Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Relapse wrote:
It shouldn't matter how many times it's brought up, since the comparison in hazard seems apt.

The comparison is apt for a specific argument - that if it is possible to accept some level of overall harm for the benefit of a product, and the benefit of letting people make their own choices, then that argument can be made for guns just as it is made for alcohol. It doesn't mean that one making that argument successfully automatically means the other will pass, as each has wildly different benefits and uses to the other.

But that's all. Dragging it up every damn time we talk about guns isn't necessary or useful.

Bullets and guns are said to have connections to criminal behavior, but it's a series of CDC statistics that alcohol has huge connections to criminal behavior.

It isn't about whether the product might at some point in the future be related to criminal behaviour. It is about whether the individual retailers are likely to have any criminal connection, or be the victim of criminal action (ie goods purchased on fraudulent credit cards).

For the right wing noise, it is basically about requiring banks to build better records of transactions relating to industries with an historically higher relationship to crime. There is, as I've said a few times, a fair few good reasons to question the policy (and maybe even challenge it constitutionally), as it's basically stop and search for shops based just on their industry, but all this stuff the right wing is going on about how it's shutting down gun stores by stealth is basically deranged.

 sebster wrote:
First up - holy gak we've the alcohol vs guns thing so many damn times already.

Second up, gun and ammo retailers are allowed to bank. The issue is that the industry as a whole has been flagged as having connections to criminal behaviour (and it really, really shouldn't be too hard to figure out why that is the case), and that's led to the industry getting flagged for additional scrutiny of their banking records, and in some cases the additional requirements on banks are enough that banks aren't bothering to work with some retailers. Now, that's problematic and there's plenty of scope in it to argue against the Federal program, but to describe it as not being allowed to bank is just plain wrong, and does nothing to advance the conversation.

After the DoJ gave the Cartels lots of guns maybe they should have been added to the list

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 sebster wrote:
First up - holy gak we've the alcohol vs guns thing so many damn times already.

Second up, gun and ammo retailers are allowed to bank. The issue is that the industry as a whole has been flagged as having connections to criminal behaviour (and it really, really shouldn't be too hard to figure out why that is the case), and that's led to the industry getting flagged for additional scrutiny of their banking records, and in some cases the additional requirements on banks are enough that banks aren't bothering to work with some retailers. Now, that's problematic and there's plenty of scope in it to argue against the Federal program, but to describe it as not being allowed to bank is just plain wrong, and does nothing to advance the conversation.

After the DoJ gave the Cartels lots of guns maybe they should have been added to the list

Du-dun-dun-tish

 sebster wrote:

Relapse wrote:
It shouldn't matter how many times it's brought up, since the comparison in hazard seems apt.

The comparison is apt for a specific argument - that if it is possible to accept some level of overall harm for the benefit of a product, and the benefit of letting people make their own choices, then that argument can be made for guns just as it is made for alcohol. It doesn't mean that one making that argument successfully automatically means the other will pass, as each has wildly different benefits and uses to the other.

But that's all. Dragging it up every damn time we talk about guns isn't necessary or useful.

Bullets and guns are said to have connections to criminal behavior, but it's a series of CDC statistics that alcohol has huge connections to criminal behavior.

It isn't about whether the product might at some point in the future be related to criminal behaviour. It is about whether the individual retailers are likely to have any criminal connection, or be the victim of criminal action (ie goods purchased on fraudulent credit cards).

For the right wing noise, it is basically about requiring banks to build better records of transactions relating to industries with an historically higher relationship to crime. There is, as I've said a few times, a fair few good reasons to question the policy (and maybe even challenge it constitutionally), as it's basically stop and search for shops based just on their industry, but all this stuff the right wing is going on about how it's shutting down gun stores by stealth is basically deranged.

Since the firearms industry is being flagged for having connections to the criminal element, distillers, brewers, and any place that sells alcohol should be also if you go by these numbers:


http://www.ph.ucla.edu/sciprc/pdf/ALCOHOL_AND_VIOLENCE.pdf