4 ms·

This is a bit off topic from the original discussion, but I think you definitely can be a gun shop owner and be against guns at the same time, albeit still in a

This is a bit off topic from the original discussion, but I think you definitely can be a gun shop owner and be against guns at the same time, albeit still in a political sense. Having a gun shop provides you with the best possible venue for educating your customers about guns "from the inside", hence being able to push your agenda in the long term. That being said, running a gun shop is definitely a political statement. I guess you could control what you sell as well, like "I only sell hunting rifles - for hunting" and refusing to sell hand guns or automatic rifles. Sorry for the example of guns, I'm swedish and have no insight in what is commonplace in US gun stores.

Mxs2000 6y ago
“Hunting” rifles and semi-automatic rifles that are erroneously referred to as “assault rifles” are functionally the same. Almost nowhere can you readily buy automatic rifles.
- Loughla 6y ago
  Not to dive too far into the politics or semantics of this, but I feel like OP meant "hunting" rifles to mean "bolt-action" or "single-shot" type rifles. Also, OP didn't actually say anything about semi-automatic rifles, at all. So it's really a nothing statement to make that distinction; I guess I took the bait, though. For most people, the debate about "assault rifles" seems to be a misunderstanding about the language being used by the other side. For people who label semi-automatic rifles as "assault rifles", they think of hunting rifles as small capacity, bolt-action rifles. Whereas folks like you do not make that distinction. It's so weird to see that conversation play out, and realize that neither side understands the most basic definitions of the other. It's super common in gun debates. And very, genuinely strange.
  - leetcrew 6y ago
    > It's so weird to see that conversation play out, and realize that neither side understands the most basic definitions of the other. It's super common in gun debates. And very, genuinely strange. it's not symmetrical that way. the way gun control advocates use "assault rifle" is usually pretty vague. I have friends who would call a semi-automatic MP5 an "assault rifle". to a gun enthusiast, an "assault rifle" is a specific type of gun that is quite difficult to legally own as a civilian. I suspect 2A folks understand what the other side means by "assault rifle" (as well as they do themselves, at least), but choose not to give it the dignity of acknowledgement. the inverse occurs in discussions about racism. the left uses "racism" to mean "power + prejudice", while the right understands it simply as "discrimination on the basis of race". folks on the right don't necessarily understand through context which definition is being used (if they're even aware of the "power + prejudice" definition). folks on the left absolutely understand the source of confusion, but pretend they don't to leave their interlocutors looking stupid. in both cases, you essentially have one side mocking the other for not having done their homework. not unfair imo, but probably not the most productive way to have the discussion.
    - skinkestek 6y ago
      To be honest, in the second case I refuse to acknowledge because it is newspeak: redefinition of words to mean whatever benefits the party now. (it has been a few years since I read 1984, but I think I remember this correctly.) It is immediately clear even as a foreigner what racism really means and whoever tries to redefine it as a general slur deserves to be called out for it, just in the same way as they try to redefine assault rifle to mean any scary looking gun. That said, have my vote: you seem reasonable.
      - leetcrew 6y ago
        I can see why you would feel that way, but I don't think it's malicious usually. the way I look at it is the "power + privilege" definition comes from "racism" as an academic term of art, a meaning that everyone engaged in a certain kind of study/research agrees on. a comparable example from CS would be "syntax" vs "semantics". when people scold someone for arguing over semantics, they mean something more similar to the CS definition of "syntax". if you, a CS person, interpret them using the CS definition of "semantics", it would sound quite ridiculous. I often see left-leaning people (esp college educated) using certain words with their academic meanings. they're not being deliberately misleading, but they don't always do a good job of handling the confusion that ensues when addressing a broader audience.
- maxerickson 6y ago
  Lots of hunting rifles have an internal magazine with a smallish fixed capacity. That's functionally quite different from a rifle with easily swapped external magazines with high capacity. Chambering also matters a little bit. Weapons with a military lineage tend to have smaller rounds than rifles for big game. The smaller rounds make it easier to pack large amounts of ammunition and reduce fatigue. Of course assault rifle is a meaningless term, but that's a result of many efforts to warp the discourse and not because the weapons used for war are literally the same as a weapon that is sufficient for hunting.
- wavefunction 6y ago
  Assault rifles are marketed as "sporting" rifles by their manufacturers. My rifle doesn't accept detachable magazines which is one of the features of assault/sporting rifles.
astrea 6y ago
But owning a gun shop would by its very nature makes you pro-gun from a conflict of interest standpoint. Your very livelihood would require that the laws stay lax. It might even require that you actively advocate against any proposed legislation that might damage your business. To remain apolitical or even anti-gun would be failing your duties to your family, employees, and shareholders (if you have any) to grow and sustain the business and keep them fed, housed, employed, and paid.
- mywittyname 6y ago
  > But owning a gun shop would by its very nature makes you pro-gun from a conflict of interest standpoint. No it most certainly doesn't. A person can hold the opinion that many people can engage in some activity responsibly, while not everyone can. Being a gun store owner that favors regulation on the ownership of guns is not all that different from a beer brewer that favors regulation of drinking age or laws against operating vehicles while inebriated. Ignoring morality for a moment, there's a business argument in there too. A bunch of drunk hooligans causing car accidents is bad for business. Anyone in the business of dealing in "harmful" products is aware of potential public backlash from irresponsible people and will seek to mitigate that in some form.
  - astrea 6y ago
    Sure, I suppose our disconnect comes from two things: 1. The laws I imagined when I was drafting my comment were more akin to taking away guns completely, not something like more stringent background checks or cool down periods. That was my mistake 2. I personally believe the dollar has more political power than any vote by way of directly enabling or disabling the ability to act in any manner. In that regard, I feel that businesses are political in, for example, the supply chain activities (environmental impact, labor practices, etc) that they choose to fund. Merely by existing and directing money towards real world consequences, a business is political.

Mxs2000 6y ago

“Hunting” rifles and semi-automatic rifles that are erroneously referred to as “assault rifles” are functionally the same. Almost nowhere can you readily buy automatic rifles.

Loughla 6y ago
Not to dive too far into the politics or semantics of this, but I feel like OP meant "hunting" rifles to mean "bolt-action" or "single-shot" type rifles. Also, OP didn't actually say anything about semi-automatic rifles, at all. So it's really a nothing statement to make that distinction; I guess I took the bait, though. For most people, the debate about "assault rifles" seems to be a misunderstanding about the language being used by the other side. For people who label semi-automatic rifles as "assault rifles", they think of hunting rifles as small capacity, bolt-action rifles. Whereas folks like you do not make that distinction. It's so weird to see that conversation play out, and realize that neither side understands the most basic definitions of the other. It's super common in gun debates. And very, genuinely strange.
- leetcrew 6y ago
  > It's so weird to see that conversation play out, and realize that neither side understands the most basic definitions of the other. It's super common in gun debates. And very, genuinely strange. it's not symmetrical that way. the way gun control advocates use "assault rifle" is usually pretty vague. I have friends who would call a semi-automatic MP5 an "assault rifle". to a gun enthusiast, an "assault rifle" is a specific type of gun that is quite difficult to legally own as a civilian. I suspect 2A folks understand what the other side means by "assault rifle" (as well as they do themselves, at least), but choose not to give it the dignity of acknowledgement. the inverse occurs in discussions about racism. the left uses "racism" to mean "power + prejudice", while the right understands it simply as "discrimination on the basis of race". folks on the right don't necessarily understand through context which definition is being used (if they're even aware of the "power + prejudice" definition). folks on the left absolutely understand the source of confusion, but pretend they don't to leave their interlocutors looking stupid. in both cases, you essentially have one side mocking the other for not having done their homework. not unfair imo, but probably not the most productive way to have the discussion.
  - skinkestek 6y ago
    To be honest, in the second case I refuse to acknowledge because it is newspeak: redefinition of words to mean whatever benefits the party now. (it has been a few years since I read 1984, but I think I remember this correctly.) It is immediately clear even as a foreigner what racism really means and whoever tries to redefine it as a general slur deserves to be called out for it, just in the same way as they try to redefine assault rifle to mean any scary looking gun. That said, have my vote: you seem reasonable.
    - leetcrew 6y ago
      I can see why you would feel that way, but I don't think it's malicious usually. the way I look at it is the "power + privilege" definition comes from "racism" as an academic term of art, a meaning that everyone engaged in a certain kind of study/research agrees on. a comparable example from CS would be "syntax" vs "semantics". when people scold someone for arguing over semantics, they mean something more similar to the CS definition of "syntax". if you, a CS person, interpret them using the CS definition of "semantics", it would sound quite ridiculous. I often see left-leaning people (esp college educated) using certain words with their academic meanings. they're not being deliberately misleading, but they don't always do a good job of handling the confusion that ensues when addressing a broader audience.
maxerickson 6y ago
Lots of hunting rifles have an internal magazine with a smallish fixed capacity. That's functionally quite different from a rifle with easily swapped external magazines with high capacity. Chambering also matters a little bit. Weapons with a military lineage tend to have smaller rounds than rifles for big game. The smaller rounds make it easier to pack large amounts of ammunition and reduce fatigue. Of course assault rifle is a meaningless term, but that's a result of many efforts to warp the discourse and not because the weapons used for war are literally the same as a weapon that is sufficient for hunting.
wavefunction 6y ago
Assault rifles are marketed as "sporting" rifles by their manufacturers. My rifle doesn't accept detachable magazines which is one of the features of assault/sporting rifles.

astrea 6y ago

But owning a gun shop would by its very nature makes you pro-gun from a conflict of interest standpoint. Your very livelihood would require that the laws stay lax. It might even require that you actively advocate against any proposed legislation that might damage your business. To remain apolitical or even anti-gun would be failing your duties to your family, employees, and shareholders (if you have any) to grow and sustain the business and keep them fed, housed, employed, and paid.

mywittyname 6y ago
> But owning a gun shop would by its very nature makes you pro-gun from a conflict of interest standpoint. No it most certainly doesn't. A person can hold the opinion that many people can engage in some activity responsibly, while not everyone can. Being a gun store owner that favors regulation on the ownership of guns is not all that different from a beer brewer that favors regulation of drinking age or laws against operating vehicles while inebriated. Ignoring morality for a moment, there's a business argument in there too. A bunch of drunk hooligans causing car accidents is bad for business. Anyone in the business of dealing in "harmful" products is aware of potential public backlash from irresponsible people and will seek to mitigate that in some form.
- astrea 6y ago
  Sure, I suppose our disconnect comes from two things: 1. The laws I imagined when I was drafting my comment were more akin to taking away guns completely, not something like more stringent background checks or cool down periods. That was my mistake 2. I personally believe the dollar has more political power than any vote by way of directly enabling or disabling the ability to act in any manner. In that regard, I feel that businesses are political in, for example, the supply chain activities (environmental impact, labor practices, etc) that they choose to fund. Merely by existing and directing money towards real world consequences, a business is political.