That is a different statement. It’s saying abusers can be more dangerous with a weapon. It does not follow that people who own a weapon are somehow more likely to be an abuser.
To make that argument it would need to say something about what percentage of gun owners commit abuse or some kind violent crime.
You can find higher rates of domestic violence among cops for instance so maybe you could argue cops are more likely to be abusers.
Violence was a thing before guns existed. If I got stabbed I’m not going to think, “Thank goodness I wasn’t shot.” I suppose I’ll have plenty of to think about it while waiting for the cops to show up though.
Cherry picking and a lack of controling for confounding variables is an issue when people try to make the claim you did. There is also a lot more going on than just gun laws. When normal people don’t benefit from our GDP it really isn’t a good benchmark for comparable countries. When people have a lack opportunities or lack social programs there will probably be some social problems.
A lot of domestic violence involving a gun doesn’t mean that most gun owners are abusive.
I suppose the guns hypnotized him and made him do it? He did it because he was a piece of shit.
If he regularly shot pictures of women or something sure but owning a lot of guns or buying ammo in bulk isn’t really any indication of domestic violence. The son even said there wasn’t a history of violence. It seems like the heavy drinking or arguments have more correlation than anything.
Media outlets often cite things like how many guns someone has to freak out people who don’t know about guns. All the dude needed to fuck up was a single handgun and a single bullet. If he was drunk he shouldn’t have even been carrying. And being drunk isn’t really a good argument for why someone got violent.
Criminals don’t care about carry laws as breaking laws is kinda their whole deal.
Normal people carrying isn’t a problem unless you assume normal people get murderous the second they have the opportunity.
It’s just a different mindset. People carrying don’t have to be fearful or stressed out like you assume. They just want to have the ability to defend themselves or loved ones. Police simply cannot protect everyone all the time and violence is a thing that can happen sometimes. Violence certainly doesn’t happen all the time but many people prefer to carry and not need it then need it and not have it.
The people who are actually a danger are still going to be dangerous regardless of how unarmed others choose to be.
Maybe you feel like you can depend on your police or your local criminals are less violent.
The change doesn’t really seem that great and there are years missing.
Also “Gun laws should be stricter” is too vague for the range of policies involved. When a gun control advocate says that they might mean bans. Someone else might be talking about opening up the NICS or want to improve the background checks somehow. There are also a lot of people who don’t actually know the existing laws and want “stricter laws” we already have.
Sure, but legal processes aren’t quick. I would assume they’re trying to be thorough in the process. Probably not a great sign they letting the rule stay but in theory it doesn’t actually do much. 80% manufacturers can still sell products. I can still buy an 80% or a 3d printer.
The real thing would be to just get a ruling to limit how they can change law through changing definitions. Same reason slapping down the bump stock was needed.
Also the issue there ruling on probably won’t actually be a 2a thing but about the rule making effectively side stepping the legislative proceess.
The rule in effect is rather narrow and doesn’t actually ban home manufacturing. All the elements of a kit are still accessible and legal.
The only difference is that all the parts to finish the controlled part can’t be sold together. So like you could by the 80% from one shop online and the jig from a different shop online. All the other parts wouldn’t be affected in general, maybe an issue if sold with the 80%. And there are also other ways to do home manufacturing that would be completely unaffected but the rule.
Also the case isn’t done. The order is a temporary stay where the court is asking the ATF lawyers to explain things.
Seems like people shouldn’t underestimate the nutters/fascists.
If they’re actually harmless/useless then whatever. If not then treating them like they pose no danger has ramifications I’d personally like to avoid.
Look man people just love old shit. Museums are full of it.
My original statement was that owning a lot of guns wasn’t suggestive of anything. The comment suggested there was a “correlation” with owning guns and domestic violence in response.