly saving lives, how does one explain the loss of life that would occur without guns (used by civilians, not police) in stopping crime? Thats 163,000 violent crimes that would not have been stopped vs 11,000 gun murders. Those numbers aren’t even close.
To put it more simply, has the “war on drugs” prevented their illegal use? Why would a “gun ban” do anything different? It would just “ban” them from the law abiding, and the law breakers would continue to use them, only with less potential of being stopped.
jk aussies! looooove yooouuuu!
Lots of evil in the world. I don't know about you, but I want my guns just in case some evil shows up in my neighborhood, even if it is a simple and unfortunately common home invasion.
And, I want my friends, my former military, ex-policeman, well trained concealed carry buddies to have their guns too. I want them to be my neighbors and ride with me, and work with me and be at the mall and movies and church sitting near me.
It seems pretty simple - good guys with guns can prevent/deter/stop the few whacko's and evil people out there when they decide to do horrible things.
I feel very safe out in the woods mountain biking, and in the mountain biking community. You all are great folks - but there is evil in the world, and that is why I will keep my gun.
Lots of evil in the world. I don't know about you, but I want my guns just in case some evil shows up in my neighborhood, even if it is a simple and unfortunately common home invasion.
And, I want my friends, my former military, ex-policeman, well trained concealed carry buddies to have their guns too. I want them to be my neighbors and ride with me, and work with me and be at the mall and movies and church sitting near me.
It seems pretty simple - good guys with guns can prevent/deter/stop the few whacko's and evil people out there when they decide to do horrible things.
I feel very safe out in the woods mountain biking, and in the mountain biking community. You all are great folks - but there is evil in the world, and that is why I will keep my gun.
Also, it actually is pretty paranoid to think that people want to take all your guns away. I'm a left-wing vegetarian and I still think that people should be able to kill deer with rifles if they have a hunting license.
Jack shit.
Here's a better idea, nobody has semi-auto weapons.
The rate of murders per capita in the US is 5 in 100,000.
In Canada it is 2 in 100,000.
In the UK it is 1 in 100,000.
If you think the UK has excellent mental health care then you are sadly mistaken. However, after a mass school shooting we decided that although owning and shooting hand guns was fun, we would prefer our children to be safe.
It is infantile to suggest that guns=liberty.
Rather sad really.
He wasn't able to buy an IED or bomb at a store either (I wonder why you can't buy bombs or IEDs or hand grenades or rocket launchers in stores?).
Sure, it is possible that highly motivated, highly skilled, crazy people will use the internets to research how to make a bomb and go and do so. Crazy people also can buy guys in Canada, that shooting in Montreal not that long ago the guy had legally purchased guns. The point is the laws are there to REDUCE the likelihood of shitbag scummy losers from obtaining highly effective human murdering devices.
I totally agree with your view on lack of funding for mental health being wrong, we have the same issues here, but without consequences so severe.
However, it's hard to hear about constitutional rights and so on without despairing.
Not sure if you have it in the US, but in the uk, there has been application of a sugar tax as obesity is becoming a severe problem. Everyone is being penalised and paying more because some people can't manage their diets.
If "punishing the masses" to control the few to avoid tooth decay, diabetes and obesity is legitimate then using the same principle surely guns should be banned or better controlled to stop them falling in the wrong hands? That guy killed 17 and injured how many more mentally or physically for life probably, a bottle of coke and a mars bar can't do that.
The masses would be effected but is the pain families keep suffering worth other peoples rights? If those who become victims believe it's legit to own weapons that can slaughter multiple people a minute then that's one thing, but I would guess they don't and they suffer the ultimate cost.
Not looking for a Uk vs Us keyboard war, just putting a point of view across.
Sadly its getting to a point where I don't think many people find it as shocking as we should as it's happening so often we're desensitizing to it, and that is equally dangerous as it is sad.
I'm not trolling, looking to offend or disrespect anybody or there views, but, as a brit it's like watching a person keep headbutting a wall, then asking them why they are doing it to be told, by someone with a smashed up nose blown pupils and black eyes, it's their right, even though its severely harming them?
Sorry to say that, but all this situation comes from tense society, kids not tought to cope with stress cause eitriger they were beaten or they were just allowed to do whatever (no stress policy). Add to this competitive (you must be the best) and showing off kids, looking to show off easiest way - saying crap to weaker or troubled kids. They crack. So Ok, I am overreacting - sure, limiting guns could help, but it would not heal the system and will not cause magic - there is work to do!
Based on this, I'm not sure Americans have got their heads around the skills required to "defend themselves". Attacking others doesn't seem to be a problem though, so 1 out of 2 ain't bad!
@midasdj: Non-partisan sense. It'll never catch on...
"guns don't kill people!"
Yeah, but c*nts with guns do...
Fewer people with guns and more control when it comes to the sale of guns/ammunition means fewer people are going to die.
And the Nazis didn't have guns you say? How did they get the people on the trains, by asking nicely?
Also, with gun ownership being heavily restricted in the UK, Germany, France, Australia etc vechicles such as cars and trucks are frequently being used as weapons for mass killings. And a higher incidence of stabbings.
Meanwhile there have been 1.5 million gun-related deaths since 1968. What haven't we tried to sort this out?
@michibretz , @MasterSlater, and others who see folly in the idea of self defense.
Some truth about Gun Control.
How it allows tyranny and genocide.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=NN0vkSO9n8Y
So what some are saying is that they would rather have the state, which has slaughtered well north 150 Million people in the last 120 years, control access to guns? That's like letting pedophiles be school counselors.
It's racist origins here in the states.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=m-l7TO01-Sg
On how gun control leads to more crime or conversely, how more guns equal less crime.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpyLpIjEESM
www.youtube.com/watch?v=AMZtPj9xdN8
All of the above is based on historical fact.
Are we supposed to just lay down and accept being victims? The history and research above shows that criminals and governments alike prefer the unarmed.
No matter who that could be.
defend your rights to guns is cool but do not place a blanket blame on a disenfranchised community of people for which it does not pertain or belong to!!!
www.bungie.net/en/Forums/Post/243158538?sort=0&page=0
Additionally, your use of the term "anti social" does seem to indicate Antisocial Personality Disorder. This is important because while some say it's the same as psychopathy or sociopathy, other's just say that there is "considerable overlap". Regardless of which a person merely chooses or arrives at, "anti social" is (to some CONSIDERABLE degree) psychopathic or sociopathic.
So you seem to be suggesting that psychopathy and sociopathy are not mental illnesses.
Are you choosing just to argue because you have an agenda?
Or are you actually interested in a conversation that doesn't include a slight of some sort but instead gaining understanding?
Long story short, if I get you right, then DT is a sociopath. So if this is true of the PUSA, surely nobody in the whole country can be trusted with a fire arm. Just to prove I have no agenda, I suspect that Hilary may be a psychopath.
@MasterSlater:
Ok, here's your reality.
The inbred poppy farmers in Afghanistan have been ripping us a new one for more than a decade, killing my friends left and right.
The Vietnamese did a good job of kicking our rears for nearly a decade, with jack crap weaponry.
The Afghans drove out the Russians decades ago, with WWII weapons and camels.
You have no concept of what guerrilla warfare can do to a standing army.
Not even to mention, you wanna use that drone against civilians?
First, it's not legal to use the military against a civilian population. Ever.
Second, you're going to have to convince 14-20 people to go with your plan. That's how many bodies, between the ground crew, ops team, and analysis/targeting team that you'll need to run ONE DRONE.
Tanks then. They take a crew, and mechanics, and fuelers (they're thirsty), and a supply line to keep them running.
Same for bombers.,and fighters, and gunships.
Same for EVERYTHING in the military...
So you'll have to convince ALL those people to attack their own families and NOT turn those weapons on the leaders that gave them those unconstitutional orders.
As someone who did a couple jobs in the military, I can tell you that this will be a massive failure.
Also? There are no ROEs here. We can do whatever we need to or want to here. This is our soil, and anyone that stacks up against us to remove our rights will be an enemy combatant, day one.
Some pepole loves shooting guns its a sport/hobby to a lot of people. Not sure if you have ever gone out and shot guns but i can say its a kick in the ass.
1) Gun ownership has nothing to do with Trump. It's something that's built into our Constitution and Bill of Rights. Therefore he (or anyone else) can't just dismiss them. Pegging this on Trump therefore is a straw man or distraction.
2) Influence on gun control is ultimately the domain of the citizens of the US. Not politicians alone.
3) So DT said he would rush in and tackle him and you are offended by this? You are offended that someone would be interested in saving children while running the risk of losing their own life? This sounds like a collectivist. Like something the Khmer Rouge or Stalin would say because they both killed millions of unarmed people.
4) If you are basing DT being a Narcissist on his behavior alone, you surely woudn't have liked the alternative. This is the woman that attacked and shamed women that were raped by her husband, called blacks super predators, stole the primary from Bernie Sanders, refered to people in general as useless feeders, and took campaign money from international contributors like Saudi Arabia who has one of the worst human rights records on the planet.
5) Prove DT is a narcissist "if you can". I don't really care about Trump one way or the other, but I'm not going to say something like that unless I could place him before a panel of peeps like Bird-man and have them perform a diagnosis.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=NN0vkSO9n8Y
This, btw, is exactly what the founding fathers of the US were talking about.
There are street in every parts of this world you can walk down where drugs abuse is rampant. How about the D.U.I.
death rate. Or are you just focused on guns?
I bet that kid that shot up the school thought walking around with a gun was cool too.
So true:
... The media is just really good at getting non-critical thinking people to think what they want them to think.
Unfortunately (for most) the states have become a draconian capitalist society where voting for politicians and proposals means very little.
We vote with our dollars.
Now, I love Giro helmets, but they made a decision to sell out to Vista and the only say I have in that is not buying their stuff. Sucks for me, but it's just that - STUFF. Just like AR-15s are stuff. Stuff made to kill people. There are thousands of other guns on the market, but the idea of making a concession to lose just one drives a lot of people mad.
This isn't about the constitution.
It's about a bunch of spoiled babies screaming "I want my toy", and twisting the message into what they think is a more adult context using politics and divisive media.
Social change means sacrifice for everyone. And if the biggest sacrifice I have to make is not buying my favorite helmet, well, I'm one fortunate SOB.
Finally, taking all guns away is a band aid, at least in the US. We are a violent culture regardless. And putting more mentally ill people in padded cells is just that one step closer to subtle fascism. Don't need that either.
We need to cut these issues at the source, which is essentially extreme wealth inequality and to do that we need to inplement CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM.
Now, if any Aussies, Brits, Canadians or Kiwis would like to adopt me, please PM. I also speak cantonese, so Hong Kong is on the table as well.
Over a bike.
Genius.
So what really stopped the terrorist in Edmonton? The fact that he would have had to go through proper training and background checks (which he probably wouldn't pass) to get a gun license. I'm all for strict regulations to be able to have access to firearms here and in the states, but i have little say as to their domestic affairs.
A democratic society exists to serve the people equally, but that does not mean all citizens will benefit equally from it. Some will go far, others will improve, some will go backwards and the rest will stagnate. If society tried to ensure equal outcomes for everyone the cost (economic, social, personal) would be counter-productive for civilisation and repressive to the individual- thus defeating the purpose of a free society. We see this play in current liberal ideology where the needs of the few are valued above the needs of the many. I don't believe pure capitalism is the right path either. I think we need a healthy mix of both to ensure a harmonious and effective society
And having this experience in their past should show them that armed citizens are analogs to freedom, or at least the struggle for freedom.
This occurrence is far more recent than our own revolution. It's essentially in our modern time. How can we then say the right to bear arms for the purpose of self protection from criminality and out of control governments is an antiquated thing?
The genocides by the Khmer Rouge and the Indonesians against East Timoor started in '75 and '74! These are modern day genocides! The fact that these occurred within the life time of many of us seems to indicate that there IS STILL a need for the citizen to protect him/her self.
Don't get me started on the war on drugs. But this piece is specifically about fire arms. If PB publishes something about substance abuse, I'll be all over it. Deaths due to guns and drugs are both down to government dereliction of duty. In all countries.
That's why the US needs guns!
The fool that says their government would never commit a genocide against it's own people is an ignorant fool.
2) Is it? Or is it the lobbies? Or is the government so scared of it's people that it won't take the measures required to stop them killing themselves through obesity, guns, drugs, etc... Or is that a god given right?
3) Wow. If you think his statement has an ounce of anything other than bullshit, I think your judgment may be a little off. I'm actually quite shocked.
4) As I said, Hilary may well be a psychopath. I've exposed myself to enough alternative media to hear a lot of people say some pretty mind bending things about her with great confidence and some of that has stuck. She has the gloss that DT lacks which makes her a more slippery target of criticism.
5) In point 3 you make me doubt how receptive you would be to what I would consider to be proof. I would just say that the extremely wealthy seem able to get away with behaviour that would ruin them were they not surrounded by lawyers and equipped with the immunity that comes with power. This is a self-confessed sex attacker we're talking about here.
The whole idea of the 2nd amendment is to prevent tyranny, from governments or otherwise. Take communism in the 20th century for example. It is estimated that communist governments in just 3 countries were responsible for the slaughter of more than 70 million people. And some estimate that figure is as high as 100 million in Russia alone. These things happened. They're not figurative. We continue to kill one another using all manner of methods and technology so there is no reason to think humanity has reached a new plain of evolution and understanding where it won't happen again. To claim otherwise is to admit living in a fairytale.
You are arguing in the face of facts. Why?
actually the answer is "it depends". In my firefighter / medic days I was threatened by an angry woman with a pistol. So I am aware of what that feel like. We were always much more concerned about chemical incidents. People commit suicide in the damnedest ways, so I trained all our people to never open a car door with a slumped over patient until after you have full PPE in place.
I have a friend who used to teach hand to hand combat to law enforcement in the US. His claim was that a knife is a better weapon for close quarters fighting. So is this angry man 3 feet away? I would rather fight one with a firearm. If you grab a knife, you get cut. Grab a pistol o rifle and you may just take it away.
I am also aware that angry people can create other weapons. Aum Shinrikyo killed 13 and injured thousands more in Japan with nary a firearm in sight. They could have killed thousands.
Tim McVeigh killed 168 people. Look at the recent "man with a van" attacks in Europe. How about the bombing of Asociación Mutual Israelita Argentina which killed 85 people. If I include the WTC attack, mass murders done with alternate means greatly outnumber those done with firearms.
The real issue we need to deal with is finding the cause of this kind of attack. Restricting access to one weapon will just change the weapon of choice.
I said, in response to his assertion that mental health issues are the problem and not guns:
"Why is it one or the other? Can't two factors be to blame? And can't we work to fix both? Will someone with mental health issues ultimately carry out their plan? Maybe, but wouldn't a few road blocks to buying an assault weapon help? Maybe in the weeks or days longer that it would take, someone notices something and get them help."
I'll ask again where did I ever say that guns should be banned??? Asking for a few roadblocks to buying high powered weapons like more stringent background checks or a longer waiting period somehow equals banning guns to you?
And again you need to stop with the useless statistics. I have no idea if they are correct but they are irrelevant to this conversation because NO ONE is saying civilians should not be allowed to have guns.
You're welcome :-)
Here is what will likely happen THIS YEAR: When Trump gets impeached, his ignorant & delusional supporters will start an uprising, likely somewhere southern and isolated like Alabama. They will start planning a attack against Washington DC government facilities. Before the attack takes place US intelligence finds out and confronts the stubborn rebels who refuse to surrender because they thought Trump was God. Drones are sent in to clear up the situation.
This is the what the government will have to resort to, the 2nd Amendment has created a national disaster waiting to happen.
Still believe nothing will change. Sandy Hook proved that. You have little ones getting massacred and the US Government did nothing. The US government has one key job, protect the people... they fail. The UK did just that when 6 year olds were murdered back in 96 creating a number of reforms to limit the opportunity for someone to be so heinous. That is an example of protecting the people.
I hope I'll be proven wrong about my perceptions of the US government and they seek to value lives over money.
1) A Republic and a Democracy are two seperate things. Rome was a Democracy and failed miserably simply because it allowed greater numbers of people to vote on laws that harmed individuals. A Republic is supposed to protect the rights of individuals but still use democratic processes (voting). We (the US) is supposed to be a Republic.
Democracies suck! The founding fathers knew this as well.
2) It hasn't happened! But the infringement of 1st and 2nd amendments make this possible!
If history is a guide, citizens should never become unarmed.
This isn't about Trump or Clinton. Sorry!
BTW...
Benjamin Franklin defined democracy as “two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.”
Mutually assured destruction. Rolls off the tongue beautifully. But what if the guy knocking at the door has got a hand grenade? Hope you've got shutters on your windows, who knows when they'll come?! When things do go all Mad Max, I might steer clear of the US.
Feel free to prove me wrong as opposed to going on a Bill Maher'esque rant.
BTW, this is exactly what the Israeli govt tried for years as a method to stop terrorist attacks. They dropped that and then encouraged all citizens to arm themselves AND CARRY!
I am paid to type stuff, but not this. Huge mission creep today. It's my time I'm wasting but it's kind of stimulating.
I disagree on the padded cell thing. That's an extreme case, it might be as subtle as having a home for someone where they can become self sufficient while chemical imbalances in their brain are remediated by proper doses of drugs, instead of self medication with street drugs.
If you're mentally ill, you don't always have the faculties to know what is best for you. It is a fine line between personal autonomy and the common good.
I had a friend who was murdered by his wife with a hammer while he slept and I was beaten into a bloody pulp entirely unprovoked as I walked home one night. I was also left for dead in a hit and run as a kid...
Bad things happen; Bad things happen whether there are guns involved or not. Do you think I cry on about the availability of hammers, or cars, or that the government hasn't locked up everyvaggressive person just in case?
Let's look at some others.
*) You are far more likely to be shot in a gun free zone!
*) You are far more likely to be killed (however intentionally) by a health care professional
*) You are far more likely to be killed by some brain dead person texting while driving.
There are over 60K peep's in LA county alone that are homelss and we want to spend more money that could help on something rates rather low as far as dangers are concerned.
Or is your agenda global?
Why are you playing this game? You're not going to win. Not because I've somehow got a better story in the victimhood lottery, but because my premise holds while yours doesn't: Guns are not the issue, people are. Limit availability of firearms to those who have nefarious intentions effectively and leave decent, law-abiding citizens the hell alone.
Adding more guns does not progress society. Having lobbies continue to shape our government is just a legal form of corruption that does not help the nation move forward.
Progress comes with adapting to the changes in society to keep us all moving forward. We all change for hopefully the better as we grow old. I'm will to challenge the second amendment and prevent those that are deemed not mentally fit from having a gun.
Yes, I understand this is a dangerous thing to challenge the bill of rights. It conflicts with mine and I'm sure many of our basic ideology. It scares the crap out of me challenging the bill of rights, that's why I whole heartedly respect everyone's opinion on this board (well mostly, the one's that bring thought) because this is such a dangerous thing that affect society's rights. I'm still questioning my views of myself and I hope me and all of us never stop challenging our own ideas and beliefs.
@BDKR: yep, a global agenda of love and peace. I'm dual nationality so I essentially have no we, I'm a citizen of nowhere as Teresa May would put it. Haven't noticed a cultural war here yet. Did Fox News tell you that? My kids' godmother wears a headscarf, so I don't have to take what the media says about this impending islamic armageddon at face value. You have government officials who believe Europe is burning because of... Muslims? The Hungarians and Poles will sort their shit out soon enough. The Brits will wake up.
Right I'm going to ween myself off this thread now. Vaya con dios.
And you say this based on what study? A mere declaration doesn't make it so.
Or is it in fact based on stereotype? That all gun owners are white racists republicans? Hence the reason you tied this in with Trump, when indeed the Bill of Rights has nothing to do with him?
Terrible comment.
As proven, gun control doesn't stop tragedy. In places where the tragedies as such occur there tends to be more gun control. Proven fact.
Perhaps, a progressive change is to return to less 2 Amendment infringement and empower people to protect themselves.
"2A - the great equalizer"
John Lott looks at Australia to some degree in this article. It's a bit of a read, but if you're interested in fact over agenda then it's worth your while.
johnrlott.blogspot.com/2012/08/some-notes-on-claims-about-australias.html
My response corresponds to my reply to BDKR. I'm challenging what was written like the old testament.
Some of the thoughts that run through my mind, example: car accidents. Cars are a fabric of society, we try to create laws that limit deaths... such as speed limits and car safety (engineering oversight). Deaths are still occur but less people are getting ejected or burned or all that crazy stuff that may happen in a car accident. So regulation has helped. I look at that as a government coming in and protecting the people. Helping society grow.
Many of us been in car accidents and survived due to car safety improvements. That's why I ask myself can this be done with guns?
Simply can't agree with your last comment, kind like what has been proposed by arming teachers. The rationality simply doesn't connect.
Okay, I have to get back to work. Will read the article you posted a bit later.
Cheers!
So according to your logic: we should lax the airport screening for terrorists and allow for anyway to purchase and buy bomb materials? Weird right....we did so many things to prevent those type of terror attacks but guns are exempt from the logic and or solution. Odd logic but classic NRA response
You brought in race!
That said, Communism and Socialism cast themselves as protectors of the unfortunate and promoted near utopian ideals. Of course, all of those a55hat5 that got in power then turned around and murder large numbers of their populace.
Please study your history. Peace isn't simply an agreement among those that want to feel love and peace. It's a preservation of ideals that protect peace.
You can't make guns safer. You can make society safer by empowering individuals to protect themselves.
Legislation hasn't proven to stop this kind of stuff.
Societal cohesion on the other hand probably has something to do with it.
Now do the same for gun casualties in the US....Guarantee you that is a bigger number. But then again it might require some additional neurons inside your lid.
That said, the 2nd Ammendment isn't ethnocentric bullshit.
But if you insist on bringing race into it, gun control in the US was founded in racism!
Here are but some of the irrefutables that mine and many others positions (regardless of race) are based on.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=NN0vkSO9n8Y
www.youtube.com/watch?v=m-l7TO01-Sg
www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpyLpIjEESM
www.youtube.com/watch?v=AMZtPj9xdN8
Fact is fact brother.
So in other words, you choose to attack me as opposed to attacking the facts?
I wouldn't be on here if I was worried about what you thought/think of me.
That said, how about a reasoned argument against the things I'm saying? Or do you prefer to ignore history and research that shows gun control is wrong. I've posted links to various documentaries. Be a reasonable person and attack those as those have more to do with the conversation at hand than I.
If those traits are recognised in the general population, as fundamental characteristics of human nature then why call out members of the NRA and Trump as anything special?
I'd be interested to read your papers too, if you have them to hand and no objections.
Above you said, "So i would say that preventing a sinlgle 8 year old death far surpasses that ROI if that means banning the sales of assault rifles"
Apparently you don't believe the life of an 8 year old Timoorese is worth protecting? How many of those were killed by the invading Indonesians because they couldn't get rifles?
I guess it's cool with you that 30K plus blacks were hung during Jim Crow and you don't agree with Rosa Parks who sat on her porch with her father with a Shotgun to stop the KKK from pulling 5h1t on them.
I guess you agree with Stalin that those 2 million plus Ukranians he starved to death didn't need their rifles to use a protection against state theft!
You're doing a good job of proving you're dumb phuck!
You're still failing. ;-)
if you are cool with kids being killed go on supporting vista or other gun manufacturing companies. Its your choice
"our mass shooting have been in decline as gun sales have dramatically increased...NOT."
That's a dumb comment. I'll rephrase it for you.
"our mass shootings have been on the increase with gun control"
www.youtube.com/watch?v=VAXZFTzquaw
The above is by a guy named John Lott. Well known researcher that's been associated with numerous universities and spent better than a decade researching this. Should I believe him or some dude tossing about pejorative terms on the internet?
Making it easier for people with mental illness to purchase a gun. Also, why is that you have to be 21 to buy a handgun in the US, but rifles, shotguns and assault style rifles can be purchased when you turn 18? (Yes.. i know it's the concealment factor, but AR-15 is far more efficient at killing people than a handgun.
P"
But to your point: He armed up his buddies first, formed his own militia and armed them (SS) to protect his party. He used his buddies to start suppressing any opposition or resistance and killing or jailing up anyone that spoke up against him and his policies. He went on killing millions.
Little Fritz with a gun would not have not changed anything. In fact my grandfather told me everyone had guns anyway because they had them from WW1.
To me the shocking point is the policy similarities to what is going on on teh right side of this country.
Germany wanted to be great again. Germany wanted to be first. The rhetoric in today's America is freaking similar and that's scary but a gun wont help with that because its the gun folks that buy into it...
www.wanstallsonline.com/savage-msr15-patrol-223rem.html
Doesn't surprise me people are susceptible to being radicalized and taking measures in their on hands.
Over a hundred years Military interventions Guns and violence created this problem in the first place. As you can said guns didn't solve it in the last 10 years and the won't solve it in the future either. Guns never solve any problems. They are made to kill people not help them... anywhere in teh world.
I am glad you pointed out that you don't care about what I think of you. I don't have any thoughts about you as I don't know you personally. You pointing that out tells me that you are a different person online than offline. All I have to go on is your posts which are essentially your opinions. As right as you feel they may be, opinions can never be allowed to outweigh fact.
The fact is, firearms are lethal. Any situation where a firearm is brandished as a weapon usually ends in tragedy in the form of homocide. The less guns that are available and the more control you have over those who have them will net less tragedy. It is good you referenced history, as history has dictated we as humans have undergone many changes in how we handle things. We have progressed from being ruled by tyrannical dictatorships and Monarchs to a free speech democratic system. Keep progression in mind when talking about firearms control, change is difficult and it is always hard to start with, but once it happens your society will be a better place.
It is difficult to present a valid argument to a person spewing antiquated rhetoric, uninformed opinions and referencing "YouTube documentaries" as credible sources of information. Therefor, see my previous statement, "I see your arguments as null and void as your credibility is definitely in question."
I have kids, my firearms are stored properly as per our firearms regulations. If a child can simply grab a fully operational firearm out of a closet then there is a huge lack of education and respect. If you as a father, mother, brother, son, sister, daughter, family member, citizen cannot take action to protect against the unauthorized use of a firearm then you need intervention in the form of tighter regulations by your government. Plain and simple.
Our firearms regulations are designed to protect against tragedy.
and by the way, i did not watch your youtube videos... i worked a summer in Mauthausen concentration camp.
People that have been their told us stories. My grandparents told us stories.
Nothing in those whiteness accounts of 2oth century history made me believe a gun or a war would ever be a solution to anything. rather the opposite...
You are dismissing better than a decade of research and over century of historical fact because it's on Youtube?
Nice try, but that's the most unreasonable thing I've yet seen today.
That said, you've not proven what I'm saying is opinion. You are just saying it's opinion. Big difference.
Is the fact that gun control in the US for years was borne or racism opinion or fact?
Lastly, stop trying to smooth things over with a veneer of 5h1t.
- Provide me with a peer reviewed scientific study backing up your firearms control facts, I am not talking about the facts in your auto induced YouRube rat hole.
Have fun finding one.
A learned person such as you should be able to stick to facts and not resort to questioning the quality of the individual you are debating.
Fact is fact!
That said, by saying the argument for rifles not making sense outside of a war zone has a temporal focus. In other words, it looks at our current condition in comparison to places such as Syria and ignores the fact that our current condition can change over time.
How many people prior to Hitler thought Germany would ever wind up where it was in 1946?
How many people in the roaring '20's thought they would find themselves in the Great Depression?
How many 7 year olds anticipated being slaughtered in East Timoor in 1973?
You know the answer to this, but instead you're arguing in the face of facts.
Not at 96. LOL
Seriously though, that's called a fantasy.
If you can prove that numerous genocides didn't happen and that John Lott's research is bunk, I'll give you that. I won't even call you names and get pissed.
But let's be real here shall we.
Did Communism kill millions?
Did National Socialism kill millions?
Did the KKK during Jim Crow kill thousands while legislating for gun control against blacks?
How many of those might be here today if they could shoot back?
And those three examples above just can't be refuted. Sorry.
And you can keep that Google comment. I've studied Empire, Geo-Politics, and International Finance for nearly a decade now. You can't wash the 5h1t stains out of history. ;-)
Just like Australia did - No more mass shootings since.
Just like the UK - No more mass shootings since.
Glad we've agreed on that.
You could make the USA a better and safer place for your grand children
seriously though... it's a peaceful fantasy over a violent one and i still prefer it...
That's what an amendment is. It is when something has been changed.
I want my daughter to be able to walk at 2am wherever she wants. That's possible if she carries.
f*ck your feelings. There will always be bad people and disarming law-abiding citizens is absolutely retarded.
Old punk rocker / skater from back in the day! That was difficult as a black kid in the 80's.
Worked for the California Dept of Corrections Through the mid '90's.
Traveled a lot during and after that. Spent time in Central American and lived in South America for four years. Eventually lived for too short of a time in Turkey before coming back and discovering DH!
I'm with you. As a writer, I envision peace and I just adore love, amazing places, and the people in those amazing places. But as someone that studies history, I know those are delicate and willingly broken by people that have no compunction. History is chock full of the slaughter of unarmed citizenry.
That said, clinging to the fantasy of peace without the acknowledgement of evil is a tragedy!
LOL!
So here's a guy that's 42 years old, but argues and sounds like a 12 year old telling me I make no sense.
I guess your dad can beat up my dad too right? LOL
Most pro gun owner I recon they would say they own a gun for safety of themselves and the family, but how many of them have been on a first aid course. A gun won’t save a chocking child or heal a broken bone.
Lastly, if people want to relie on a 220 year old law for their gun ownership then the weapons that they are intightaled to own should be of 220 year old design. Change the laws to suit the modern guns.
If the flow of money slows down the investors will want to know why that is.
They will want to change that.
If the reason is the parent company is selling guns and supporting the NRA they will force vista management to do something to do something.
If the guns make them more money than the outdoor stuff they can sell teh outdoor branches to someone who doesn't sell guns, like amer sports for example.
If the outdoor brands earn them more money they can sell the gun brand and acquire a different business or stop producing guns all together and stop supporting the NRA and we can all buy Bell and Giro again.
It doesn't take much to stir up teh investors... if their revenue goes down only a few percent the will act, one way or teh other. most likely long before they start laying off people at the outdoor brands if the reason is clearly not teh performance of these brands directly.
It's all about the money... if you give them less the will start acting...
I'm reluctant to bring this up but *apparently* (I haven't verified this for myself as much as I'd like) there is a surge of racially-motivated murders taking place in South Africa that is being ignored by those in power. That would constitute Government tyranny.
Certainly this does:
www.news.com.au/finance/economy/world-economy/the-time-for-reconciliation-is-over-south-africa-votes-to-confiscate-whiteowned-without-compensation/news-story
We are talking now... today... the future. We are talking about progressing firearms control, not regressing and worrying about how we got here. Like I said, antiquated rhetoric.
I don't believe Lott's research to be accurate, there are wild reaching statistics and brutal extrapolations from less than acceptable sample sizes for his data.
I'm going to check out BDKR's youtube vids. I genuinely hope to learn something.
This is all turning into a situation with no possible solution (gun control, not this comment thread).
I think humanity should be aiming higher (pun not intended). Nearer the brain rather than the penis.
If you're in Alaska I 100% understand though.
It's a shame the these good brands got bought by Vista, but the reality is that they are directly generating profits that are being used to fund the NRA and fight against Public Lands, two things I really don't agree with.
My dollar = my vote
The most important things to us are our kids yet our money in banks are more secure then the kids in a school and thats sad. A lot of people are more concerned about gun control then keeping kids safe, go back to one gun per U.S. citizen, you think changing the age to 21 to buy a rifle will all of a sudden keep the kids safe in a school when there are that many guns out there already. Raising the age limit will not lower the murder rate.
Hell you cant even get on a plane anymore with a pair of finger nail clippers but somehow a kid can walk on to a school campus with firearms.
I dont know how but its time to make kids as safe as most everything else in this country.
Calling anyone trying to stop the massacre a socialist.
And you eat it up with a spoon.
Reminds me of big tobacco 25 years ago.
Lobbing ie buying politicians should be illegal and I can't.for the life of me see why it isn't.
And then in the same breath they back more police so they look tough on crime.
Conservative values are just screwd all around.
No
The most important things to us are our kids yet our money in banks are more secure then the kids in a school and thats sad. A lot of people are more concerned about gun control then keeping kids safe, go back to one gun per U.S. citizen, you think changing the age to 21 to buy a rifle will all of a sudden keep the kids safe in a school when there are that many guns out there already. Raising the age limit will not lower the murder rate.
Hell you cant even get on a plane anymore with a pair of finger nail clippers but somehow a kid can walk on to a school campus with firearms.
I dont know how but its time to make kids as safe as most everything else in this country."
Thank you.
Your kid is safer at Disneyland then in thier classroom. To get into Disneyland they look though your bags and you go though a metal detector. But still a kid can just walk on to a campus with a firearm no problem at all.
Thats my issue.
What could be wrong doing it at schools. I love my son more than anything and would have no problem with bag searching and metal detectors if it will help keep him and all the other kids safer. Remember money is far more protected then our kids. Money is lock in a vault with alarms, cameras and armed guards.
You should move to Canada
What is the difference when they go to school?????
Apart from kids killing lots of kids
"There is a lot of places pepole go and get searched before they can enter, court houses, sporting events, transportation.
What could be wrong doing it at schools"
If they're clever enough to find other things to kill with do you not think they're clever enough to find different places to kill like the school gates.
There are many things that are wrong with doing it at schools, where's the trust? It's a moral thing.
Obviously if guns weren't as easily available it would help solve the gun issue.
So I say this: if we assume that guns and the 2A are immovable objects, you're going to need in the region of say $1 trillion to provide education, universal psychological screening, counselling, social care and services, employment support, etc. to ensure that you have a happy, fulfilled population who don't sometimes get the urge to commit gun crime. So... more taxes? This is a genuine point, we all want to eliminate deaths from what is ultimately not a tool anyone in an industrialized nation needs to live, but is a nice toy to have. Hey, you may even enjoy hunting, which is great. People are imperfect though, so you need to get on with the job have straightening everyone out. It'll take time, but I think it can be done. Agreed?
It's a place where children go to learn where they should feel safe, what's that teaching them? That no one can be trusted? It needs serious thinking about before considering implementing that one.
You guys are having a furious debate, and that's great, though you're both demonstrating one of the biggest problems in US politics and culture today. All-or-nothing-itis.
In the western societies we regulate damn near anything dangerous as you've talked about and we all still get along, mostly freely. Autos in the US for example... cars can't be driven until 16 in most states, can't be rented until 26 most everywhere. Why? Statistics show crashes and deaths decrease with driving experience. Semis and motorcycles can't be driven until you prove you can handle them safely with a special license endorsement.
There are a range of possible mitigations to the gun violence problem and only a fool would admit that we'll ever shut it down completely. So how about we try some mix of hardware and software changes?
* securing school buildings with something like electronic badges so only students can walk in at certain times. most all office buildings have this, why don't schools? maybe metal detectors in some places? I don't know.
* make most guns a little harder to get... make some really powerful types of guns really hard to get (legally), like the auto/semi/motorcycle example above. raise the ownership age to 21, this's the same age we require for buying a beer.
* some collective willingness to get behind and PAY FOR mental health services. none of the above matters if someone is disturbed but has no options for help before they reach the point of no return. for many, friends and family aren't available *or equipped* to give the support that's needed to get someone back on track. i'd point out that in the US firearm suicides are 2:1 to gun homicides. that's pretty telling in itself.
I think in combination these small systemic changes would be a whole lot more effective than one big change such as banning guns or arming teachers or posting arm guards in every school in the US (which is so unlikely anyway).
I wish we'd think more in terms of AND... because OR isn't working very well right now. Plus we can only make reasonable guesses about what will work, you can never know (in this case) until you try some combinations, let some time go by, then adjust once we see what's working and what's not.
Government solutions are feel-good talking points for lazy, unintelligent people.
in the current US system there's no *legal* way to prevent someone like the shooter in Parkland (or the 19yo today in Michigan!) from acquiring a weapon, or taking it away if they become unfit! in the USA you can't jail someone or curtail rights for a crime that haven't been found guilty of committing. you can't be for all for some basic liberties, such as gun ownership, then be selective with other fundamental liberties such as due process (this is the most fundamental of all).
Wild west every-man-for-himself solutions are for people who choose to live in the bush, well away from civilization. That's still possible in Alaska, Northern Canada, I guess.
fact: for the rest of us - nasty as it may be - *some* government and the rule of law above all else are necessary for modern life.
good and evil can exist at the same time, and in the same place.
Myself, getting rid of my guns will not help save a childs life in a class room. Guns are locked in a big gun safe. I dont know what is going to work but im free to make my suggestions that could help solve some of the problems.
And its not just a gun problem in the U.S. it a problem world wide.
We have been killing each other from the beginning of man kind abd will do so till the end, weather its with a stick a knife, gun or nuke.
In the end I just wish we all make it home safe at the end of the day, even hoob93????(even though i do agree with him)
As per an example above, look at motor vehicle licensing and operation. There are very clear laws and regulations governing motor vehicle usage. There has to be a blanket policy like this in order for the laws and regulations to be effective. Everyone has to be given the same rights to be tested, licensed and insured. Until the time when they no longer maintain those rights due to a lack of required cognitive or physical ability or through contravention of the laws and regulations.
The same modus operandi can be applied to firearms control with excellent results(Canadian Laws and regulations). There has to be a mindset, culture and political shift for this to happen in a progressive way. The conversation needs to be about solutions that work for both sides of the debate, not "this is the way it has been, and why it has been this way." The whole point of this article and the boycott of a corporation's subsidiary companies is to bring awareness to main stage.
That awareness being that a huge overshadowing entity like the NRA is being supported by people and corporations. If the voters voice is heard in a democratic referendum then the next step is to vote with your spend. Where you spend your hand earned dollars matters, it matters in all aspects of our Global economy. You buy crap prosessed foods, you support the further commoditization of our global food supply. You buy products from corporations that support the NRA, in a way you inturn end up supporting the status quo of firearms control. Right now the status quo is kids are dying in their schools because of a lack of laws and regulations surrounding the possession and acquisition of firearms. We need progression not regression.
Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_death_rates_in_the_United_States_by_state
You clearly do not know the numbers.
18 shootings in 2018 so far.
354 in 2017.
since 2013, the number of guns produced in this country has more than doubled.
Not surprisingly, there has been over 1600 mas shootings since 2013.
if you go back to 2004 when the assault weapons ban ended, you can just watch the number of shootings grow exponentially.
People didn't just become exponentially crazier over the past 14 years.
The country has become exponentially flooded by guns, as the result of massively increased gun manufacturing/sales in response to every shooting since.
GUNS are the problem.
The majority of mass homicides in the past 50 years occurred within the past decade.
I am not even expecting them to stop selling guns completely.
For my part I would be happy if vista would offer a statement that the do not support and contribute (money) to the NRA anymore and instead will support legislation requiring in depth background checks for gun sales.
I think even the biggest pro gun person should survive to wait a couple of days or weeks waiting for his new toy...
I have served in the military and had to point a loaded gun at humans. The whole experience made me very anti gun. I don not want them around me or my family and the presence of guns definitely does not make me feel safe.
i know i'm not going to change anyone's opinion here and nothing you can write will change mine.
For me buying a different helmet seems to be the only thing i can do (I did today)
I hope it changes something and i hope no one lose his job or life.
slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/02/trump-endorses-pre-due-process-gun-confiscation.html
Since this announcement, ill be buying more of these "evil" products.
America USE to have that culture, that culture is on its way out. Back in the day guns were like putting on socks. people still killed each other with them, but for some reason now its a bigger deal? Liberals and the media have created this new gun intolerance, but more importantly they have created an entitled, mentally ill generation that can't handle the word "no". They want the government to take care of them, to them every thing is the governments fault, personal responsibility is out the window The media has created this irrational fear of guns, obviously the threat is real, but not even close to the things that kill us everyday that could easily be prevented, for some reason the guns are the bigger problem. Alcohol kills 25K innocent people in drunk driving accidents every year if that isn't selfish and hypocritical then i don't know what is. Bottom line is we have a new generation of pussies on the rise who are willing to rewrite old laws and create new laws based on their feelings and not facts, its absolute total ignorance, literally everything they have, they have is taken for grated and haven't the slightest clue how America became America, a history book is like a movie to them. The US is doomed, prepare for globalization.
Its the people within the country, that are causing the problem, we are losing control, everyone hate each other, political hate is at an all time high, this country is growing more and more divided. No matter what we have for weapons we will kill each other, and one type of killing isnt worse than the other, every death is one to many. Banning one thing will not create this fantasy you dream of, people will still kill.
Right, and you want me to listen to a CNN article thats biased against guns? lol Hey, why do you think they have mental institutes, To keep all the people that are mentally ill safe from normal people on the outside? The problem is they shut the majority of them down over the past few decades, now you have them roaming the streets. I see mentally ill people all over the streets of boston, while they may not be shooting up schools (which is extremely rare, but the media makes it sound like an epidemic) they are violent, i've lived it first hand, the streets are riddled with these people.
It doesn't matter, responsible gun owners don't do that shit. just like Responsible drinkers don't kill people drunk driving. Guns have alot more need than alcohol ever will. So you want to pick and choose which deaths are ok and not ok with rifles vs pistols?, If you want to save lots of lives, look else where, don't take away my ability to defend myself when criminals have Ar15s too. Please leave your fantasy land and come on down to reality, criminals aren't restricted by gun control, good citizens are.
I know this will hurt people that are involved with Giro etc., but there are other companies making similar products out there – the industry is not limited to companies owned by Vista.
There's been 35 cases of a terrorist using a vehicle as a weapon since 1981 – and none in 2018 – and 30 domestic since 1973.
It's not exactly an equal argument.
www.gunviolencearchive.org
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle-ramming_attack
The other spectre you raise of the media – how come it wasn't immediately released that the Florida shooter had far-right symbolism on his clips? If he was wearing a turban or had darker skin do you think Fox News would have let that pass? There's a lot more going on that just treatment of mental health (although I agree – treatment could do with more funding on both sides of the Atlantic).
To add some figures to the discussion, there's been over 9,000 firearm incidents and 36 mass shootings in the US this year. Over 2,000 Americans have been killed in shootings and over 4,000 have been injured since January.
With regard to other 'mass homicides' there's been 35 cases of a terrorist using a vehicle as a weapon since 1981 – and none in 2018 – and 30 domestic since 1973.
Otherwise – outside a warzone – you're looking at bombs as effective weapons for killing and maiming large volumes of people, and they're pretty hard to get hold of (but actually easy to make). However, it's not a tool of choice – probably due to the effort involved – especially if you can get buy a semi-automatic rifle and a bump-stock online.
If you have other mass homicides in mind I'd be happy to stand corrected. Bear in mind that most mass homicides happen in conflict zones though – not suburbs of one of the richest countries in the world.
In my mind mental health does play a part but so does culture, and it's here that hateful speech by people like Trump and Lapierre are poisoning people. A bad man with a gun may – or may not – be stopped by a good guy with a gun, but that's also two gun sales and two NRA memberships.
www.gunviolencearchive.org
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle-ramming_attack
so what's next should we all stop using silverware because people are getting fat. As people we always want to make excuses but people are the problems not objects.
www.guns.com/2014/10/10/quarter-of-serial-killer-subgroup-used-guns-in-murders-fbi-study-finds
A bomb is a much more effective killing weapon with a firearm you have to look at the person you want to kill and pull the trigger. Bomb you leave and wait for it to do the dirty work.
I would much rather face a gun then a bomb.
m.youtube.com/watch?v=KqqJKChKRzI
The mentally ill person (since we're assuming all people committing these atrocities are in fact mentally ill) might presumably still manage to kill a few people by using a knife or some other weapon, but the reality is that without the guns many fewer children would be murdered at school.
So then it is simple logic - the pro gun people believe their "Right" to own these weapons is more important than the lives of children.
Since Sandy Hook Elementary in 2012 where 20 six year old children, and 6 teachers were murdered there have been over 260 school shootings in the United States.
Do we really need access to guns at this cost?
Not an emotional topic at all, and good to see so much open mindedness in the discussions.
Next month Richard Cunningham asks: "Is it a good idea to open carry on group rides?"
They also have 1/6th the drug problems. 15-20% more law enforcement per capita. 1/7th of the home invasions. No gang problems. Etc etc
It's a cultural issue.
Give them another 25 years removed from civil war and unrest and the stats will likely be much closer. Our country doesn't give two shits about they're neighbors. Countries that are or recently have gone through serious issues are often much tighter nit because they're all suffering together. Just a theory though.
The U.S. is jacked up and guns are just the most obvious thing to point out... not by any means the real issue.
with that being said i will not enter and REI till the day i die, nor will i be the only one.
I'll buy vista products somewhere else to lend my support, and so will plenty of others, REI is hardly bargain central anyway.
Do you know how many people die from drunk drivers? 25,000k every year. Do we really need access to alcohol at this cost? Funny we blame the driver, not alcohol, which is the catalyst for the killing of an innocent life or lives, but god forbid, Americans cant live without booze. You simply are to ignorant to understand the importance of the 2nd amendment, and this countries freedom comes at a cost, death, and it always will.
I'm sorry but you cant pick and choose what death is worse the the next , they are all precious lives. The sad part is you think its so simple, talk about a close minded thought process, how about fix the real issues and leave peoples rights the f*ck alone.
The government f*cked up 100% on this situation, nobody else, they answered over 30 calls of violence against this kid and did nothing, you know why? Read below.
Max Eden, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, explained in City Journal how an Obama-era Department of Education initiative designed to put an end to the “school to prison pipeline,” combined with local mismanagement, helped allow the shooter to fall through the cracks.
“In 2013, the school board and the sheriff’s office agreed on a new policy to discontinue police referrals for a dozen infractions ranging from drug use to assault,” Eden wrote.
A separate report by RealClearInvestigations found that Broward County was part of a “vanguard of a strategy, adopted by more than 50 other major school districts nationwide, allowing thousands of troubled, often violent, students to commit crimes without legal consequence.”
This was part of a larger Obama administration effort, launched in 2011, to reduce racial disparities in school discipline numbers, according to RealClearInvestigations.
“Students charged with various misdemeanors, including assault, would now be disciplined through participation in ‘healing circles,’ obstacle courses, and other ‘self-esteem building’ exercises,” the report said.
“We must ensure that school discipline is being handled by trained educators, not by law enforcement officers,” saidformer Secretary of Education John King in 2016. “Some schools are simply turning misbehaving students over to [school resource officers]. This can set students on a path to dropping out or even to prison.”
Florida’s Broward County, which is where the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School shooting took place, was a leader in adopting this new program and was even touted for it by former Education Secretary Arne Duncan.
The number of school arrests dropped dramatically in the years that followed, but that didn’t mean serious crimes weren’t taking place.
The Parkland shooter was involved in a number of alarming incidents, including assault and bringing bullets to campus, for which he was eventually moved to another school.
Yet the police never arrested the shooter or expelled him, which is in part why he passed a federal background check and was able to purchase a firearm.
A life is a life, what does it matter what weapon is used. Its sad that you can decide what deaths are ok and what deaths are not, If its preventable then do something about it? An ar15 death is way worse than any other death cuz you buy into the media scare tactics, its that simple. Don't condemn good people for the acts of a bunch of maniacs.
dailysignal.com/2018/03/05/obama-era-policies-helped-keep-parkland-shooter-radar-heres-went-wrong
"If it saves just one life", that's what the liberals say.
We will all have forgotten gun control just like always.
Ill still have my guns.
Good thing he was a crappy bomb maker.
Were are you focussing your outrage about this???? Still guns right cant be anything else.
you have to make them yourself which requires a lot of knowledge, skill and equipment.
You can't just go to Dicks with your credit card spend a few hundred bucks and start killing people.
that's why you have one attempt vs 18 gun incidents.
I am totally Ok with people having assault rifles if they have to make them and the ammunition themselves at home.
we don't need to discuss this...
Making a bomb needs to researched, planned and built. Figuring it out and getting all the stuff you need will take you a while. Its not like if someone heckles a kid in school said kid can run over to a sporting goods store, buy a bomb and slaughter his/her classmates. With guns that's possible.
The point is its absolutely insane to argue that we should not do anything about school shootings because there is other ways children can die as well!
40-50 Years ago Airplanes were falling out of the sky on a daily bases killing everybody on board. But after every accident planes are grounded and the cause is investigated. After the reason is found rules established to make sure whatever caused an accident won't happen again. Step by step traveling by plane became one of the safest ways to get from A to B.
Wouldn't you consider it insane if the NTSB would go "well, i guess the people could have died in a some other sort of accident as well, let's fly on as if nothing happened"???
Its time to ground those guns, (stop selling them) and figure out why kids bring them to schools and kill their classmates. I think making sure schools are save and our children can live without having to worry about being gunned down should be more important than some person having to wait for their semi automatic toy for a little longer.
I am really looking forward to your answer. Will it be: "No i can't wait for an in depth background check to be done. I don't care if children die!!!!" ????
Yeah go for it! i like the thought of you having less money for ammunition...
Vista stock was worth about 50$ in June 2015 and is worth around 16 today...
Vistas business was already 11% down for the last quarter before retailers started droping them because of the gun manufacturing and the whole gun market is 10% year to date.
investors.vistaoutdoor.com/Stock
news.vistaoutdoor.com/2018-02-08-Vista-Outdoor-Announces-Solid-FY18-Third-Quarter-Operating-Results
i learned a bit in the army, more than i wanted to in fact.
you are right when it comes to your bank account, no clue and also no interest but you might want to double check your balance...
outdoor magazin from march second: " the policy changes by MEC and REI seem to be having an effect. As of this morning, Vista Outdoor stock was down more than 10 percent. Over the last five days, its stock has dropped more than 15 percent."
i am not an expert on the stock market but i don't believe thats how you make money unless you are trading in derivatives...
www.outsideonline.com/2285796/rei-announces-halt-orders-vista-outdoor
... unless i am looking for a long term investment over multiple years i would not buy shares from a company that is already under stress because of declining sales over the last 2 years and then suddenly faces challenges in its distribution challenges like mayor national retail chains not placing orders any more.
Yes, you can bet on a limping horse for a god quote but it might not make it to the finish line.
harpers.org/archive/2013/06/how-to-make-your-own-ar-15
I build a lot of motorcycle and bike components for and work and personal use using 3D printing and other rapid prototyping technologies.
Now doubt that it's possible but i wouldn't call it easy or simple or cheap by any means.
Indeed. They really mishandled this situation. They'll continue to drop but they'll rebound.
I think some folks on the board need to get canned. It was sorely mismanaged... likely because of the sizable egos of many of the folks that are from the Vista gun/ammo side of the business.
I still think these boycotts are absolutely insane... they make about as much sense as students doing walk outs on their schools to voice opinions on gun violence. Yo... your education has nothing to do with this and neither does your school. My opinion... walk out... get suspended just like any other person ditching class.
Wtf? So the kids that just survived a school shooting opinion doesn't count?
Vista is the Corporation, Bell, Giro, Federal Ammunition and Savage are Brands this corporation owns the rights to. Just Like general motors sells Chevrolets and GMC's and Cadillacs but its always GM.
It's the corporations board that make the decision what happens. It's the corporations shareholders that earn the money. It's the Corporation that supports the NRA.
The reality is the brands are nothing but a sticker on a product. They might not have been when they were first founded but they are definitely are now.
Don't Believe me? Go to camelback website and click on careers. Click the apply button and watch how you get transferred on the Vista Outdoor Workday website because that's who you are going to work for...
i am curious.. Western europe would qualify as first world, right?
No one has assault style weapons there, for a fact barely any private person has guns.
when was the last time any western european country was overrun by its neighbours?
and please don't bring up hitler again... that's a totally different thing...
when was the last school shooting with multiple people dead in europe?
America anyway only has canada and mexico neighboring, both rather unlikely to invade. so what are you afraid of?
www.eliotjackson.com/2017/11/21/pinkbike-exploration
Non-autonomous vehicles are a hell of a lot more dangerous, you are correct.
1971
2) Nope they are not and there is also issues that have nothing to do with guns. It seems odd though that some folks argue no action should be taken on something that very clearly is a problem that only occurs in this country just because there are other problems as well.
3) yes. some people thought that electing a guy with a background in one of the most corrupt industries there is (construction and real estate in big cities) would result in less corruption in the government. I don't understand how anyone ever would have Goldman-Sachs would have less influence if you vote for the guy that is golf buddies the board of directors...
4) I am very aware of that. I don't see how an ar-15 would ever help me with any of that.
Only thing I thin americans need to be more scared of than said western european citizens are health insurance cost and retirement. Again, unless you plan is to robb banks for retirement a gun is not going to help.
"America anyway only has canada and mexico neighboring, both rather unlikely to invade. so what are you afraid of?"
Hm. Mexico's got enough problems with the cartels. Depending on how you look at that, they're either a non-issue, or we've already lost that war. Canada.., let's just say if they're military is anything close to their 2018 Olympic hockey (or curling, etc.) teams, we've got nothing to worry about.
thefederalist.com/2018/04/13/britains-knife-control-bad-parody-gun-control
I saw elsewhere on this forum that if you take away peoples guns, they will *always* find alternative means to slaughter one another.
I'm starting to understand the rationale for guns in the US and if the conspiracy theories are at least slightly accurate then you're essentially expecting some kind of civil war one day. But I find it hard to buy the fact that all these shootings are false flags to justify disarming the population before then enslaving them. It's a bit too Stalin for me.
Liberal views have nothing to do with Communism. Communism is Dead for 30 years now and no the US Military complex had absolutely nothing to do with that. Communism just did not work and eventually failed all by itself.
Also Communism has nothing to do with a Liberal world view. Do you know that Liberal is related to Liberty and mean free?
I just want to be free of worrying about people shooting with automatic rifles at me. Keep the World free and save.
Obama, Clinton and Sanders are so far removed from communism it's hilarious, but they are still branded as such by hardline conservatives because the word raises historical demons – it's so easy it would be laughable if it didn't get such a strong reaction, probably because a lot of people don't really know what 'communism' means. However, the Republican party in its current state are appealing to people's fears, and what better way to get people scared than bring out the old red bear.
Did you see the video of Richard Spencer nazi-saluting while chanting 'heil Trump!' at a National Policy Institute meet? Fascists currently feel comfortable being fascists in plain sight, whereas I've not seen anyone protesting while waving their little red book or quoting Stalinist doctrine. This leads me to believe that there is a movement with a history of totalitarianism you should be concerned with at the moment, but kids marching because their school friends have been massacred and people adding #metoo to a Twitter post are not it.
On whether liberal values have been hijacked by communist ideology, just ask yourself which side opposes free speech by countering any reasonable argument with accusations of racism or oppression. Who surrounds (fortifies?) themselves with the oppressed in order to enact legislation that has the net effect of limiting personal freedom. I could go on. Try this for a fun game: The next article/ hit-piece you encounter on Vox, Huffpost, Buzzfeed etc.follow the links that support the argument. See how many don't just reference another opinion piece, or shoddy/ subjective/ cherry-picked research. Cast the same critical eye as you would on Breitbart etc. and see if the argument holds. Find the data for yourself if you can. Don't make the mistake that everyone else seems to: that because they say their objectives are noble, it automatically means their proposals are exempt from criticism
For an example take the trade war the conservative side is getting us into lately;
The conservatives argue American Companies are going to be off better if we retract from all trade agreements and introduce tariffs on goods imported to protect what is left over from a former manufacturing based economy.
For some reason the Conservative never talk about the response caused by this policy. The fact that if you do this other nations will first off all also introduce tariffs which can only further weaken exports. Exports from industries that currently are still Healthy like Farming on the west coast.
So with tariffs on top those Farms will not be competitive any more when they try to export their product and they will sell less.
On the other side American companies will still have to import Aluminium to produce Cars for example. They will have to add the higher cost of materials to the price of the product which again means the prices of goods in the US will increase. Also American brands like Bell or Giro, Burton or Levis, Apple and Dell will suffer from this because they develop and trade so their product will be more expensive for US customers with tariffs and their employees will lose jobs.
Stuff like that just doesn't make sense if you think it through.
If you want to sell more support innovation! help the industry to be more competitive and produce products that people in other countries want to buy. That way the trade deficit changes.
No matter how high the tariffs are you slap on imported cars, People will still buy them because they are more fuel efficient, saver, fancier or what ever.
In return Europeans will not buy Chevy Pick-up trucks but if an American Company would come up with something that is innovative the will.
Take Tesla... They sell 10 times more cars outside of the US than GM and they just started...
If you want to win you have to get better yourself not punish the ones that are better but that the BS that Conservative America first tries to sell us because it easier to scream and get people who don't like to think excited.
You might be surprised by this, you might not but I'm not a big fan of the markets. At least not in the way they're used currently (and treated with reverence) by conservative politicians. I agree with you- we can't leave it to (unregulated) markets to solve the problems of the world and find the correct price of things. They're too fragile and they can be manipulated too easily because the people who work in the markets are greedy and fearful. That makes them irrational, which makes the markets unpredictable. Take the example you gave- Tesla. A company that has never lived up to its promises. It has terrible fundamentals, wholly inadequate processes, much of it's IP is owned by partner companies and it has failed to achieve every single target it has set. It's irrelevant where it sells the tiny number it manages to produce, if the company doesn't make enough money to support itself it will close. But despite all those facts, only some are predicting Tesla's demise before the end of the year. So what's stopping the rest of the market from seeing the wood for the trees? In a word: Hype- a borderline religious belief that the company will turn around.
My point is this: Economic predictions are not science. The human aspect cannot be discounted. The trade tariffs you point out may be bad economically, but they are "good" politically, which is what the powers that be care about at the end of the day, because it's believed the repercussions you predict can be avoided through negotiation, if they happen at all. There's an element of a calculated risk involved, but I would posit that those in power already have their excuses well practiced if it goes the way you expect it to. Spoiler Alert: It won't be their fault.
I'll leave you with this: In 2001 a number of senators, mainly democratic including Bernie Sanders (Dem) but also John McCain (Rep) pushed for legislation to de-regulate the financial industry to enable low-income families to obtain a mortgage to purchase a home, which is a noble goal and a social good I think you'd agree. They removed the regulations regarding who banks could lend to and enabled a pathway for providing credit to people with low FICO scores, or no incomes. And since "house prices always rise" the banks took on the burden and purchased insurance with the understanding that the collateral in the property would appreciate to cover the increased losses due to increased delinquency. They also bundled up the debt, and sold it on the market as a way of reducing their risk and turning an extra bit of profit, while simultaneously buying the high-risk debt from other banks. Fast-forward 6 or 7 years and those same sub-prime mortgages brought the entire global economy to it's knees, which led to a lost generation across the world, mass emigration and untold hardship for hundreds of millions, if not billions of people. So are you going to tell me that the left has a better grasp of economics and finance than the right? Do you think they do anything other than appeal to their voters at everyone else's expense too? If you think that your side is always right, without questioning their assertions, conclusions and proposed solutions then you are doing everyone, yourself included, a huge disservice.
When you say "On whether liberal values have been hijacked by communist ideology, just ask yourself which side opposes free speech by countering any reasonable argument with accusations of racism or oppression. Who surrounds (fortifies?) themselves with the oppressed in order to enact legislation that has the net effect of limiting personal freedom" I really don't know how serious you are, but I'll bite.
First of all, please define a 'reasonable argument'. For me, I would say women wanting equal pay is a 'reasonable argument'. I would say that Americans of colour wanting the same access to education, health treatment and mortgage loans as Americans of European descent is a 'reasonable argument'. I would say that those campaigning for more stringent legislation around firearms in a country that has a problem with mass shootings is a 'reasonable argument'. If people fighting for these are considered 'liberals' then maybe it says more about those that oppose them. I'm also intrigued as to how you feel these arguments encroach on personal freedoms, just as I'm intrigued as to who you believe is applying communist ideology to centre/left-of-centre thinking.
A reasonable argument is any argument which is supported by extensive analysis and data. So when you say "women wanting equal pay is a 'reasonable argument'" I don't disagree because to do so would be sexist. But if I point out that women are perfectly entitled to go and earn the same as anyone else, and the gender pay gap exists because of factors other than sex- that is not sexist. The data supports what I am about to say: Women (on average) work less hours, take more unpaid time off, are more likely to work part-time and are more likely to work in less lucrative fields. These are the factors which truly drive the pay gap, and it is nothing to do with women being paid less than men in the same role and everything to do with individual choice. In fact, if a woman chooses to work 50 - 60 hours a week in a lucrative field it is likely she will be paid more than her male counterparts, and I think that is because she is every bit as capable as them, with the additional benefit that the external appearance is good for her employers and hence she has higher economic value in that position. Similarly with the "problem" of access to further education for BLM individuals. There are so many ways for them to get assistance- affirmative action, scholarships etc. and yet so many fail to achieve even the reduced standards for admission and those that do are significantly more likely to drop out because they are unprepared. Admission standards exist for a reason- objective standards exist for a reason. Circumventing standards to help someone achieve a piece of paper in order to improve their lot in life is a very poor solution- because the piece of paper does not confer on it's recipient some special status- it's the knowledge and recognition that is earned by achieving it. Maybe if you see my reasoning you can understand why people oppose the solutions proffered, and subsequently shoe-horned in by the left. No one is opposed to helping those who need it but the logic is all wrong and the "help" is self-defeating, and whats more, it devalues what others have earned for themselves. Any real solution requires hard work- particularly the individual who is being helped. If someone who is unprepared is promoted into a position they are not capable of being effective in, then that it is a loss to society.
What does all this have to do with communism? Well a central tenet of communism is that people are all essentially the same, that everyone has the same potential o contribute and can be taught to do as much as anyone else. It is the fundamental principle and the central argument for racial quotas, gender quotas etc. and equality of outcome. The left cannot stand the idea that there are differences between populations, so they assert privilege, social constructionism and oppression for the variability in outcomes of different populations. And while I *hesitantly* partially agree that social constraints are present, it does not explain all of the differences and I would suggest that they do more good than harm, so we should not dispense with them without fully understanding their contribution to society. The western world is not the pinnacle of modern achievement simply because of colonialism and patriarchy. We must have done something right because if there were no true merit and competency behind, it would have failed or been overtaken centuries ago.
Last thing- I am on the lookout for some sensible thinkers on the left. People who present their arguments and support it rationally and objectively (so, not John Oliver). If you could recommend a few I'd appreciate you sending them on.
1) i never said regulate the market. AT least not on goods. The example was Old school industry like GM sells a fraction of what innovative product does. Yet Conservatives spend a lot of our Tax money on trying to protect old outdated industries. Do you really think we need to help the coal industry for example? that's the past. What we should do is Enable people to get education and prepare themselves for the future.
Society changed and it will continue to do so at en even faster pace.
No on of our generation will hold the same Job for all their live. It's just not going to happen. Everyone of us including the government has to prep for the future but the right just lives in the past.
2) Tesla might not be as financially stable as one would like it to be However the whole Industry is hurting world wide. How many times have the big 3 been bailed out in the last few years? Just because a company is financially in a tough spot you should not disregard the fact that they managed to outsell any other american automaker by a factor 10. Wat i am trying to say is that their product an marketing is appealing to people outside of the US and that's how you turn a trade deficit around. Not by introducing tarifs.
The coal industry is not unique in being subsidized by the government. The majority of subsidies it qualifies for are the same as many of the subsidies other companies (such as Tesla) can apply for. The reason they were a hot topic a while ago, was because Trump wanted to give them and the nuclear energy sector a dedicated tax subsidy to the tune of $10.6 billion, and since the MSM's fav whipping boy is Trump, and anything he does is wrong it was "big news" (I'm no fan of the his, but I have to admit he does get a lot of undeserved flak, especially since the guy provides no end of material for completely justified criticism). That subsidy was rejected in Feb 2018 citing a lack of evidence that such a subsidy was required. I also found that Tesla, along with other Electric Car manufacturers get a subsidy on the first 200K cars which roll off their production lines. So it's just as justifiable (or futile, depending on your POV) to point out how dedicated subsidies for electric car companies are a waste of money, since they can't keep the lights on using just their own money. Also, for Tesla to be in a "tough spot" they would have to have been, at some point in time, in a good spot, Ie. profitability. The fact their customers are 10:1 outside the US is not a success story if they are not making good on their ambition and returning the money that was pored in by their investors. I can't blame you if you feel I'm banging on about this point, I respect Elon Musk greatly for his contribution to science and stellar exploration but you chose the battleground (Tesla) poorly and unfortunately for you his reputation can't (and probably won't) rescue that particular sinking ship.
The BBC is an interesting one – many on the left complain because, in recent times, less complicated right wing elements such as UKIP and people such as Nigel Farage – both as UKIP leader and as a political commentator – have got an unfair amount of exposure compared to, say, the Green Party, who actually have an elected member of parliament (MP) and a genuine breadth of policies. A recent backdrop of Jeremy Corbyn over the Moscow skyline can hardly be called 'left leaning' too. Saying that, those on the right feel that the BBC is left wing because it is funded by the public through a form of taxation and is a media environment, which is traditionally a liberal one. My understanding is that it traditionally leans toward the incumbent government because it's the government which guarantees its funding. That all said, it also has a history of good reporting so is always worth listening to, and the fact opposing political sides both moan about it suggests it's doing something right.
I'm not going to get into women's pay as it's a huge subject; I'm not so daft to believe these things are black and white – there are so many other elements involved that I'm not going to do them justice in a forum post. But yes, essentially, I think it only fair that a man and a woman with equal skills, qualifications and experience should be eligible for the same wage.
I'm not denying the existence of schemes such as scholarships to help people get through higher education and don't deny that to get there should be tough – I certainly don't agree with 'hand outs'. I am more talking about the basics; access to a quality education, a life-saving health service and the ability to progress through life without skin colour, religion or any other factor that does not affect what the individual is aiming for (be it higher education or a mortgage) being an issue. The process of 'redlining' that was prevalent in the US was an extreme example of this, and it seems the effects are still being felt now: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redlining
"What does all this have to do with communism? Well a central tenet of communism is that people are all essentially the same, that everyone has the same potential o contribute and can be taught to do as much as anyone else." Yes, and no. At its core Communism is an idealistic system that will never work because it is too easy to corrupt. Cambodia under the Khmer Rough is an extreme example: make everyone equal by stripping them of their education and getting rid of money. Kill the educated because they are a threat. Everyone has a job and is toiling for the greater good. The fact that Pol Pot and most of his leadership went to university in Paris would seem to make them more equal than others.
Going the other way, the US is arguably the pinnacle of capitalism, a system that depends on producing goods and selling to make a financial profit. It's also a country with a homeless problem and an insanely complicated healthcare system that is held to ransom by healthcare and drug companies. Life there is great, if you can afford it to be. As for capitalism, it has many benefits: it drives innovation and increases the standard of living, but at what cost? the western world is currently the pinnacle of modern achievement, but how long will that last? Do we need everything that is being produced? How long can the planet supply everything needed for production? And what of China, with its odd totalitarian capitalist-communism and burgeoning middle classes, making plastic crap for everyone else? Surely we, as in the West, need to keep reinventing to continue that momentum, which will require diverting into different areas; the Greeks, the Romans and the Persians were also all pinnacles at one point, but were all overtaken. Where I am going with this is that surely a country that is the 'pinnacle of modern achievement' should also be able to look after its poorest and weakest and create fair opportunity for all, as surely producing a better educated and healthy base is more important than driving forward from a foundation built on sand. It's great that people are working hard and getting rich, but this should be a path available to all, and when does the line get crossed where the 1% should be helping those whose shoulders they stand on? To me a mother country seeking to educate its people in a fair environment benefits everyone, whatever their individual goals or life paths, but that education and ability to think is the key. If this is communism, so be it.
OK, I've ranted enough and suspect I have wandered way off the point. A few left-leaning thinkers off the top of my head: I find myself agreeing a lot with a few London-based members of parliament – specifically David Lammy and Stella Creasey. I'm not actually a Labour voter, but a lot of what they say strikes a chord and they don't tow the party line. Similarly Dianne Abbott should not be dismissed – she's an easy target to mock, but an incredibly intelligent lady. As for writers, Ian Dunt of politics.co.uk is worth reading, and Jon Snow and Cathy Newman of the UK's Channel 4 News are always fun to watch as incisive interviewers of UK politicians. Max Hastings is a war historian and certainly not 'left' but his books are very good and unflinchingly delve into the political, social and economic aspects of specific areas of conflict, which have many peacetime ramifications.
Yeah. John Oliver. Although Jim Jeffries' sketch on guns is pretty relevant to this PB post.
I need to bring this back to the original argument because the topic at hand is the dangers of the progressive/ liberal policies of the left, their dubious motives and their duplicitous messages and tactics. The political figureheads of the left are not the biggest danger IMO; they're simply the happy recipients of the support drummed up by the hysteria generated by good marxists in the MSM and social sciences (bear with me).
So I'll start by asking you to consider the following questions:
1) What is the ultimate goal of the left, and what are the consequences and logical conclusions of their policies and actions to date?
2) If the progressive policies and plans of the left are so good, then why have they not been adopted by the majority of the markets, which are forever innovating to gain an advantage? Why do they have to be instantiated into law and forced upon society for them to be accepted? Do you see the peril in allowing this approach?
3) Why do the left continuously shut down the conversations of anyone who is not 'on their side'? Why is free speech and the free exchange of ideas such a bad thing?
I'm probably going to frustrate you a bit by not responding to your examples and counter-arguments. They're good points and worthy of addressing- I literally spent the week looking at them and imagining all the ways and examples I could respond with. But we'll have too come back to them another time.
I want instead to focus on one event in the recent past that you're probably already familiar with. It characterizes many of my (and most people not on the left I would hope) suspicions and issues with the tactics, motives and ultimate goals of the left.
Cathy Newman interviewed Jordan Peterson for Channel 4 at the start of this year. During the interview she consistently misrepresented Peterson's assertions and conclusions, which were designed and delivered in order to to help people, not hurt them, and advance society. Newman overplayed her hand so much that she spawned a myriad of memes beginning with the phrase "So what you're saying is...". This was not an honest mistake, or misunderstanding on her part. She consciously and deliberately chose to ignore what Peterson had said and restate his arguments in the most offensive terms, often completely without a basis in anything that had just been communicated. In simple terms: She lied. And she lied for ideological reasons. Her inability to truthfully repeat back to Peterson what he had just shared is an underhanded tactic used extensively by the left to paint anyone who does not share their dogma as a horrible person unworthy of serious consideration and attention. This tactic will normally result in 1 of 2 outcomes: 1) the target gets frustrated and reacts angrily or 2) when attempting to clarify an obviously odious and false statement the target ends up saying something they don't quite mean and they are pilloried for it.
Peterson did neither. He bided his time, showed remarkable restraint and when the opportunity presented itself he put Newman on the spot and left her tongue-tied and utterly unable to respond for several seconds, while simultaneously promoting a wide-held belief of those who are not on the left (Free Speech). Anyone who has watched the full interview (Channel 4 only played part of it, the full interview can be found here: www.youtube.com/watch?v=aMcjxSThD54) can see how ideologically possessed Newman is, how lazy and superficial her tactics and arguments are and by extension, how superficial and false the assertions of the left are.The fall-out from the (failed- from a left's perspective) interview was all-too predictable. Embarrassed, the channel concocted a story about a security concern to save face and flooded the news with that story, which gave the MSM ample reason to vilify Peterson and his supporters in the prologue before making Cathy Newman out to be courageous and defiant in the main body of their article.
No evidence was given for the existence of a security concern and the police were not involved. It's also worth noting that Peterson and his supporters received approx. 30 times the alleged abuse leveled at Newman (hequal.wordpress.com/2018/01/22/cathy-newmans-feminist-fans-sent-30-times-more-violent-sexist-abuse-to-peterson-his-supporters-than-vice-versa), which the MSM failed to include in their reporting. The evidence the MSM are biased is not not simply what they report on, but what they choose not to report on.
Tell me, do these tactics seem like the methods of an ideology that is 'right'?
Thankfully that mandate has subsequently been rescinded by the Trump Administration, and there are dozens of multi-million $ lawsuits pending in the states because of these proceedings (held on campuses and not in courthouses). But the origins of the statistic are just as unsettling, because it was used to justify these inquisitions and no one bothered to check and challenge the veracity of the claim (I've said before the left surround and fortify themselves in victimhood- who's going to argue with "rape victims"). It was based on a single, self-selecting, anonymous online survey of 7000 respondents, not state or federal conviction rates, or even police complaints. The survey used a questionable definition of sexual assault (direct quote: "including forced touching of a sexual nature (forced kissing, touching of private parts, grabbing, fondling, rubbing up against you in a sexual way, even if it is over your clothes) "). The respondents attended college/ university at 2 separate institutions. This was not a national study, and the number of respondents falls marginally below the minimum required for statistical inference on the population of third level students in the US. I don't know about you, but I would be highly suspicious and critical of any such results. Yet the MSM continues to push these misleading, deficient statistics, published by ideological social scientists. They then subsequently incite and participate in the inevitable trial by media/ public opinion. How could you not infer this is done solely to realize their agenda? If it were done for profit then they would allow the issue to wane in the public consciousness and traipse it out again later for further benefit, not promote ill-conceived changes to legislation to remedy their imagined non-issue. The recent trial of the Ulster Rugby players in Belfast is another example you may be familiar with. None of the accused were convicted, yet hefty legal bills will have to be paid, careers have been postponed and (possibly irreparably damaged) and they have no recourse against their accuser, who's anonymity is guaranteed by the state. At some point it was decided that those who are accused should not be protected, and those who make accusations should be, despite the apparent presumption of innocence. If you couple #MeToo with #IBelieveHer you have a recipe for disaster, as is evidenced in the US. It will lead to accusations without evidence for whatever reason, and the very real possibility of substantially increased false convictions for serious crimes which never occurred. It undermines the seriousness of sexual assault if conviction becomes a foregone conclusion. Surely you see the danger in this? Conviction without evidence- one person's word being better than the other in the eyes of the law. This is in direct contravention to western values of freedom and equality. This is the state going outside its remit to write legislation for the betterment of all citizens and instead deciding who is most worthy in the eyes of the law.
Hysteria leads to fear leads to panic leads to indoctrination. No doubt you could spot when someone on the right uses this tactic, but would you be so quick to see it on the left? I really don't have a side in this argument- I see lies from both sides but they are predominantly coming from the left these days and they are used to justify wholly anti-democratic ends.
If you want to see indoctrination at work for yourself, here's a "fun" experiment (If you don't mind ridding yourself of a few tenuous friendships). Go on FB, or Twitter, or whatever your social media of choice is and post using your personal account the perfectly reasonable words you shared here anonymously. Post the words "I'm not going to get into women's pay as it's a huge subject; I'm not so daft to believe these things are black and white – there are so many other elements involved [Other than sexism] that I'm not going to do them justice in a forum post." (or words to that effect). Link it to the BBC's recent analysis even, and see what happens.
Vista itself will stop manufacturing/selling firearms, but continue to manufacture/sell ammunition. Vista will retain CamelBak and their camping equipment brands.
www.bicycleretailer.com/industry-news/2018/05/01/vista-outdoor-sell-firearms-and-sports-brands-including-bell-giro-and#.Wui-fe8vzDA
Side note... I guarantee you that everyone working for those 3 companies are happy about this. Vista sucks.
How is it so difficult for some people to distinguish between companies and brands?
One Companie can have multiple brands. Happens all the times...
SRAM: Sram, Rockshox, Avid, Truvativ, Sachs Bicycle Components, Quarq
Amer Sports: Mavic, Enve, Salomon, Atomic, Wilson, Precor and more
Dorel: Cannondale, Schwinn, Mongoose, GT, Fabric, Sombrio and more
Adidas Group: 5.10, Adidas, Reebok,Taylormade and more
KTMGroup: KTM motorcycles, Husqvarna Motorcycles, WP suspension.
Well i guess it's gonna sort it self out anyways now and vista can be one happy arms manufacturer not bothering about its outdoor brands any more as soon as the sale is done with.
Unless you buy 100% local made, organic, vegan everything, you are supporting some sort of atrocity. The gun debate is just what's in the headlines right now.
Not that I buy 100% local made, organic everything. Because who has money for all that? (not me)
..."Hypocrites".
It's a dumb analogy to begin with.
I'd like to think bike companies would make sure they're not supporting this kind of stuff. If they find a factory they use runs like this they should take their business elsewhere and make it clear to someone like the local government why they're doing this so hopefully the local government will do something.
That's what they said about slavery in the US. The country was founded on it. Nowadays? All gone (officially). Come on, believing in the impossible is what got us airborne in our first flying contraptions and later to the moon (but let's not have THAT debate).
Elon Musk shoots Tesla to Mars while children are starving in Africa - Ahwwww Mhy Ghaaawd, so offensive.
I recommend following the work of this man if you see the world in grim colors:
www.ted.com/talks/steven_pinker_on_the_myth_of_violence
This comment is just plane nonsens. Minimum legal work age in China (16) is actually higher than in the US (14), Canada (14 with restrictions) or Europe (14) and it gets controlled in any factory that is used by Western companies/brands.
Yes there have been issues in the 80ies an 90ies. Most prominently in Nike and New Balance Factories. However other than with guns after the problem became public immediate action has been taken. If you want to produce goods for any bigger western company these days you will have to pass tedious audition processes at first and then have to deal with inspectors on site unannounced at any time. It will cost you dearly to violate any of the regulations.
As a matter of fact, a chinese worker these days has even more holidays and and vacation time than a US worker with the bonus of free health care.
The only thing they don't have is guns...
In the 1860s "snowflake" was used by abolitionists in Missouri to refer to those who opposed the abolition of slavery. The term referred to the color of snow, referring to valuing white people over black people. This usage was not believed to have extended beyond the state of Missouri in the 1800s. [Wikipedia] - The Wiki that actually has some usable wisdom to share.
@Ruberelli - there is no connection between Giro and arms. And I encourage you to perform a thought experiment where you ponder what boycoting a product does to whom, because I assure you it does nothing to the head corporation, it punches the lowest in the chain. I gibe you an example: let’s say your uncle went to jail for a murder or molesting a kid and it goes on national News, can it then be understandable for your employer to fire you from whatever job you are doing?
I don't believe any politician – including Obama – wants to or has wanted to 'ban guns'; that is all rubbish cooked up by organisations such as the NRA (if you can find evidence to the contrary from a reputable source I will happily stand corrected.) I believe most politicians that are not being paid by the NRA or subscribe to its agenda of a 'bad man with a gun' want to add additional controls to firearms and accessories sales, not ban outright.
Ultimately this is not about taking your gun rights away, it's about fighting pro-gun corruption in government, changing attitudes toward lethal weapons and reducing the likelihood of another Sandy Hook, Vegas or Douglas High School.
My exact problem with your high horse virtue signalling @Drewnose. You are schooling me on integrity and core values?! What sort of core values do you have that apply to this discussion? Acting on Knee-jerk reflex guns-bad, owned by same company that owns giro? Read the above. You are posing yourself to be a highly moral person when it comes to buying a fkng backpack - that's not exactly like hiding Jewish family under your floor. Not close,even by parsecs. If you are so scrutinizing, I want to see your daily choices where you vote with your dollars making highly ethical purchases. As if you were choosing a backpack based on business ethics of a company, instead of how much water it takes, how much storage space it has, what kind of harness it has, what color and what is it currently on deals in a particular shop. Get off your high horse mate
So if you do ask me about my integrity and core values, then no 1 in a case like this is put my self in all parties shoes before I pass a judgment. Generally, try not to judge, because I have enough crap going on in my own life, to realize who the fk am I to judge those people?
I am a parent and firearms owner myself, I respect firearms and the laws and regulations put forth by my government. Those laws and regulations are what keep us Canadians safe to a certain degree. Yes, there are extenuating circumstances such as illegal firearms and mental health issues, etc... America needs to see a change in their laws and regulations, anything that can be done to mitigate kids being shot in their schools must be done.
I wasn't attacking or judging your core values, integrity, I was pointing out that you are missing the point and not understanding , whether it is intentionally or unintentionally. You are minimizing the end game of what people are trying to accomplish by boycotting a corporation and it's subsidiary companies. It's not just a backpack, it's a message. The message is that as consumers we won't buy your products if you continue to support the NRA and their antiquated cause. It's time for progression to happen. It's time that kids stop dying from fatal shootings and the effects of PTSD from having to go through a situation like a school shooting.
Open your eyes and your heart, pull your head out of your a$$ and put yourself in the position of one of the affected families. How would you feel if your pride and joy was taken away by someone, because they had access to a weapon that they shouldn't have readily available to them.
Now according to my core values one does simply not politicize a choice of a bicycle helmet or a back pack. And the reason for it is A if it sounds that ridiculous then I assume it actually is a ridiculous thing to do. B that seems quite smallest to me. So if you want to blend politics into it here, where will you venture next? Will you find out what party does the CEO of Sram sympathize with? What if by all sorts of variables, you are against legalization of Marijuana, hypothetically off course, wouldn’t you shake handif Brett Tippie? Wouldn’t you buy Transition bike? What if you hypothetically happen to be an atheist believing in womens rights, and you find out that head of marketing at Shimano is a hardcore Christian against abortion?
Is this the landscape you want to live in? Because identity politics, like religion is a terrifying weapon and everyone believes in something, do you want companies to start throwing crap at each other, undermining, plotting?
There are very good reasons to separate biking from politics, because biking is an escape, one of cures for this war of bollocks.
But well, if you do want to wake up demons in what is a safe space, our utopian idylle, help yourself. As I said I respect your thought chain, but I find it rather ugly and worrying.
Peace and respect.
Anyways, believe what you will. All I know is there is traction being gained in regards to the article we are supposedly "discussing". The rubber is hitting the road, look in to the market and see what stocks are doing for firearms retailers and manufactuers.
www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/news/morning-mix/wp/2018/03/02/gun-boycott-rei-mountain-equipment-co-op-stop-selling-major-outdoor-brand-due-to-its-weapons-sales-nra-ties
I bid you adieu.
Thank you heroes. I wish I could look up to you, but I am so unworthy.
You better recognize you unworthy artsy farsty cream puff.
"Hey! Have you got a license for that? DON'T POINT THAT AT ME!"
Also they might gain a lot of followers for standing up to their beliefs and if they right person sees it they might be picked up by a new sponsor with a better deal faster than you can can say NRA.
Is there a skill rating or test involved at all? How do they know I'd be OK to handle a Mako, or if I'd be better suited to a Great White, or if I'm a bit mentally ill and shouldn't be given a Bull Shark...
white privilege much?
lol
I hate guns and would never buy one, but I don't think I will stop buying Giro and Camelbak products.
“After Hurricane Sandy, we saw the hellish world that the gun prohibitionists see as their utopia. Looters ran wild in south Brooklyn. There was no food, water or electricity. And if you wanted to walk several miles to get supplies, you better get back before dark, or you might not get home at all.”
“Meanwhile, President Obama is leading this country to financial ruin, borrowing over a trillion dollars a year for phony “stimulus” spending and other payoffs for his political cronies. Nobody knows if or when the fiscal collapse will come, but if the country is broke, there likely won’t be enough money to pay for police protection. And the American people know it.”
“Hurricanes. Tornadoes. Riots. Terrorists. Gangs. Lone criminals. These are perils we are sure to face — not just maybe. It’s not paranoia to buy a gun. It’s survival. It’s responsible behavior, and it’s time we encourage law-abiding Americans to do just that.”
“We have blood-soaked films out there, like ‘American Psycho,’ ‘Natural Born Killers’ that are aired like propaganda loops on splatter days.”
"too many in the national media, their corporate owners and their stockholders act as silent enablers, if not complicit co-conspirators.”"
“There exists in this country, sadly, a callous, corrupt and corrupting shadow industry that sells and stows violence against its own people through vicious and violent video games.”
"Any gun control law is an infringement on our rights."
Welp, I guess normal citizens should own RPGs, Apache helicopters, anti-aircraft missiles, grenades, fully auto M-16s, belt-fed machine guns and of course this includes people who have felonies, right? You're f*cking insane.
Deaths from rifles have been declining over the last few years. Latest I could find was 2014 there were 248 deaths caused by the "assault weapons" If you really want effective firearm legislation look at handguns, 5000+ deaths in 2014. Why are you worried about scary black guns when they are in the minority of firearm deaths. Better yet prevent suicide by firearm which gets grouped in and accounts for over 60% of guns deaths.
ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2014/crime-in-the-u.s.-2014/tables/expanded-homicide data/expanded_homicide_data_table_8_murder_victims_by_weapon_2010-2014.xls
Or better yet lets try to prevent people from doing it in the first place because if they are that hell bent on causing destruction they will do it regardless of laws and will use anything to cause harm.
nutty bills are always introduced. Learn something about democracy to know what a bill that has a serious chance at passing looks like. You're seriously paranoid.
I disagree with you 100%.
We all know deep down they're all full of shit. It's easy to boycott something you don't want, takes true grit to boycott something that actually impacts you directly.
Chill out, and keep scrolling.
On your point regarding "...civilians don't" is an opinion (granted the biggest issue here). Also, who knows who is "feeding the NRA". I bet even Pinkbike readers are split on NRA membership and donations. Doesn't make them bad or good. Their individual actions do. As I said above, the pro life/choice battle is exactly the same as the pro guns/NRA or not battle. Tragic what happened in Florida. However, binary knee jerk reactions or banning this or that and taking away others rights gets us nowhere.
I'm in NO way saying ignore the Florida or similar tragedies. Hell, I live 10 minutes from Columbine. What I am saying is ban the AR or boycott anything remotely related? Then what? How far to we go down the rabbit hole? Remember Oklahoma City killed 160+ with a box truck, fuel and fertilizer.. ...
I am pro choice but can at least understand the argument and objections, and see the relevant comparisons here.
The point is that now Giro and Bell are exposed to trouble because their parent company is in gun trouble. THAT sucks for all the good people that in the cycling industry.
It would be great if the workers could buy out the evil foster parents and carry on with their passion untethered to the killing-machine industry.
- Democrat/Socialist/Commie
- Atheist
- On psychotropic drugs
- Several reports received by police/FBI/community
- Brought up by single mothers
The above describes 95% of mass murderers..
I'm trying to understand the hypocrisy; lets ban our guns while we blow up brown people for our/their resources?
I don't get it?
Who can explain such horrible hypocrisy?
We need to be intellectually honest. If a person wants to murder people, a gun is not required.
Fox news is 90 percent opinion and they eat it up.
Did you know that 15 years ago Amer Corp was more known for its tobacco brands than for its athletic/sport brands?
At some point in the late 2000's Amer decided they would be better off consolidating its portfolio of brands around like-minded pursuits and decided to shed the tobacco companies. Sure, there might have been overlap between 1) smokers and 2) skiers but the cognitive dissonance between those psychologies might have been too difficult to perpetuate.
Similar 'guilt by association' and cognitive dissonance in the Vista portfolio; there could be overlap between 1) cyclists and 2) firearm enthusiasts but in the full light of day it could become difficult to justify. Valuations of gun companies have been awful lately too - the threat of regulation went away with DT getting elected - so parent companies like Vista might someday decide like Amer, that its not worth it.
Bell/Giro/Blackburn are all based in Santa Cruz and operated before being purchased by Vista. Camelbak is in Petaluma. Same deal. None of those companies nor the employees who's jobs will be at risk have anything to do with firearms. They didn't have a choice. Vista is just the company that bought them.
If you're going to punish brands like this you'd have to boycott half the brands you currently support because their parent companies happen to own something you don't like.
Beyond that, most of the folks working for the above brands are more than likely for tighter gun control.
The internet age strikes with stupidity and sheep leading once again.
--If you can't have vocal principles as a company, don't ask your customers to follow what you can't lead.
The parkland school shooter that sparked off the latest anti-NRA fiasco didn't even use a gun made by any of the brands Vista owns. He used a smith and wesson M&P 15, which while an AR-15 style rifle...isn't actually an AR-15 (those are a model trademarked to Colt). It was legally purchased as well. Savage Arms, does make two model lines of rifles that fit the AR-15 'style' which again, aren't actually AR-15s (Colt product). Just like folks here like to say "looks like a session", people who don't know any better about guns like to say "looks like an AR-15". The Savage MSP 15 Patrol and Recon come in 5.56 NATO/.223 Rem and the MSP 10 Hunter and Long Range come in 7.62 NATO/.308 Win.
The reason the AR-15 style is used so often for shootings in the USA that the media actually bothers to report...is because they're cheap as they're domestically manufactured. Imported guns like the IWI Tavor-21s cost a lot more and that's why you rarely hear of them being used in shootings. As it is, the vast majority of gun deaths in the USA are made up of handgun shootings. Rifles are but a small percentage of overall total.
For everyone who thinks buying a camelbak bottle or a bell helmet means you're contributing to the NRA... get your head professionally examined please. If anything, the profits from the ammunition sales is what put Vista in a position to buy out the other sporting brands, and its that money that is paying for the development and production of your helmet, pump or water pack... OH EXCEPT of course... for the fact that all the brands that Vista owns are run as seperate companies still. Just like Dorel Corp, who owns GT and Schwinn and Cannondale and Sugoi and others and all the brands are run seperately.
The Parkland shooter bought 10 rifles legally at the age of 18. One of them being a weapon designed to kill many people at once. 45 .223 rounds in 60 seconds. Now that's all out ignorance and insanity. People use guns like an AR-15 for mass shootings, for the same reason the military started using them. They are extremely accurate, lightweight, and can allow someone to carry more rounds. All while being able to shoot through a M1 military helmet at 500 yards.
The moment you typed 45 .223 rounds in 60 seconds I knew you were getting your facts from a recent media report... not from actually knowing anything about guns. A properly trained and experienced shooter can get 45 rounds of .30-06 out of an M1 Garand in 60 seconds and that only holds 8 at a time. Someone with an SAP6 12 gauge pump shotgun can get out easily 30 #00 buckshot shells in a minute...and that'll put FAR more projectiles downrange than some AR-15 clone would.
People use guns like AR-15s for mass shootings because they don't know any better. The military adopted them because they were lighter and the trend was moving to fully automatic fire to make up for a lack of proper marksmanship training. But for "accurate" work, they rely on better guns than AR family ones. A Ruger Mini-14 would be a better choice hands down for a .223 caliber tactical rifle for a "mass" shooter.
These qualities are a factor in this particular equation, and these are factors that could be sensibly mitigated to improve this problem should we choose. We being America, looks like you're Canadian.
I won't punish Vista... the bike brands they manufacture I want to have around. If you want to punish the gun and ammo makers (or the NRA by proxy), don't buy guns and ammo.
Yeah what would I know having actually shot the things... and sure you're relatives with a marine sniper... congrats... do you want a cookie ?
Right there everyone knows you're telling lies, not the truth. The USMC has for decades done all their training / qualifications in YARDS, and were still doing it that way 2 years ago when they finally decided to do a cost-study on converting to meters, which is the global measuring standard.
Now who's making up stories... wow you have a marine corp answer for everything. Oh well... americans love to brag about the wars they lost on the internet. I'm done wasting my time on a moron like you.
I didn't realize that not giving someone a discount (that they have no reason to get in the first place) is "punishing" someone. There is no good reason most of these companies should be giving NRA members a discount the first place.
*Correlation does not equal causation*
Cost more lives than they save? Are you comparing murders AND suicides against defensive use of guns? That's retarded.
I don't identify with any "group". I just use my brain/logic/evidence. And the fact is, the US does not just "give everyone" a gun.... There are already EXTENSIVE background checks and regulations for gun ownership.
It's about time we looked below the surface and really find out what the problem is. Stop scratching the surface and use your brain, man.
And rather than accusing ME of not thinking, how about you challenge your own viewpoint? Why does the US have such an unusually high level of mass shootings versus any other comparable country?
www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/United-Kingdom/United-States/Crime
people less likely to have defense will have more crimes happen around them.
Thoughts and Prayers
Freedom isn't a singular thing, and sometimes one persons "freedom" has to be curtailed in order to enable another's. These are nearly always messy issues without clearcut solutions, but it's honestly really hard to see how anyone can in all faith argue that their freedom to own a gun trumps young people's freedom to attend school without the fear of being shot.
It's interesting, as just from reading this quote I'm not sure which side of the debate you're on: the quote could be used for either side. Either to argue that we should not sacrifice the liberty of owning guns in order to gain the security of a gun free nation; or that we should not sacrifice the liberty of not being shot in order to gain the security of owning weapons. It's an empty phrase that allows the reader space to transpose their own reading of liberty and security into it.
So, we can tell that Jefferson was far more of a politician than a philosopher!
This is such a weird argument for people to make in the 21st Century. It may potentially have had some weight at one point, but what do people really expect a bunch of civilians with rifles to be able to achieve against the current US military? It's unlikely that any nation state on the planet can realistically challenge US military power right now, so what exactly do people think owning a few guns is going to do? Sure, you may have an assault rifle, but that's not going to do much when a drone flies over and bombs your house.
@dualsuspensiondave Vietnam cost $750 Billion adjusted for inflation and some odd 60,000 soldiers dead more wounded tons psychologically scared and what did the US accomplish? I'll go ahead and throw that in the loss catergory.
My second amendment "interpretation" is that we are able to own arms in line with what the military owns as that was common place during the revolutionary war. The war was fought with muskets and cannons that were both privately owned. The founding fathers lived in a time where the biggest piece of armament (cannons) were privately owned.
Conservatives attacking the 1st amendment? Questioning the propaganda machine is anti first amendment? Read up on how Obama legalized propaganda via the NDAA and realize why most news networks are putting out legitimately fake news. It is indeed the left who is trying to get rid of free speech by calling everything "hate speech." What about the petition that went around Yale to ban the first amendment, that is clearly coming from the left side.
-That is why you should delete this story as this has NOTHIING to do with riding bikes.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=HcMFmoTCdcU
Are you alleging that pinkbike.com aspire to be treated as a credible and trustworthy sources for news?
While I realize that the discussion about the legalization of certain firearms in the US and around the world is a serious conversation, knee-jerk reactions such as these do nothing but create further division and potentially harm those that have absolutely nothing to do with the current state of affairs in this country and around the world.
I know many will disagree but I think it's important that we stay informed. To not hide in the dark to only complain when it's too late to act. If you don't know what's going on then you stay ignorant and being ignorant is just as dangerous as it is foolish.
As for all the debate going on about gun control I still can't believe after all the mass shootings we've had in the past decade we still haven't done a damn thing about it.
It's the same old argument and it's the same big entity that has the GOP wrapped around the NRA's finger. The NRA is powerful. They have the power to veto and they have the money to buy politicians to do their bidding. So much so that its money over country.
Why do some gun owners think that everyone who wants common sense gun control is out to take away our 2nd amendment?
I haven't met anyone who's for that yet.
Why do some gun owners feel they need and HAVE to have a military grade weapon? To fight against tyrrany? Good luck if the government ever does turn against the people I'm pretty sure the army will take u out no matter how much gun power you have.
Sure a gun doesn't pick itself up and shoot someone as much as a pencil writes on it's own. But that argument doesn't hold up because again we are not talking about taking away our freedom to bare arms. We are talking about making it harder for the bad people to own guns of any kind.
Unless you're talking about military assualt weapons in that case we will just have to disagree completely. No one needs to own a military grade weapon unless you're in the military and active duty.
Why do I keep hearing this question being asked "What's the point? The bad people will find a way to illegally get guns and the law abiding citizens will be defenseless"
That's just a narrow-minded way of thinking.
We have laws for almost everything. People still steal, murder, drive while intoxicated, abuse, sell narcotics and so many other things. But we have laws so that these occurances are kept in check. If you still think "Oh what's the point?" Then why should there be any law if it's just going to be broken? Well then, you may have to ask yourself if you're a closet anarchist.
There are no such laws that can prevent something from happening entirely. Laws see how we keep things under control and to punish and serve justice when called for.
Is this only a mental health issue? Of course not. The United States of America is NOT THE ONLY country in the whole wide world that has mentally ill people. If it were a mental health issue only then please explain how the rest of the world doesn't have as many mass shootings as we have had in the passed decade? America is in the lead when it comes to mass shootings.
All in all I just can't believe why so many gun owners and the people who work at the NRA refuse to accept we need better gun control laws. As the rest of the world scratches their heads thinking damn, them Americans make no sense at all. It's a sad shame.
Let's help keep guns in the right hands instead of the wrong.
There are studies that show it is nearly impossible to tell if someone that is depressed is going to snap, so how would more background checks help? I am disgusted with what is going on but I haven't seen any "common sense" laws I feel that are reasonable and could actually be effective short of armed veterans in schools. Do you have any specific ideas on effective gun legislation that isnt "banning assault weapons?" Because that is just pure nonsense and if you dont understand why you shouldnt be talking about firearm legislation.
I’ll continue wearing my Montaro and Kudu while contemplating how screwed we are over Brexit.
However, the article is very relevant.
I don't think it's about political agenda, I think it's about what people believe - and we all have different beliefs.
Do you line your helmet with tin foil? I mean, I don't have any truck with Israel and I hear the food is great. Also, I was told years ago that the Canadian mountain biking was fueled by great trails and killer weed, but perhaps the later has begun to make you a bit paranoid. Maybe try some different strains.
The gun ownership & gun control laws in the states are absolutely mind boggling to me. I was a child that grew up in Scotland at the time of the Dunblane incident and am not a fan of guns.
What I will say is companies have been buying up other companies for years and years to diversify, increase profits and spread the risk profile of impact of a downturn in a single area wiping them out.
What can we as bikers do if we don't like what a company stands for - stop using them same as every other item we consume whether that is beer, bread or bananas. Have an awareness of what you are purchasing and buy what you feel is the right thing for you.
Realistically will boycotting subsidiary company's of a parent company bring it to its knees and stop it producing it's primary product - I'd suggest this is unlikely.
There is a strong possibility that action like it could come back and bite us as bikers in the ass as the parent company see less profitablity in those subsidiary companies and implements cutbacks to salvage profit margin.
The scenario highlighted by this article is a puzzle the bike companies appear to have no historical ties to the parent company however ultimately any profits made by them now will go to growing the overall parent company and you need to hurt one to hurt the other - rarely a good solution to anything in life.
I appreciate this is mostly irrelevant as I am not a resident of the US but, How do I think those in the US should deal with the ongoing gun control laws - play an active part in the politics, try and read the view points you believe in and those that oppose them to gain a balanced view point then vote in what you believe is best.
Am I cool with pink bike running this article. Yes. Anything that encourages people to think about or look deeper into what they are purchasing is a good thing in my book.
Except for handguns (which are restricted to a maximum capacity of 10), all semi-automatics in Canada using any rimfire type cartridge, do NOT have a magazine capacity limit, and the magazines can hold as much as designers want to market, as long as they're not compatible with any models of handguns sold in Canada (which is why the 25 round magazines for Ruger 10/22 platform rifles have now become illegal, after Ruger made the decision to make the 10/22 pistols available here). Also if its a center fire caliber and a magazine is compatible with both handguns and carbines/rifles, even though the later have a normal capacity limit of 5... you can legally use the magazine made for the handgun in the rifle with its higher capacity limit of 10.
Such was the case of the Dawson College shooter in 2006 (who held a valid restricted class license and used legally purchased and properly registered firearms)... Beretta Storm CX semi-auto carbine ..normal magazine limit is 5... but it uses the same type of magazine as some of the Beretta semi-auto handguns, and thus he had 10 round capacity magazines in it when he started shooting people.
Repeating centerfire caliber rifles and shotguns which do not employ a semi-automatic action, do not have a maximum magazine capacity limit either. A magazine fed pump action 12 gauge shotgun holding 11 rounds and looking like an assault weapon from an episode of the Walking Dead... is perfectly legal and a non-restricted firearm.
Magazines designed for semi-automatic rifles for different specific calibers, which happen to also hold a completely different caliber in larger quantities than the usual 5 shot limit are also completely legal. Hence the .50 Beowulf magazines which are meant for AR type rifles, which hold 5 rounds of that caliber, are legal to also load with 13 or 14 rounds of 5.56 and to be then inserted into a 5.56 AR type rifle (or any that uses the same type of box magazines). The reason this is legal has to do with how the regulations in Canada are specifically worded.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=TVTSVowayL8
Also - magazine capacity. When was the last time a criminal had a pinned magazine? Never. It’s the first thing you’d want to do. Drill out the tiny rivet that is all that is stopping you from going on a shooting spree. :@Deeeight.
While Colt AR-15s are classed as restricted here... other "assault" looking rifles... are not. What is restricted and non-restricted generally comes down to what some pencil pusher at the RCMP decided at any particular moment, regardless of what the gun looks like, whether it was previously unrestricted, or what he had for breakfast that morning. Go look at these two links... both are non-restricted lists available at one particular canadian online gun dealer.
www.firearmsoutletcanada.com/rifles/non-restricted/semi-automatic
www.firearmsoutletcanada.com/shotguns/semi-automatic
Notice all the semi-automatic assault rifles which are non-restricted.
You do NOT need an extended magazine to go on a shooting spree. People by and large are pussies...even when they have a gun themselves, in the face of an active shooter. Case in point the armed deputy sheriff outside the high school in florida last month who didn't enter the school while the gunfire was happening. The natural response for most people is to flee...and a shooter has all the time he/she needs to reload a gun... when the targets are fleeing instead of approaching.
Really? Where'd you get this info about our natural tendencies? This seems like total conjecture on your part. Not something rooted in, you know, evidence.
If you don't know what the fight or flight response is... that's not my problem, or apparently that of scientific evidence. Lemme guess.. you're a climate change denier also right ?
Sounds like we are just falling into the same vein of group narcissism as the drivers that try to road rage people onto the shoulder. I need a better cause to support than not buying Giro, Camelbak etc. when it comes to keeping guns out of the hands of criminals.
scissors control then, because this happened: www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=46212452
people can kill others with their hands, should we have hand control? should we cut off hands? violent people will commit violent acts with or with out guns, car ram ing for instance, man, anything for instance
Since 1772, there have been 482 deaths in NZ via "massacre". 250 of which were retribution killings in 1772, 49 deaths in 1943 during a prisoner of war camp riot, and the 14 at Aramoana in 1990.
No one here thinks they need a gun to defend themselves here. That way of thinking is self prophesizing and proliferates weapons.
"Gee, Shirly, that there guy is stabbing people...oh look, he stabbed the person there, and the person next to me, and oh, dang, he stabbed me too, and, oh, look he stabbed you too..."
Stupid argument to say a person with a knife could kill 17 people as easily as with a gun. What you've done there is employ what is known as "deflection"
really, prevention is the best weapon, guns as a backup, and imwould rather not use guns
Again another alcohol point. Anyone can make alcohol. That’s not exactly the case when it comes to guns. Of course there is still a ton of illegal guns out there but if you ban certain guns there won’t be those guns from here on out.....
I guess it’s why gun laws have never been changed because these age old arguments are brought up. We can’t safeguard ourselves from the actions of others, but why does one need a semi-automatic rifle? The Florida shooter bought this gun legally at 18.
Something needs to change but as long as people think this way it never will.
But for real, the meds are a recurring pattern. A depressed, resentful psychopath, barely managing his will to get revenge on the world, gets meds making him less anxious and less caring. At some point he care less about what will happen if he kills a bunch of people.
It is hard to argue though, these are mentally sick people. In a country with as many people as US has, this will happen, considering that according to studies 1% of all the people are psychopaths.
I just can’t see how putting guns in schools will help. You can’t have more than two armed guys, it’s too expensive. What would you do if you are a psycho planning to kill friends for calling him fkless jimmy, knowing there’s a guard? You shoot him first with the hand gun. He could be an ex Marine, there’s just too many kids walking around, you have plenty of perfect opportunities to shoot him right in the face. Then you pick up then automatic rifle and shoot everyone else. Yes that may cancel out a few folks who are too stupid to do it right. But still...
Reagan is not who you think he was
"Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and to remove all doubt."
Ronald Reagan single-handedly dismantled the mental health care industry. Don't come at me with that Bonzo shit.
"The Mental Health Systems Act of 1980 (MHSA) was United States legislation signed by President Jimmy Carter which provided grants to community mental health centers. During the following Ronald Reagan administration, the United States Congress repealed most of the law.[1] The MHSA was considered landmark legislation in mental health care policy."
Just like all insecure despots (Trump), he couldn't let his predessor's successes stand.
Though if Hitler or Stalin took over, they would have overturned US constitution and banned all guns like they did in their countries. I guess that is the liberals ideal.
Guns are not the issue, murder is. Yes, if you get rid of a tool, it can't be used, but humans are creative. Ever seen a person use a knife as a screwdriver? Any tool can be misused. Petrol is easily obtainable, ammonium nitrate, poisons, etc.
If I made a tool, that was really good at killing people, but had another practical purpose, would that be ok??
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety" -B. Franklin
Note - the 2000 era bombings in Israel were an international issue, Israel built a wall. The 2016 Nice France truck attack killed 86 people - France did ?? The London bridge truck attack killed 11 people - The UK did ??
It’s a tough topic, because I own firearms, but I don’t own what civilians call “assault weapons”, why? I don’t need one, I was issued plenty of them, and shot the hell out of them.
But, the second amendment was established with single shot muskets in mind, not an “assault rifle”. Frankly, I think the law should require those who want to purchase a firearm in general that are under 21, to join the military, so they can fire those weapons regularly, and if you’re too much of a pussy to serve your country, wait until you’re 21 to buy anything except an “assault rifle”. Furthermore, as a civilian there is absolutely no reason to own an AR or anything alike, so if your job does not require you to carry an assault weapon such as active military or law enforcement, sorry you’ll just have to measure the size of your dick with a ruler instead of a shiny new assault rifle. Lastly, companies that no longer support the NRA probably should have withdrew support in a different mannor, and maybe just strategized a little, before the massive exodus. I don’t necessarily like the NRA, however, I’m not against firearms and owning them, I just feel that civilians shouldn’t be able to own “assault weapons” period. There’s plenty of handguns, rifles and shotguns out there for people to purchase and own, but the “AR” types of rifles should be only available to law enforcement and military jobs, and not some punk 17 or 18 year old with a black ops video game addiction and an assault rifle. Personally, I was never against onwning them, but people always have to screw things up for everyone else I.e. drinking and driving, seat belt laws, helmet laws, pissing in public, now owning assault weapons... history just repeats itself... blame the stupid a*sholes that made poor decisions and accept the change. You can’t get mad at people trying to make things safer for the greater good of society, again, it’s the a*shole with a gun that did the damage, and we have to pay for it, so suck it up, because they f*cked it up.
FYI, graduate historian speaking:
The framers specifically and with intent wrote the word "arms" not muskets.
Our government is reason enough to own ARs and much worse, and don't bother trying the "you can't fight the government with an AR" nonsense, the Afghans have been doing it for decades to us, Russia, everybody.
If you're one of those types that would have "followed orders" to attack and strip your fellow citizens of their property (in this theoretical future), then I pity you more than anything.
2) Gun control decreases gun ownership in law-abiding/good citizens
3) Good people with guns stop bad people with guns (either it be police or citizens)
4) Stripping the "rights" of hundreds of millions of people is tyrannical
5) Training and arming less than a million teachers makes more sense economically as well as ethically
6) Most of the people that want gun control are people who think Donald Trump is going to be the "next Hitler"
7) More lives are saved by legal/defensive use of guns than lives are taken
Guns provide independent safety for women, children and the elderly because it is an equalizer of aggression
9) Drunk driving kills more children than guns do.. we could get rid of drunk driving by federally banning alcohol (lol)
Just use your brain people. Stop reacting emotionally and demanding tyrannical actions.
You're not against guns if you want gun control. You just want to disarm the population and concentrate gun ownership to the government. And if you are pro-gun control, you probably think cops are largely abusive and immoral...... What the hell are you even trying to say?
1.) No civilian needs an assault rifle. Ever. Period. Whatever your Rambo day dreams are about standing up against a modern military are hilarious. So the argument that we need guns (in all shapes, sizes, and lethalities) is utter nonsense.
2.) No one is talking about taking your guns there buddy... just making it harder for the people who shouldn’t have them to get their hands on them.
3.) Gun control ALWAYS results in people buying more guns, look it up.
4.) Good people with guns shoot way more members of their families and themselves than they do bad guys. Also factual, look that up to.
5.) If a police officer with over 25 years of experience is too scared to rush into a school with an active shooter, what makes you think a teacher is going to be able to do anything in that situation?
6.) The ENTIRE reason I bought a gun is because Trump was elected. Because I don’t trust people like you to keep your head on straight if things keep going the way they are.
7.) Check your facts before you try making an argument. Far more people are killed accidentally with guns than are “saved” each year.
I own a shotgun, I’m prepared to use that gun if the need should ever arise. No civilian needs an assault rifle, no child needs anything other than a shotgun to go hunting, or a 22 for target shooting. No civilian needs extended magazines. Common sense reforms is all that people want. If you lack common sense, then perhaps you shouldn’t have access to guns either?
re: #5 you need courage to put your life in danger to save others.
You don't need "courage" if your own life is ALREADY in danger. Are you typing this from a mental facility??
TURN YOUR GUN IN YOU HYPOCRITE. YOU DONT NEED A GUN.
How’d I do?!
“Tarnation”, that’s cute!
See if you can keep up with my “liberal, elitist, snowflakey” language.
Courage is required to live in a world where you can’t shoot things you don’t like. Cowardice is avoiding doing what is right for EVERYONE around you. Which do you have more of?
The problem with the gun debate is that the majority of gun owners are like you... ANY sensible move towards saving lives is viewed as an attack on your “liberties”.
One more time... no one is trying to take your guns away. Just trying to make it harder for those who shouldn’t have them to get their hands on them.
So calm down, and try to realize that things can be had both ways. You’ll find you have less anger in your life.
You’re only 23... ok. Then you can’t possibly understand what any of this actually means yet.
I’m sorry but your brain literally isn’t even finished developing. Which means there’s still hope for you.
Whatever you think you and @Axxe are “thinking”, you’re doing it wrong.
You know what else is not an argument? Axxe and I have at least triple the IQ points that you do.
Wonderful contribution Tony!
What do you have to add that’s “real?”
Please, I can’t wait to hear it.
You are so full of hate. So intolerant of other beliefs.
I will #LoveNotHate
You always resort to "smug elitist" when run out of things to copy paste from the nra website.
A typical brainwashed liberal.
I have many views that would be considered conservative.
But you have been programmed to think in the absolute. all or nothing.
Why is it that all the NRA solutions involve selling more guns and ammunition? Gee wiz I wonder who benefits there. I don't watch CNBC CNN or fox they are all 10percent news 90 percent opinion.
All they do is repeat what the viewers what to hear and the message their rich corporate backers want driven into your brain.
Do yourself a favor, read through Supreme Court decisions in Heller in particular (as it applies here). You will see what level of analysis is used to actually interpret this.
The NRA's lobbying actions undermine the safety of our society in order to benefit a single niche industry, and it's completely despicable. I unfortunately just bought a Giro helmet, but I will support the boycott for future purchases, as I don't want any of my money going to a parent corporation that is funding the NRA.
Respect the environment you're in and use a bear spray.
But, nice try.
Btw. There are other animals like mountain lions here...
Maybe you should have some articles where you block any comments just for the sake of civility.
You own buyback in 1996 didn't work too well, but you won't point that out will you?
So much for honest discussion.
Alcohol abuse is so rampant and no one cares. I’ve had three loved ones who’ve either been killed due to alcohol involved incidents (not their own fault) or drunk driver... I know most people know a handful as well. What’s being done?
‘0’ alcohol abuse is insane!
That being said, people kill people! Wether it’s a using a knife, a gun or any other weapon... why disarm the law abiding citizens who abide by the laws. People in an F’d state of mind and psychologically whacked or the criminal don’t give a flying F about firearm laws! They need help! What’s being done to help them? Pushing a pill that has as bad or worse side effects than the diagnosis. Nothing is being done to get to the root cause and treat that.
Can we please look at the bigger picture?
What happened to the golden rule?
What happened to love your neighbor as yourself?
Our values have gotten so skewed.
Ride your bike and care about people. Keep it real.
Anyways, alcohol and tobacco use is a choice. Heart disease is the number one leading cause of death at ~640k in 2016. ~80k died because of diabetes. Are you telling me we should ban sugar? Your argument is probably as senseless as this article if you view it that way.
Gun deaths are inflicted upon its victims(in this situation we are talking about, not discussing suicide). And when someone goes on a shooting spree its mass casualties
All anyone is really asking is for sensible gun laws, however the NRA has squashed every single proposed gun law no matter what it is. I don't care if people have guns, people just shouldn't have certain guns. Someone with enough experience can defend themselves with a simple handgun. Else all these movies I watch are BS.
And I find it sad just how unwilling America seems to be in even TRYING to reduce gun fatalities. "Oh it won't happen, so don't bother trying!" Did Sir Edmund Hillary say that before "knocking the buggar off"? Did Neil Armstrong say "we'll never get this rocket into space!"?
Perhaps I am an idiot for trying to jump that 6m (20' to you) gap jump. I'll get hurt, perhaps. I may break my neck. But at least I will have tried. But that only hurts me. Not 17 high school children, nor TWENTY six and seven year old CHILDREN at Sandy Hook.
When is it enough for you lot?
How nothing happened after Sandy Hook is atrocious, and only proved how unintelligent USA is on this matter. It is beyond belief.
As for the flag, I know the difference, promise! Phone screen is greyscale to save power.
4 of the 6 years after the buy back you had MORE homicides even without the guns.
www.pinkbike.com/u/camm02/album/GUN
www.pinkbike.com/news/Suns-Out-Guns-Out-James-Doerfling-video-2014.html
www.pinkbike.com/forum/listcomments/?threadid=97319
www.pinkbike.com/forum/listcomments/?threadid=176070&pagenum=2
as well as lots of videos depicting riders shooting semi-automatic guns...
If this is a mountain bike site, take a permanent position about it and be coherent about it all the time!
www.pinkbike.com/photo/15655082
Do you also get your facts from Buzzfeed? Hahhahahaha
We live in a world where facts are less important than ever. Just look at the current US administration for a prime example.
Anyway, you probably get your "facts" from Fox News, right?. That is very intelligent of you buddy, brilliant indeed...
My first question is why shouldn't there be major restrictions on something that is specifically designed to efficiently kill people? This idea that "guns don't kill people" is so silly to me. I guess if you really wanted to you could use a marshmallow to kill someone. The difference being a marshmallow wasn't created for that specific purpose and likely couldn't be used to mow down a room full of people.
Secondly, this idea of loss of rights. What about the right not to be shot by your classmate? If this is truly a rights issue why are so many other things that in my mind are basic human needs not a right (right to health care, affordable or free education)?
According to the World Health Report, "One in four people in the world will be affected by mental or neurological disorders at some point in their lives". Perhaps we should stop using easy answers for complex issues, and start genuinely looking at other risk factors such us socioeconomic and educational variables...
And of course it's a bike shop in Portland sending all their Bell and Giro gear back, everybody knows hipsters don't even wear helmets. If Vista owned a man bun elastic manufacturing company they wouldn't be sending shit back!
The law abiding citizen is unarmed in the eu, that's true. But by far the most violence comes from criminals in which we are no different to the us.
Guns (and gun manufacturers) are not the real issue IMO. Neither are the vast majority of gun owners. There are thought to be 300 MILLION fire arms in the US, yet fewer than 400,000 gun-related crimes. That's still a staggering number, I'll grant you but the percentage is very small, little more than 0.1% of guns in the US are used in crime. And many of the 400000 gun-related incidents likely involve the same (illegally-owned) guns, so that percentage is in all probability much lower, possibly 0.01%. Simply put, the chances a legally bought gun is in the wrong hands are infinitesimal. The legislation works for the overwhelming majority. Failures of the system are rare (when viewed in terms of the raw numbers). Unfortunately, the consequences when failures occur are nothing short of disasterous and heartbreaking.
Better gun control will always be welcome. Notice I said better, not-more restrictive. When dealing with such an small percentage of owners, outliers in statistical terms, it is not surprising that the legislation does not cover every scenario concievable. Those scenarios need to be considered.
Disturbed people hell-bent on killing others will always find a way. Look at the number of incidents in the UK where the perpetrators used knives to wound and kill multiple victims. Legal loopholes will not stop a suitably motivated perpetrator. Our history is rife with grotesqueries, regardless of race, religion or creed; It's a part of human nature whether you like it or not. If we make guns less available to those who want to commit unspeakable crimes then they will build bombs, use knives or employ any manner of atrocious methods you can't concieve of.
It's worth pointing out that law enforcement (federal and local) utterly failed to prevent the Florida shooting from happening; The warning signs were there and they failed in their responsibilities. They were incompetent in their handling of the incident too (inaccurate "real-time" information, ineffective personnel) which arguably led to a higher loss of life than would otherwise would have occured. Their handling of the shooter and the incident should be scrutinized in far more depth than the issue of gun control. The bulk of the "blame" for the death toll lies with them.
This is not an end-of declaration; it's just to add some nuance to the discussion. We should do our utmost to ensure individuals with nefarious intentions are unable to access the kinds of weapons that facilitate a killing spree. But the rush to control guns is a knee-jerk reaction which does not hold up when subjected to reasonable investigation. Call me a cynic but it's mostly political posturing; a healthy dose of unjustly targeting your opponents core supporters and vilifying them in your own supporters eyes. There are better ways to prevent these tragedies from happening. Piling in on the gun control merry-go-round ultimately means the other avenues at our disposal, reasonable methods for prevention are ignored. Since the gun-control argument can be defeated on reason alone, that means nothing changes. The gun-control merry-go-round is so blatently counter-productive it's borderline idiotic.
Every single preview showed the most cool, most beautiful people spraying bullets from machine guns. With cool being defined by that, getting rid of the weapons will have no effect. Semi automatic rifles have been available since WWII. What is changing now is that they've become extremely glamorized. It's so cool to be big and bad and have a pointy black rifle.
They sanitize the shooting so much that it's not even cringe worthy. Ever shot an animal? They bleed a lot. If you don't make a clean kill, they suffer a lot. Movies gloss over all that to make sure it shows slow motion of people getting blown throw windows with lots of broken glass and excitement. So cool, those guys are so awesome!
If you showed a cow getting shot up and blown through a window people would go ape shit. Even just show a real animal getting slaughtered for food. But blast a person? Naw, thats just fine
How about we ban movies that show this stuff?
How about we ban video games that lets you practice this stuff?
Remember the second amendment sits right next to the first.
Maybe we pressure Hollywood to show that guys with mountain bikes are more cool than idiots who shoot machine guns?
And by the way, the weapon in your photo is an acutal assault rifle with a select fire switch. Not legal to own.
When these shootings happen, our brains clench up and we make illogical and somewhat illogical choices. We, as a world, need to calm the hell down and asses the situation. Then we can make logical choices. We need a reform, not in our objects, but in what we think, say and do. Thinking leads to saying and doing.
After all that, GO MTBIKING, for there is a sport we can get a good high on, and not watching/playing gun games.
As a matter of fact even those who hate sports should get pleanty of exercise.
What do these countries have in common? Lower gun ownership rates than the US. In fact, gun deaths are linearly proportional to gun ownership both in respect to countries and US states.
Idk maybe the U.S. has the idiots.
I grew up with guns and most of everyone I know has guns, and most of them shouldn't. People will argue and that's their right but I can get my gear from other manufacturers.
Also, can I get a woo woo from NRA members?!
This is the same with just about everything on the left. Do some minor research on the 'wage gap' with has been proven to be utter BS.
Can't start a honest discussion on anything if you start yours with a lie.
You are talking banning all guns. Right now they aren't but all this crap about it being military or not means nothing. Look at the silly bs about it's range and it's design to pierce a helmet at 500 yards- none of that comes into play when you're shooting kids stuck in a school. They aren't wearing armor they aren't 300 yards away.
Let ask you, if you're dead does your family care if it was a pistol or a rifle that fired the bullet?
So when you get your ban and the next mass shooting is done with pistols are all those people going to now say all good we don't need to do anything about pistols- please.
So where does it stop- that's why the NRA is the way it is, they are well versed in history and once the ball gets rolling it doesn't stop.
This is simply the nature of the USA. Other options are open for discussion such as limiting access, removing access, and checking further into who should or should not have weapons. I'm all about a logical discussion, studying statistics, and forming logical conclusions to address the issues. Problem is, most of the solutions proposed will not address the issues.
I agree that the second amendment should be respected, but the constitution was meant to be a living document that evolved with the times.That is why we have the amendment process. Not everything in the Constitution is honorable and should be protected at all costs (the 3/5's clause for example).
I'm in no way saying guns should be banned, or no one should have guns. But it is logical to look at ways we can legally regulate commercial firearm sales to reduce violence and do not infringe on your rights as defined by the courts over time. Even Ronald Reagan supported a ban on assault weopons so this is not some crazy left wing libtard idea.
I believe there are plenty of steps that can be takes that don't infringe on the liberties of law abiding citizens (not including would-be murderers or those who are mentally ill or have violent history). These should be looked into.
One thing to note - there will never be 0 gun deaths in the US. What is a "acceptable" margin a which point regulation of firearms will cease???
Savage Arms doesn’t sell to law enforcement, the military, or any other group that legitimately needs assault rifles. So f*ck ‘em.
So the company that owns Savage needs to understand that if they’re gonna put profit before common sense, then let their other brands and bottom line suffer. If some people lose their jobs that would be unfortunate, but they’ll back down before that happens I’m sure.
But even if people do get laid off, you can’t make an omelet without breaking some eggs and if these boycotts actually accomplish some meaningful reforms then so be it.
Oh, and I own a big ‘ol mean ass shotgun so can your B.S. responses about why people need assault rifles and large magazines. This isn’t about guns, it’s about keeping guns out of the wrong hands. If some 18 yr old kid is so hot to get military grade weapons, let him enlist. Otherwise, the less lethal the weapons are the kids (and sick adults) can get their hands on, the better.
I do know they don’t have anywhere near the contracts that Remington, Glock, SIG, etc have...
My point was, as a maker of only long guns, their choice make and sell assault rifles to civilians is the bed they’ve made and now they should have to sleep in it.
This is what we’re talking about. Companies that sell military grade weapons to kids.
www.outsideonline.com/2282941/should-our-morals-determine-our-gear-purchases
Although if you're going to boycott Giro, Bell, and Camelbak you should probably also boycott all commercial aviation given that Vista Outdoors is itself a recently separated subsidiary of Orbital ATK which is a company that supplies all kinds of parts to both Boeing and Airbus. Good luck flying on a plane built by someone other than them!
When do we call a boycott on the companies that supply these items directly or indirectly? Do you stop flying airlines that use Boeing? Are you ditching your Siemens or Samsung communication tech? Still using that Microsoft equipment?
If we boycott every company that has ties to weapons manufacture or the facilitation of death and destruction, the only people your going to trade with will be your local farm produce store. And even they bought their seeds from Monsanto and the fertilizer from Dow.
Maybe if you close your eyes really tight, stay at home everything will be better tomorrow.
How have people come so far from the values of the founding of this nation???
Yes, people have used trucks and if used improperly can be extremely lethal. That’s why we have education, licensing, registration, insurance, and criminal penalties for dangerous driving, and why you can’t just walk in off the street and buy a semi because there’s a special license for that.
As soon as people start blowing up schools with pressure cookers you’d better believe you’ll need to show an ID to buy one, and that would be smart. Fertilizer bombs? Thanks to Tim McVeigh you can count on being on a watch list if you buy fertilizer in significant quantities.
And yes, 20k are suicides, and if you take it down to 10k we still lead the developed world in all types of gun deaths.
Liberty? Bullshit. There are countries just as free as ours that don’t have more guns than people. Tell the grieving parents of a child who just got ripped in half by a .223 round that they had to die for liberty.
Fertilizer - WAY easier to get than you think. All you need is a couple pounds to cause massive damage, not a truckload. You don't need significant quantities. 20 pounds or so can destroy a building depending on the structure.
The AR15 is not the weapon of choice in school shootings. Many (if not most) school shootings shave been done with weapons other than assault-style weapons and have been more deadly than cases with AR15s. Handguns are a better CQB weapon and are more lethal up close as well as easier to conceal. AR15 turns up in a few shootings (because it's likely the most common gun in the US - so YES, it will be used proportionally so), but HANDGUNS are the leading cause of gun deaths in the US by a long shot - NOT AR15/assault style weapons.
Countries just as free as ours? I'd say ask the German Jews how they're doing with their freedom, but you can't, because they're all dead. What about teh Chinese under Mao? Nope - same thing, dead. Name a country that is 1) as ethnically diverse as the US and 2) has cartels on it's borders which are loosely controlled and has a separation between religion and state (there goes the entire middle east and northern Africa, excluding Israel). Not much left out there... ALSO - the fact that we're having this debate SHOWS that we have more liberty that other countries, but YOU want to get rid of our liberty to own an AR15, making us marginal, like others.
You're using emotion & dead children to rationalize your argument. I can guarantee you that ANY law made out of emotion is likely a crap law (the patriot act).
I'm not sure how my other statistics are inaccurate - referencing that suicides by gun are #1, followed by gang violence at #2 is not inaccurate. Looks like you're quoting Wikipedia on the 33k deaths.. which is 2013 data? Why are we looking at 2013 data? Well here's more - as I said, Suicides are #1 (63.0%), followed by gang violence. Funny that Wikipedia says there were 33,636 deaths in both 2013 AND 2015!! Wow, what a dependable source of info!
From another source: gang violence accounts for roughly 8,900 of 11,100 gun murders in both 2010 and 2011 which was my other comment about gangs being #2... Funny thing is that these occur in cities wit the strictest gun laws in the US. Curious! Did the "Gun Free Zone" and laws signs not work??
The figure this entire debate is about is the roughly 2200 gun deaths in the US each year, of which, roughly 15% are from AR15 rifles. I'm not really sure what you're getting at - all guns are bad? AR15s are bad? I don't have a gun fetish, but I certainly do have a fetish with liberty. And FYI - my guns have never killed anyone, but have likely saved a life or 2.
Vista Sports overall only hope to become profitable again is if there is a big gun scare that new regulations will restrict ammunition sales and related items - this could drive a buying freenzy similar to Obama presidency. Trump might of done that tonight in his talk with democrats about gun controls.
Not really sure why I am talking about bikes accessories, guns and politics on Pinkbike. I’d rather just be shredding a sick trail.
I'll be watching to see how this develops. We tend to have a very short memory these days. Anyone care that Russia invaded the Ukraine? I do identify with the idea of not wanting to support or fund the NRA. I just feel like this is a bit of a stretch.
"there's no reason to own a gun except maybe hunting"... Self defense? No? Because the founding fathers of the US thought it was necessary to maintain a free state? No?
Ever had your house broken into by 3 people? You going to take them all on (and get whooped) or run out of your house while your wife & daughters are raped?
Really?? Be honest with yourself?? Dude Man Bro...
Also, Marines can't operate on US soil. There are 360M Americans in the US. 200k of them are marines. You're assuming the marines, army, navy, guard, etc. will be ok will killing civilians. Civilians could easily assemble a force of 20M+ overnight... Not to mention that civis maintain military systems, infrastructure, etc.
First there are other ways (alarm, video surveillance) to protect yourself and being attacked in your house in a context where you have the opportunity to reach a gun sounds way less frequent than to get a cancer or a cardiovascular diseases (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_causes_of_death_by_rate)
The corrupt government taking over is a pure fantasy, like you said i don't think the military will go blindly after the civilians.
You said "civils maintain military systems, infrastructure, etc", we are not in 1800 anymore, civilians don't defend themselves with handguns, There are also more subtle ways to oppress a population than by physical violence. Look around you: in Syria, Lybia or in Serbia/Croatia and study how conflicts evolve. I don't see any recent conflicts (even less in developed and sophisticated countries) where democracy has been saved by armed civilians. I see much more problems by having so many guns in circulation. I don't have anything against people having the freedom to own a gun, the same has if they want to own a snake or a bear but it's a huge responsible and they should be overly controlled. We have to stop with the gun fascination, they are dangerous items that rarely do any good and they are as cool as smoking.
In my book owning a gun don't you make you a man, it make you look weak and uneducated or unrealistic about the world around you.
As far as Syria goes, look what happened to the Yazidis, who disagreed with ISIS. Murdered sold into slavery, or both. Evil will always exist in this world, if good people lay down their defenses, evil will triumph. This is the exact reason the US has nearly 500 ICBMs standing ready to be launched. Not to murder, but to deter would-be attackers. There are many ways to fight in modern warfare, but we, in the US would prefer to maintain the right to defend ourselves is need be.
I do agree that weapons are serious, deadly, and need to be controlled properly, but I prefer the liberty to maintain the right to defend myself with deadly force if need be. Alarms don't work, police are slow, I'm not going to run if someone breaks into my place. Also, I'd prefer to not end up in a gas chamber or work camp at some point if at all possible... Why did Germany make it illegal for Jews own guns?? Have you ever read about krystallnacht (the night of broken glass)?
I, for one, support states' rights.
maybe spare a thought for people with mortgages that work for the companies, and there families.
there are other countries with high gun ownership but no mass shooting problem..........
This little gem would make a great deer rifle, since it uses the 7.62×51mm NATO and it might be able to fire the commercial .308 Winchester. That is a much better round for deer than the 5.56 NATO that the AR-15 fires. And lethal at much greater distances.
And it is on the "non-restricted" list, meaning that if a legal resident of Canada has satisfied the firearms ownership permit requirement, they can go buy one.
So a Canadian bound and determined to create mayhem with a firearm could go buy a dozen magazines for one, load them up, and do a lot of real damage. But it hasn't happened very often.
This is why I say that it is not merely access to a suitable weapon which causes this kind of attack. Making them illegal didn't stop the IRA from having a whole host of firearms in the UK. And using them to cause mayhem.
It hasn't stopped people from using petrol bombs to create mayhem. It didn't stop Aum Shinrikyo. It hasn't stopped "Man with a Van" attacks, or a whole host of other evil acts. It is just a way for a bunch of sanctimonious expletive deleteds> to make themselves feel good.
You can't simply buy a helmet to protect your head or hydration pack to not get thirsty or a pump to fix a flat to get back home safely. Now these things carry bad joojoo. The evil lies in the corporatio
And by the way I am a proud owner of a Bell Super 2, a Camelbak, and a Savage Arms .22. (Though I prefer other gun company’s over Savage Arms.) And I will not stop buying high quality products from them.
The sad thing about all of this is that the liberal/ gun control advocates show their true colors when they immediately skip over mourning for the victims and the horror their families are faced with and go straight for the advancement of their agenda. its sickening.
Also i've heard Dicks sporting goods is no longer selling "assault style rifles" they are so blind to the reality of the issue. I've never been impressed with that store anyway so it doesn't hurt my feelings to stop supporting them in any way.
www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/02/what-i-saw-treating-the-victims-from-parkland-should-change-the-debate-on-guns/553937
This world will never be perfect. There will be hate and tragedy no matter what utopia people think we are capable of. And to think that by solving "Assault Rifle" gun deaths will put us on a path to a safer world in nonsense. Where is the uproar about the gun related deaths/murders in Chicago? The only reason people get fired up about school shootings is because it is closer to the reality they live in. The rest of gun violence is in inner city shootings so who cares right? The AR-15 which only accounts for around 300 murders a year is the most evil weapon of them all, inst it?... There are about a million other reasons people die on this planet and the reason the news hangs onto these stories is because it scares us the most.
www.statista.com/statistics/195325/murder-victims-in-the-us-by-weapon-used
Not sure why people are loosing their mind over NRA and politicizing this horrible event. A company who manufactures firearms will obviously support the NRA and for good cause. A mad man with the desire to create his own version of homegrown terrorism and be remembered for it goes for the easy target. Our media in the US feeds these psychopaths and encourages these crazys to do it and go out with a literal bang. This moron skated past local and federal law enforcement despite many tips, here lies our biggest problem.
CAN WE GET BACK TO BANNING EBIKES? Leave us yanks alone with our love for bikes, guns, god and country.
Think about it a bit it lol
agree with this, even though aus has tight gun laws we still have gun related crime. Just not with military grade weaponry.
www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-43217142
Nope, no issues there at all.
And to anyone who doesn't think that the ridiculous ease of access that one has to guns in the States is not at the heart of the bloodshed, please do some research: there is no other country that fetishizes guns the way that America does and there is no other country with such an astronomical number of innocents slaughtered yearly by guns. Supporters of gun culture (albeit sometimes unintentionally, because they are ill-informed or brainwashed), republican politicians, NRA and associated companies--all of these people are as responsible for the deaths of innocent children as the person who pulls the trigger (perhaps even more responsible).
I'm all for the boycott of NRA-related products and services, but this one gets tricky because of the above quote. I think the best way to proceed (if you are from the boycotting side that is), is to boycott the products and services at the heart of the issue (i.e. the guns, not the helmets). I don't know if this will matter in the bigger picture, but we can at least be more precise in the message we are trying to send.
Btw, no one's taking ALL the guns Just SOME. Some does not equal all. Stop crying. Jesus F. Christ.
However I fundamentally cannot understand how anyone can defend the plentiful and ready supply of military grade weaponry to the general public. How can people love weapons and their perceived "liberties" more than their countries children/ citizens? Every innocent victim has a family, loved ones. The students could have gone on to great things. For a moment put yourselves in the shoes of a parent, identifying their child at the morgue, organising the funeral, picking the hymns, laying the flowers. Picture the years going forward, and the painful reminders of what was lost.
If giving up your guns could even contribute to saving both the victim and the family that - surely it's worth giving up?
If you want to talk about bodies piling up, let's look at Mao (50M+ murdered) or Stalin (23M+ murdered) or Hitler.... Note - these are CIVILIAN deaths. I'm not sure, but I think 50M deaths is a bit of a larger issue than what the US sees each year in non-suicide, non-gang related deaths.
Is it impractical to think that another Mao, Stalin, Hitler could occur again in our lifetime?
We don't need this debate here
Can consumers make a difference? -certainly.
Guess what else. Assault rifles have been illegal in America since the 1900s. The AR15 is just a hunting rifle that just so happens to be used in many shootings. There are a ton of different guns that can do the same damage as an Ar15, but since they don’t look “scary” to liberals, they don’t give one shit.
#protectthatsecondamendment
However since the internet came into been, there was so many loopholes that pretty much anyone could import gun parts legally and build their own assualt rifle of choice. Yet the irony was while you couldn't legally purchase said assualt rifles you could (at the time), legally purchase the parts to build that AR-15 if you so wished.
Now we just have the problem of criminals breaking into legal gun owners houses and the police shooting dead more people than they care to...
For the record, I'm not giving up my new Bell 3r - that lid is the shit. Now get the f#*@ off my lawn !
Problem is vetting people, securing ones own guns, and removing guns from people who are unstable.
Let's assume schools had guns. You gonna give them assault rifles?? Maybe just plain old handguns.. then either way, some nutter want to shoot the place up, but can't get a gun, then all he has to do is go into the school and take one. Stupid idea. What about teachers, you assume they are going to be trained to shoot and risk their lives? I assume all teachers in USA will get a huge payrise then for that and that will really sort your economy problems...
Kinda funny you refer to something that happened in Norway years ago to compare with the recent US shooting. That's because it's been years since something like that happened elsewhere and it happens every month is USa. I recently read that this is the 20 something school shooting this year! Need I remind you it is March, barely! This epedemic is almost entirely restricted to America with the ridiculous gun laws. Take a country that doesn't allow every maniac who wants to to buy a gun and these situations barely ever occur. So yeah, more guns will really solve this.. Fool.
Have you looked up statistics on mass shootings when stopped by a civilian vs the police? there are way more deaths while waiting for police. If teachers want to take responsibility for being the first line of defense and protecting their student, why would you stop them? I'd do it if I were a teacher. In fact, a couple teachers died protecting student in this past shooting. What if they were armed? are you saying the outcome would not have changed??
I brought up the Norway shooting as en example to show hat i's not just the US where these things occur. 17 kids are NOT killed in schools by mass shootings each month in the US. This is NOT the 20th school shooting. Look at the data. It's people accidentally discharging, committing suicide, etc. stop using that fake metric. Your model only works is you take 100% of the guns away, which will NEVER happen in the US so your model for gun control is impractical and irrelevant. Disarm law abiding citizens and leave criminals with guns. That sounds foolish to me. I don't think you have a realistic view on the world Americans live in or why we choose to do so...
Wish someone from Switzerland can prove if true. Internet/Mainstream media can be bias, hard to find the facts without opinions.
And yes, the Swiss are armed, although I don't believe they're required.
www.independent.co.uk/news/world/politics/switzerland-high-rates-gun-ownership-why-doesnt-no-mass-shootings-a8230606.html
comment by @Timroo1 saying I'm a hateful ignorant little POS in 3..2..1..
2) the shithole comment; I was just bullshitting in response to the comment before (also in reference to Trump) sorry for any offence. I don't believe there are any shithole countries, each country has positives and negatives
However, I agree with you on the fact that also other similar information should be published, so that we as customers can then try to make the most ethical (following our own morals) purchases
Also, another 'sure fire' winner in gun development, and the solution to all these problems, is the mandatory introduction of backwards firing guns. The gunthusiasts would love them, as they are just as lethal, and gunthusiasts generally accept that self inflicted gun deaths are not the fault of the gun, but the user. And school shootings would be over pretty quickly, with not loss of innocent lives.
Ok back to bikes now.
I agree that the US should look outside its borders for a solution. disarming is NOT the answer (hell, I have seen the amount of animals in the US that will eat you, and while yes, we have lots of deadlies in Oz, especially those bastard drop bears, not everything will EAT you) but looking to countries that have a high gun ownership population and look at amending the second amendment to restrict who can own a firearm.
Does that mean we all go out and boycott every company simply for that fact? How many companies do we have that source their materials via Fair-Trade? How many companies do we support that source their products in environmentally friendly ways? This is really no different, so in my mind (and this is my opinion and much like the adage says "Opinions are like a$$hole$. Everyone has one, but that doesn't makes yours more right or prettier than the others.") we might as well go about our normal business day.
Ride your bikes because you love the bike and to ride, because if you truly believe and follow this inane political and bureaucratic BS then you might as well sell your car, house, close your bank accounts, and truly go native where you only eat what you kill, gather your own food and materials, and make your own living and livelihood.
You running Boise, Eden, or Breck Spartans this year?
These are the reasons cycling has become astronomically expensive. Cycling is not about profits! Fa Q corpo cok sukers.
UK and AUS have not banned all types of guns only fully auto and hand guns.
AUS banned semi auto too i think
hand guns are allowed in the uk provided they are fitted with an extension that makes them non concealable
I have had a shotgun license from a young age and also now have a firearms license I can own a 50.cal rifle if i so choose but I have to give a good reason to the police for such an item. as it is I have a much lower calibre rifle which is for vermin control on the farm. the only other way to get a rifle is for hunting stalking purposes and you have to prove that you go on such trips. shot guns are easier to get but only for sporting use and you certainly cant just walk in to a shop and buy one.
medical history is considered and 2 independent references must be given as to your character. and this needs renewing every 5 years.
regular inspections to the guns storage are undertaken by the police.
ammunition storage limits are in place.
so no MURICA people are not trying to take away your guns, just change the way you use them and the type that can be reasonably considered necessary.
slavery was also a part of the bill of rights but that go "AMENDED"
I have met plenty of townies who are unaware that people in the uk is allowed to own guns, but to quote the film hot fuzz in regards to country folk "every one and their mum's is packin' round 'ere"
peace
investors.vistaoutdoor.com/Cache/1001225176.PDF?O=PDF&T=&Y=&D=&FID=1001225176&iid=4564156
The company makes 54% business with what the call Shooting Brands 46% with outdoor brands as stated on Page 6.
Also: on page 2 Vista fell short in its 2017 business results blaming this on lower sales of Shooting Brands.
As you may know, in the wake of the recent tragic shooting at a Florida school, there have been calls on social media for a boycott of Giro, Bell, Blackburn, Copilot, Raskullz, and Krash products because of their association with Vista Outdoor, a company that also owns separate businesses in the shooting sports industry. A major concern for the boycott centers around the incorrect assumption that the purchase of any of our products may support a cause that does not fit the mission/values of our brands. That is not the case. Our brands fall within the Outdoor Products segment of our company, which operates separately from Vista Outdoor's Shooting Sports segment. Since their inception (Bell - 1954, Giro - 1985, Blackburn - 1974, Copilot - 2000, Raskullz/Krash - 2010) these brands have each maintained their focus and reputations for innovation and high quality in support of users of our products.
We recognize, support and respect the right of every individual to decide for themselves what brands they will purchase based on whatever criteria they believe are important. Throughout their history, our brands have contributed to enjoyment and personal safety in powersports, cycling and snow sports and our focus remains on innovating and developing high quality product in support of these user communities.
This is a complex scenario and we expect you have many questions. We continue to encourage you to reach out directly to us to schedule a time to speak, via your local rep, so that we may provide additional information specific to you and your market.
Thank you for your support!
Can we all go back to just being a Mountain Bike Community? Realizing that these issues are beyond our realm of actual truth? Giro has nothing to do with the other company, that is an entirely different group separate of the Outdoor segment. So one has to wonder why Pinkbike would try to hurt a brand without talking with them and actually getting the facts first. So Pinkbike thanks for spreading FAKE NEWS - FALSE RUMORS and BULLSHIT only a child who is getting money from competitors would try to harm the LEADING GLOBAL BRANDS IN BIKE SAFETY. Too bad Giro & Bell Win this Round of fake news and I'll be sure to have Snopes.com update their findings....
www.businessinsider.com/gun-control-how-japan-has-almost-completely-eliminated-gun-deaths-2017-10
if you believe that it's all about the right to hunt for sport, try bowhunting as i grew up doing, where one must be close enough to make a killing shot. look directly in their eye, be in their direct environment, hear them, even smell them. this is how to experience a hunt from an entirely different perspective at 30 yards with one arrow's chance [maybe two if you're lucky enough to have a less entitled prey's desire for life on a first errant shot], versus that through a scope at 300 yards with a clip full of ammunition. anyways, i realize this premise has a snowflake's chance in hell with any gun owner's position, but give it a shot, no pun intended as change is invariably always for the good.
firing off bullets from an assault rifle are like firing off tweets. no one really knows where they are going or whom they are going to affect. does anyone truly think that america's president would state most any of his tweets directly to the receivers face, looking that person in the eye, in person? i think not. cowardice.
Maybe this will be ineffective, but its arguably better than sitting back and doing nothing. At least they tried. At least their point was raised.
Criminals don't follow the law.
Normal people do..
But muh emotions. Turn your guns in
www.factcheck.org/2017/10/gun-control-australia-updated
They were falling anyways. Trade your freedom for the illusion of safety. You'll have neither
s3.amazonaws.com/content.washingtonexaminer.biz/web-producers/100315-beltway-Image-One.jpg
cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/9371383/guns_country.jpg
A number of the founding fathers opposed the slave trade (including Jefferson) and recognized a mans NATURAL RIGHTS, which is what the US is about - God-given rights that government neither regulate or take away. Apparently our founding father's did something right. Look at the success of the US today - being that the country is only barely 250 years old.
And wigs are wicked cool.
This boycotting without a complete assessment of the millions of guns in the USA is retarded
Ironically enough its by CNN even.
i don’t want people control how i use guns or taking them away. I obey gun laws. Using guns, or anything else for that matter, to kill people is sick, very sick indeed. Unfortunately there are people who do it. There will all ways be an adversary.
Maybe one of the murdered 17 in Florida were called liberty. Or maybe we all died a bit that day.
No issues with owning a gun. just change the laws so that certain types are illegal (bump stock semiautos) better licenses to control who can own them and laws on storage and carraige. ie keep at home in a safe. no conceal carry, or open carry. comp shooters or part time shooters keep firearms at a range in a safe location. certain types of ammunition. Surely there is a middle ground like this that people would agree would be sensible rather than.
I wanna carry my gun because I can carry a gun for no real reason (self protections is pretty weak, if the criminal has a gun out and you try and draw you would be dead meat anyway. Self protection against wild animals...hmm shoot a grizzly with anything less than a 155mm and you would prob just piss it off lol
Yes middle ground, right now it is one side or the other.
But those stories go untold because it goes against their agenda.
Idk what the gunmen think, I don’t want to know what the gunmen think.
I support a well regulated militia, and every citizen havint the right to own a gun if they prove responsible.
With that, we need a responsibility test with the buying of guns, Idk how, I just know we need to.
ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2014/crime-in-the-u.s.-2014/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/violent-crime
@gregnash Detroit is not isolated from the rest of the US. but good for them for trying to progress. For gun control to work it would have to be country wide. Seems fairly straightforward. I should be clear. I understand why someone would use a gun for hunting. But I don't understand why private citizens are allowed to own weapons that are specifically designed to kill people. It clearly isn't working.
and glad I made you laugh a bit
A hunting rifle is really not all that dissimilar than an AR, remember now AR DOES NOT stand for Assault Rifle it is an acronym for ArmaLite Rifle which was the first company to patent the design. This is the exact same thing as calling any Facial Tissue, KLEENEX. This rifle was not specifically designed to kill people, rather it was designed for a self-repeating firing mechanism (however you are correct that war is usually the instigator for many many inventions and forward movement within technology.
For the most part the firing mechanism is the exact same between a hunting rifle and an AR, the only difference being a Bolt Action hunting rifle that requires a manual actuation of the bolt to load the next round. The maniac could have just as easily walked into a local WalMart that sells guns and purchased a Hunting Rifle and did the same amount of devastation. He could have easily done the same with a Glock 19 (handgun) or a 38 Special (small revolver), the maniac could have simply picked ANY firearm and done the damage.
But the case really is that there were indicators in his past that were not adequately addressed by a multitude of people (including the local police, fbi, school, etc.) but you dont see people attacking those individuals. REI/MECs choice to halt all business with Vista Outdoors specifically because they are associated and own a firearms company (and ammo manufacturer as well) was best put on MTBR, "it is like hating the children simply because the parents aren't nice people." Really Savage Arms (firearms manufacturer) and Federal Ammunition (ammo manufacturer) has ZERO to do with the incident (that we know of at this point), yet we are chastising them simply because they are "guilty by association".
Would we be in an uproar just the same as we are now had the maniac gone and purchased a ton of knives from Cutco and used them to kill the same amount of people by throwing the knives at them (yes very gross generalization)? The answer is NO, gun control and mental health are the current hot cakes for activism (just like pitbulls) now days. I think more what we have is a lack of teaching our children Right from Wrong, that all lives matter, the sense of compassion amongst other things these days. I can't tell you how many "millenials" I have interviewed for positions that have self-entitlement problems that stem back to those types of items and the lack of mom/dad teaching them that everything comes with hard work. There is a difference between the statements of
- You can be anything you want! You are Special and you deserve it!
and
- You can be anything you want if you work hard! You are Special and you deserve it!
Again, as I have said in the past, this is just my opinion and we all know how that old adage goes..... Opinions are like @$$holes, everyone has one. That doesn't make yours more pretty or right than any others.
Canada has strict rules when it comes to guns. For example a shot gun may only have the capacity for 3 shells. Hand guns are very restricted. You have to declare a location you will be using it (an authorized firing range) and the rout you will be taking from the location the gun is store to where it will be used. With serious reprocutions if you stray. There may be a little more to it but that's the gist of it when it comes to hand guns. In my mind all good things to minimize the negative impacts.
It's not just a mental health issue. From the outside looking in it seems your country is in a crisis. A lot of anger and distrust.
As a kid I lived in the States. We have some close friends that we visit regularly. It still feels like a second home. But you can feel the tension these days.
With regards to your statement about "I am speaking about fire arms that are designed for killing people. For example hand guns, infantry guns, shotguns with shortened stocks and or barrels etc." This is somewhat of a gross (meaning broad) categorization and statement as primarily ALL firearms were designed to kill, not just humans but to kill in general. Simply stating that one particular type of firearm is designed specifically to kill only humans is incorrect. Are they USED to kill humans, yes absolutely, but specifically designed too, no not really. The ergonomics of a handgun are design for shorter range effectiveness vs. a rifle (of any sort) that is designed for mid-to-long range effectiveness.
The maniac could have easily purchased a .357 Magnum or a 9mm Glock and still did the same amount of devastation. Instead the AR has had an image portrayed by the media that it is an evil firearm specifically because of its "LOOK" and aesthetic vs. anything else. As many movies and actors have portrayed, the AR is a "badass" looking gun that gives off an image of the holder being "unstoppable" and "intimidating" when the truth of the matter is that it is no more or less effective at killing another person than a pistol/handgun. Just like Pitbulls have been portrayed by the media as these evil, ruthless, blood thirsty killer dogs they are the complete opposite (I have owned four, currently have three and would trust them with any child in my family over my sister-in-laws terrier that has already bitten her 3yr old and 1yr old).
But you are correct, I do agree that we (the US) could use some gun reform laws AND that this is not just a mental health issue. However, what I personally am seeing (again my OPINION) is that the left wants to completely do away with the public's right to own a firearm and the right wants a slackening of the controls that are already in place. What we need is a conversation between both parties to find a middle ground. The right answer is out there, it is NOT what we currently have but it is also NOT completely taking guns away. By doing that you will be doing nothing more than enabling those that do not abide by laws to take advantage of those that do, simply put Criminals do not care, they will find every target a "soft target" at that point.
The best "generalization" I found recently was a post of discussions like these from TheCHIVE where the conversation was something similar to:
anit-gun person: This shooting was horrible. Yet another needless massacre of lives, we need to get rid of guns and have more gun control laws. Why wont the government do this!!
pro-gun person: Getting rid of guns and more gun control laws is not the answer. Yes this was horrible and senseless but there is more to it than just getting rid of guns.
anti-gun person: Your WRONG!!! All guns need to be gotten rid of! If this doesn't happen I am going to start carrying a rocket launcher around with me. No one will f$&* with me then!
pro-gun person: Really? A rocket launcher? You know that no person can own/buy a rocket launcher as they are completely illegal, right?
anti-gun person: Not on the black market they aren't.
pro-gun person: So you're saying that gun control doesn't work.
I do truly appreciate the civilized response from you! I was hoping for something like this to actually happen as I have been wanting to discuss with someone that has opposing beliefs in a calm and composed manner... Much appreciated!
I don't think there is anything inherently wrong with guns. I don't think it's a matter of taking away all guns. Fear of guns is due to lack of knowledge. In the hands of a responsible owner they very safe. But I do stand by the idea that some guns should not be available to the public.
Thanks again for the great dialogue. If you are ever in this part of BC I would be happy to show you around some of our amazing trails!
If someone from the "anti-gun" side came and proposed some new regulations that would only restrict certain things, that were not ridiculous then the "pro-gun" side might actually listen. The biggest thing the "pro gun" side has against the other side is that the proposals they put forward are the removal and restriction of all guns. For many, that is like being a pack a day smoker for 30+ years and then being forced to go cold turkey (with the added effect that if you touch a pack of cigs you are going to jail).
It's amazing what a calm, open minded, collaborative discussion can be like if both sides are able to do that. But alas, we are a society built on "my needs are greater than yours!" and "that's mine!!" and self-gratification and commercialism/capitalism so that will more than likely never happen.
Funniest (and Scariest) things I have watched lately is the "Real Conversations with Steven Crowder" on YouTube where he has (or tries to have in some cases) conversations with people that have an opposing view to his allowing them to give arguments to change his mind. Some of the arguments are very well put together and thought felt with good points, but not enough to change his (or in some cases my) mind. Others just purely resort to name calling, violence, etc. to intimidate.
Anyways, Trumps presidency and everything that has gone on during it has made for an interesting ride, that is for sure. Would Obama or Hillary been able to stop these shootings from happening (Vegas and Florida), I highly doubt it but we will never know (once again my opinion).
And if you ever happen to be in the Tahoe area, same to you and then we will go out for some good food and beers afterwards!
It's easy to say "homicide" and hide behind that. The talk is about gun deaths. Humans will always find ways of killing each other but it happens at a greater rate with a high capacity magazine.
Mass shooting are bread and butter for the media money makers but make very tiny percentage of gun deaths.
Why aren't they covering Chicago? No money in it. Feb alone 141 shot 31 killed but hey it's only black people not 17 white kids shot by one person.
In comparison Australia 21.7guns per 100 inhabitants and 0.93 gun related deaths per 100k inhabitants
(also since you like the homicide part of things, the USA has a 3.43/100k ratio while Australia has 0.16/100k)
also you saying "pretty much proves eliminating guns isn't a solution" is in complete contradiction with the line before where you said "and continues downwards", since the whole point of the ban is to reduce the deaths
and you can even save the time to answer cuz I'm tired of arguing about this topic. I'll just go enjoy a ride like most of us over here should do
But yes, go enjoy a ride. Stay out of politics in countries other than your own, it makes you look hateful and ignorant.
All those kids that marched on the capital, how many of those stood up and did something when they saw someone being bullied? How many went out of their way to make a loner feel welcome? Why aren't you talking about all the huge failures by the agencies you want everyone to depend on to protect you instead of relying on yourself?
Why don't you point all the times someone has protected themselves using a legal weapon.
Thought it was supposed to be a discussion, not an argument? Start using facts not emotions- works better with people like me.
Also Pinkbike: more comments than 98% of submissions.
This list could be endless if you really looked into it, like what companies are supported by big Corp investors and/or share holders
Pretty sure Oakley and Camelback are military suppliers...?
Yes we do have gang problems here in the UK, as does every country........
Our gangs have guns just not as many because....
Dun dun duuuuuuun
The country doesn't have guns
It's REALLY that simple.
Facepalm.
Thing is the US is too far gone for anything to be done about it
Also
How many "good guys with a gun" have ever solved any thing? Honestly, I'd genuinely like to know because all we hear about over here is about "good guys with guns" that didn't do shit
don't believe the hype you racist piece of shit.
Anyway, I miss the day when the most controversial thing on PB was the number 28.99...simpler times.
If cases of rape increases by 200% is it still reasonable to ban guns?
I guess the notable thing is that 0 guns is absolutely impossible.
Yes, there are terrorist attacks in a lot of countires around the world. Those attack equal death by explosives or trucks driven into grps of people and so on ... But that's not the issue! You're deluding the actual problem: Simply look at the HUGE number of school shootings in the US in 2018! Look at all the pple getting shot in a year in the US! Those are facts, not emotional statements, but facts! You can't possibly try to evade this discussion with other wrongs like terrorist attacks. A crazy person can also get a gun over here, but it is much more difficult! As i said before, every country has crazy people, but only the US arm them ...
If you analyze shooting statistics, you'll find that the majority of shootings are suicides. After that, it's gang violence. Outlaw guns in the US - sure, I bet all the gangs will come in to turn in their weapons... You're also comparing the US to countries that are ethnically homogenous, unlike the US who also don't have cartels at their southern borders...
Additionally, the US does not arm crazy people. THAT is the real issue. Keeping guns out of the hands of people who should NOT have them. Taking guns from law abiding citizens is not the answer.
I know this debate and the reasons for it have been around longer than my 37 years, but it seems to be happening more frequently. Just an observation.
Oh and the more extreme people have gotten from left to right, instead of somewhere close to the middle may have made it worse as well.
If that is true, why not go back to civilians only being able to own black powder rifles (where you literally have to load powder, tamping cloth, ball, etc.)?
The thing people seem to forget is that if the person truly has malicious intent then they will find a way. If it is not guns, then it will be fertilizer bombs.
redkiteprayer.com/2018/03/camelbak-responds-to-the-vista-boycott
Consumers created the demand, firearms companies just filled the demand. And be honest 99.9999999% of us consumers who buy AR's are perfectly normal, legally abiding citizens who are not the problem.
Second I agree, removing all guns will not remove all violence, but I believe removing military style (assault) rifles would decrease the ability of those motivated to harm others to do as much damage. Same thing with high capacity magazines. You don't need 30 rounds of .223 to take down a deer. Matter of fact using tumbler rounds on meat you intend to eat sounds pretty dumb to me.
Now bow hunting, that's badass!
Do you read dumbass?
Single truck killed and injured more people in less time than it took for Las Vegas shooter.
Giving up fundamental individual freedoms, thankfully enshrined in the Bill of Rights, is not worth the small and unproven increase in safety.
There had been armed guard in the Florida school. They did not went in. And you tell me I should trust government agents to protect us at all times?
Not even close.
But vehicles are way more dangerous and more difficult to acquire.
Second amendment is a birth right of every man. Driving is a privilege.
Anyone trying to take down a deer with a .223 either has very small deer or doesn't want the meat to be usable, because its going to take more than one shot to do it, even at ridiculously close ranges. If you want to take down a deer you want something bigger than a .223. Its a caliber good for coyotes, wolves, and other small game.
Hunting is a common excuse given for why people feel the need to own certain weapons. My point was that military style weapons are not made for anything other than killing people.
It is very clearly limited to individual arms, and there are more than enough accepted restrictions, particularly in California.
You have no point.
3000+ killed on 9/11. Trump tried to ban Muslims from entering the country. They used box cutters to take over the planes not guns. Liberals called this racist, hateful. Of course not all Muslims are bad people, just like gun owners. Also banning all guns will only lead to a thriving black market.
Believe what you want but you only see it one way
Yes, guns exist to kill. It is their lawful purpose. One is allowed to lawfully kill in self defense. This is an important freedom.
Homicides are unfortunate, but freedom is more important. Governments that confiscated arms became dictatorships and killed millions. It is not an exaggeration and not a joke. It happened in my lifetime. Too bad younger generations forgot that and is so easily manipulated.
All but one of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi citizens, yet no US administration has ever attempted to bar Saudi's from entering the USA.
www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-43217142
Carry on with your rose coloured glasses.
No. There is no “gun” problem. The Bill of Rights is what made this country great and protected the likes of you from dictorships. Which did confiscate guns and trampled other freedoms.
The actual amendment reads:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"
A singular person, a militia does not make.
Shooting your fellow person does not a State set free.
Where in those 27 words does it say that you can keep and bear a weapon to act as a policeman, to shoot in self defence, to use it upon others because you had a bad day?
Also, where are the well REGULATED persons forming this non-existent militia? You sure as heck have a loose definition of regulated gun control, not to mention a President that just recently allowed mentally unwell people to purchase weapons.
Here in Aus we are sadly dealing with cowerdly king hits. at least 3 ppl in the last year have been killed
because a coward ran up behind them and king hit them resulting in death. Gov has been running a campaign with sports ppl and boxers against such cowardly behaviour.
so yeah agree it does happen
In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (200 , the Supreme Court undertook its first-ever "in-depth examination" of the second amendment's meaning Id. at 635. After a lengthy historical discussion, the Court ultimately concluded that the second amendment "guarantee[s] the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation" (id. at 592); that "central to" this right is "the inherent right of self-defense"(id. at 628
And it is does not matter what works for some narrow purpose. Right to bear arms is enshrined as inalienable right of humans, nobody may take it.
People killed through terrorism worldwide 2017: 35000
People killed in europe (741,4 million people) with guns 2017: 1000 (guns illegal)
its the guns not the cars
No. It is not a piece of paper. It is the Bill of Rights. As far as amendingbit - try.
Hunting is a common excuse given for why people feel the need to own certain weapons. My point was that military style weapons are not made for anything other than killing people."
____
The National Guard's duties are certainly NOT a well armed militia. Their supposed purpose is to protect the interior of the country against foreign occupation. In practice, they end up in the Middle East or other areas of conflict for some reason. Militias are supposed to be private citizens armed with their own weapons, called up to assist the army if needed.
Stay out of international political debates dude.
Miller needs revisiting though. In 39 fully automatic weapons were not commonly used military arms, so banning them as unusual was tolerable.
You liberal keep this revisionist drivel about the second amendment and don’t bother to read well researched court opinions. And read dissenting opinions to to know what was disagreement about.
Hoplophobia is racist and fascist st it’s core.
Jim Jeffrey's explains it all
it's only a little gun to play with
www.savagearms.com/firearms/msr
hahaha
there's so damn proud of their products - it's scary
How can I go treasure hunting if I don't have guns?!?!
*sigh* the good idea fairy strikes again
youtu.be/0rR9IaXH1M0
youtu.be/a9UFyNy-rw4
You may even agree with some of it, or at least have a laugh!
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. Your logic is flawed. You need to take a look at the history of oppressive governments. Citizens being armed is the core of American doctrine/values. Have you ever looked at stats on how many times a year guns are used for self defense? What about how man people are killed in mass shootings when response comes from a citizen vs the police? What about a 5 foot woman who is about to be raped by a 6 foot man? You're going to take away her equalizer? Does this mean that you're at fault for all women who will be r aped in the future? I'd say yes.
Another note - look at the US ICBM system... We have nearly 500 nuclear missiles ready to launch. A previous system was named "peacekeeper" as it was a deterrent for anyone who would attack the US. They're purely defensive weapons, but are keeping the peace because countries know that if they strike us they will be absolutely crippled.
The idea that citizens need to own guns to be free and safe is just flat-out false. Guns are neither necessary nor sufficient to guarantee freedom or safety. In 2018 a free press and the free flow of information are far more effective safeguards against oppression than whatever gun you own.
What happens when the press becomes a state-run press? What if we take guns away from all citizens - who are of one political party? Or religion? Can't you see where this goes?? The 2A guarantees the 1A.
Your logic of arming people to protect them selves is an interested one, should black people be armed to protect themselves against police brutality? Should tourist visiting America be armed as well, after all America is so dangerous that the rest of the population needs to be armed. Should North Korea be armed to protect themselves from larger countries?
I used a shotgun before for clay pigeons shooting, it was great fun, I really enjoyed it. But I don’t need to own gun, I don’t to need to have one at home on the off chance that something happens. If I did have a gun and in the process of protecting myself I killed a innocent bystander how would I feel?
Gun control does not work, look at Honduras. Reply: You can`t compare USA to Honduras it is a poor country.
Gun control does work look at Wales. In that case you do compare countries that can`t compare either. Wales is not surrounded in the South by poor and violent countries, illegal immigration, and not even close enough population.
Liberal hypocrisy
And yes, "italy" sided with Nazi Germany and when I use inverted commas for italy it's because we had an absolute madman as a dictator and he saw the alliance with Germany as the only way to recreate the empire, he did not have any nazist beliefs.(btw I'm not at all trying to defend what Mussolini, the dictator, did because it's undefendable but only exposing the situation)
Oh it's ironical how you talk about recent history looking bad cuz in the 240 something your country existed it spent around more than 90% of it's time in war
www.informationclearinghouse.info/article41086.htm
Go enjoy dodging bullets
peace man
jah bless (also please don't call me franny)
For sure my next helmet will be from Giro!
Sounds like everyone wants to reopen mental health asylums which could be a common goal. I am a Reagan/Trump guy from day one but never understood closing down mental health asylums. Just look at the cities. Virtually every homeless vagrant is either full psycho or full drug addict take your pic. SOmething needs to be done to be able to place these people to evaluate and treat or just secure from law abiding citizens.
Taking any gun away is not the issue. My AR hasn't shot anyone, and probably won't unless you try and take it.
Anything that requires reading is fake news for the right in the US ))
I guess that's why more than half of Trump's supporters think college is a waste...
You're 17 dude... what do you know about the Economist?
Besides, who needs college degrees in gender studies and lesbian dance theory?
Just trying to get a little context here.
Maybe you mean I'm irrational so you can't reason with me?
There was a "shooting" down the street from my house a few weeks back - no injuries but police called to the scene. It was a reported as a shooting by the police and media alike - because a gun was shot. So again, my question to you is, if there have been 18 shootings on school property then how is the media pushing #fakenews?
1.
a person who holds blindly and intolerantly to a particular creed, opinion, etc.
2.
a narrow-minded, prejudiced person
You've said plenty to prove you're a bigot.
Bigot: "a person who is intolerant toward those holding different opinions"
So you're saying I don't take facts into consideration? Not sure what you're implying here... Narrow minded maybe?
These are vastly different events and an AR15 was only used in Florida. How does a school security officer accidentally discharging his firearm have ANYTHING to do with taking AR15s away form American citizens? same question for a person committing suicide in a school parking lot - what does this have to do with limiting or taking firearms from citizens? Point is - these events are irrelevant and unrelated to what happened in Florida, but the media is using it to pad statistics in their favor, hence, #fakenews. Hope this clears it up for you.
And you can't view restrictions as a gun grab. I've heard that rally cry a million times before and have yet to see confiscations of any type. If you want to be pissed, be pissed at the irresponsible gun owners who go out and kill kids in school for threatening your gun rights. Be pissed at the irresponsible security officer for accidentally discharging their firearm on school property - how the hell does that even happen. Be pissed at all the people who created the number 18 - they are the ones threatening your rights.
And per the article above - Giro products have directly saved my life more time then any Savage firearm so they get my business for good.
All respect intended man. Your a mountain biker so the way I see it we're all part of the same tribe. No reason we can't learn from one another.
--- Former Chief Justice Warren Burger
That snowflake was appointed by ultra-liberal Richard Nixon.
The fraud being that our natural human right to armed self defense can somehow legally be restricted.
With ya there.
You can support the 2nd amendment w/o also thinking that 18YO f*cktards should have access to firepower like that.
I’m 18 years old, almost 19. I’ve been shooting guns for 10 years, but not until after I went through a multi-week hunters and gun safety course that included both a classroom and a field environment.
I have my own firearms, that I keep locked up and secured. Ammunition is locked and secured separately from the guns.
No one is denying the fact that there are horrible people out there that commit unspeakably heinous acts. But to lump every 18 year old into this group, or to generalize 18 year olds as the ones too irresponsible to own guns is careless and shows a lack of understanding.
I’ve passed background checks, I’ve voluntarily attended mental health services, and I’ve taken gun safety courses beyond what is required.
I know this doesn’t make these things that happened any easier, and I know I may not sway your opinion. But I just ask that you wouldn’t generalize so broadly, especially about such emotional and moral arguments.
"NRA-Sponsored Hunting Show Host Compares Critics Of Elephant Hunting To Hitler, Gets Fired"
"WSJ Editor Suggests Gabby Giffords' Gun Shot Injury Meant She Was Unable To Write Op-Ed"
"NRA's Wayne LaPierre: Buy A Gun Or You Will Be Killed"
"NRA's Ted Nugent Has Racist Meltdown, Calls Trayvon Martin A "Dope Smoking, Racist Gangsta Wannabe"
"Glenn Beck's NRA Annual Meeting Keynote Address Compares Bloomberg To A Nazi"
"NRA News Claims Honoring Victims Of Gun Violence Makes "The World A More Dangerous Place For Women"
AND WORST OF ALL:
"Gun Rights Activists Plan "Guns Save Lives Day" On Newtown One-Year Anniversary **Mind you this is the elementary school that had 20 young kids/teachers gunned down
-Jim Jefferies
"Freedom!" Lol
But I don't envy American gun culture, youse are too far gone to come back from. Probably best just stock up on Crystal meth and ammo cause that's natural section of american revolution.
I'm not sure what's wrong with having the power to defend oneself. Have you been to the US? If you're ever out in Utah hit me up and we'll go shoot and ride!!
The arguement,
"We all need unlimited access to weapons because one day we'll have a civil war" as an outsider seems to be an insane situation to be in.
Good luck with that.
(Back to bikes for me, thanks for the chat)
Are more of a pacifist? Don't ever go to war? Let people be murdered as they will? Yazidis, kurds, etc. being murdered and raped - meh, not your problem?
The AR15 is the equivalent to the military standard, which is what a militia would use in a modern scenario. Sounds exactly like what the 2nd amendment refers to.
In Switzerland many have fully automatic weapons at home. No problems. It’s not the guns.
I'd like to send you out after some hogs with a pistol.
www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/a-plague-of-pigs-in-texas-73769069
funny, all those US cities you mentioned have effectively banned guns.... something for everyone to think about.
Popeye has some serious forearms. I'm definitely on my best behavior when I'm around him!
The issue is far more complicated than a knee jerk reaction against a company that literally had nothing to do with a sick individual's decision to kill. IMHO, by taking the stance that many companies are adopting, it only works in the favor of the killers who want the attention that their killings bring.
I just think it's silly you need to have a license to sell food, cut hair, count pills in a pharmacy and drive a car but you don't need anything but your 18th birthday to buy an ar15. I'm not wanting an all out ban but i think waiting periods and licencing are in order. Someone who decides to perform a mass shooting will do it, yes but they will do a lot less damage with a pistol or a longrifle with smaller mag. Ar15s were designed to kill people by the military. In civilian life they serve no other purpose than blowing up toilets and tvs in the desert. If you have to use several smaller clips to do this and it prevents deaths by giving the attacker a weakness by needing to reload more often, I'm all for it.
My reasoning for not supporting camelbak? I give them money. They take a cut and it goes to the parent company. They then give it to the NRA wich i disagree with mostly. Therefore I'm funding something i don't agree with.
No, I don't assume the nra is fraudulent and i don't think the members aren't law abiding.
I just think the gunshow loophole, large capacity mag and lack of licencing for assault weapons is silly. NRA supports them and I don't.
I just don't think you get my point. I don't have anything against camelbak or giro employees on a personal level, that's silly.
I do have a problem with my money funding things I'm against. Camelbak chose to sell out to Vista and therefore is connected and responsible for the backlash against them.
Apparently there were enough people onboard with my views that Vista announced recently that they're going to diversify away from assult weapons and firearms.
That's called voting with your wallet and it works.
Assuming that I wish to relocate out of the country over a few laws relating to gun licensing is silly.
It's hard to respond to that gigantic rant while pooping, and on a cellphone, but I'll hit a few points.
Is it personal when someones livelyhood becomes impacted? No, that's just a free market system.
Group think? It does happen. Why did people think top knots were a good idea? I have no idea. I took my position and others agreed with me. That's not my fault but it tends to reason that it was semi logical since others arrived at the same decision.
The president has little to do with gun legislation, most of that is handled on a state level. It's not any different now trump is in office.
As far as your electric car analogy, i work for an electric car company and worked for bmw previously, wich also had electric cars. They're not perfect right now as far as sourcing materials but they're in an infant stage and it will get better over time. Your cellphone uses the same battery tech and I'd be willing to bet that's a bigger market of lithium cells vs electric cars. A lot of electric cars take this into account and try to minimize impact where they can.
If camelback goes out of business, that's the free market and capitalism at work, isn't that the american free market at work?
I don't see why or how you keep bringing this back to obama. That's silly. I don't think you understand what little impact the president has to directly effect gun control on a federal level. Most gun legislation needs to be passed on a state level. There were a lot of other issues in play other than just gun violence in those cities. I have no idea why you think this has anything to do with vista outdoor and my choice to not buy their products. (I'll go back to buying them now they've comitted to diversifying away from assult weapons)
Try to keep your counterpoints shorter and more to the point. Also try to break up your ideas into paragraphs with proper spacing, it makes it much easier to read. I'm not trying to be a gramar natzi but it's getting difficult to follow your train of thought and seperate your ideas.
Are you suggesting that my point of not wanting to buy camelbak products based on the association to the parent company funding the NRA is silly because you assume I don't take any other measures to minimize my impacts to the enviroment?
Seems like those are two different subjects.
I'm just going to let it die. I didn't even go past the first paragraph before he started repeating himself again.
No it is not. Also, the NRA is a vile organization.
Thank you Pinkbike for sharing these ownership connections!
We have been gutting mental health funding in the United States for close to 40 years. What we have witnessed is the repercussions of that, like it or not.
Saying it's is a "gun control issue" is only going to disguise the truth of why these things are happening.
No mater how much gun legislation we make, sick people are still going to be sick. And as a nation, if we ignore it, then who is sicker?
I’m young. I haven’t been around the earth for 50 years. But somehow in this relatively short time I’ve been here, I’ve not raped, pillaged, stolen, killed, or committed any other sort of crime. And I certainly don’t see myself raping or murdering someone in the future, and if I did, I don’t think that the excuse of “it’s just human nature,” is going to fly...