He claims the stock has been sold out for the last three weeks and that demand is being fueled by fears generated by social changes. “People want to protect themselves,” Mayer said. “Nonetheless, the most common purchasers of arms are primarily Austrian women.” http://www.wnd.com/2015/10/islamic-invasion-pulls-trigger-europeans-scramble-for-guns/
Same thing happened during 9/11.
Btw there are many other polls and survey's that dispute your one.
They aren't accurate, and while it is possible to gain some hard data on Gun purchases, Gun ownership by household is one of the most inaccurate statistics to rely on.
Also 'gun ownership by household' doesn't tell you how many individuals own guns or the trend, because a household can have many people.
Can't comment on Austria, but note that the german article refers mostly to freely available weapons. In Germany, this does not include any guns - only things like sprays. It is true that licensed guns also went up 10%.
But note, that gun ownership in Germany is so rare that it could only go up and to me it seems like a direct reaction and not a long-term trend. There is no serious political party wanting to make guns more readily available.
As a side note, there is a local election (municipal election) coming up in Finland. Trying to find a candidate I find myself a liberal centrist with a slight right bend on the Finnish political map. Funny thing is, in the US I would be a clear left-winger.
Well this is certainly an odd turn in this story......
Not surprising, though--"a history of behavioral issues". It reminds me of that guy only a couple of months ago who set fire to his own church. I suppose people like these two individuals are somehow hoping to garner attention and/or sympathy for their group by making it appear as if their group is under attack. Truthfully, though, their actions will cause the opposite effect--the next time someone really does threaten a church or community center the first reaction from law enforcement will be "it's just a fake threat or a copycat" (but they will respond to it, anyway, just in case).
I would not make that bet either. However, it is not clear when a powerful military or conscription is a safeguard or a risk.
The greatest Empires in History had powerful Military forces, so evidently History shows us that a powerful Military is a great leverage for Nations.
Not having a strong military tends to put you under the direct sway of those nations with a powerful Military, sometimes Nation-States can get away with it if they are unusually strong in trade.
As for military service being a mark of citizenship/equality, I don't really agree. That might have been in true in times where they had to buy their own equipment (e.g. pre-marian rome), but there it is linked more to having some wealth.
In many civilizations, the restriction to enter military service or to be conscripted was often barred against groups that were oppressed or treated as 2nd Class citizens, to prevent them from gaining power.
Blacks in America experienced this for a long time during the early slavery, Middle-eastern civilizations did the same as did the English, Jews were barred during Nazi Germany.
You could drag up the American Civil War, but arming slaves to fight their would-be liberators is obviously a free case. Anyway, blacks fought and were conscripted in all other pre-civil rights movements wars, so it is not even true for America. In fact, what seems to happen is that the powerful and rich cheat their way out of conscription (e.g. Trump).
Slave-Owners in early America forbade Blacks slaves from owning Guns for fear they would resist, in the same token Blacks desired Guns to fight back and also to defend themselves when they fled their slave-owners.
Many States during those early times tried everything they could to restrict Blacks having Guns, even altering their State Constitution to amend the 2nd Amendment so it does not apply to Blacks.
The British explicitly used Military Service as a mark of Freedom, promising Blacks they would be emancipated if they fought for their side during the American Revolution.
George Washington did the same, Blacks weren't immediately allowed into the Army or even State Militia's, the South barred it for a good long time.
The House GOP Health Care plan overnight became even more of a moral abomination than it was the day before. Eliminating the protections for pre-existing conditions, removing the requirement that insurance companies have to cover HOSPITAL STAYS in their insurance. Here's a list of a few other things that apparently would not longer be mandatory for these predatory vultures to cover:
*Outpatient care without a hospital admission *Emergency Services *Pregnancy, Maternity, and Newborn Care *Mental Health and Substance Abuse Services *Prescription Drugs *Rehabilitative Services *Lab Services *Preventative Care *Pediatric Services
So, basically, fucking nothing?? You pay your premium every month and could conceivably end up with nothing but a handful of Advil.
This thing is polling at 17%. That this is even going to be a close vote is an absolute joke.
I would not make that bet either. However, it is not clear when a powerful military or conscription is a safeguard or a risk.
The greatest Empires in History had powerful Military forces, so evidently History shows us that a powerful Military is a great leverage for Nations.
Not having a strong military tends to put you under the direct sway of those nations with a powerful Military, sometimes Nation-States can get away with it if they are unusually strong in trade.
As for military service being a mark of citizenship/equality, I don't really agree. That might have been in true in times where they had to buy their own equipment (e.g. pre-marian rome), but there it is linked more to having some wealth.
In many civilizations, the restriction to enter military service or to be conscripted was often barred against groups that were oppressed or treated as 2nd Class citizens, to prevent them from gaining power.
Blacks in America experienced this for a long time during the early slavery, Middle-eastern civilizations did the same as did the English, Jews were barred during Nazi Germany.
You could drag up the American Civil War, but arming slaves to fight their would-be liberators is obviously a free case. Anyway, blacks fought and were conscripted in all other pre-civil rights movements wars, so it is not even true for America. In fact, what seems to happen is that the powerful and rich cheat their way out of conscription (e.g. Trump).
Slave-Owners in early America forbade Blacks slaves from owning Guns for fear they would resist, in the same token Blacks desired Guns to fight back and also to defend themselves when they fled their slave-owners.
Many States during those early times tried everything they could to restrict Blacks having Guns, even altering their State Constitution to amend the 2nd Amendment so it does not apply to Blacks.
The British explicitly used Military Service as a mark of Freedom, promising Blacks they would be emancipated if they fought for their side during the American Revolution.
George Washington did the same, Blacks weren't immediately allowed into the Military or even State Militia's, the South barred it for a good long time.
Ronald Reagan signed gun control legislation in California in the '60s specifically because the Black Panthers started carrying arms in public. Black people have NEVER had the same right to open carry in this country that white people do. Didn't then, don't now.
The Black community also didn't like the crime bill Bill Clinton introduced, as the sentiment is that it led to widespread incarceration of blacks and destroyed families and communities.
The Black community also didn't like the crime bill Bill Clinton introduced, as the sentiment is that it led to widespread incarceration of blacks and destroyed families and communities.
Agreed, Bill Clinton went way, way to far being "tough on crime" in the '90s, thinking that on this and other issues he simply had move right after 12 years of Republican Presidents. Big mistake.
You know what? The last gun debate here has made me wonder. I'm curious to know how many of the people that want to ban guns trust our government? A big foundation of me holding on to my right to bear arms has to do with my distrust of the government. I see a lot of our officials as worse criminals than the people that law enforcement lock up every day. I can see people that trust the feds to keep out best interest in mind not seeing any issue with giving them that kind of control. THoughts?
@ThacoBell I'm curious as well, as to how that would look like. In your mind, after the government makes your fears come true and rolls into town with the military, tanks and helicopters and all with bombers on standby, how do you plan to fight back with your handguns and rifles. You phone up your local rifle owner's association. Then something happens. And the government is beaten back. Can you elaborate on your plan?
I've travelled the world and pretty much felt safe in every country I've travelled. When I've been there has always been some issues. When I went to Phili in the early 00s there was acid attacks going on, when I was in Thailand there was a gang of ladyboys raping and killing men in the area I was in and was in Hong Kong during the tsunami and they had a surge of refugees. Did I feel threatened and need to arm myself for protection
Nope went to the bar relaxed and did my daily things while on holiday. Bad shit happens u just gotta carry on doing what u do and not have to worry so much.
Republicans do not appear to have the votes, though I suppose anything could happen. Let's review. Republicans have had SEVEN YEARS to come up with a replacement plan for a bill they've tried to repeal 50 times while Obama was in office. They came up with nothing but a reprehensible giveaway to the insurance agency on an almost unprecedented scale, in addition to literally killing people. They've been promising this for the better part of a decade, and they couldn't deliver. And keep in mind, this bill is failing mostly because there are members of the Freedom Caucus that think this bill doesn't kick ENOUGH people off health insurance and doesn't take away ENOUGH basic coverage.
And then there is the great businessman, the deal-maker, the closer, the guy who gets things done. Couldn't sell his own massive majority in Congress on one of the main promises he made to his followers. And reports are that he is already (of course) getting ready to shift all blame to Congress. No accountability, and, more importantly, revealed to be a total fraud concerning his main pitch to voters: that he is a successful deal-maker who gets things done. This was always nothing but a reality TV construct. There is nothing holding up this house of cards. This emperor has no clothes. Trump is what it was obvious he always has been: a amoral snake oil salesman who will screw over anyone when it suits him.
What can you expect if it does go down?? Sabotage of the ACA from within by any means they can do so, so Trump can continue to blame anyone but him (Democrats and Obama). At this point, it won't work. By even taking up this debate and making such a shitshow of it, Trump and the Republicans now own it by default.
I've travelled the world and pretty much felt safe in every country I've travelled. When I've been there has always been some issues. When I went to Phili in the early 00s there was acid attacks going on, when I was in Thailand there was a gang of ladyboys raping and killing men in the area I was in and was in Hong Kong during the tsunami and they had a surge of refugees. Did I feel threatened and need to arm myself for protection
Nope went to the bar relaxed and did my daily things while on holiday. Bad shit happens u just gotta carry on doing what u do and not have to worry so much.
I've traveled as well and felt safer in towns in the UK, Holland, Germany, Italy, France and Thailand than I do walking around in most states such as New Orleans / Mississippi. At worst I felt I might get beat up in Italy, but I felt like I could be shot if I took a wrong turn in Alabama.
When I visited Holland I'd go walking down the street and people would "Hello!" me. Never would happen in the USA everyone is so mistrustful. If you greeted the people on the street in the USA they'd look at you like "why the F are you talking to me?! You trying to scam some money?"
I've travelled the world and pretty much felt safe in every country I've travelled. When I've been there has always been some issues. When I went to Phili in the early 00s there was acid attacks going on, when I was in Thailand there was a gang of ladyboys raping and killing men in the area I was in and was in Hong Kong during the tsunami and they had a surge of refugees. Did I feel threatened and need to arm myself for protection
Nope went to the bar relaxed and did my daily things while on holiday. Bad shit happens u just gotta carry on doing what u do and not have to worry so much.
I've traveled as well and felt safer in towns in the UK, Holland, Germany, Italy, France and Thailand than I do walking around in most states such as New Orleans / Mississippi. At worst I felt I might get beat up in Italy, but I felt like I could be shot if I took a wrong turn in Alabama.
When I visited Holland I'd go walking down the street and people would "Hello!" me. Never would happen in the USA everyone is so mistrustful. If you greeted the people on the street in the USA they'd look at you like "why the F are you talking to me?! You trying to scam some money?"
This is basically true, but not as much in the midwest :P
And another thing is most cities in the US are not very pedestrian friendly. They are mostly designed for cars. So you do the have to deal with people most the time in the States.
And another thing is most cities in the US are not very pedestrian friendly. They are mostly designed for cars. So you do the have to deal with people most the time in the States.
My battery is totally shot and I couldn't take time off work this week to fix it, and I can confirm that traversing between bus stops on the way to work that this is very much the case. I have no real complaints about the mass transit system in town though. I'm half considering just continuing to use it to save money on gas.
@Wesboi Thats on you. Its your choice. Thats the point: Choice.
I just don't go around the world thinking everyone is out to get me and I need to have some sort of weapon .
I don't think anyone is out to get me. But I value the CHOICE to arm myself. People don't even need to be targeted. How mass shootings happened because the shooter couldn't stand one person?
A big foundation of me holding on to my right to bear arms has to do with my distrust of the government.
@ThacoBell I am specifically wondering about the above statement. What does it have to do with your distrust of the government? How does owning a gun help? What happens when the government does something to prove your mistrust justified?
Travelling to Vietnam on sunday only place in the world I've thought I'm gonna get run over multiple times. But Hanoi is slowly becoming more pedestrian friendly with the over passes being built over crossroads to ease up on the congestion.
A research study found that less-educated middle-age white Americans showing dying disproportionately from what one expert calls "deaths of despair" — suicides, drug overdoses and alcohol-related diseases.
"This is a story of the collapse of the white working class," Angus Deaton (an economist coauthor of the study) said in an interview. "The labor market has very much turned against them."
"The policies (of Donald Trump) that you see, seem almost perfectly designed to hurt the very people who voted for him," Deaton said.
"It's not just their careers that have gone down the tubes, but their marriage prospects, their ability to raise children," said Deaton, who won the Nobel prize in economics in 2015 for his long-standing work on solutions to poverty. "That's the kind of thing that can lead people to despair.
Americans with less education are also faring much worse when compared with adults in other countries, Case and Deaton concluded. Death rates in Europe for people with limited education are falling — and in most countries, they're falling faster than death rates for those with more education.
--------------------
I'd argue that Universal Healthcare in Europe has a lot to do with that last point. But the broader culprit has got to be income inequality. The country almost completely favors employers rights and welfare while employees rights and welfare are not generally protected.
You know what? The last gun debate here has made me wonder. I'm curious to know how many of the people that want to ban guns trust our government? A big foundation of me holding on to my right to bear arms has to do with my distrust of the government. I see a lot of our officials as worse criminals than the people that law enforcement lock up every day. I can see people that trust the feds to keep out best interest in mind not seeing any issue with giving them that kind of control. THoughts?
I'm actually against the banning of guns. I'm a gun-owner and have been all my life. And... I do generally trust the government. I have Libertarian tendencies in that I believe we should have the greatest amount of individual liberty without devolving into a gang/tribal society, but I think that's only possible with a strong central government.
I would definitely favor strict training/licensing requirements as long as they don't become Jim Crow rules that keep minorities from gun ownership (and you know someone's going to try that.) But since the main mission of the NRA is to make sure that gun manufacturers and distributors retain access to the drug dealer and crazy person demographics, that's never going to happen.
There hasn't been a serious threat to the destruction of the United States since the 1940s. The idea that Vietnam was a serious threat to destroy the United States is possibly one of the most laughable ideas I have ever heard. As for mandatory military service being the mark of a "free man", I live in the US in the year 2017, not Ancient Sparta.
Even WW2 was not a serious threat to the "destruction" of the United States. It was never a question that America would lose to the Axis powers (all of them), even alone had Britain and Russia fallen. It was a question of how costly it'd have been to win.
America had THAT much of a production edge, outproducing Germany plus Japan plus Italy, combined, even at their heights of production. America had been the #1 Industrial producing nation since the 1880s when it beat out Britain (who had a globe-spanning empire to draw on).
That combined with the physical isolation of the United States, leaving the U.S. untouched while Europe was practically leveled, meant that, even had Britain and Russia fallen and been occupied, they couldn't produce anything for awhile.
I consider the idea of nuclear armageddon in the Cold War because of egomaniacs unwilling to lose face as far more of a threat to the destruction of the United States.
As for mandatory military service, I'm for mandatory military OR civil service. There are, after all, people like me who are conscientious objectors. I am opposed to war except for defense of actual physical invasion. Which hasn't happened in the U.S. since...the War of 1812? I guess technically the Civil War had both sides invading each other.
There is, however a great need of civil service programs such as the CCC and WPA were in the 1940s.
A big foundation of me holding on to my right to bear arms has to do with my distrust of the government.
@ThacoBell I am specifically wondering about the above statement. What does it have to do with your distrust of the government? How does owning a gun help? What happens when the government does something to prove your mistrust justified?
I would argue that the government has proven my mistrust valid time and time again. As per the gun part, its more a deterrant than an answer. Which makes more sense. Marching on a populace that is most certainly armed vs. marching on a populace that you have de-armed yourself. Thats really only a very narrow focus. For me the big picture is this: The right to own a gun is a freedom this nation has enjoyed for a long time. Now people want to take that right away. I'm opposed to the restriction of freedom, of my choice. Its not just about guns. What if, after guns, freedom of speech is next? Of religion? I distrust any government that would choose to take away freedoms it had previously given to the people.
Ultimately (and kind of depressingly), once Obama was removed from the equation, the ACA skyrocketed in popularity. I find the reason for that as simple as black and white, but the important thing is this: if you threaten to take away insurance from 24 million people, that affects EVERYONE. Someone you know, someone in your family will get crushed by that kind of policy. And it is a political loser of the highest order.
As for Trump, his supporters love his supposed strength above all else. This is quite possibly the biggest blowout loss on a political policy front I've seen since Bush nominated Harriet Myers to the Supreme Court. He looks weak, he looks like a fraud, and he's at 37% approval under FBI investigation. This was all predictable folks.
@jjstraka34 Certain people branded the act as "Obamacare" for that very reason. Then again, many people also liked Obama and wouldn't mind "Obamacare". Now, if they called the new act "Trumpcare", it would get about 0 support, lol
This also proves what should have been obvious by the election results: Most people in this country DID NOT vote for the people in power and there is a massive and angry resistance to him that is not going to go away.
The GOP's reason for existence, their prime objective for 7 years has been repealing Obamacare. They control every branch of government. In the end, they had nothing. Just cynical gamesmanship and false promises.
Comments
But note, that gun ownership in Germany is so rare that it could only go up and to me it seems like a direct reaction and not a long-term trend. There is no serious political party wanting to make guns more readily available.
As a side note, there is a local election (municipal election) coming up in Finland. Trying to find a candidate I find myself a liberal centrist with a slight right bend on the Finnish political map. Funny thing is, in the US I would be a clear left-winger.
Not having a strong military tends to put you under the direct sway of those nations with a powerful Military, sometimes Nation-States can get away with it if they are unusually strong in trade.
Even to this day, this dynamic still holds true. In many civilizations, the restriction to enter military service or to be conscripted was often barred against groups that were oppressed or treated as 2nd Class citizens, to prevent them from gaining power.
Blacks in America experienced this for a long time during the early slavery, Middle-eastern civilizations did the same as did the English, Jews were barred during Nazi Germany. Slave-Owners in early America forbade Blacks slaves from owning Guns for fear they would resist, in the same token Blacks desired Guns to fight back and also to defend themselves when they fled their slave-owners.
Many States during those early times tried everything they could to restrict Blacks having Guns, even altering their State Constitution to amend the 2nd Amendment so it does not apply to Blacks.
The British explicitly used Military Service as a mark of Freedom, promising Blacks they would be emancipated if they fought for their side during the American Revolution.
George Washington did the same, Blacks weren't immediately allowed into the Army or even State Militia's, the South barred it for a good long time.
*Outpatient care without a hospital admission
*Emergency Services
*Pregnancy, Maternity, and Newborn Care
*Mental Health and Substance Abuse Services
*Prescription Drugs
*Rehabilitative Services
*Lab Services
*Preventative Care
*Pediatric Services
So, basically, fucking nothing?? You pay your premium every month and could conceivably end up with nothing but a handful of Advil.
This thing is polling at 17%. That this is even going to be a close vote is an absolute joke.
Are these people serious?? This "let them eat cake" level stuff.....
Nope went to the bar relaxed and did my daily things while on holiday. Bad shit happens u just gotta carry on doing what u do and not have to worry so much.
@Wesboi Thats on you. Its your choice. Thats the point: Choice.
And then there is the great businessman, the deal-maker, the closer, the guy who gets things done. Couldn't sell his own massive majority in Congress on one of the main promises he made to his followers. And reports are that he is already (of course) getting ready to shift all blame to Congress. No accountability, and, more importantly, revealed to be a total fraud concerning his main pitch to voters: that he is a successful deal-maker who gets things done. This was always nothing but a reality TV construct. There is nothing holding up this house of cards. This emperor has no clothes. Trump is what it was obvious he always has been: a amoral snake oil salesman who will screw over anyone when it suits him.
What can you expect if it does go down?? Sabotage of the ACA from within by any means they can do so, so Trump can continue to blame anyone but him (Democrats and Obama). At this point, it won't work. By even taking up this debate and making such a shitshow of it, Trump and the Republicans now own it by default.
When I visited Holland I'd go walking down the street and people would "Hello!" me. Never would happen in the USA everyone is so mistrustful. If you greeted the people on the street in the USA they'd look at you like "why the F are you talking to me?! You trying to scam some money?"
It's a crazy place at times with the traffic.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/ct-white-working-class-deaths-of-despair-20170324-story.html
A research study found that less-educated middle-age white Americans showing dying disproportionately from what one expert calls "deaths of despair" — suicides, drug overdoses and alcohol-related diseases.
"This is a story of the collapse of the white working class," Angus Deaton (an economist coauthor of the study) said in an interview. "The labor market has very much turned against them."
"The policies (of Donald Trump) that you see, seem almost perfectly designed to hurt the very people who voted for him," Deaton said.
"It's not just their careers that have gone down the tubes, but their marriage prospects, their ability to raise children," said Deaton, who won the Nobel prize in economics in 2015 for his long-standing work on solutions to poverty. "That's the kind of thing that can lead people to despair.
Americans with less education are also faring much worse when compared with adults in other countries, Case and Deaton concluded. Death rates in Europe for people with limited education are falling — and in most countries, they're falling faster than death rates for those with more education.
--------------------
I'd argue that Universal Healthcare in Europe has a lot to do with that last point. But the broader culprit has got to be income inequality. The country almost completely favors employers rights and welfare while employees rights and welfare are not generally protected.
I would definitely favor strict training/licensing requirements as long as they don't become Jim Crow rules that keep minorities from gun ownership (and you know someone's going to try that.) But since the main mission of the NRA is to make sure that gun manufacturers and distributors retain access to the drug dealer and crazy person demographics, that's never going to happen.
America had THAT much of a production edge, outproducing Germany plus Japan plus Italy, combined, even at their heights of production. America had been the #1 Industrial producing nation since the 1880s when it beat out Britain (who had a globe-spanning empire to draw on).
That combined with the physical isolation of the United States, leaving the U.S. untouched while Europe was practically leveled, meant that, even had Britain and Russia fallen and been occupied, they couldn't produce anything for awhile.
I consider the idea of nuclear armageddon in the Cold War because of egomaniacs unwilling to lose face as far more of a threat to the destruction of the United States.
As for mandatory military service, I'm for mandatory military OR civil service. There are, after all, people like me who are conscientious objectors. I am opposed to war except for defense of actual physical invasion. Which hasn't happened in the U.S. since...the War of 1812? I guess technically the Civil War had both sides invading each other.
There is, however a great need of civil service programs such as the CCC and WPA were in the 1940s.
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/03/why-obamacare-defeated-trumpcare.html
Ultimately (and kind of depressingly), once Obama was removed from the equation, the ACA skyrocketed in popularity. I find the reason for that as simple as black and white, but the important thing is this: if you threaten to take away insurance from 24 million people, that affects EVERYONE. Someone you know, someone in your family will get crushed by that kind of policy. And it is a political loser of the highest order.
As for Trump, his supporters love his supposed strength above all else. This is quite possibly the biggest blowout loss on a political policy front I've seen since Bush nominated Harriet Myers to the Supreme Court. He looks weak, he looks like a fraud, and he's at 37% approval under FBI investigation. This was all predictable folks.
This also proves what should have been obvious by the election results: Most people in this country DID NOT vote for the people in power and there is a massive and angry resistance to him that is not going to go away.
The GOP's reason for existence, their prime objective for 7 years has been repealing Obamacare. They control every branch of government. In the end, they had nothing. Just cynical gamesmanship and false promises.