REI places "HOLD" on brands owned by gun manufacturer Vista

[colker]

Keep in mind during this discussion that REI is a co-op. Some of the articles mention this and others do not.

REI did this because of pressure from their members including a petition that apparently included 24,175 signatures.

I'm not saying that it is right or wrong. Just pointing it out.

Looks like democracy at work.

[theflashunc]

The truth is an "assault rifle" is not necessary to kill in numbers. We are talking about a trapped unarmed group. I could do the same amount of carnage with old cap and ball black powder revolvers.

The anti-gun agenda is clear and concise. First things first. The removal of social acceptance of firearms-period. And that is untenable to a large portion of the populace. There is no compromise on the table..........unfortunately from either side of the table. It is consistent with our divided nation. We see only black and white-no middle ground. It has made people angry and anti-social. It is a deeply rooted condition that will take generations to remove as social change naturally moves at a glacial pace. We......everyone regardless of stand must accept this will be taken care of only with slow deliberate action from all parties. No one wants to admit it but the guns are a symptom of a much deeper societal malaise. We've got a big problem and the first step is to sit down and calmly discuss what we will do about it.

For such a contentious subject this has been a civil discussion here. We must spread that with actions outside of this forum. Sadly this will not be the last disaster before some change occurs. We the public must fix this not the government. Look at everything else that they stuck there hands in. We (US Government) have armed forces on the majority of the planet. Can we truly depend on them to perform differently with this? Don't think so. So contact your representatives and let them know of your wishes.

Some things that don't ban guns that are non-starters for a lot of the so-called "responsible" gun owning populace:
-- Requirements of liability insurance for any gun owner.
-- License requirements for gun owners, which include regular testing and renewals.
-- Liability in the event a weapon is used in a crime, even if you're not the one committing the crime.
-- Restrictions on magazine size and capacity that do not restrict hunting and other outdoor uses.
-- Background checks for all purchases, including private party and gun show purchases.
-- Mandatory waiting periods
-- Legal authority to sue gun manufacturers for their role in mass shootings.

None of these are "no guns." But those who cling to their weapons so strongly and opposed to any additional regulations whatsoever (ahem...NRA...ahem) that the day is coming the starting negotiating point won't be "limits around gun purchases and use" to "no guns."

[colker]

Some things that don't ban guns that are non-starters for a lot of the so-called "responsible" gun owning populace:
-- Requirements of liability insurance for any gun owner.
-- License requirements for gun owners, which include regular testing and renewals.
-- Liability in the event a weapon is used in a crime, even if you're not the one committing the crime.
-- Restrictions on magazine size and capacity that do not restrict hunting and other outdoor uses.
-- Background checks for all purchases, including private party and gun show purchases.
-- Mandatory waiting periods
-- Legal authority to sue gun manufacturers for their role in mass shootings.

None of these are "no guns." But those who cling to their weapons so strongly and opposed to any additional regulations whatsoever (ahem...NRA...ahem) that the day is coming the starting negotiating point won't be "limits around gun purchases and use" to "no guns."

Good. Take the conservative notion of "personal responsability" to a whole other level and see what happens.

[guido]

Good. Take the conservative notion of "personal responsability" to a whole other level and see what happens.

Conservatives want you to be responsible. They make no claims for themselves.

[choke]

When there is a shooting by a police officer, the officer is considered to be the main problem rather than the firearm.
When there is a shooting by a civilian, the firearm is considered to be the main problem rather than the individual.
I don't understand why they're viewed differently.

[BBB]

Because people accept that the Police are armed and may need to use their weapons as a last resort. They also have training in how to use firearms and presumably also means and methods of diffusing situations without resorting to the use of firearms. Hence when Police shoot first and ask questions later, more so if there is the perception of a racial issue involved, then people question policing in general. There's your difference.

[thollandpe]

When there is a shooting by a police officer, the officer is considered to be the main problem rather than the firearm.
When there is a shooting by a civilian, the firearm is considered to be the main problem rather than the individual.
I don't understand why they're viewed differently.

Choke, a police officer never walked into a school and mowed down 20 first graders. If that happens, I'll be sure to ask why they had access to such a weapon.

The picture on the left shows the damage caused by a military-style rifle, as favored by the shooters in Parkland, Newtown, Aurora, Orlando, Las Vegas (et al), and on the right is damage caused by a handgun like most police officers carry.



That's just one way to view this differently.

[dgaddis]

Flip that the other way: the rural and less populated areas would be controlled by the urban areas. The urban areas are woefully out of touch with the rural lifestyle and look down on them as being 'backward.' AMHIK

I can't see the same gun control measures for Fairfax Co and Smyth Co. Completely different demographics and population densities. ...but it seems that urbanites (and suburbanites) are willing to ride roughshod over their rural counterparts in the name of 'safety.'

M

Rural vs Urban



That big blue area in southwest GA is a surprise. Doesn't get much more rural than south GA.

[TTX1]

This binary presentation is *exactly* the sort of misrepresentation the Russian troll farms and certain special interests would have us take literally.

The reality is that with limited exception, most states and many districts are some shade of purple.

Even the "rural vs. urban" idea isn't safe without qualification (Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine, Colorado, Nevada, Utah...) - these are generally pro-gun "blue" states or states with a meaningful blue population that's pro gun... Consider Bernie Sanders' various nuanced positions on gun control during the election, for example.

The polarized presentation in the Daily Kos map is an artifact of simplified presentation. Nothing more.

It might reflect the final results of the election, in summary - but it does not accurately capture the actual vote ratio at the district or state level.

Just look at Texas - famous red state, right? But there's a lot of blue in the south... This apparent contradiction applies to most of the country, including urban and rural areas.

More about the myth of Red and Blue states:

https://www.nationalreview.com/2016/...hows-its-myth/

[TTX1]

Choke, a police officer never walked into a school and mowed down 20 first graders. If that happens, I'll be sure to ask why they had access to such a weapon.

The picture on the left shows the damage caused by a military-style rifle, as favored by the shooters in Parkland, Newtown, Aurora, Orlando, Las Vegas (et al), and on the right is damage caused by a handgun like most police officers carry.



That's just one way to view this differently.

This is the perfect response to "We are talking about a trapped unarmed group. I could do the same amount of carnage with old cap and ball black powder revolvers"

I'm sure that Jefferson, Madison, et al, would loan a pistol to anyone who wants to square off in gentlemen's duel with the Vegas shooter and his weapon of choice - each at capacity.

Also, the cop with the paper clip shooter was doing a helluva job.

[Corso]

Conservatives want you to be responsible. They make no claims for themselves.

If one were to wave a magic wand, and all American conservatives moved to, say Canada, and only Liberals occupied the United States, we’d still be exactly where we are concerning gun control.

The multi-millions of Liberals who own guns and believe in the 2nd amendment would take the conservatives place, the now Liberally supported NRA would support the Democratic elected officials and not much would change.

92% of registered gun owners are not NRA members. How many of those consider themselves Liberal?

Gun control is for everybody. I wish we’d stop blaming one political side or the other.

[tommyrod74]

When there is a shooting by a police officer, the officer is considered to be the main problem rather than the firearm.
When there is a shooting by a civilian, the firearm is considered to be the main problem rather than the individual.
I don't understand why they're viewed differently.

Because the police officer was hired, trained, and trusted to carry a firearm in the service of the public good. Your "point", while witty and catchy (I've heard the exact same phrasing from pro-gun folks many times lately) is a false equvalence.

[colker]

Because the police officer was hired, trained, and trusted to carry a firearm in the service of the public good. Your "point", while witty and catchy (I've heard the exact same phrasing from pro-gun folks many times lately) is a false equvalence.

The constitution says ideally the USA should or could have everyone armed when ideally only law enforcement should have guns (and never use them). Law enforcement is under a huge stress since any contact or id check can escalate in a shooting.

[StR]

""""Dutch TV Comedy Perfectly Sums Up America’s Gun Problem""""


Dutch TV Comedy Perfectly Sums Up America's Gun Problem | HuffPost

[King Of Dirk]

Just look at Texas - famous red state, right?

No, not to anyone who knows anything about Texas. At least ten of our fifty states are "redder" than Texas, and every single city of any size at all is solid blue here. From an electoral college standpoint Texas went red in 1980 when Reagan ran unopposed, and was red again in 1984 when Reagan ran unopposed. Ross Perot caused GHWB quite a bit of heartache here. W carried Texas twice due to has having done a superlative job as Governor* here, and still did relatively poorly in the cities. Houston was the first major city in the U.S. to have an openly same-sex mayor. She won in a landslide three times, and only term limits kept her out for a fourth. Major Democratic figures have their roots in San Antonio, El Paso, Dallas, Houston, and the Rio Grande Valley.

To your point, those maps are misleading. Texas was blue until 1980, and is well on its way to being blue again. Given that CA and NY are in no danger of flipping, once TX goes blue the presidential elections will be decided in the Democrat primaries.

If I sound like I'm troubled by that, I am. The best thing for the Dems is a strong GOP, and the best thing for the GOP is a strong party of Democrats. Unipolar environments are a disaster.


* You may think I'm kidding, but I'm not. He was a great Governor. I'm not implying anything else.

[Gummee]

Maybe it's not the video games.

That movie is on Amazon Prime. No. I didn't watch it.

On a related note to the whole gun control thing: Let's say we figure out what cars are used by drunk drivers and ban those. that should end the drunk driving pproblem ...but that's not even the problem! Using the 'assault weapon' analogy: we know the scary-looking fast cars are used in a small proportion of drunk driving incidents, so let's ban those. They're black. They're scary. ...and they're fast! Must be the most effective thing we can do to curb drunk driving.

M

[Gummee]

Because the police officer was hired, trained, and trusted to carry a firearm in the service of the public good. Your "point", while witty and catchy (I've heard the exact same phrasing from pro-gun folks many times lately) is a false equvalence.

If you've got a CCW, you've got the training too.

I know my buddy the former town cop fired his pistol 2x year to qualify with it. That's not 'training.' I don't remember ever hearing about him doing any kind of 'tactical' training after the academy. As evidenced by the SF cops firing 65x and not hitting anything, even the cops need constant refreshing in a tactical situation.

M

[Gummee]

Looks like democracy at work.

True democracy inevitably falls into mob rule and mob rule is not democracy.

That's why the founding fathers made us a republic and not a true democracy

M

[murphy]

That movie is on Amazon Prime. No. I didn't watch it.

On a related note to the whole gun control thing: Let's say we figure out what cars are used by drunk drivers and ban those. that should end the drunk driving pproblem ...but that's not even the problem! Using the 'assault weapon' analogy: we know the scary-looking fast cars are used in a small proportion of drunk driving incidents, so let's ban those. They're black. They're scary. ...and they're fast! Must be the most effective thing we can do to curb drunk driving.

M

That is a tired and false analogy given that cars are not designed to kill people. Assault style weapons are literally designed to be better for killing hence why a majority of the last large shootings have used them.

[Matthew Strongin]

If you've got a CCW, you've got the training too.

I know my buddy the former town cop fired his pistol 2x year to qualify with it. That's not 'training.' I don't remember ever hearing about him doing any kind of 'tactical' training after the academy. As evidenced by the SF cops firing 65x and not hitting anything, even the cops need constant refreshing in a tactical situation.

M

The training a CCW license holder needs is not the same as the training police get (or should get) in how to deescalate a dangerous situation or how to handle a firearm in a conflict. It's mostly just training that you won't shoot yourself when taking the gun out of your pocket. You can't seriously feel that we shouldn't hold the police to a higher standard of weapon and conflict management than the general public and that, therefore, when a cop shoots someone in the back it's the same debate as when someone buys a high powered weapon legally and turns it on an innocent crowd. They're both tragic, but police carry weapons for their job and they should be used in accordance with keeping the peace and protecting the public. So when a cop shoots an unarmed suspect the cop needs to be held accountable. That's not the discussion that's happening around gun control. It's another distraction and red herring.