Mike McPhate reports in The New York Times that two home shopping industry veterans, Valerie Castle and Doug Bornstein, are set to premier GunTV, a new 24-Hour shopping channel for guns, that aims to take the QVC approach of peppy hosts pitching "a vast array of firearms," as well as related items like bullets, holsters and two-way radios. The new cable channel hopes to help satisfy Americans' insatiable appetite for firearms. The channel's forthcoming debut might seem remarkably ill-timed, given recent shootings at a Planned Parenthood in Colorado Springs and at a social services center in San Bernardino, California but gun sales have been rising for years, with nearly 21 million background checks performed in 2014, and they appear on track to a new record this year. The boom has lately been helped by a drumbeat of mass shootings, whose attendant anxiety has only driven more people into the gun store.
The proposed schedule of programming allots an eight-minute segment each hour to safety public service announcements in between proposed segments on topics like women's concealed weapon's apparel, big-game hunting and camping. Buying a Glock on GunTV won't be quite like ordering a pizza. When a firearm is purchased, a distributor will send it to a retailer near the buyer, where it has to be picked up in person and a federal background check performed. "We saw an opportunity in filling a need, not creating one," says Castle. "The vast majority of people who own and use guns in this country, whether it's home protection, recreation or hunting, are responsible .... I don't really know that it's going to put more guns on the streets."
Critics suggest that Gun TV could make the decision to purchase a weapon seem trivial—on the same level as ordering a Snuggie or a vertical egg cooker. "Buying a gun is a serious decision," says Laura Cutilletta, senior staff attorney at the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence. "If you are going to buy a gun for your home, it's not a decision you should be making at three in the morning because you are watching TV."
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Fishscene on Thursday December 10 2015, @07:00PM
"If you are going to buy a gun for your home, it's not a decision you should be making at three in the morning because you are watching TV."
...yes it is. Especially if you've been waiting for it to be sold at a price you can pay.
Purchasing isn't the problem. Responsibility is. And we're a society trying to make *everyone* responsible except the person who commits the crime. Shame on you Laura Cutilletta for diverting responsibility *away* from the buyers and on to the sellers, selling a 100% legitimate product through legitimate channels (pun intended).
I know I am not God, because every time I pray to Him, it's because I'm not perfect and thankful for what He's done.
(Score: 2) by isostatic on Thursday December 10 2015, @07:04PM
Have you ever known TV shopping to actually sell something valuable rather than a pile of tat? QVC et al are crap, just because they're selling your favourite item doesn't make them less crap.
(Score: 1) by Fishscene on Thursday December 10 2015, @07:19PM
lol. I've seen a few good items on back in my youth. But does that mean we should banish 24-hour shopping channels because people can't make informed decisions at 3am (sorry all you late-night shift people!) or is this a problem because *guns!*?
I agree purchasing a gun isn't something one should do casually, but let that be the fault of the buyer. Not the seller. The price (at least in the USA), if anything, enforces the idea that purchasing a firearm isn't a casual decision.
I know I am not God, because every time I pray to Him, it's because I'm not perfect and thankful for what He's done.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by edIII on Thursday December 10 2015, @07:35PM
I'd like to point out the fact that nearly every single violent crime isn't caused by casual decisions with gun ownership, but by passionate and hasty decisions with gun ownership. The ones you need to be sincerely terrified of would be purchasing a gun casually, and then murdering scores of people. We have names for these people, and it all falls under serious issues with mental health, that are thankfully rare. Those people are just as dangerous in a world without guns.
Some accountant purchasing a handgun casually at 3am will probably be the least of all of our worries. Especially, when the thug we *are* worried about sure as shit isn't ordering his criminal equipment on QVC, but from somebody in a back alley with no background checks and no questions.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by isostatic on Thursday December 10 2015, @09:03PM
Those people are just as dangerous in a world without guns.
I see the argument that the cat is out of the bag and the prevailence of guns means, however to suggest that a mentally ill person with a knife is just as dangerous as a mentally ill person with a gun is beyond the realm of "stretching it a bit" into "pure fantasy".
(Score: 2) by edIII on Friday December 11 2015, @02:29AM
I think it's cute you assumed a knife. Quite frankly, that's "pure fantasy" right back at you. Also, you put words in my mouth. I never suggested a knife was as dangerous as a gun, and in fact, made no comparisons about weapon choices at all.
What I suggested was that mentally ill people are just as dangerous regardless of the prevalence of any one particular weapon. Let's use the Oklahoma bombing of that Federal building (Timothy McVeigh??) as an example. Just like I said, that mentally ill person was just as dangerous in our world with a gun as he was without.
Guns are not the only readily available tools for mass murder. They're chosen as a matter of preference to be more direct and upfront in explaining their mental illness to the world.
Pure Fantasy would be a world in which "all the corners are padded" and the most dangerous weapon was "this very intimidating pillow". At that point a mentally ill person isn't that much more dangerous than I am. We don't live in that world. We live in a world where I can make tools for mass murder that don't involve anything near a gun.
Pretty please, let's explore the reverse. Please demonstrate that a mentally ill person is *as dangerous* as one who isn't in a world without guns. I contend that you can't, and regardless of the presence of guns, these people will still be just as dangerous.
Until.... you remove all:
1) guns of all types
2) all knives over certain dimensions and types not required for domestic work.
3) Nuklear anything
4) Castor beans make Ricin, so no Castor beans.
5) Cars. That's a multi-ton object moving at speed
6) Fertilizers & Chemicals. Regulate and monitor the living crap out of this, lest you fail horribly.
7) Scores of plants that can be used to mass produce toxic substances
8) Pencils. Remember Joker in the new Batman movie? Yeah. Pencils are dangerous objects, although I'm struggling to figure out how to kill hundreds with them. Gimme a minute.
9) Potatoes & Grapefruit. I can freeze them and fire them from a shoulder mounted exhaust tube with sufficient velocity to penetrate a brick wall. The crewed Grapefruit Death Cannon could probably take out dozens of unprotected civilians at a time.
You see now? Guns are simply popular, that's all. The dangerous part truly is the mental illness, nothing more. If it's happening more and more often, then you need to solve the problems of mental illness, not trying to "child proof" the world. The latter truly being the realm of Pure Fantasy.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by linuxrocks123 on Friday December 11 2015, @05:16AM
The primary unstated, false assumption you are making in your argument is that the people who commit crimes using guns are all perfectly rational people able to make long-term plans and delay gratification while designing well-thought-out plans to kill as many strangers they have no personal beef with as possible.
A few are like that. People like the Unabomber are like that. The "best" (worst) Islamic terrorists are like that. Those people are extremely scary people. They are also, thankfully, extremely rare.
Most shooters are not like that. The reason is that choosing to kill a lot of people you have no personal connection with, or even those you do, is not generally a rational thing to do, either from the perspective of pure self interest or of the greater good. Therefore, most random shootings are not well-thought-out decisions. They are emotional decisions, made by people with poor emotional control. These people will not look up how to cook ricin on the Internet, buy the ingredients, put on goggles, and run a little chemistry lab so they can poison the world. By the time they've gotten to the supermarket, their anger will have subsided, and they won't feel like killing people anymore.
That said, the executive function of people making rash, stupid, emotional decisions is not completely compromised. Once the person has decided, "I'm going to go kill some people now!", the rational executive part of the brain says, "Okay, hmm, how should I best do that?". They're not going to go pick up a pillow and start charging people. They're going to go for a gun, if there's one available. If there's not, they'll go for a knife. If there's not that, maybe they'll go for it with their fists, or maybe the executive will say, "This is impossible to do right now." and successfully fight the emotional id for control.
It is for these flawed humans that the availability of guns matters. The ones who, on a whim, basically, decide to kill their ex-spouse, boss/coworkers, or just ... random strangers. These will pick whatever is the most effective weapon THAT IS IMMEDIATELY AVAILABLE TO THEM.
If that's a gun, we can get up to 30 or so dead people each time before the shooter is killed. If it's a knife ... 10 injured, maybe 2 or 3 dead.
What I just said isn't the end of the gun control debate. You can make a rational argument that there are so many guns in the US, and their ownership is so legally protected, that full gun control isn't practically possible, so let's at least make it so the good guys can have guns, too. But that's not the argument you made. And the argument you made ... is bull.
(Score: 2) by fido_dogstoyevsky on Thursday December 10 2015, @09:55PM
I agree purchasing heroin* isn't something one should do casually, but let that be the fault of the buyer. Not the seller. The price (at least in the USA), if anything, enforces the idea that purchasing heroin isn't a casual decision.
How does that read?
*At the moment, heroin can't be bought legally, but a LOT of problems would disappear if it could be (as a prescription item).
It's NOT a conspiracy... it's a plot.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Friday December 11 2015, @01:45AM
Your post made me think of the stereotypical rusty milsurp SKS for $200. Due to (shrinking) supply and (expanding) demand those same rust buckets are going for $400 now, but still, conceptually, the era of nothing being on the market except exotic indestructible glock 9s is now gone. Or never was really here.
There's a thin smear of "tacti-cool" in the gun world too. Plenty of opportunity for $5 clones of $100 holsters made in fake black leather and sold for "only" $39.95.
This is before we get started with shooting accessories, fall apart tree stands and stuff.
(Score: 2) by Hairyfeet on Thursday December 10 2015, @10:18PM
Not to mention has everybody forgotten the OKC bombing? If a scumbag wants to kill a ton of people you literally need nothing more than fertilizer and diesel, things as common as dirt. As we have seen time and time again that the places where they have the tightest gun laws, so no law abiding citizen can have them? They have insane gun violence because the predators know the prey is unarmed and yet the gun banners can't seem to follow the most simple of logic, because criminals? They DO NOT FOLLOW LAWS which is why they are fucking called criminals and not girl scouts,mmmkay?
ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Thursday December 10 2015, @11:18PM
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday December 11 2015, @02:12AM
Europe. People like to cite one European country or another to the United States. "Great Britian has only 5% of our gun deaths!" Or some similar nonsense. When comparing, one must compare the fifty states and the District of Columbia to all of Europe. The sizes and populations are far more comparable than any single European country.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Friday December 11 2015, @08:48AM
Congratulations on being able to think of something else to put on the left hand column of the table, now the data for the right hand column please - with citations?
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday December 11 2015, @02:57PM
Well, then, if you insist on deaths per 100,000, that's fine. But - INCLUDE ALL OF THE US AND ALL OF EUROPE, or else break it down.
You do realize that the highest murder and gun death rates in the US are in Democratic strongholds? If you want to compare the United States to Great Britain, then you have to take one of the less lethal states to compare.
http://www.ammoland.com/2015/12/three-u-s-islands-with-strict-gun-control-and-their-murder-rates/ [ammoland.com]
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/baltimore-city/bs-md-ci-homicide-per-capita-20151117-story.html [baltimoresun.com]
The first article demonstrates that the availability of guns is far less important than the availability of murderers when a killing is desired.
The second shows that Baltimore, like it's liberal sister city Chicago, has an extremely high murder rate. If we can eliminate liberal cities from the US murder rate, then we will be on par with your "civilized" nations.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Friday December 11 2015, @04:33PM
Nope. That's called "cherry picking", and is right out. Either do stats properly or don't do it at all.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Saturday December 12 2015, @01:55AM
That is exactly what I've just said - you're cherry picking small segments of Europe, and comparing those small segments to the entire United States.
If you're going to cherry pick your favorite parts of Europe, then I get to cherry pick my favorite bits of the US. I'm glad you're being honest now!
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Saturday December 12 2015, @01:28PM
1) The EU is not a country;
2) The US is a country;
3) Even if individual US states are compared to individual EU countries, the US will still lose the comparison (unless of course more gun crime is better, in which case, the US is winning bigtime);
4) Despite being asked for data and citations 4 times, you've still not presented a single fact, you've just wiggled annoyingly and ineffectually.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Saturday December 12 2015, @02:03PM
I have made a very clear statement and claim:
You are the one who chooses to cherry pick those nations in Europe which support your point of view. The fact is, you compare those cherry picked countries against an entire nation. Neither the US nor Europe is a single, homogenous population enjoying a single religion, ethnicity, culture, or history.
I don't need any sort of data or citations to establish those basic facts.
In this nation, we have pockets with a lot of violence, in Europe they have pockets with a lot of violence. In the US we have safer areas, and in Europe they have safer areas.
It is common practice for progressives to point to the United Kingdom as some sort of standard, which we should strive to match. Unfortunately, the UK does NOT have any enviable standards.
4bitnews.com/uk/uk-cops-cover-20-crimes-including-sex-offences-violent-crime/
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/1846158/Cops-cover-up-crime-figures.html [thesun.co.uk]
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/justice/1850578/Labour-accused-of-covering-up-violent-crime-figures-to-meet-targets-after-police-figures-show-22-rise-Crime-in-the-UK.html [thesun.co.uk]
http://crimesofempire.com/2015/03/21/the-british-establishment-cover-up-must-end-right-now/ [crimesofempire.com]
Using a slightly different search term:
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/2702998/Migrant-crime-cover-up-row.html [thesun.co.uk]
https://themuslimissue.wordpress.com/2012/08/20/the-living-hell-for-swedish-women-5-muslims-commit-nearly-77-6-of-all-rape-crimes/ [wordpress.com] (I was using Great Britain - Sweden slipped in there.)
http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/kouri/060220 [renewamerica.com] (Europe in general)
http://kravology.com/the-european-rape-epidemic-and-its-systematic-coverup/ [kravology.com] (Europe again)
Granted, your pet peeve seems to be GUNS ARE EVIL! You're afraid of guns, we get that. But WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE WHETHER YOU ARE KILLED BY A MADMAN WITH A GUN OR A MADMAN WITH A KNIFE????
I'll bet that a large number of people have choked out their final breaths, lying in a gutter in an alley, wishing that they had been carrying a gun, which would have trumped their murderer's knife.
You fear guns. I do not. I fear criminals. I fear madmen. I fear zealots, religious or not. I fear a number of things, but I do not fear guns.
Tell me - if I do not force you to own or carry a gun, WTF gives you the right to deny me the right to own or carry guns?
I've mentioned a couple of times, I'm 60 years old. I'm still pretty strong and healthy - a doctor would probably tell you that I'm in great shape for 60. But, the doctor can't bullshit me - I'm not as strong as I was twenty years ago, or thirty, or forty. When I go to Shreveport, I pass through some shady areas. Shreveport has a high crime rate, as well as a high murder rate. A couple decades back, they rivaled Chicago's crime and murder rates. Why must I put myself at the mercy of the criminal element, just because you are afraid of guns?
At age 60, I've never been charged, much less convicted of, a violent crime. For almost fifty years, I've owned a variety of weapons, and never once have I misused a weapon.
But, today, because you fear guns, I must give my guns up?
PREPOSTEROUS!
Let me turn your logic around on you. A lot of black people are convicted of violent crime. Why don't we just lock up all black people? You want to criminalize guns, and lock up gun owners - are you comfortable with locking up all black people?
Not all Muslims are extremists, but progressives tell us that all gun owners are dangerous. Comfortable?
Not all Satanists sacrifice babies at Black Mass - but your MSM wants to paint all gunowners as - what, exactly? Baby eaters?
Your fear of guns is far less rational than America's fear of Muslims. I can demonstrate that Muslims have killed Americans. You cannot demonstrate that any gun has ever ventured out on it's own to kill Americans.
Read the links. Europe is not the safe place that you wish it were, and you cannot make the United States the safe place that you imagine.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Monday December 14 2015, @10:25AM
Nice frothing at the mouth though, but it nearly made the straw man too wet to burn.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday December 14 2015, @10:54AM
http://www.mcsm.org/miscreports/lott5_27.html [mcsm.org]
http://www.rense.com/general32/nine.htm [rense.com]
Oh - a reminder. Criminal's deaths are part of the gun death statistics. That is, the armed robber who attempts to rob a bank, and is subsequently killed by either a guard, a cop, or an armed citizen, is counted among the gun deaths. And, he should not be counted, or rather, he should be counted in a separate statistic. Justified homicides and unjustified homicides should always be clearly separated.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Monday December 14 2015, @11:58AM
6 strikes.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 3, Informative) by Snotnose on Thursday December 10 2015, @07:02PM
To buy a gun you have to go through a federal background check. What difference does it make if you get the gun from a gun store, a department store, a home shopping channel, or a vending machine?
When the dust settled America realized it was saved by a porn star.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by ikanreed on Thursday December 10 2015, @07:07PM
It makes no difference, except in that it reflects our terribly broken culture where a gun is an impulse acquisition. Say what you want on the nuances of when taking a life is justified and the power to do so sometimes being necessary, there's something incredibly, mind-numbingly crass about blind mass-marketing of that power.
Treating this particular symptom of an underlying social issue by way of censorship would be dumb, but there's something deeply fucked up going on here.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Snotnose on Thursday December 10 2015, @07:27PM
Horse hockey. Cheap handguns are $150 on up, a good revolver $350, things go up from there. That isn't quite an impulse buy.
As someone else has already said, the people buying off this channel have been thinking about it for a long time, have a short list of what they want, and the "impulse" is the price is lower than has been seen elsewhere.
When the dust settled America realized it was saved by a porn star.
(Score: 2) by CoolHand on Thursday December 10 2015, @07:28PM
Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job-Douglas Adams
(Score: 2) by isostatic on Thursday December 10 2015, @07:31PM
Depends how poor you are. $150 is a half-decent bottle of wine, not exactly a large cost.
(Score: 2) by Vanderhoth on Thursday December 10 2015, @07:46PM
"half-decent"?
$150 is several damn good bottles of wine if you're not just collecting it to gather dust in a wine cellar.
If you're poor, you can buy boxed wine for less than $20, $150 keeps me in wine for several weeks... Mostly because I make my own though.
I have no comment or opinion on guns, but I'd assume that's the equilateral to buying a MasterCraft band saw vs. an Ultimate Craftex series. MasterCraft is dirt cheap in terms of tools and will get the job done, but there's no comparison to the professional Ultimate grade tools. MasterCraft is what you buy on impulse when you need a tool now. Ultimate is what you dream of at night and save for years to get.
"Now we know", "And knowing is half the battle". -G.I. Joooooe
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 10 2015, @09:03PM
Your taste in wine is like my taste in guns.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Thursday December 10 2015, @11:38PM
Please buy a fast car so you don't have to compensate in directions where I can tell you're full of it.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by linuxrocks123 on Friday December 11 2015, @05:52AM
You're being taken advantage of. Blinded studies confirm even wine "experts" can't tell the difference between different wines.
And, if you're a wine "collector", fine wine == tulipmania. Pray you're not the one left with the rotten grape juice if/when the bubble bursts.
(Score: 3, Informative) by ikanreed on Thursday December 10 2015, @07:32PM
I understand that justification and it's outright bullshit.
Someone with a shortlist like that isn't going to be watching TV for hours straight to find their target toy. The internet has that approach completely beat. This is for idiots with more money than sense just like QVC is and you know it.
(Score: 2) by jdavidb on Thursday December 10 2015, @07:49PM
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 5, Insightful) by ikanreed on Thursday December 10 2015, @08:05PM
On what other criteria besides decisions is it even remotely appropriate to judge people? Judging people on what they choose to do is probably the most honest and fair way to go about the very necessary process. Certain kinds of choices merit different amounts of judgement, say, what you eat versus breakfast versus whether you abuse your children. But whatever criteria you use to judge people, and you're lying if you say you don't, is either based on their choices, or it's super shitty.
Or to be more snippy: you're judging me for my choice to judge people based on their decisions.
(Score: 2) by jdavidb on Thursday December 10 2015, @09:04PM
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 2) by ikanreed on Thursday December 10 2015, @09:14PM
Yeah, and there's a line somewhere in there between being totalitarian and being being reasonable.
And our fight here is that setting aside the 2nd amendment and its relationship to rule of law, I view limiting gun sales as more that latter and you view it as more the former.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Thursday December 10 2015, @11:43PM
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Thursday December 10 2015, @11:29PM
It took less than a minute to find an SNS for less than $120 online. And I don't even know any cheap brand names to ease my search (SNS was enough, it seems).
Local pawn shops, under the counter or no, can probably undercut that.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by Nollij on Friday December 11 2015, @04:54AM
QVC and the like sell shitty jewelry for that price
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Tramii on Thursday December 10 2015, @08:03PM
... it reflects our terribly broken culture where a gun is an impulse acquisition.
This statement only makes sense if you view guns as "evil" or if you somehow equate owning a gun with killing someone. If you view a gun as simply a tool, then it makes no sense at all.
Say what you want on the nuances of when taking a life is justified and the power to do so sometimes being necessary, there's something incredibly, mind-numbingly crass about blind mass-marketing of that power.
It's really sad that you have managed to equate gun ownership with murder in your own mind. I'm personally far more worried about the places that mass-market alcohol as an impulse item. I don't fear the sane/sober gun owner next door. I fear the crazy/drunk/high driver on the street.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by ikanreed on Thursday December 10 2015, @08:24PM
What kinda deluded paranoid world do you live in where "Say what you want on the nuances of when taking a life is justified and the power to do so sometimes being necessary" means "equate owning a gun with killing someone". I was totally clear on that distinction, and you still went "waaaaaaaaaaah no fair".
There is no amount of credit I can give you beneath "You're totally right in your decisions at all times" that's satisfactory to you. You won't get that much credit.
Now to answer your moral equivalence that you raised.
About 5% of American adults of have substance abuse issues. That's not a good thing, and I don't pretend it is. Alcohol does indeed rival firearms for per anum deaths, much like motor vehicles do. The numbers are very similar for all 3, actually, and all are dwarfed by big ones like heart disease and cancer. The biggest difference is that governmental interventions to reduce those deaths are accepted and encouraged. Whereas firearms are not. There's a slice of the country who cannot accept the day-to-day reality that firearm deaths are a big part of preventable deaths in the US. Because refusing to acknowledge that innocuous fact is important to the underlying ideology that they desperately want to believe. I would suspect from your outburst suggesting I equate you with a murderer that you are one of these people.
Guns are indeed tools. They're tools to cause death. A multitude of empirical evidence suggests that them being present in greater quantities in a population of people increases violent death in that population.
Can you reply again while A. respecting the words I've actually used without writing some fantasy onto them, and B. not using a single trite saying about guns?
I really really reaaaaaaaaaaaaally wish I could have a debate with one of you people where these kinds of basic facts aren't denied. But it's always instantly defensive and whiny and using simple thought terminating cliches about what guns are rather than any sort of sincere analysis of their impact. I don't like seeing you all as simpletons. It makes me feel supercilious and tendentious.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Thursday December 10 2015, @10:47PM
I find myself arguing on the "anti-gun" side frequently. Not because I'm actually anti-gun, I'm a bit on the fence there, but because the arguments presented are always so specious.
I find poor logic infuriating.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Friday December 11 2015, @12:09AM
So I also end up quite anti-gun too. And my gun-owning friends know that. And yet, during a transition period, they came to me to ask them to host their gun club's website - which I happily did, obviously.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 3, Interesting) by ikanreed on Friday December 11 2015, @02:02AM
This is going to make me sound totalitarian as fuck, but I actually really liked the soviet model of community armories. You check a gun out when you need one for hunting or other sport, then return it when you're done. You check one out longer term if there's a known threat to your life. Then if something goes down while you have a gun checked out, the authorities swing by. And everyone is expected to come grab them in case of invasion or whatever.
It seems like it suits what the American right wing uses guns for quite a bit, but they'd never agree to it. It covers everything but generic home invasion fears and overthrowing the government, and to be honest, they're the last people I'd want doing that.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Friday December 11 2015, @08:44AM
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Thursday December 10 2015, @11:55PM
I was going to reply to his "tool" comment with the question of which day-to-day problem a gun, as a tool, will help you solve: but I guess you mostly answered that already. A good butt will probably help you knock a nail into a soft wood, I guess, and maybe a single barrelled shot gun could be used to core an apple?
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by Kromagv0 on Friday December 11 2015, @01:39PM
Well there are some people who are avid hunters like myself, and there it is a tool for the legal harvest of wild game. Also there are places where dangerous wild animals live so carrying a magnum class handgun is just a good idea for personal protection which I do as well. Then again my firearms live happily in the very heavy fireproof safe when not being used for either of those activities.
T-Shirts and bumper stickers [zazzle.com] to offend someone
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Friday December 11 2015, @04:42PM
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by Tramii on Friday December 11 2015, @05:39PM
... where "Say what you want on the nuances of when taking a life is justified and the power to do so sometimes being necessary" means "equate owning a gun with killing someone".
My comment was in response to "there's something incredibly, mind-numbingly crass about blind mass-marketing of that power [to kill]." I simply quoted the whole sentence in order to give context. But it's ok. I'll keep sentences short so you can understand. You equated gun ownership with the power to kill. You didn't acknowledge any other use for a gun. That's the part that is sad.
... governmental interventions to reduce [alcohol-related] deaths are accepted and encouraged ...
Some are, and some aren't. Remember Prohibition? I wonder if the public would accept having to register all your alcohol purchases. Would they submit to a several day background check before purchasing booze?
There's a slice of the country who cannot accept the day-to-day reality that firearm deaths are a big part of preventable deaths in the US.
Oh trust me, they accept it. They just don't think it's worth giving up freedom for a sense of safety. I mean, if we banned cars a lot of lives would be saved right? Why don't we do that? We don't even need to ban cars, just make the driver's test a lot more strict and force people to take the test every year. That way we can filter out unsafe drivers. You think the public would be ok with that? I mean, I'll save tons of lives, right?
Guns are indeed tools. They're tools to cause death.
Ok, nevermind. You are totally non-rational. You have a severe care of Hoplophobia and there's literally nothing anyone can say to change your mind.
B. not using a single trite saying about guns?
Ha! Hilarious! You don't see anything conflict between this statement and you previous statement that "Guns are indeed tools. They're tools to cause death"? Really? You are so deluded by your fear, there is no rational discourse to be had.
I accept that guns can be used to kill. I accept that if you are able to lower the amount of guns available, you will lower the amount of gun-related deaths. I question the idea that limiting gun access with result in a significant drop in deaths. I accept that it is quite possible to lower the amount of guns available to the law-abiding public. I question whether you could actually lower the amount of guns available to criminals. Whatever the results, I do not accept that it would be worth outlawing or limiting the access of guns except in extreme cases (like say to known, proven violent criminals).
(Score: 2) by ikanreed on Friday December 11 2015, @05:46PM
You accept guns can be used to kill?
You accept that guns can be used to kill?
Hey guys? Did you know that forks can be used to eat? And weedwhackers can be used to trim plants? And vehicles can be used as transportation? Or stamps can be used to send letters?
What kind of dimwitted fuckwit are you that you have to treat acknowledging the primary functional purpose of something as this giant rhetorical giveaway that just taxes your integrity to an extreme to even acknowledge. I'm not sorry for this: you're a goddamn petty asshole.
(Score: 2) by Tramii on Saturday December 12 2015, @12:25AM
You posted:
There's a slice of the country who cannot accept the day-to-day reality that firearm deaths are a big part of preventable deaths in the US.
I posted:
I accept that guns can be used to kill.
I was agreeing with you. You claimed that there were people who would not accept the fact that guns kill, and I pointed out I was not one of them.
This is the second time you've taken something I've said and tried to twist it around it mean something else entirely. I think it's pretty clear that you have ceased thinking rationally. In fact, even though you blame other people for "A. [not] respecting the words I've actually used without writing some fantasy onto them, and B. not using a single trite saying about guns?" *you* are doing those exact things. The very qualities you claim to despise are the qualities your have demonstrated.
I'm probably wasting my time posting all this, since I can see that you don't want a rational discussion. You instead use strawman arguments, make ad hominem attacks and appeal to emotion, instead of having a civil discourse. I'll stop responding now since I can see I'm simply wasting my time.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Thursday December 10 2015, @11:46PM
*slow hand clap*
Equating alcohol with both mental illness and with narcotics
Take a fucking bow.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by Tramii on Friday December 11 2015, @05:17PM
Equating alcohol with both mental illness and with narcotics
Wow, that was a pretty huge mental leap. According to Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slash_%28punctuation%29):
"The slash is most commonly used as the word substitute for 'or' which indicates a choice (often mutually-exclusive) is present."
Just because I fear bears and I fear drunk drivers, doesn't mean I equate drunk drivers with bears.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Saturday December 12 2015, @01:43PM
tea/coffee/cocoa
dreams/potatoes/dipsticks
And why is one not odd, but the other odd? Exactly.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Thursday December 10 2015, @08:06PM
Somehow I suspect that anyone watching this channel isn't about to make their first firearm purchase. Just sayin'.
(Score: 2) by ikanreed on Thursday December 10 2015, @08:29PM
I would readily agree, except that that's a broad generalization, and nothing dealing with large populations is ever quite that clean cut.
Some people will be acquiring their first firearm that way. The channel almost certainly depends more on the people you describe for revenue, but I'd be quite comfortable in saying that first-time purchasers would make up some percentage of their audience, and I could give several just-so stories of the purchases that would form the exception.
And I won't be petty and pretend that your point is an irrelevant objection to mine, even though we both know that someone with enough intent to argue for the sake of arguing could do so.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 10 2015, @09:18PM
The problem is that there are a lot of people on the fence about buying guns who instantly convert to impulse-buyers everytime the gun-grabbers get loud and try to push stupid laws.
Yeah, that's right, the gun-grabbers' hysteria is indirectly putting more guns in the hands of more people!
And about the law thing...laws which prevent people convicted of, say, domestic violence from buying guns are a good idea. Ones which prevent people from buying because somebody who didnt like them submitted an anonymous tip just to fuck with them, arent.
Ethanol-fueled
(Score: 1) by module0000 on Thursday December 10 2015, @10:18PM
Is the background check a requirement for rifles as well now? I only ask because I've never had to deal with a background check for buying firearms, *except* when they were handguns. I think my most recent purchase was a 22 caliber rifle(a ruger 10-22), 7 years ago with no background check. That said, I've always had to get the background check when buying a handgun.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 11 2015, @05:19AM
If it shoots a bullet by action of a cartridge, and is ever in a dealer's inventory, it gets a background check. its been this way for decades.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Thursday December 10 2015, @11:21PM
False.
Care to try a different line of argument?
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 1) by Squidious on Friday December 11 2015, @02:25PM
In general, an individual can buy a gun from another individual in the same state with no background checks. Exchange cash for gun, no other information or record keeping is required. All perfectly legal. Some states and local areas may have more restrictive laws, but most states fall under the very loose federal regulations.
The terrorists have won, game, set, match. They've scared the people into electing authoritarian regimes.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Thursday December 10 2015, @07:06PM
Critics suggest that Gun TV could make the decision to purchase a weapon seem trivial—on the same level as ordering a Snuggie or a vertical egg cooker.
Hey now, I resent that!
I put a lot of thought into my decision to buy that vertical egg cooker.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 10 2015, @07:54PM
I find it interesting. Interesting in the fact they think they can have a 24/7 roll of that sort of thing.
The 24/7 shopping channels I sorta get. As you can veg out and watch it. But this seems rather one one product type line. Perhaps it will just end up being something like 'cabelas' or something where guns are one of the products offered. If they stick to just guns and gun paraphernalia I just dont see it lasting long unless they can get crazy margin and produce it on the super cheap.
I used to watch a *lot* of TV (memorized tv listings and 2 PVRs going). Even then I could not bring myself to watch this sort of thing. Doing much better now. In the end the advertisements were just too much of which a channel like this is.
They must be doing OK or the shopping format would have died years ago.
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by dyingtolive on Thursday December 10 2015, @08:03PM
I don't think the people propping up this market are the most intelligent or coherent people.
Don't blame me, I voted for moose wang!
(Score: 3, Interesting) by jmorris on Thursday December 10 2015, @08:03PM
"Buying a gun is a serious decision," says Laura Cutilletta, senior staff attorney at the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence.
Why is this here? What does the seemingly mandatory gunbanner quote add to the discussion? Why would anyone consider this person's opinon worthwhile? It would be like going to a PETA representative for a recommendation on the best steakhouse in the area. They reject the entire premise. To a gun banner there is NO possible good way to buy a weapon since there are no good reasons to own one, their answer will thus be utterly unvarying, utterly predictable and thus uninteresting and of zero use to anyone of either side of the debate.
Now to the actual subject. To the extent that any TV shopping channel is lame, this one is no different. No better or worse. If you are the sort who does that sort of thing, go for it.
(Score: 2) by timbim on Thursday December 10 2015, @09:04PM
Maybe it's because we have the highest gun homicide rate of any developed nation. Our rate is 32 times that of Great Britain’s, for example.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by jmorris on Thursday December 10 2015, @09:40PM
Meaningless to mention "gun homicide", obviously if guns are outlawed and a police state sufficiently oppressive to confiscate all firearms and enforce the ban on the law abiding exists, fewer people will be killed by guns. It is not logically valid to jump to a conclusion that will mean less murder. ComparIng murder rates, which is what actually counts, one finds 3.8 for the U.S. vs 1.0 for Britain, which is somewhat less than your hysterical 32 times fearmongering.
It is also a bit invalid to compare the U.S. murder rate to most of Europe since you really have to consider America as at least two entirely different entities. In Red America the murder rate is more similar to England, France and the other 1st World nations, while in the slums of Blue America it more closely resembles a third world country in crime. So as a compromise let us compare the U.S. rate of 3.8 to the European average 3.0 and declare that there isn't a crisis and yet we remain freer than the European by virtue of our self evident Right to Keep and Bear Arms remaining unfringed. And never fear, Auntie Merkel is busy fundamentally transforming Europe so soon enough they too can enjoy the bounty of diversity which will include exploding murder rates.
(Score: 2) by eof on Friday December 11 2015, @12:27AM
It may make more sense to focus on shootings instead of homicides. Only counting fatalities does not fully reflect the harm done by any form of weapon. I don't know how guns would compare to knives when injuries are counted. Guns have more potential for causing multiple injuries in a given incident; knives of various types are more ubiquitous. For one example of thinking of gun violence in this way, see http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/murder-rates-dont-tell-us-everything-about-gun-violence/. [fivethirtyeight.com]
Also, the numbers I have am familiar with suggest that the murder rate in "red" states (I dislike the terminology) is higher than in "blue" states. For example, see http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/murder-rates-nationally-and-state#MRalpha. [deathpenaltyinfo.org]
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday December 11 2015, @02:30AM
Only a hoplophobe wants to compare the "harm done by any form of weapon". My weapons are all well behaved. None of them hops off the shelf when I am absent, to go wandering the streets, searching for a victim. That's because weapons are inanimate objects, with no motive to kill. A human being has to pick that weapon up, and use it, before another person dies.
Murder rates count. Dead bodies count. The weapon of choice hardly matters.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Friday December 11 2015, @08:09AM
WTF, Runaway! Are you _asking_ to be doxed? So far we know, you have guns, they are on a shelf, and you do not expect them to go wandering the streets! Can you not see that this is an invitation to a gun robbery? Where do you think criminals get guns? Can they pass background checks? Oh, yeah, mostly they do. But that is not the point here! Now everyone knows that all they have to to is pin an actual name, and address, and shelf, on Runaway1953 (I am trying to help, security through obscurity) and bingo they have themselves some nice .45 action (seriously! you gave away the model, caliber, and cartridge right here on SoylentNews! My god, man!).
I see only one option now. Stop posting here. Change your real name, move out of your house, and move to someplace like Alaska. Everyone in Alaska is there to avoid firearm theft in the state they come from, so you will fit right in. But keep the large caliber guns, though. 9mm does not stop a Griz, or a Moose, or an Alaskan.
(Score: 2) by eof on Friday December 11 2015, @04:14PM
Reading comments on this site, I don't know if you are kidding or not. Just in case, I will edit my offending sentence: Only counting fatalities does not fully reflect the harm done done by humans using any form of weapon.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by curunir_wolf on Thursday December 10 2015, @11:58PM
Not true, you're just spouting propaganda. The US does not have the worst firearm murder rate - that prize belongs to Honduras, El Salvador and Jamaica. In fact, the US is number 28, with a rate of 2.97 per 100,000 people. I guess you're qualifying it with "developed"? Maybe you don't consider Argentina "developed"? The rate there is 3.02, higher than the US (though only slightly). It's 18.1 in Brazil, which Brazilians would certainly argue is "developed". And while Liechtenstein's rate at 2.82 is somewhat lower than the US, it's pretty close.
The point is, if you try to ban guns in the US like was done, for instance, in Australia, the rate would go way up, because the murderers (the gang bangers and the police) will NOT be giving up their guns, and it just leaves the citizens defenseless. That's where the worst murders happen - where citizens are left defenseless (for instance, public schools, San Bernadino
I am a crackpot
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday December 11 2015, @02:26AM
Again - Great Britain is about the size of one of our states. How does our homicide rate compare to ALL OF EUROPE?!?!?!
Please stop repeating the dishonesty.
(Score: 2) by Nollij on Friday December 11 2015, @05:04AM
One of you doesn't know the definition of "rate". [thefreedictionary.com]
If we are 50x the size, and we have 50x the gross, then we have the same rate.
If we are 50x the size, and 100x the gross, then we do not have the same rate.
Since you asked, this has a nice breakdown by country [wikipedia.org]. The US has a significantly higher rate (per capita) than anywhere listed in Europe, but lower than many parts of South/Central America, and parts of Africa.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday December 11 2015, @02:40PM
And Chicago has a much higher rate of gun murder than the rest of the nation. Remove Chicago from the US rate, and we move much, much closer to that of Great Britian.
Of course, there is dishonesty about Britian and Europe's "civilized" nations murder rates. Great Britain simply doesn't count their murder rate the same as we do.
When we start comparing apples to apples, I'll be ready to join the discussion. So long as the "progressive" element of our society insists on comparing apples to alligators, we can have no discussion.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 10 2015, @09:07PM
A banner is a flag, or in this context, part of a web page. Try not to use confusing words. Not being a smartass; you literally confused me.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Friday December 11 2015, @02:29AM
A banner is a flag, or in this context, part of a web page. Try not to use confusing words. Not being a smartass; you literally confused me.
It's a "jmorrisism", he often confuses everyone, including himself. We have talked to him about this, but it seems other influences, such as Rupert Murdoch and unbridled paranoia, are more determinate in this case. But yes, I too, was confused. I literally thought: "Why would someone make a banner out of guns, when vinyl covered canvas would be so much more practical?" \\
Soylentistic Memes: "Jmorrising Ethanol_fueled down at the Turkey Farm."
(Score: 2) by eof on Thursday December 10 2015, @11:12PM
I think your reaction is over the top. I am only familiar with the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence from its web page, which I visited because of your post. Your characterization of them is not consistent with their stated purpose. They do not appear to be interested in banning all guns. Instead they seek ways to limit gun violence through the enactment of laws. From their web page [http://smartgunlaws.org/]:
Can you provide any evidence that they are interested in a blanket ban?
Given the organization's focus, a quote from their representative seems appropriate.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday December 11 2015, @02:35AM
"Your characterization of them is not consistent with their stated purpose."
I'm not familiar with this particular site, but many organization's stated purpose is at odds with their real purpose. Both left and right have their "think tanks" and such, with high sounding stated goals and purposes. Dig under the surface, and many of them are rabid followers of crazy doctrines.
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Friday December 11 2015, @07:20AM
Nobody can say I ain't a giver. Google is yer bud, learn to use it. Allow me to demonstrate. According to motherjones.com (your team) Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence was founded as Legal Community Against Violence in SanFran (full of pinks) in consultation with Handgun Control Inc, I'm sure you what name they operate under now. A more wretched hive of scum and villainy won't be found outside Mos Eisley. Google will also show you joint projects they undertake. In short, a Brady front group. What is it with the constant name churn? Same reason as the endless front groups, old Communist Party tactic, look that up in Google while you are confirming what I'm telling ya. Can't find current funding and most important WHO is bankrolling them but in 2013 they took in about $1M. But do we really need to invest the time to discover what we already can guess with a high degree of certainty? Same funders as Brady.
In penance, you get to do the next part of the research. Here are the top five principles I dig up on LCPGV, you go look them up and see how many links to the rest of the Prog hive you find. Bonus for every one also directly working for other Brady, Bloomberg or Soros related groups.
ROBYN THOMAS
FREDERICK BROWN
CAROL KINGSLEY
RODERICK THOMPSON
CHARLES EHRLICH
I am only familiar with the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence from its web page..
You took their web page at face value? I don't know whether to give you a pitying look or doubting one. But I'm being generous tonight so pity it is. So here is some free wisdom. They are SJWs. Everybody, one more time, what do SJWs do?
The Three Laws of SJW:
1. SJWs always lie.
2. SJWs always double down.
3. SJWs always project.
(Score: 2) by eof on Friday December 11 2015, @04:19PM
Again, an over the top response. You have indicated name changes and made an implication it is done for nefarious purposes. This suggest more an axe to grind on your part rather than any indictment of the organization. I have yet to see any suggestion that they want to have an outright ban on guns; there is no evidence of this on their site. So you know, I don't care what anyone believes on this issue. I do care that statements made are supportable.
(Score: 2) by RamiK on Thursday December 10 2015, @08:26PM
"Let's just get this out of the way - yes, most of my merchandise was ripped from the hands of dead adventurers."
- Marcus Kincaid (Bruce DuBose, Borderlands)
compiling...
(Score: 3, Touché) by Jiro on Thursday December 10 2015, @11:18PM
That's like saying that building a mosque might seem remarkably ill-timed, considering recent shootings in France and at a social services center in San Bernardino, California.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 11 2015, @02:31AM
No, it isn't.
(Score: 2) by Jiro on Friday December 11 2015, @10:46AM
Yes, it is. The argument is that we should avoid promoting X when someone misuses X to kill people. You can replace X with Islam or guns--it's the same argument either way, and equally stupid.
(Score: 2) by Bogsnoticus on Thursday December 10 2015, @11:20PM
I'll just leave this here while I go and make some popcorn. [youtube.com]
Genius by birth. Evil by choice.
(Score: 2) by Covalent on Thursday December 10 2015, @11:44PM
PEW PEW MURKA!!!!!
You can't rationally argue somebody out of a position they didn't rationally get into.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Friday December 11 2015, @12:56AM
Given that you have to prove your age and fitness to buy the product, and considering the kind of relationship too many have with their guns... Is that bundled in the cable's porn package?