Doubt a boycott of Vista would go very far in hurting their bottom line. More than half of their brands are related to firearms accessories and ammunition manufacturing and if past fundraising trends are an indication, the firearms community rallying to support those businesses would be a significant offset to lost revenues.
You know what really stinks? We should be concerned that we're 12x higher than Japan, or 5x higher than Britain. Instead we're just smug that we're 8x better than USA.
Sure, our rate is obviously propped up by a giant porous border with USA, but it's still outrageously high.
You know what really stinks? We should be concerned that we're 12x higher than Japan, or 5x higher than Britain. Instead we're just smug that were 8x better than USA.
Sure, our rate is obviously propped up by a giant porous border with USA, but it's still outrageously high.
Sort of thing a wall might fix
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to afc wimbledon For This Useful Post:
You know what really stinks? We should be concerned that we're 12x higher than Japan, or 5x higher than Britain. Instead we're just smug that were 8x better than USA.
Sure, our rate is obviously propped up by a giant porous border with USA, but it's still outrageously high.
Well to be fair, our higher rate reasoning likely doesn't extend much past sharing a giant porous border with the USA. The amount of guns that sneak over our border is insane.
I guess tightening up our border may actually become a thing. In the past I always thought if our border stiffened up it would be from a paranoid America, but these days I think it may actually be in Canada's best interest to initiate.
Thing is, the relatively free flowing nature of crossing our border is a huge part of both country's economies, so there would be reluctance from both sides, imo.
You know what really stinks? We should be concerned that we're 12x higher than Japan, or 5x higher than Britain. Instead we're just smug that were 8x better than USA.
Sure, our rate is obviously propped up by a giant porous border with USA, but it's still outrageously high.
What is the 0.48/100k actually showing? Because it’s not the homicide rate (1.68/100k) and it’s not the firearm homicide rate (0.61/100k). The British homicide rate was also higher than what that graph shows
Last edited by llwhiteoutll; 02-21-2018 at 04:52 PM.
The Following User Says Thank You to llwhiteoutll For This Useful Post:
So the general consensus today from that meeting was more guns, and more guns in schools?
You gotta be friggin kidding me. That country is completely lost.
The should have a purge-style culling. Once per year, they print the names and addresses of people who own assault weapons and make it legal for others with assault weapons to shoot them.
I am sure you would see a much more willing call for restrictions.
__________________
"A pessimist thinks things can't get any worse. An optimist knows they can."
Dinesh D'Souza is a convicted felon who can't even own a gun, so why does he even care about gun control? Because he's a loudmouth attention whore, like Ann Coulter. Glad to hear his insensitivity is costing him gigs, which is all he cares about.
Hundreds line courthouse stepshttps://www.wptv.com/news/region-indian-river-county/gun-control-rally-in-vero
Another rally for what it’s worth.
All this talk of helping mentally ill people is good, and we need to do that. There is , however, no real treatment for psychopathology.
I assume a psychopath wouldn’t be suicidal, as so many of these shooters have been.
Those are the people that really scare me.
Students punished for anti-gun
walkoutshttps://www.wptv.com/news/national/students-across-the-country-punished-for-joining-parkland-students-in-anti-gun-walkout
If Trump even opens the door a crack, this is a huge win.
Ban on bump stocks. Increased background checks. Minimum age to buy guns.
Those are all steps in the right direction.
I would hope that even his most outspoken critics would agree and give him credit if/when those happen.
Are those steps in the right direction? Sure, I agree with that.
But nothing will happen unless the NRA gives it's blessing, which it has already done with bump stocks.
The thing is Trump (and the GOP) will talk about everything except one thing: banning guns. In fact, today when talking to victims and their families he even mentioned that there should be MORE guns. In schools. That is the exact opposite of a step in the right direction.
So until there is actually constructive discussion about banning certain guns, the guy who accepted more than 30 million from the NRA won't get too much credit from me. He'll try to do whatever he can that the NRA will green light that will skirt around the real issue without actually doing anything about it.
The Following User Says Thank You to KootenayFlamesFan For This Useful Post:
If Trump even opens the door a crack, this is a huge win.
Ban on bump stocks. Increased background checks. Minimum age to buy guns.
Those are all steps in the right direction.
I would hope that even his most outspoken critics would agree and give him credit if/when those happen.
Wow, this is like giving Trump credit for getting through a speech without insulting half the world or ####ting his own pants. Credit for what exactly?
Ban on bump stocks was already in the works after Las Vegas. This was done without Comacho’s input or blessing. No credit there.
Increased background checks? This is meaningless without details. It is unlikely that you are going to see any change to the system. To do so would require great expense and investment in connecting dissimilar databases that the NRA has worked extremely hard to keep separate. That’s just the cold harsh reality of the system and how it is set up.
A minimum age to buy guns already exists. Try changing that age and watch it get challenged in court, all the way to the Supreme Court. No way are the age restrictions changing, not when a kid can enter the armed services at 18 and be expected to carry a gun in defense of his country, but not own one, as outlined in the second amendment. Not going to happen.
As usual, Trump is all talk, but when reality sets in it is highly unlikely that anything with change. In fact, gun restrictions will continue to ease. Bump stocks may disappear, but universal concealed carry is on the way as is access to suppressors and other restricted weapons. The uniformed will be happy with the “win” on bump stocks, but will soon be outraged as more restricted weapons become available for sale without a tax stamp or extended background, and carrying them concealed will be extended across the nation. One step forward, a dozen steps back. Oh, but that President Camacho!
In fact, gun restrictions will continue to ease. Bump stocks may disappear, but universal concealed carry is on the way as is access to suppressors and other restricted weapons. The uniformed will be happy with the “win” on bump stocks, but will soon be outraged as more restricted weapons become available for sale without a tax stamp or extended background, and carrying them concealed will be extended across the nation. One step forward, a dozen steps back. Oh, but that President Camacho!
The thing with the HPA (removing suppressors from the NFA requirements), is that the only thing it really changes is the need to go through the tax stamp process and the FBI/BATF background check. People would still be getting a NICS check to get one and the states that have currently banned them are not forced to reverse that ban.
If opponents the bill could actually show that suppressors make firearms more dangerous or that there are tons of crimes being committed with them, there might be a case to keep the restrictions in place, but they can't do either of those. The bill is a prime case where if facts were looked at, there would be nothing supporting the current restrictions.
Also, unless I'm mistaken, there is no other bill tabled right now that proposed to reduce the restrictions on NFA (restricted) firearms or devices. As far as I know, there has been no legislative push to remove the requirements on FA/SBR/SBS firearms.
