Remington Arms has settled with Sandy Hook families

[Satchel 6,908]

2 hours ago, crash_davis said:

am i wrong to liken gun manufacturers to opioid drug manufacturers? 

If one does a balanced assessment of both, one might find that are more alike than not.

[elfenix 34,171]

1 minute ago, fattyflattie said:

It's getting expensive to have toys.

https://www.cdc.gov/alcohol/features/excessive-drinking.html

$1500 here, $1800 there. 

whataboutism is a logical fallacy. 

anyway, can you answer the question?  what sort of ratio of cost to profit should be allowed?  what if that ratio is over 1?  should it matter if the cost is diffuse vs. not? 

 

[fattyflattie 4,636]

Just now, RPM said:

Sure, you can buy a cheap AR just like you can buy a cheap 9mm. But he's not wrong.

Yeah, you can buy a KA for 5k, too.  But that's the first time I've ever seen an AR15 likened to an "expensive" platform.  They are popular in large part because they are cheap af to piecemeal together.   Doesn't matter, cost is relative to who is discussing it.  

[Brisketexan 104,628]

I agree. I’ve stated on here dozens of times that the second he’s gone, I’m back to donating. Until then they’ll just have to do.  When the first bill with teeth gets passed I’m back on 110% even if that slimy fuck is still around.  My view is they are a slimy org designed to fight slimy politicians, nothing more or less.  I figured out the golden rules without their help, and was even able to pass it to the next generation without their help. Crazy, I know. 

 
 

Ummm…..I didn’t tell you the rest of the story.

Some time later, he uncrated one of them, loaded it up and grabbed some extra mags, put on earmuffs (cuz safety) and went on a shooting spree, shooting up cars and buildings (no people). Eventually gave up peacefully when confronted by cops, but he’d fired off a LOT of rounds. This was in a Texas city. True story. But it happened back when these sort of events didn’t get covered in the news.

[fattyflattie 4,636]

2 minutes ago, elfenix said:

whataboutism is a logical fallacy. 

anyway, can you answer the question?  what sort of ratio of cost to profit should be allowed?  what if that ratio is over 1?  should it matter if the cost is diffuse vs. not? 

 

There is no ratio.  The manufacturer expects you to use the product as intended.  I don't expect Ford to pay society every time some activist decides to drive thru a parade.  The fact you see guns as something built to kill people is not society's issue.  99.99% of guns will never be used in a homicide. 

Whataboutism?  I'd have no answers if trying to explain why we should keep something that kills 5x the amount of another, just because I personally enjoy one, but not the other.  

[elfenix 34,171]

10 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

There is no ratio.  The manufacturer expects you to use the product as intended.  I don't expect Ford to pay society every time some activist decides to drive thru a parade.  The fact you see guns as something built to kill people is not society's issue.  99.99% of guns will never be used in a homicide. 

guns are built to kill people.  that's kinda why they were invented.  "when used as directed" is about the thinnest of covers.  especially when you know that they won't be.  and actively work against efforts to help them be used as directed, because it would impact their bottom line.

and more whatabouting re: ford. 

10 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

Whataboutism?  I'd have no answers if trying to explain why we should keep something that kills 5x the amount of another, just because I personally enjoy one, but not the other.  

yes, you're whatabouting.  it's a logical fallacy. 

Edited February 15, 2022 by elfenix

[fattyflattie 4,636]

4 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Ummm…..I didn’t tell you the rest of the story.

Some time later, he uncrated one of them, loaded it up and grabbed some extra mags, put on earmuffs (cuz safety) and went on a shooting spree, shooting up cars and buildings (no people). Eventually gave up peacefully when confronted by cops, but he’d fired off a LOT of rounds. This was in a Texas city. True story. But it happened back when these sort of events didn’t get covered in the news.

Whelp.  You've convinced me.  We should immediately make illegal all arms that could not be found in our father's outdoor magazines of the 60's and 70's (but not Garands or 30 carbines because reasons)  I honestly don't know what the end game is.  Pick a certain rifle that is disliked because feels and melt them all down, but wait until there are several million in circulation to exacerbate the power trip.  Of course only .0000000021% of those will ever be used in a homicide, but you know, we don't like "those" rifles- so gots to go.  Politicians who can't even get the fucking name right (AR 14 anybody?) should be trusted with this decision because they always get it right.  

[hobbes2702 12,846]

9 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

There is no ratio.  The manufacturer expects you to use the product as intended.  I don't expect Ford to pay society every time some activist decides to drive thru a parade.  The fact you see guns as something built to kill people is not society's issue.  99.99% of guns will never be used in a homicide. 

Whataboutism?  I'd have no answers if trying to explain why we should keep something that kills 5x the amount of another, just because I personally enjoy one, but not the other.  

Are you really making the argument that guns aren’t built to kill people?

[Gil Bang 25,898]

3 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

Whelp.  You've convinced me.  We should immediately make illegal all arms that could not be found in our father's outdoor magazines of the 60's and 70's (but not Garands or 30 carbines because reasons)  I honestly don't know what the end game is.  Pick a certain rifle that is disliked because feels and melt them all down, but wait until there are several million in circulation to exacerbate the power trip.  Of course only .0000000021% of those will ever be used in a homicide, but you know, we don't like "those" rifles- so gots to go.  Politicians who can't even get the fucking name right (AR 14 anybody?) should be trusted with this decision because they always get it right.  

Banning hi-cap mags negates this argument.

[fattyflattie 4,636]

1 minute ago, hobbes2702 said:

Are you really making the argument that guns aren’t built to kill people?

Guns built for war are purpose built to kill people, of course. 

Please tell me about the tens of millions of hunting and sporting arms and how they were "built" to kill people.  I think we can all understand how they can kill people.  I'd like to know how they were built to kill people.  

[crash_davis 23,084]

1 minute ago, fattyflattie said:

Guns built for war are purpose built to kill people, of course. 

Please tell me about the tens of millions of hunting and sporting arms and how they were "built" to kill people.  I think we can all understand how they can kill people.  I'd like to know how they were built to kill people.  

i wasn't there when the first gun was built but i am willing to bet that it wasn't created because some dude wanted to bag a 12 point buck.

[Brisketexan 104,628]

1 minute ago, fattyflattie said:

Whelp.  You've convinced me.  We should immediately make illegal all arms that could not be found in our father's outdoor magazines of the 60's and 70's (but not Garands or 30 carbines because reasons)  I honestly don't know what the end game is.  Pick a certain rifle that is disliked because feels and melt them all down, but wait until there are several million in circulation to exacerbate the power trip.  Of course only .0000000021% of those will ever be used in a homicide, but you know, we don't like "those" rifles- so gots to go.  Politicians who can't even get the fucking name right (AR 14 anybody?) should be trusted with this decision because they always get it right.  

Nope.  There you go -- as you do with great consistency -- down the "slippery slope" and "false dilemma/dichotomy" logical fallacies.

How about we just go back to my original point -- balance, and fixing our 100% rights, 0% responsibility culture (both broadly and as it relates to these particular issues)?  And note that "hey, I am not an open-carry freako who is strapped with three ARs when I go to Chipotle" is not a proper defense.  Sure, decent culture STARTS with you, but it doesn't end there.  I've long been critical of the fact that our community doesn't do more to call out irresponsible behavior in the name of "muh gun rights."

The massive shift in gun culture to the bad didn't happen because the government ordered it -- it was a cultural shift.  It doesn't require governmental action to reverse that shift.  Again, false dilemma.

Oh, and I'll note that my concerns about fucked up elements of "gun culture" aren't solely focused on Meal Team 6 types larping and carrying around a substitute penis wherever they go.  I remember probably 30 years ago being in an Oshman's (man, don't that take you back?) in the guns and ammo area, and two kids came up to the counter who 1) were in full-on "aspiring gang-banger" gear, but 2) more importantly, were OBVIOUSLY under 21.  They asked the guy at the counter if they could see some automatic handgun or another (I didn't see exactly which one).  He said sure, took it out of the case, and gave it to them, where they then started posing with it all the way down to holding it sideways and shit.  Again, WTF?  Dude behind the counter should have just said "sorry, kids -- y'all are too young to buy those, so I'm not going to take that out for you."

And to Johnny's point, I don't absolve hollywood etc for their role in shit.  This is our COLLECTIVE society.  All of us live in it.  All of us have a responsibility for it.  And when it comes to things like firearms, who is 1) better equipped or 2) more vested in a good outcome than we gun owners ourselves?  We should be leaders in acknowledging that American gun culture is fucked in the head, and needs some adjustment back towards responsibility.  Instead, we fight even the concept at every turn.  It's so stupid and counterproductive.

[fattyflattie 4,636]

3 minutes ago, Gil Bang said:

Banning hi-cap mags negates this argument.

Does it though?  Then you get into the ballistics of the most popular round in that platform. The lack of recoil.  The modularity of the platform.  I'm not denying that high cap magazine restriction would help slow down mass shooting events. I'm stating those that hate that platform or firearms in general don't just hate it's capacity.  

[Brisketexan 104,628]

2 minutes ago, crash_davis said:

i wasn't there when the first gun was built but i am willing to bet that it wasn't created because some dude wanted to bag a 12 point buck.

I mean, it was PROBABLY invented to impress a woman and as part of his effort to get laid.  If we're playing the odds.

[royiv 9,163]

Assault weapons are just that. It's in the name. I don't see people going on shooting sprees with their .308 Winchester. Why not? Because those are designed for hunting. ARs and the like are made to kill people. When they are used to kill people they are being used for their intended purpose. You're dense if you say otherwise. Truly responsible gun owners should be able to understand why it is morally reprehensible to allow manufacturers to market weapons designed for war to the general public.

[crash_davis 23,084]

Just now, Brisketexan said:

I mean, it was PROBABLY invented to impress a woman and as part of his effort to get laid.  If we're playing the odds.

well back then, the best way to do that was to kill all your neighbors and take their lands and servants.

[TexasEd 8,064]

48 minutes ago, horn4life said:

and now AR15's have completely flooded the market as one of the most popular and inexpensive weapons around.

FIFY

AR15s are cheap.  I can buy one for about the same price as a decent bolt action rifle or Glock 19.

[Longhorn_Fan68 33,843]

1 minute ago, royiv said:

Assault weapons are just that. It's in the name. I don't see people going on shooting sprees with their .308 Winchester. Why not? Because those are designed for hunting. ARs and the like are made to kill people. When they are used to kill people they are being used for their intended purpose. You're dense if you say otherwise. Truly responsible gun owners should be able to understand why it is morally reprehensible to allow manufacturers to market weapons designed for war to the general public.

that's like finding a catholic that uses contraception. they exist, but they are not in the majority

[Gil Bang 25,898]

Just now, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

that's like finding a catholic that uses contraception. they exist, but they are not in the majority

yeah...about that...

[David Dennison 18,660]

1 hour ago, Johnny Sack said:

It is fascinating how much attention ARs get.  They account for a miniscule amount of gun murders a year.

I don't care for holding manufacturers liable for products that work as intended.  If you want to ban them, ban them.  Or ban high cap magazines.  Legal liability for a product that works as it is designed and not the product of a design or manufacturing flaw is bizarre to me.

And if you want to sue anyone for marketing and glorifying guns, sue movie and television producers.  They do a shitload more of that marketing that actually reaches people than Remington or any other manufacturer.

Yeah, we'll just pass some laws. It's just that easy.

[David Dennison 18,660]

2 minutes ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

that's like finding a catholic that uses contraception. they exist, but they are not in the majority

Uhhhhhhhh.

[Johnny Sack 8,397]

55 minutes ago, horn4life said:

I am armed to the teeth. There is absolutely no reason whatsoever for me to own an AK, KS, or AR15, as their only purpose is to kill PEOPLE.  

Most murders are with handguns.  But a lot more people kill themselves or loved ones every year, with guns for "defense" than are actually used in defense.  We were smart enough to ban assault weapons, but the Republicans proved themselves to be whores, and now AR15's have completely flooded the market as one of the most popular and expensive weapons around.

The money does not mean shit to Remington. Same way they feel about more dead school kids. It's about math.

 

Interesting.  I bought a ruger ranch during the ban. Had a 30 round mag that shot 223.  I don’t see it being much different than an AR.  

[hobbes2702 12,846]

11 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

Guns built for war are purpose built to kill people, of course. 

Please tell me about the tens of millions of hunting and sporting arms and how they were "built" to kill people.  I think we can all understand how they can kill people.  I'd like to know how they were built to kill people.  

[washparkhorn 9,935]

Negligent marketing was the issue.  Remington targeted users of violent video games. 
 

which always leads me back to this Bill Hicks performance - 

I don’t agree with his remedy, but agree with his diagnosis. 

[fattyflattie 4,636]

4 minutes ago, crash_davis said:

i wasn't there when the first gun was built but i am willing to bet that it wasn't created because some dude wanted to bag a 12 point buck.

And I'm guessing the first automobile wasn't designed to crush the Nürburgring.  Things evolve.  At the end of the day, statistically speaking, nearly all privately owned firearms will never be fired at a human, much less take their life.  They annually take 1/5 of the lives that alcohol does in this country.  But we all like that so don't worry about any of that.  

8 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

There you go -- as you do with great consistency -- down the "slippery slope"

Are you under the impression there has been no concessions on gun ownership in this country?

10 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

The massive shift in gun culture to the bad didn't happen because the government ordered it -- it was a cultural shift.

I get that you don't like the "tacticool" weirdos.  But you haven't explained to me how it is bad, yet.  Bad for them getting laid, yes.  Bad because you don't like it, yes.  But how is it bad.  Because it wasn't portrayed in Field and Stream?

11 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Dude behind the counter should have just said "sorry, kids -- y'all are too young to buy those, so I'm not going to take that out for you."

I agree, we should hold our $7/hr workers to a higher standard.  The age thing is an issue; not sure how I feel about the profiling the looks of the young men.   

 

[Johnny Sack 8,397]

12 minutes ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

that's like finding a catholic that uses contraception. they exist, but they are not in the majority

That is a stupid take.

[Longhorn_Fan68 33,843]

1 minute ago, Johnny Sack said:

That is a stupid take.

it was also a joke. lighten up, francis

[fattyflattie 4,636]

14 minutes ago, royiv said:

I don't see people going on shooting sprees with their .308 Winchester. Why not? Because those are designed for hunting. ARs and the like are made to kill people.

Like an AR10?  

14 minutes ago, royiv said:

Assault weapons are just that. It's in the name.

Yeah, I wonder who named them that, and what their intentions were.  Surely couldn't have been anyone with an agenda. 

16 minutes ago, royiv said:

Truly responsible gun owners should be able to understand why it is morally reprehensible to allow manufacturers to market weapons designed for war to the general public.

Who is that?  There are 81m gun owners in the US.  How many do you feel are irresponsible, or at least, not responsible like you, of course?

13 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

Interesting.  I bought a ruger ranch during the ban. Had a 30 round mag that shot 223.  I don’t see it being much different than an AR.  

It's a different color.  Makes all the difference.  I mean, it is essentially the same exact round, but you know, different.  And, the ranch rifle, while looking extremely similar to a "weapon of war" 30 carbine, has ranch in the name. But that was grandpas war, where it was less war like.   All kinds of differences.  

[Satchel 6,908]

41 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

There is no ratio.  The manufacturer expects you to use the product as intended.  I don't expect Ford to pay society every time some activist decides to drive thru a parade.  The fact you see guns as something built to kill people is not society's issue.  99.99% of guns will never be used in a homicide. 

Whataboutism?  I'd have no answers if trying to explain why we should keep something that kills 5x the amount of another, just because I personally enjoy one, but not the other.  

Why are guns manufactured if not to kill, maim or injure intended targets?

[fattyflattie 4,636]

Just now, Satchel said:

Why are guns manufactured if not to kill, maim or injure intended targets?

Why is it an issue if the intended target is made of paper, clay, or a dove?  I don't think anyone has claimed they don't do those things?

[Satchel 6,908]

1 minute ago, fattyflattie said:

Why is it an issue if the intended target is made of paper, clay, or a dove?  I don't think anyone has claimed they don't do those things?

Point being, there’s no other reason for them to exist.

[fattyflattie 4,636]

Just now, Satchel said:

Point being, there’s no other reason for them to exist.

There is no reason for lots of things to exist.  

[Satchel 6,908]

Just now, fattyflattie said:

There is no reason for lots of things to exist.  

Namely?

[Brisketexan 104,628]

8 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

Are you under the impression there has been no concessions on gun ownership in this country?

I get that you don't like the "tacticool" weirdos.  But you haven't explained to me how it is bad, yet.  Bad for them getting laid, yes.  Bad because you don't like it, yes.  But how is it bad.  Because it wasn't portrayed in Field and Stream?

I agree, we should hold our $7/hr workers to a higher standard.  The age thing is an issue; not sure how I feel about the profiling the looks of the young men.   

 

As to item 1......no, there really haven't been.  I can own more types of firearms, with more ability to wreak havoc, than I could before.  The only difference in my purchase experience over the last 30+ years has been that back in the day, I filled out a piece of paper where I promised I wasn't a convicted felon, and today, I actually get run through the database for an instant background check.  In the meantime, the array of shit I can buy and stack up has only increased.

As to the second point -- it's because they are the defining image and face of gun ownership that EVERYONE ELSE sees.  They don't see me when I go out to W. Texas to deer hunt (my rifle is cased until I'm on the ranch).  They don't see me shooting skeet at the range.  They DO see fuckholes who are happy about intimidating other members of the public when they show up at the frozen custard place with an AR at a low-ready, or who show up at protests dressed and armed not to peacefully state a position, but to intimidate.  And yes, they are a problem for the rest of us because they are zero-tolerance extremists -- dare raise a voice of concern, and they descend on the speaker/writer with a relentless attack, backed by the full might of the NRA.

As for the Oshmans deal, if you work behind a gun counter, you aren't just a schlub.  They don't put people with zero training back there, and never have.  The age was obvious.  The profiled looks were concerning, but I agree that it's not prohibitive to buying a gun.  Instead, it speaks to a shitty culture behind their desire for and fetishization of guns.  It doesn't matter whether your fetishization of guns is because you are a tacticool larper or if it's because you are a Boyz in the Hood larper.  That guns, and carrying a weapon, became part of a major social IDENTITY is at the root of our problem.

I have always been a guy who owns guns.  I am not a "proud owner of an XYZ __.cal!"  Guns are not my identity.  They are not central to my identity.  For the two larper crowds I point to above, they are an essential part of their identity and culture.  That's f'd up.

[Johnny Sack 8,397]

Knives are made to be sharp and cut shit.  No other reason for them to exist.

Guns are made to project metal objects at really high speeds.  No other reason for them to exist.

[Brisketexan 104,628]

7 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

It's a different color.  Makes all the difference.  I mean, it is essentially the same exact round, but you know, different.  And, the ranch rifle, while looking extremely similar to a "weapon of war" 30 carbine, has ranch in the name. But that was grandpas war, where it was less war like.   All kinds of differences.  

At the time (and shit, I've been on boards like this for a LONG time, I may even have an ancient post on it), I thought the AWB was pretty stupid.  Because it was about how certain guns looked instead of what they do, and I called out the Ruger for that exact reason.  Magazine size is the only thing that matters for the issue that we were supposedly trying to address.

[Satchel 6,908]

2 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

Knives are made to be sharp and cut shit.  No other reason for them to exist.

Guns are made to project metal objects at really high speeds.  No other reason for them to exist.

Guns are the issue here. The issue is why we value them more than people.

[Brisketexan 104,628]

2 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

Knives are made to be sharp and cut shit.  No other reason for them to exist.

Guns are made to project metal objects at really high speeds.  No other reason for them to exist.

And if there was a major cultural shift that caused people to start walking around in public with fucking katanas strapped to their back (and when you carry a toy, you will have an urge to use it), that would be a problem, too.

I agree that guns qua guns are not the problem.  Our utterly fucked up fetishization of them, gleefully fed by an industry that gives zero fucks about responsibility or consequences, is the problem.

[fattyflattie 4,636]

3 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

As to item 1......no, there really haven't been. 

We'll have to disagree on that, but there's a graphic that shows how the last 100 years have gone, politically, and we can discuss further. 

4 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

I can own more types of firearms, with more ability to wreak havoc, than I could before.  The only difference in my purchase experience over the last 30+ years has been that back in the day, I filled out a piece of paper where I promised I wasn't a convicted felon, and today, I actually get run through the database for an instant background check.  In the meantime, the array of shit I can buy and stack up has only increased.

So you are mad because technology has advanced.  A 16 year old can go to a car dealer today and purchase a vehicle with over 1000 HP and drive it on the street with no additional licensing.  Do you have the same issue with that?  Were there any 1000 hp, 190 mph cars available when you got your license?  That doesnt seem very safe, and 5000# at 190 on the freeway could be a disaster in an accident.  Technology advances.

7 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

As to the second point -- it's because they are the defining image and face of gun ownership that EVERYONE ELSE sees.  They don't see me when I go out to W. Texas to deer hunt (my rifle is cased until I'm on the ranch).  They don't see me shooting skeet at the range.  They DO see fuckholes who are happy about intimidating other members of the public when they show up at the frozen custard place with an AR at a low-ready, or who show up at protests dressed and armed not to peacefully state a position, but to intimidate.  And yes, they are a problem for the rest of us because they are zero-tolerance extremists -- dare raise a voice of concern, and they descend on the speaker/writer with a relentless attack, backed by the full might of the NRA.

Yeah they are douchebags.  I live in the 5th (?) most populated area in the country and have seen 4-5 open carry guys, never a rifle.  So this seems like a fwd:fwd:fwd:fwd issue more than anything else.  I can understand how that is unnerving.  Weirdly enough, you've been able to carry a long arm in public as long as I've been alive. 

8 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

As for the Oshmans deal, if you work behind a gun counter, you aren't just a schlub. 

 My buddies in highschool  who worked the "hunting" section (Academy) would disagree with you.  

9 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

For the two larper crowds I point to above, they are an essential part of their identity and culture.  That's f'd up.

This is your opinion.  No different than the way someone who is extremely religious looks to an atheist.  Or an aggy to the rest of the world.  You don't get it, so you don't like it.  I don't either, but who the fuck am I to judge someone if they are within the law. 

[fattyflattie 4,636]

15 minutes ago, Satchel said:

Namely?

Alcohol.  Illicit drugs.   Hell, baseball bats.  Do we need them? No.  Golf clubs, nope.   If you want to look at what doesn't "need to" exist, the list gets really fucking long in a  hurry.  Luckily no one could ever be harmed with alcohol or blunt objects who's sole purpose is for entertainment. 

[elfenix 34,171]

fatty whatabouting alcohol as if it doesn't have special taxes just for it, commonly denoted as "sin taxes"

[Satchel 6,908]

Just now, fattyflattie said:

Alcohol.  Illicit drugs.   Hell, baseball bats.  Do we need them? No.  Golf clubs, nope.   If you want to look at what doesn't "need to" exist, the list gets really fucking long in a  hurry.  Luckily no one could ever be harmed with alcohol or blunt objects who's sole purpose is for entertainment. 

Are baseball bats made to maim, injure or kill people? How about alcohol? Golf clubs maybe? 

[Brisketexan 104,628]

2 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

Yeah they are douchebags.  I live in the 5th (?) most populated area in the country and have seen 4-5 open carry guys, never a rifle.  So this seems like a fwd:fwd:fwd:fwd issue more than anything else.  I can understand how that is unnerving.  Weirdly enough, you've been able to carry a long arm in public as long as I've been alive. 

This is your opinion.  No different than the way someone who is extremely religious looks to an atheist.  Or an aggy to the rest of the world.  You don't get it, so you don't like it.  I don't either, but who the fuck am I to judge someone if they are within the law. 

I office near the Capitol.  I've seen open carry dickbags quite a bit.  And yes, you have always been ABLE to carry a long gun in public......but until the last few years, it was very, very rare to see.  Again, you're making my point.  We had the RIGHT to carry a rifle around....but because we were decent and realized that trotting around in public with a rifle on display was a dick move and may scare or intimidate some people, we chose to act RESPONSIBLY, and not do so.

Who am I to judge someone if they are within the law?  A responsible member of a society that we all live in, that's who.  Again, rights vs responsibility.  I'm not saying that these folks don't have a legal right to do so.  I'm saying that they're being irresponsible in how they exercise it.  And yeah, you think I don't judge aggies who yell "WHOOP!" when the groom kisses the bride, even (especially) when the couple aren't aggies?  Yeah, they're acting like self-absorbed little dicks who want to show off their aggydom at the expense of the couple who should be the focus of attention.  This is my point, dude.  Rude, selfish, and irresponsible behavior shouldn't be excused just because it doesn't rise to the level of breaking the law.  

Generally speaking, we have the right to be dicks in 10,000 different ways.  My position is the surprisingly controversial one of "maybe we shouldn't be dicks, and maybe we should call people out when they're acting like dicks."  But I get it, I'm on the wrong side of the current culture war.

[Johnny Sack 8,397]

20 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

And if there was a major cultural shift that caused people to start walking around in public with fucking katanas strapped to their back (and when you carry a toy, you will have an urge to use it), that would be a problem, too.

I agree that guns qua guns are not the problem.  Our utterly fucked up fetishization of them, gleefully fed by an industry that gives zero fucks about responsibility or consequences, is the problem.

You see a lot of open carry?  I have yet to see it once in Houston.  I have seen it a handful of times from hunters in South Texas.  I hunt in East Texas on wife's family land also.  I have yet to see it once in those shithole towns.

[TwiceHorn 31,283]

2 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

 

Actually,  you're missing the third and middle path for firearms which is actually something that's been applied to alcohol (via social pressure) over the past couple of decades -- RESPONSIBLE marketing and sale.

The alcohol industry spends a fair amount of money and communication time on drinking responsibly, don't drive drunk, etc.  No, of course it's not perfect.  But there's an explicit message of responsibility, and a culture that has grown around it.  People still abuse it, binge drink, etc.  But it has had a positive effect.

The culture of responsible gun ownership has been drowned out by the culture (and marketing) of billy joe badass, carry a weapon everywhere you go, trick it out, be ready for anything, tactical badassery bullshit.  When I was a kid, the NRA was an organization dedicated to safe and responsible shooting sports and activities.  I was happy to be a member for years.  Today.....that's not the NRA's role at all.  Seriously, it has become so far sidelined as to be a non-issue.  It's all about your "right" to own as many types of whatever firearms you want and carry and swing them around wherever, whenever, and however you want.

Balance.  How about we try to take THAT approach, instead of having to hold manufacturers liable for marketing their products as cool toys....whether that be guns or opiates?

Totally agree with this.  Oddly enough, it occurred to me that the proliferation of feral pigs has kind of contributed to the deterioration of "gun culture."

While the hunting of feral hogs is completely legitimate, it is unlike any other type of hunting.  As a pest, I don't believe licenses are required anywhere.  There's no season, no hunter safety courses.  And, they're so numerous that squeezing off five or ten shots on as many pigs is also legit, as is other accouterments of tacticool like night vision.  And I don't think rather extraordinary hunting practices, like shooting from vehicles or helicopters is regulated or forbidden.

So, unlike a lot of other hunting, which requires licenses, safety courses, patience, and skill, hog hunting attracts the bump stock bros that just want to blast shit and have some kind of reason to do so.

Edited February 15, 2022 by TwiceHorn

[Brisketexan 104,628]

9 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

You see a lot of open carry?  I have yet to see it once in Houston.  I have seen it a handful of times from hunters in South Texas.  I hunt in East Texas on wife's family land also.  I have yet to see it once in those shithole towns.

My whole life, I've seen it on occasion out in the sticks.   Shit, one time in college I accidentally drove into town and went to the store to pick up some stuff with a .38 on my hip.  Whoops.

First time I saw it outside of a rural/hunting context was in Idaho.....at a grilled cheese restaurant.  Dude needed his glock on his hip to order the daily special with grilled onions.  But yeah, I've actually seen it a good bit -- again, I'm near the capitol, which is a magnet for cosplay dipshits.  I have also seen it on occasion where folks were parading around for some purpose to preen.  And a couple of times just walking down a regular street, which had me puzzled as hell.

I think it's stupid, pointless, and counter-productive.  Want to turn much of America against firearms, especially that large chunk of America who doesn't really know guns?  Parade around with them like an unstable dickbag.  Do so in a way that's meant to intimidate the unarmed? Even worse.

[fattyflattie 4,636]

9 minutes ago, Satchel said:

Are baseball bats made to maim, injure or kill people? How about alcohol? Golf clubs maybe? 

Are all guns? All mine are purpose meant to maim paper, clay, and some animals who's populations are benefitted thru hunting.  It's your distorted view on a firearms purpose that is falsely driving your argument.  You are pointing to F1 cars and saying every car ever built has been built specifically to race. 

12 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Again, you're making my point.  We had the RIGHT to carry a rifle around....but because we were decent and realized that trotting around in public with a rifle on display was a dick move and may scare or intimidate some people, we chose to act RESPONSIBLY, and not do so.

Again I'm not. I'm sure you've seen it 234334342343 times, but, living in a city 3x the size of yours, I have not?  Not a single time.  Not once.  Weird.  

13 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

My position is the surprisingly controversial one of "maybe we shouldn't be dicks, and maybe we should call people out when they're acting like dicks."  But I get it, I'm on the wrong side of the current culture war.

No, you are on the correct side.  We shouldn't be dicks.  But you understand we've gone from discussing certain arms, to how and where they should/shouldn't be carried. That's sort of my point.  People take issue with things they don't understand.  I don't get why you'd carry an AR to the Whataburger, but that's a far cry from let's gather them up and melt them down because this one dude is a douchebag.   

[Satchel 6,908]

Why can’t there be a rational discussion regarding the need of assault type weapons on the streets of America?

[SydneyCarton 47,884]

18 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

You see a lot of open carry?  I have yet to see it once in Houston.  I have seen it a handful of times from hunters in South Texas.  I hunt in East Texas on wife's family land also.  I have yet to see it once in those shithole towns.

I work in an office of 6 people. 2 of them Open Carry. I live in Timbergrove. On the weekends I'd say I average seeing open carry about 1-2 times per trip to Heights or Buffalo Heights HEB. I'd say that overall, I see open carry about half a dozen times a week, excluding the daily office mates. 

[Brisketexan 104,628]

1 minute ago, fattyflattie said:

Are all guns? All mine are purpose meant to maim paper, clay, and some animals who's populations are benefitted thru hunting.  It's your distorted view on a firearms purpose that is falsely driving your argument.  You are pointing to F1 cars and saying every car ever built has been built specifically to race. 

Again I'm not. I'm sure you've seen it 234334342343 times, but, living in a city 3x the size of yours, I have not?  Not a single time.  Not once.  Weird.  

No, you are on the correct side.  We shouldn't be dicks.  But you understand we've gone from discussing certain arms, to how and where they should/shouldn't be carried. That's sort of my point.  People take issue with things they don't understand.  I don't get why you'd carry an AR to the Whataburger, but that's a far cry from let's gather them up and melt them down because this one dude is a douchebag.   

And I -- for the jillionth time -- haven't said "gather them up and melt them down."  But I do wonder, with concern, why there are so many of them out there.  It ties in large part to a culture that glorifies and talks them up.  It's about RESPONSIBLE ownership, and RESPONSIBLE marketing.  And if we're starting from that point, I think we'll naturally have fewer such weapons being sold.  And again, my concerns are across the board -- the tacticool Meal Team 6 larpers are the easy and obvious target these days, but there's plenty of other elements/factions which also have a problematic gun fetish tied to their identity.