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.
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.
I have a little pry tool keychain thing. It has a bottle opener and flat head on it. The pry bar bit can also act like a big flat head for things that have a coin slot meant to tighten or open it. It’s not meant for nails or opening wooden crates.
Really it’s useful for any poking of prying that you shouldn’t be using a knife for but have a strange urge to. Also a package opener if people around are nervous about knives. The utility knife thing with a bit of crowbar glued to it probably doesn’t comfort others as it looks like how someone would design a tactical box cutter.
To me it looks like an over estimation of the capabilities for the tech. Same kind of thinking that led to lawyers submitting fake cases as support in court. The current tech can be useful but has to be verified and generally tweaked a bit to be good enough. It certainly has room for improvement in quality and just not lying. Real world use has some copyright questions with what the training data was. Applying it to something creative is questionable and more or less feels like uninspired remixes.
Also the whole graphic is kinda suspect to me when “Blockchain engineers” is a job category and it’s produced by an org working on AI.
I mean there are jobs related to firearms but the industry isn’t as profitable or big as some people seem to think. Not unless the customers are governments anyway.
I’m not sure if a bar or even normal teen jobs would even be safer than a gun range. I haven’t seen people lose their shit at the range but I have seen problems at bars, retail, and fast food places. It seems to have gotten worse too.
What do guns existing have to do with kids or younger adults working as a bartender?
It’s not about thief or stuff. If someone breaks in I don’t know why they’re there. I have no reason to assume they are only there for stuff or won’t hurt people who get in their way. Giving them the benefit of the doubt make no sense when they’re already breaking in and violating your home. As an example I wouldn’t go out to stop someone from breaking into my car or open the door during some incident. But if the door get kicked in a person shouldn’t expect a warm welcome.
I do not care if a criminal gets hurt during the course of crimes that violate people’s homes and personal safety. Anyone has a right to stop such people with force. Self-defense isn’t a crime and I really don’t consider it a problem. The gun was not the first resort. There were presumably doors and locks. Maybe some yelling. The criminal choose to victimize someone and found out that goes poorly on occasion.
If you want to prevent violence prevent people from being in desperate situations and commiting crimes against people. Don’t expect people to be accepting of home invasion.
Should people kindly ask the home invader to please vacate the area after their door gets smashed in? Maybe just hug it out?
I don’t know about you but I lock my doors. I don’t know what the fuck a stranger is trying to do in my house. They will be met with force if they forced their way in to violate my personal space and safety. Being unarmed or complying won’t keep anyone but criminals safe.
Is slapping down unconstitutional laws that haven’t been around very long really “expanding” 2a rights? It’s not like these rulings are allowing me to mail order machine guns like people use to. If by expanding the mean restore rights, sure.
The rulings just allow people to continue to own things in common use or do things that are legal in a vast majority of states. Keep in mind some of the laws in California involve things like demanding firearms have tech in them that doesn’t exist.
Seems weird to argue that it’s “escalating” to defend yourself from a home invasion.
Most people buy a handgun like that for self-defense. Likely because they don’t expect the cops to show up and protect them. And there isn’t anything wrong with owning something dangerous if it’s property secured and used safely. These parents were negligent.
Separating ammo isn’t actually securing the firearm though. Loaded or unloaded it should still be property secured. And you can safely store a fire loaded if the firearm is actually in some kind of safe. The parents were simply negligent.
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.