Should We Boycott Amazon and FedEx?

Toothfairy0412 on 27/02/2018 - 23:06
Last edited 04/03/2018 - 00:34 by 1 other user

I know the US gun debate isn't entirely relevant to us in Australia but as a recent high school graduate, I feel strongly and morally obliged to stop buying from businesses that support the NRA, no matter how good a deal maybe. This includes purchasing from Amazon and using shipping services from FEDEX. Where does everyone stand on this topic?

https://www.sbs.com.au/news/delta-united-latest-companies-to…

http://time.com/money/5176783/nra-boycott-fedex-amazon-apple…

http://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/entry/fedex-stands-by-nra-d…

https://www.change.org/p/jeff-bezos-remove-nratv-from-amazon…

some articles for interest

Update: fedex stocks have tumble 2.27% at time of writing

update: there is now a wikipedia page based on the boycott of NRA

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_NRA_boycott

Poll Options

  • 69
    I will boycott these companies until they change their stance on the NRA
  • 350
    I will continue to purchase/utilise services provided by these companies.
General Discussion

Comments

    • ninetyNineCents on 28/02/2018 - 11:03
      +5

      Its not that simple. Obviously Australia shouldnt ban explosives onboard planes either. We are depriving those people their freedoms to express themselves.

    • Scrooge McDuck on 28/02/2018 - 12:14
      +8

      Why are people trying to ban inanimate objects?

      Because they can be easily used as a force multiplier by vicious people for nefarious purposes and the benefits of their unregulated ownership don't outweigh this.

      Knives are very useful tools in many circumstances but not on the streets, so they are unlawful on the streets.

      Cars are very useful vehicles on the streets but not on the footpath, so they are unlawful on the footpath.

      Guns are very useful weapons for responsible farmers, hunters, target shooters, armed guards, law enforcement officers and military personnel but not for anyone else, so they are unlawful for anyone else.

    • mooney on 28/02/2018 - 12:27
      +2

      Ok. Lets make a deal TheOtherLeft we will make all guns completely legal just as soon as all cultural and mental health issues are fixed. Whats the plan there??

      • infinite on 28/02/2018 - 12:52
        +3

        I'd say the plan is that we continue to not ban or censor anything just because there's a tiny minute statistical number of individuals who lack the mental facilities required to make at least halfway decent decisions in life.

        • mooney on 28/02/2018 - 13:52
          +9

          As someone else mentions on this thread- we do this every day already. I am not hearing you clamour for explosives being allowed on planes (as one extreme example)

          Everything is management of risk. From what I read of the situation in the US of A is that there are very few people trying to ban guns outright. Seems to me that people want a couple of things that seem reasonable enough to me:

          1) to take guns capable of significant destruction off the streets so that those who lack mental facilities are somewhat neutered when they do make a poor life decision (ie try to shoot up a school)

          2) have more stringent checks in place to improve the chances of preventing people who lack mental facilities getting access to guns in the first place.

          Of course no system is foolproof, but doesn't mean its not worth trying. Is the above too much for you infinite, or you ok with it?

        • Ahbal on 28/02/2018 - 17:51
          -4

          @mooney:

          Millions of americans have guns. If guns were the problems, millions would die every year.

          But that is not the case.

          End of.

        • mooney on 28/02/2018 - 20:09
          +2

          @Ahbal: Man that's not 'End of' its not even a coherent argument. What argument do you think you are rebutting?

          The argument being put forward by these kids in USA is not every gun kills people… its that certain guns (like AR-15) are overkill for the typical americans needs so should be banned, or heavily regulated, and that gun ownership in general should be much more regulated than at present.

          But you know this, you're just a big ole gun advocate making sweeping dumb comments on a message board.

        • hayne on 03/03/2018 - 00:07
          +1

          @Ahbal: That has got to be the worst argument I've ever heard. It's incomprehensible.

        • Ti-au on 03/03/2018 - 14:18

          @mooney: its that certain guns (like AR-15) are overkill for the typical americans needs

          The irony is far more people are killed (x5!) by non overkill guns.

        • mooney on 03/03/2018 - 15:46

          @TheMostHated: I’m sure that stat may be true. However I’m also sure there’s a hell of a lot more ‘non overkill’ guns in the USA.

          I’m not really convinced that any average joe needs a gun anyway. But then I shouldn’t say that on here for fear of being called a lefty, liberal, snowflake. Lol.

        • mcdasd on 18/04/2018 - 14:33

          @mooney: You have to understand that the purpose of the second amendment was ultimately for the defense against tyranny both foreign and domestic. Now that doesn't mean such a thing as the US government would turn tyrannical is likely, but it isn't impossible either. Look at Venezuela for example, turned from a model democracy with the strongest economy in South America and good social policies , to a dictatorship within the span of a few years.

          That was the reason the right to bear arms is a right and not a privilege. When the US constitution was written it had just fought off a tyrannical British government, it was written with the understanding that the rights and freedoms aren't afforded to them by a government. Hence the US constitution is written so that government cannot infringe on those freedoms. It wasn't for hunting, sport shooting or even self-defense. Its primary purpose was so government can never be too powerful to oppress the people.

          There is also the fact that the gun is far more beneficial than harmful. Firearms in the US are used defensively an estimated 500,000 - 3 million times annually according to a joint report by the CDC and National academy's of science.
          Found in the CDC& National academy's of science report on firearms in the US defensive use of guns section,link below.
          (https://www.nap.edu/read/18319/chapter/3#15)

      • Scrooge McDuck on 28/02/2018 - 15:50
        +2

        Ok. Lets make a deal TheOtherLeft we will make all guns completely legal just as soon as all cultural and mental health issues are fixed. Whats the plan there??

        Scientific criticism of religion in schools would be a good start.

        • Major Mess on 02/03/2018 - 04:31

          I spoke to a NSW curriculum officer last week, and the good news is that they are introducing critical thinking to high schools this year. I doubt it's coverage of fallacies, and cognitive dissonance, will go far enough for my liking, but it is a start. It should develop, and we may find teachers recognising their own issues of dissonance, and that could make big changes.

    • abb on 28/02/2018 - 13:56
      +6

      Why are people trying to ban inanimate objects?

      Nuclear bombs are inanimate objects, you reckon I should be allowed to have one?

      • ronnknee on 28/02/2018 - 17:51
        +1

        Only if you promise to look after it.

      • smartazz104 on 28/02/2018 - 21:10

        Well I would wager that you don't have the coin for one. If you do, good luck.

    • Misterbumpy on 28/02/2018 - 23:36
      +1

      The thing is knives and cars are everyday “inanimate” objects that everyday civilians use. Having said that there specific rules for these objects, such as restrictions on combat knives; penalties for carrying a knife on the street and licensing requirements for operating and/or owning a motor vehicle.

      As for guns, they’re not an everyday object that civilians would use and their specific purpose and function is to kill. Sure, there are outlier cases for farmers and such, and even security, but why anyone outside of military needs a semi or even fully automatic boggles my mind.

      Indeed, knives and cars are used to kill, but casualties from knife attacks are limited in each case and likewise with cars, whereas guns (particularly rifles, auto or not) likely result in high casualities due to their range and power.

  • ninetyNineCents on 28/02/2018 - 11:04
    +5

    Personally i dont understand why an Australian would care about America and whatever they do. I live here not there, stop reading the news and giving time to those media xxxxx, who think the whole world is centered on them.

  • OBEY YOUR MASTERS on 28/02/2018 - 11:22
    +6

    There is no correlation between gun ownership and the murder rate. If that were true then Canada would be murder central. But of course it is not.

    • MementoMori on 28/02/2018 - 14:45
      +3

      And Switzerland, and Sweden, and New Zealand, and Japan, and the USA back in the 60's, etc etc etc

      • ninetyNineCents on 28/02/2018 - 19:10

        You seem to forget that Americans actually believe their own bullshit that they are all heroes with a gun. Too much hollywood etc and their culture of glorifying anyone in the miltary.

        • smartazz104 on 28/02/2018 - 21:11

          You don't think a criminal with a gun has ever been stopped by a law abiding citizen with a gun before? Why do you think these shooting happen in schools, places that are conveniently gun-free?

        • try2bhelpful on 01/03/2018 - 00:12
          +1

          @smartazz104: very, very few are stopped by law abiding citizens compared to family members shot by guns owned by other family members. A vast majority of the weapons in mass rampages are owned legally.

        • ninetyNineCents on 01/03/2018 - 12:11

          @smartazz104:

          S: You don't think a criminal with a gun has ever been stopped by a law abiding citizen with a gun before?

          99: The cost of stopping a criminal compared to the cost of the massacres in raw numbers makes this s no brainer.

          You wouldnt get on a plane that only lands 1 out of 10.

          Only an idiot would take those chances.

        • MementoMori on 01/03/2018 - 14:59

          @ninetyNineCents: FYI Chicago has very strict gun laws. I guess that's how they solved their gun crime problem…

        • ninetyNineCents on 01/03/2018 - 17:39

          @domcc1:

          I guess its easy to claim chicago solved their gun problem when you are comparing it to the other shithole cities in america. However compared to australian cities, Chicago has hardly solved anything, its still a disgrace.

          I googled "chicago gun crime" and the first few articles paint a very different picture compared to the lies you try and pretend.

          https://www.npr.org/2017/10/05/555580598/fact-check-is-chica…

          It's also true that there were more than 4,000 shooting victims in Chicago in 2016.

          There must be something pretty sick in your head if you think 4000 shooting victims in one city is a solved problem, or maybe you are a liar telling the same lies that others with pro gun attitudes share.

        • ninetyNineCents on 01/03/2018 - 17:44
          -2

          @domcc1:

          same article

          Gun homicides in the city rose by 61 percent between 2015 and 2016. That helped make the gun homicide rate in Chicago particularly huge compared to other similar cities. The rate was 25.1 per 100,000 residents in 2016, compared to 14.7 in Philadelphia and just 2.3 in New York.

          Any more bullshit you wish to share ?

        • mcdasd on 04/03/2018 - 04:38

          [@ninetyNineCents]try2bhelpful:"Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million";"On the other hand, some scholars point to a radically lower estimate of only 108,000 annual defensive uses"
          Found in the CDC& National academy's of science report on firearms in the US defensive use of guns section,link below.
          (https://www.nap.edu/read/18319/chapter/3#15)
          compare with FBI's firearm homicide rates of 2016 which is a total of 15070 homicides with only 374 committed by rifles of any kind, link below.
          (https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2016/crime-in-the-u.s.-…)

          I think the us gun laws are not in anyway perfect, however arguments should be based on empirical evidence and not anecdotal or from an emotional response. I am in no way saying mass shootings are okay or don't feel terrible for the victims, However official stats seem to point to exponentially higher number of defensive uses even on lower estimate. Unless all fire arms are removed, the number is not likely to change, the banning of firearms however would be illegal under the United States Constitution which makes it impossible.Even if hypothetically firearms are banned, there will always be a possibility of mass shootings occurring such as the shootings in France even with its strict laws.

          I do think it's fair to allow civilians the use firearms for defense considering how many criminals in the US also have firearms. It makes sense if someone is threatening your life to have a last resort to fall on if it is absolutely necessary to prevent ones self from harm or mortality.
          If someones was threatening kill you and have a weapon and you had no where to escape, would you rather be unarmed or armed, keep in mind average police response times of 9 minutes.

        • MementoMori on 05/03/2018 - 14:41

          @ninetyNineCents: Your sarcasm meter is obviously broken. They don't call Chigaco 'Chiraq' for nothing. It's obvious proof that strict gun laws won't do s##t.

        • ninetyNineCents on 11/03/2018 - 17:37

          @domcc1:

          Says the sore loser.

        • MementoMori on 13/03/2018 - 14:49

          @ninetyNineCents: You're a fool.

          Who would possibly argue Chigaco does not have a gun problem??

        • ninetyNineCents on 13/03/2018 - 15:04

          @domcc1:

          The same people that argue that there is no gun violence problem in america due to a saturation of guns.

      • hayne on 03/03/2018 - 00:20
        +1

        If you're trying to pick countries with lots of guns but little gun crime, those aren't great examples. Switzerland and Sweden have about the same rate of gun ownership as Australia (Switzerland is a bit higher, Sweden is a bit lower). New Zealand is also lower (22.6 guns per 100 residents vs. 24.1 in Australia).

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimated_number_of_guns_per_c…

        I'm not sure why you listed Japan? 0.6 guns per 100 people. "In 2013, American gun-related deaths included 21,175 suicides, 11,208 homicides and 505 deaths caused by an accidental discharge. That same year in Japan, a country with one-third America’s population, guns were involved in only 13 deaths."

        And I'm not sure where people get the "halcyon days of gun crime" in the US in the 1960s image from. Two-thirds of US homicides in the 1960s were committed by guns. Similar proportion to today. Hence the US government tried to tackle gun laws then as well.

        https://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/press-past/2013/01/16/us-g…

        Simple fact is that when you profile countries around the world (to get a large enough sample size), there's a strong correlation between number of guns and gun homicides.
        https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/07/world/americas/mass-shoot…

        • shaiguy on 05/03/2018 - 10:24

          Well said.

          Just to add - the number of decreased gun deaths have also largely been attributed to better hospitalization/medical attention these days which is significantly better than many years ago, i.e. gun violence is still significant.

          https://news.vice.com/article/gun-deaths-have-plummeted-in-t…

        • ninetyNineCents on 12/03/2018 - 19:44

          @Hayne

          Thats not how life works. You cant pick and the small example and ignore the big elephant in the room. Its like saying everyone wins keno because one person did and ignore the masses that lose.

    • Ahbal on 28/02/2018 - 17:48

      Exactly, I strongly believe it is a mental health/parenting issue.

      Ill explain with an example, if my hypothetical kids were using sticks (or anything else as a weapon) to settle disagreements or grievances, taking the stick wont solve the problem, as that lack of behavioural control will remain. Instead, I will teach them how to solve their problems with discussion and understanding.

      Raising the gun age to 21 in the U.S, with a high school background check (i read that the shooter had a troubled history, and the police were warned and knew about him) should at least reduce school shootings. But then you have things like the vegas shooting, where somehow he managed to smuggle an arsenal into a gun free zone (needless to say, there are conspiracy theories on this-as witnesses with evidence of multiple shooters died in "accidents").

      Furthermore, what leftists never point out is the millions of gun owners in the U.S who follow the law and never do anything wrong. Yet they think they should take their guns away.If guns really were the problem over there, we would see way many more mass shootings.

      • hayne on 03/03/2018 - 00:24

        If your hypothetical kids were using sticks rather than guns to settle disagreements, they'd be much less likely to end up dead.

        • Ahbal on 03/03/2018 - 09:21

          Alright then, take the guns away and the mental issue of needing to resolve problems with violence is still there.

          That is my point.

          Why dont you talk about the millions of gun owners who follow the law and dont harm anybody? Why take the guns away from them? That's my problem.

          If you want to make the guns harder to get, no problem. But i dont think taking them away from people who have had them for decades is the right thing to do.

  • MrBear on 28/02/2018 - 11:47
    +7

    Where does your moral compass draw the line though?

    Don't support Amazon/Fedex because of NRA, but it's okay to buy an iPhone made by some 12 year old kid being paid $1 day (exaggerated example)?

    Don't support BP because of their oil spills in the gulf, but buy fuel from other equally bad fuel suppliers?

    I could go on.

    Btw, I'm not knocking you for taking a stand, but if you analysed every company you bought your product or services from, it would be very difficult to do or buy anything. You'd also have to analyse who those companies did business with and where they sourced their products and services from.

    • smartazz104 on 28/02/2018 - 21:11
      +6

      But, the media didn't tell him about those situations, so he doesn't feel outraged /s

  • infinite on 28/02/2018 - 12:26
    +13

    Interesting how OP feels the need to get all frothy at the mouth virtue signalling about an issue they clearly have no clue about, nor even affects them, however their voting history here includes plus votes for:

    • Companies who underpay Australian's.
    • Companies who specialize in exploiting and hiring illegal immigrants and sham 457 visa worker's.
    • Fast food companies that source food from companies that exploit and abuse animals.
    • Companies who's poor business practices have left fellow OzBargainer's ripped off.
    • Comapnies and products customers of the NRA currently recieve discounts for.

    Oh my. The stink of hypocrisy is rather strong with this one………….

    • [Deactivated] on 28/02/2018 - 17:50
      +3

      I don't think it's hypocrisy you're smelling.

      Psssp. It's good old fashion shit. No bull shit. Not horse shit. Just shit.

    • Major Mess on 02/03/2018 - 04:45

      Which fast food joints abuse animals? Do any actually own farms?
      What do you mean by exploit? Do you mean because they are meat, they are exploited as food? I exploit my draught horse's strength to plough the field, using it for the purpose for which it was bred? Sorry, just seems an odd term to throw in.

  • thord on 28/02/2018 - 13:01
    +3

    The US gun violence problem is so complicated and has so many aspects. All of this one-issue ideas and one-issue focus doesn't interest me. It shows people don't really understand the problem.

    It's rare you ever see someone talk about just how many factors combine to cause the problems in the US, probably because of how long that explanation would take and how short peoples attention spans are.

    • ninetyNineCents on 28/02/2018 - 15:52
      +3

      Its not complicated. THe problem is gun owners need guns because they dont trust all the other similarly minded arseholes who have guns.

      • nocure on 28/02/2018 - 16:20
        +1

        What did you just call me…

  • konradthecat on 28/02/2018 - 13:53
    +1

    Not everything is an nra conspiracy, op. There are actually two sides of the argument (and I do write that as an anti gun person). See what you can make of this quote…

    “He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion… Nor is it enough that he should hear the opinions of adversaries from his own teachers, presented as they state them, and accompanied by what they offer as refutations. He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them…he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.” ― John Stuart Mill

  • pufffdragon on 28/02/2018 - 14:38
    +2

    Currently health care and prescription medicine is the biggest killer in America. Better start boycotting big pharma too.

    Did all the shooter news you got your info from, mention anything about the questionable prescribed medication the shooter was taking at the time? Probably not.

  • Outlaw on 28/02/2018 - 14:48
    +5

    I guess I could boycott Amazon and fedex. Just need to find another place to buy guns online.

  • [Deactivated] on 28/02/2018 - 14:52
    +13

    Here's some perspective.

    1. Your position as a recent high school graduate should have no bearing on your moral stance. Your moral stance should be based on principles. Principles are not subject to your age or vocation. People with principles that shift by design are disingenuous, confused, or dangerous.

    2. When forming an opinion, you would be better served if you got both sides of the debate. All of your references are media outlets controlled by the left. They are decidedly against guns.

    I am against the current American gun laws but this has no bearing on what I have said above and I am sufficiently informed to know that what the leftist are proposing will not work either. We don't like crime but protesting against crime is nothing short of idiotic. Without a viable alternative, "suggestions" and warm feelings will not change a thing.

    What the typical anti gun activist will often spew overlooks the fact that the 2nd amendment has a valid reason to exist, a reason that will allude most Australians as it is strongly related to North America's unique history.

    Firearms also play a very significant role in North American economics.

    To summarize, I am pro gun control but I'm against mindless regurgitation of the media.

  • cyrax83 on 28/02/2018 - 15:25
    +2

    No

  • Emerald Owl on 28/02/2018 - 16:25
    +6

    Gun ownership per capita is down from 50 years ago but school shootings are up, I do not see a correlation. Blaming the NRA is a partisan political tactic to demonise gun owners as a big evil mega corporation. It is essentially an arm of the Republican Party that the Democrats can attack without attacking all gun owners because many gun owners are democrats whose votes they would lose.

    The cause of mass shootings like this are media and culture. They want the same fame as the last guy. Boys are being drugged up and alienated by a gynocentric education system that is tailored for women by women. There is a super low proportion of male teachers and more and more single mothers. Government and university programs are designed to help girls get into STEM fields despite girls already being a significant majority at university.

    This is one of the worst examples of emotional blackmail where a few school kids cry and try to shame you as not carrying about dead children if you don’t agree with them. Not wanting school shootings and being a member of the NRA can occur simultaneously, shocker. Your immaturity is clear both emotionally and intellectually.

    Australian culture, with its majority love of an unelected Queen, where there is a lack of respect given to politicians, but ned]ver disobedience is inferior to liberty and freedom obsessed America. The biggest mass killer in the last century is government, if you are so naive to think that American democracy is here forever and no one will need guns to rise against the government, you deserve to lose all your rights and surrender all your guns to Russian puppet dictator Drumpf.

    • GOFYS on 28/02/2018 - 20:25
      +5

      Maybe you can solve this little dilemma.

      The left says Trump is a Russian puppet, dictator, tyrant.

      The left say Trump should defy the American Constitution , and take guns off Americans.

    • hayne on 03/03/2018 - 00:29

      Actually, gun ownership per capita in the US has doubled since 1968 according to the Congressional Research Service.

      https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL32842.pdf

      So you kind of shot yourself in the foot in your first sentence.

  • idonotknowwhy on 28/02/2018 - 16:32
    +3

    Fedex stocks will recover, the same way Equifax did after the last hack.
    Slightly older people like you will dump and think "OMG It's all over for them!" but more experienced people will simply buy the dips.

    • machej on 01/03/2018 - 00:02
      +1

      Shhhh, I was buying up Facebook when everyone was talking about Russia. Don't give away the secrets please.

      • idonotknowwhy on 01/03/2018 - 02:25
        +1

        lol. I actually want to help OP though. I used to be naive and stupid(er than I am now) when I was younger too.

  • JohnnyB.Cheap on 28/02/2018 - 17:19
    +5

    "Update: fedex stocks have tumble 2.27% at time of writing"

    OP if this is your understanding of the stock market, please never buy stocks. You'll lose a lot of money

    • centrelink on 28/02/2018 - 17:23
      +4

      What you mean stock prices can drop? UNBEWEIVABLE!

    • machej on 01/03/2018 - 00:10
      +1

      I want to see OP's face when he/she zooms out of the graph. What do you mean nearly 30% gain in a year at current prices!?!??!

  • cloudy on 28/02/2018 - 17:23
    +2

    This is Ozbargain, we care about cage free eggs, not about mass shootings and human suffering. (End of scarism)

  • DiscoJango on 28/02/2018 - 17:28
    +1

    stargate. p90's. boom.

  • [Deactivated] on 28/02/2018 - 18:04
    +3

    That you David Hogg?

  • naru6705 on 28/02/2018 - 19:06
    +1

    Oh I though we are boycotting them all - Apple, Google, Roku, YouTube too :)

  • langitbiru on 28/02/2018 - 20:18
    +1

    disregard, which company, i only go to the cheap one assuming the similarity of the product quality. i am not rich, and the only way to struggle living in this economy is to spend wisely instead of boycotting certain company that sell cheap stuff.

    similary, it doesnt mean i dont want to support australian products or distributor. if for the same item, i can get a better price why not? if i keep supporting local seller who sell more expensive item, then, who is the one looking after my wellfare???? or should i get even broke just to help local seller with their expensive products… while they gain the profit from a poor person like me? i will leave this to rich people who have the budget for it… but i think the rich business man also can think how to make money, such as sourcing their peoducts overseas and sell it at a higher price locally.

  • Pikaloo on 28/02/2018 - 20:33
    +1

    yes we should boycott FedEx for shipping your item to a depot near you and then waiting till the expected shipping date to deliver it to you. So it sits in a depot 1 hour away from you or something for 4-5 days doing nothing.

    • [Deactivated] on 02/03/2018 - 15:25

      This is the correct reason to boycott FedEx.

  • cashews on 28/02/2018 - 20:53
    +1

    Before downvoting me watch this advertisement for the NRA:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9g0dnxLGW8M

    Also I don't think we should boycott companies for supporting the NRA, just be aware of what the NRA actually are and do.

  • smartazz104 on 28/02/2018 - 21:15
    +2

    but as a recent high school graduate, I feel strongly and morally obliged to stop buying from businesses that support the NRA

    Why do you feel this way OP; or should I ask, who told you to feel this way?

  • simgue on 28/02/2018 - 21:46

    I already avoid FedEx and UPS for their stance on still allowing trophy hunters to ship their kills home. If you don't take a moral stance companies will never be forced to change their operations unless legislated to.

  • try2bhelpful on 01/03/2018 - 00:25

    The question is why allow the average American access to guns anyway? Hunting is less efficient than farming, self defence is a myth because having a gun in the house is much more likely to result in the injury/death is someone in the house than someone breaking in. An armed teacher will be more likely to be shot by first response, or hit a kid in crossfire, than take out an attacker. The well ordered militia of the second amendment was not designed for a nut job able to buy an arsenal of assault rifles.if guns are cheaply and readily available then more criminals will have them. If the US government wanted to deal with people with guns they can use drones.

    All that leaves is a few people who should have guns, like the police, in a sea of hyper violent idiots.

    • hayne on 03/03/2018 - 00:31

      The "good guy with a gun is more likely to stop a bad guy" myth is one that usually is never backed up by facts.

      "Examination shows that in the great majority of cases, the householder had no warning and thus no chance to arm himself with a gun. Studies in Los Angeles and Detroit indicate that only about 2 per cent of home robberies, and two tenths of 1 per cent of home burglaries, result in the firearms death or injury of the intruder at the hands of the householder….

      Moreover, in considering the value of handguns, or firearms generally, for self-defense in the home, one must also take into account the risks associated with home possession of a gun. A substantial number of the 23,000 annual firearms accidents occur in the home. Of the 8,000 annual firearms homicides, a large percentage occur among family members or acquaintances, and many of these also occur in the home.

      From the standpoint of the individual householder, then, the self-defense firearm appears to be a dangerous investment"

      https://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/press-past/2013/01/16/us-g…

      • mcdasd on 18/04/2018 - 14:50

        The facts are the do say that firearms absolutely does stop a 'bad guy'. According to a report by the CDC and National Academy of Science, the estimated number of defensive firearm use is between 500,000 to 3 Million. [Found in the in the use defensive use of guns section,link below.
        (https://www.nap.edu/read/18319/chapter/3#15)]

        Many times a crime is stopped when the firearm is brandished without a shot ever being fired, a criminal is scared off by the fact that the victim would fight back.

        I suggest making opinions on empirical data with whole verifiable statistics and not a media outlets with very obvious agendas on both sides.

  • [Deactivated] on 01/03/2018 - 00:57

    You might want to add this into your post: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_NRA_boycott

  • sunnyc on 01/03/2018 - 01:15
    +1

    Guns don't kill people, people kill people.

    • YoungQuan on 01/03/2018 - 07:43
      +2

      nanny state logic - lets ban guns because criminals will actually obey the law and not use guns = disarm the population so the only ones who have access to guns are criminals.

      Crims frankly don't give a flying f>>> of what do gooders support or don't support in their virtue signalling social media campaigns

      • MessyG on 02/03/2018 - 15:24
        +1

        Jeez why have laws at all? Crims will just break them.

      • [Deactivated] on 02/03/2018 - 15:32
        +2

        This comment was bound to show up sooner or later.

        By your stupid logic why have laws against anything when people will break them anyways? Laws also act as a deterrent so that people think twice before they do something stupid.

        Also gun control does not mean total disarmament.

        • sunnyc on 04/03/2018 - 13:53

          They needs to be some laws but there is just too many unecessary laws to service the very few that control the government. A lot of laws are victimless laws.

    • hayne on 03/03/2018 - 00:32

      @sunnyc Let's amend that tired cliche a bit

      "Guns don't kill people. People with guns kill people."

      So let's make it less likely that a killer has access to a gun. Isn't that common sense?

      • sunnyc on 04/03/2018 - 13:57

        I said people kill people. No one said anything about people with guns. If a criminal wants anything, plenty of weapons on the gray market. In regards to the Florida shooting. The guy was crazy and bullied relentlessly, he could of used anything to kill because he was determined. More crimes are happening with vehicles, are we going to restrict access to vehicles. If you know someone is a sociopath lock that up. They don’t work like psychopaths

    • try2bhelpful on 03/03/2018 - 07:43

      People with guns kill people much more efficiently.

      Love the bumper sticker that says. “Guns don’t kill people, bullets do”.

      Let people have their guns but make the ammunition very expensive.

  • cockneylondoner on 01/03/2018 - 02:37
    -1

    For the companies that now no longer wish to be associated with the NRA it is purely a gesture to look good in the eyes of those who consider that there should be some form of gun control in the US.
    In reality, the NRA supported Trump during his election campaign so what would anyone feel are the chances of him bringing in tighter controls - in my opinion. NONE.

    Boycott those companies who still wish to be associated with the NRA if you'll feel better by doing so, but personally, what goes on in the US is their business as long as it doesn't affect me, and I'm only interested in getting a good deal, which is why I check Ozbargains to see what is available.

  • YoungQuan on 01/03/2018 - 07:14
    +3

    are your serious? blame lawful gun owners for some psychopaths actions?

    collective punishment based of emotions and not logic, sounds like Communism to me…by the way Communism and other forms of Socialism were responsible for 200 million deaths in the last 100 years

    no thanks

  • Ahbal on 01/03/2018 - 08:51

    Leftists when a Muslim kills people-"it is not the religions fault, the terrorists are just a minority!"

    Leftists after a mass shooting- "Ban all [insert weapon/s used] weapons! They are to blame!"

    It is funny because out of the millions of gun owners in the U.S, very, very few carry out shootings. Same of course, applies to Islam. Yet they have opposite views on both…

    Their own hypocrisy is hilarious.

    • abb on 01/03/2018 - 09:32
      +1

      Rightists when a Muslim kills people - "Ban Muslim immigration! They are to blame!"

      Rightists after a mass shooting - "it is not the weapon's fault, the terrorists shooters are just a minority!"

      Errybody a hypocrite it seems

      • trapper on 01/03/2018 - 13:14
        +5

        You're stuck with your problems at home though. The problems from overseas however can be avoided.

      • Ahbal on 01/03/2018 - 13:23
        -1

        Never said "rightists" were immune to this. Of course both sides are hypocritical, I picked on the leftists ideology in context of this post, to flip the argument and perhaps get them to see it from a different perspective (or the same one that they apply to other issues).

        However my point is made through the analogy, it is just as silly to ban guns in America just as it is to ban islamic immigration. Having backround checks and vetting for both though, is of course fine and helps. Banning both is nonsensical.

        Both sides make these reactions based on a lack of knowledge. Right call for bans for muslim immigration due to not understanding how the religion works or fears that radicalism will spread (this last point is a fear for muslims too). Leftists call for bans on guns also due to not understanding them or just an emotional reaction to an event (same applies to terrorist attacks).

        Get where I am coming from? This gun scenario highlights problems in how people from both sides discuss things.

        • one man clan on 01/03/2018 - 16:16
          +3

          Except it's not equivalent because one group is calling for a ban on PEOPLE and the other on THINGS.

        • Ahbal on 01/03/2018 - 17:35
          -3

          @one man clan:

          Looks like I have to explain further….

          As I said, It is an ANALOGY.

          Meaning, in the case of Islam immigration/terrorism example, the PEOPLE are not at FAULT. Just the ONE PERSON

          With guns, GUNS are not at FAULT, the ONE PERSON is.

          I.e Cant blame several million for the actions of a few. It applies to PEOPLE and THINGS.

          There.

          I wont explain any further than this. Seriously.

        • one man clan on 02/03/2018 - 08:50
          +3

          @Ahbal: Let me explain: IT'S A TERRIBLE ANALOGY

    • MessyG on 02/03/2018 - 15:25

      Mmm except both leftists and rightists are calling for a ban.

      I don't think any sensible person thinks guns should be banned, but the US is frighteningly unregulated in who can own what.

  • one man clan on 01/03/2018 - 09:18
    +2

    Is every post here a russian troll sockpuppet or or is ozbargain actually a hotbed of gun-toting alt-right psychopaths?

    • dowanted on 01/03/2018 - 16:01

      It's not that. Most of the posts are in support of gun reform, but are using the argument of "not our country" or "there are worse things happening around the world".

      It's interesting that outrightly supporting anything (either way you swing) immediately seems extreme in behaviour. We seem to want to take a laid back attitude about everything, apparently consider all sides of the argument, but not actually do anything about it. All the while we're pretending we're in the know without actually listing how.

      That actually does seem like the OzBargain spirit to me.

    • cashews on 01/03/2018 - 18:27

      Every gun post on this site turns out the same.

      • nocure on 01/03/2018 - 20:16

        Yep, because 95% of commenters are without any firearms knowledge and the other 5% smart enough to stay out it.

    • YoungQuan on 01/03/2018 - 18:35

      no, some people can actually think for themselves and not be junk fed by mass media

    • quanticism on 01/03/2018 - 22:00
      +3

      Everyone who disagrees with me is a russian troll sockpuppet.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join