5 ms·

This doesn't seem like a very intellectually honest appraisal of the situation. Most obviously, gun manufacturers are not exclusively serving people who live in

This doesn't seem like a very intellectually honest appraisal of the situation. Most obviously, gun manufacturers are not exclusively serving people who live in safe suburban areas. Also, gun manufacturers tend to only advertise in publications and spaces that gun enthusiasts frequent, so anyone who might be influenced by them has already decided to include violent crime in their threat model and prepare accordingly. And lastly, perhaps anecdotally, I've never ever seen anything to the effect of that message outside of tongue-in-cheek internet forum shitposting. Firearms manufacturers are highly feature-oriented in their marketing, with some generic patriotic bells and whistles if anything. What you wrote is just a gross caricature of the motivation and practice of self defense.

scarface74 7y ago
You haven’t seen all of the uproar about taking away automatic weapons? Why else would you need an automatic weapon except to go against a group of people? I’m not anti-gun - especially at home. If someone breaks into my house, I’m going to assume they mean me harm. There are only four people who should be coming into our house without us letting them in and they all have the code to our alarm.
- homonculus1 7y ago
  Seen it? I'm part of it. But it's not some influence campaign from gun companies, who can't even legally sell them to anyone except the government.
- shpongled 7y ago
  What are you even talking about? Ownership of automatic weapons in the US is extremely rare and highly regulated. There have been < 5 deaths in the US with automatic weapons since the NFA passed. This comment is one reason why it's so hard to discuss firearm issues, one side is completely emotional and has no understanding of the facts or current laws.
  - scarface74 7y ago
    Aren’t you kind of making my point? Hardly anyone owns automatic weapons but there is still an uproar about “taking them”.
    - filoleg 7y ago
      There is no uproar about government taking away automatic weapons, as producing new automatic weapons has been outlawed since the 70s. To purchase one, you have to live in a state where it is legal to own, find someone owning a pre-ban automatic rifle and who is willing to sell, do some ATF paperwork, pay some fees, wait some time, and then you can get it. However, given how rare those guns are, we are talking prices around $20k+ (mentioned elsewhere in the thread, I personally have no idea about the actual prices as I have never been interested enough to look into it). The only uproar about “taking them” that I have heard in the past decade was about taking away guns in general.
      - catalogia 7y ago
        > " we are talking prices around $20k+" It really depends on the machine gun in question. Transferable Mac 10s are sufficiently common and lame that they're still under $10k. (That hardly invalidates your overall point, even 'cheap' transferable machine guns are still expensive.)
    - shpongled 7y ago
      No. Any uproar is over attempting to ban semi-automatic weapons. The fact that you don't understand this fundamental difference should be a big hint that you shouldn't be arguing about it.

scarface74 7y ago

You haven’t seen all of the uproar about taking away automatic weapons? Why else would you need an automatic weapon except to go against a group of people? I’m not anti-gun - especially at home. If someone breaks into my house, I’m going to assume they mean me harm. There are only four people who should be coming into our house without us letting them in and they all have the code to our alarm.

homonculus1 7y ago
Seen it? I'm part of it. But it's not some influence campaign from gun companies, who can't even legally sell them to anyone except the government.
shpongled 7y ago
What are you even talking about? Ownership of automatic weapons in the US is extremely rare and highly regulated. There have been < 5 deaths in the US with automatic weapons since the NFA passed. This comment is one reason why it's so hard to discuss firearm issues, one side is completely emotional and has no understanding of the facts or current laws.
- scarface74 7y ago
  Aren’t you kind of making my point? Hardly anyone owns automatic weapons but there is still an uproar about “taking them”.
  - filoleg 7y ago
    There is no uproar about government taking away automatic weapons, as producing new automatic weapons has been outlawed since the 70s. To purchase one, you have to live in a state where it is legal to own, find someone owning a pre-ban automatic rifle and who is willing to sell, do some ATF paperwork, pay some fees, wait some time, and then you can get it. However, given how rare those guns are, we are talking prices around $20k+ (mentioned elsewhere in the thread, I personally have no idea about the actual prices as I have never been interested enough to look into it). The only uproar about “taking them” that I have heard in the past decade was about taking away guns in general.
    - catalogia 7y ago
      > " we are talking prices around $20k+" It really depends on the machine gun in question. Transferable Mac 10s are sufficiently common and lame that they're still under $10k. (That hardly invalidates your overall point, even 'cheap' transferable machine guns are still expensive.)
  - shpongled 7y ago
    No. Any uproar is over attempting to ban semi-automatic weapons. The fact that you don't understand this fundamental difference should be a big hint that you shouldn't be arguing about it.