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

- Pacify on 02/03/2018 - 02:30
  
  This thread has been brigaded hard, its surprising to see on Ozbargain. I think you will theres a lot of new accounts with no posts before today in this thread.
petry on 01/03/2018 - 13:37

Australia aims to be become top 10 armament producer in world - we can't buy what we sell - and you have an issues about a foreign carrier company?
- [Deactivated] on 01/03/2018 - 14:23
  
  Just like how we aimed to be a serious automotive manufacturer.
  
  Lots of aims. If only I can pay my bills with dreams.
MementoMori on 01/03/2018 - 15:01

+1

I'm surprised nobody has mentioned the false flag aspect of the whole school shooting thing…

A significant portion of American's believe these events are staged (with patsy's to take the blame) in an attempt to disarm America and implement a NWO.

There are always strange circumstances and story changes with these things. E.g. Vegas - where are the videos? Casinos are the most CCTV'd placed on the planet.
- one man clan on 01/03/2018 - 16:14
  
  +4
  
  Crisis actors and false flags are so mind numbing to me. I'm supposed to believe that there's a shadowy organisation out there powerful enough to fake an entire mass shooting in one of the busiest places in the world, but are incompetent enough to use the same actors for multiple incidents?
  - MessyG on 02/03/2018 - 15:26
    
    +2
    
    It's a convenient lie generated by people who really want to hang onto their weapons. The capacity for mass delusions to suit an agenda in the US amazes me every day.
    - MementoMori on 05/03/2018 - 14:43
      
      Does anyone have any other theories on why school shootings are almost unique to the US, and basically non-existent in many other Western countries with high levels of gun ownership?
    - abb on 06/03/2018 - 08:57
      
      +1
      
      @domcc1: > theories on why school shootings are almost unique to the US
      
      There are many. Some factors I have seen mentioned include: publicity/fame, copycats, ready availability of guns (it's easier to buy a gun in the US than in other places with high gun ownership levels), highly individualistic culture, toxic masculinity, glorification of military, difficulty of access to mental health care.
      
      There are probably more. It's very difficult to answer something like that conclusively.
    - MementoMori on 06/03/2018 - 11:51
      
      @abb: Agreed, not conclusively. No-one could, although I'm not convinced any of these things would explain the vast difference we have, and that there is something else going on - something dodgy. I also think most countries have those elements you mentioned to some extent.
      
      We can agree to disagree on this one, and I thank you for a civilised chat, something hard to have about these topics these days.
  - MementoMori on 05/03/2018 - 14:58
    
    I believe these things are real in the sense that people (sadly) did die, but that it didn't happen the way we are told. They just arrest some mentally deranged stooge and then start pushing all the pre-prepared legislation removing more freedoms (gun control or increased spying - legislation that normally takes months to prepare).
    
    Take the Orlando nightclub shooting, US Spec Ops soldiers analysed the shooting and say that even the best of the best could pull off such a feature, the accuracy, in heavy body armour, etc.
    
    Is it really that far fetched there is a power group with actors in various levels of government that coordinate things for their own benefit? You have it in pretty much every other organisation, in the corporate world for example.
- abb on 02/03/2018 - 14:28
  
  +1
  
  A significant number of people also believe the earth is flat. It appears that defective reasoning is a somewhat common flaw in humans.
  
  There are always strange circumstances and story changes with these things.
  
  There are always strange circumstances every second of the day, everywhere on earth. Just no-one notices them until they go looking.
  
  Stories change as more evidence is gathered (more context is found, red herrings eliminated, etc), this is also normal.
  
  Casinos are the most CCTV'd placed on the planet.
  
  The gaming floor, sure. Inside a suite? No.
  - MementoMori on 05/03/2018 - 14:46
    
    Ahhh the flat earth. The 'conspiracy' pushed to discredit all other 'conspiracies'. So the logic is there is one wacky theory out there so all others must be false - do I have that right?
    
    Yeah - gaming floor, lift area, stairwells, reception, outside the building, etc etc - not a single frame of the shooter. Also very quickly 'moved along' in the news cycle. I think most would say that's very unusual.
    - one man clan on 05/03/2018 - 15:14
      
      You know that a lot of stuff is kept top secret right? Not every piece of evidence is released to the press or publicly available.
      
      Anyway in a general reply I read a recent AMA on reddit about a reformed conspiracy nut and one of the biggest reasons people buy in is lack of agency. People want to believe that there's something more sinister behind horrible events and that some force has an effect on the universe, when in reality it's just people can do horrible things to each other.
    - abb on 06/03/2018 - 09:15
      
      So the logic is there is one wacky theory out there so all others must be false - do I have that right?
      
      No. It's just an example of "people ardently believe in facts that are demonstrably false". That is, merely that people believe something is not evidence that the thing is actually true.
      
      not a single frame of the shooter
      
      The investigators have 21,560 hours of video. The hotel/casino is under no legal obligation to release the footage to the public.
      
      Think about it - if you ran a casino, would you want the world to know where the gaps in your CCTV are?
      What possible benefit is there to the casino in releasing the tapes to the public?
      As a society we have decided that courts and police to investigate things is the process. Not vigilante mobs.
      
      If the video were released to the public, would it silence the conspiracy theorists? No. They would claim that there were anomalies (or else "it's too perfect"), that there were actors, that it was filmed on a hollywood set, etc etc. That's the fundamental problem with conspiracy theorists, they do not understand "burden of proof", and they thus conflate "remotely possible" with "definitely the case".
      
      Source for 21,560 number (also has a detailed timeline from the sheriff's office):
      http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5289987/Probe-Las-Ve…
Larkdord on 01/03/2018 - 16:40

+4
Read through most of the comments, so here's my opinion on this.

Not our local/country problem but would the US sit quite say a middle eastern country was going through some sort of similar crisis. Apparently 1.5 Million gun deaths in the US till date. Dont tell me the BS guns don't kill people, but mental….

So it's only fair that other countries can intervene when US is not able to fix its own gun problem

No one is saying ban all guns, but seriously assault rifles for self protection?

Reason why NRA is front and centre of this discussion is not because the shooters are NRA members but because they are opposing every aspect of 'gun control' policy leave banning.

OP if you feel you need take a stand on what you believe in, do so.. you don't need the rest of OZB to agree with you.
- pformag on 01/03/2018 - 17:50
  
  +4
  
  "No one is saying ban all guns, but seriously assault rifles for self-protection?" AR-15 is not an Assult rifle. It is extremely difficult to obtain an assault rifle (It must be capable of selective fire.) in the US.
  
  You need to be eligible to possess firearms in general.
  
  You must live in a state where NFA items are permitted and machine guns, specifically, are legal to possess.
  
  The assault rifle you wish to acquire must have been manufactured on or before May 19, 1986. That is the cutoff date for entries to be made in the NFRTR (National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record), the registry of all NFA items in the United States including machine guns.
  
  You must locate a Class III dealer (FFL01+SOT) that sells or can transfer in the Assult rifle you wish to acquire in your state of residence.
  
  You must purchase the Assult rifle upfront prior to transfer and have it shipped to your Class III dealer. For a full-auto M16, this will be anywhere from $12,000 and up. Typical prices for an M16 hover around $14,000 to $16,000.
  
  Once purchased and with your dealer, the dealer will fill out the Form 4 application on your behalf to submission to the BATFE and collect your $200 NFA transfer stamp tax.
  
  The application will be submitted. Now you wait 8+ months for the full FBI background check and BATFE processing to complete.
  Once the Form 4 is processed, it will be returned to the dealer along with the tax stamp which is part of your paperwork. You can then take possession of your military grade fully automatic firearm and take it home.
  
  The tax stamp must be kept with the firearm it belongs to at all times! The tax stamp is your only affirmative defense to prove you are not in possession of an illegal machine gun. The tax stamp is proof you paid the transfer tax and legally transferred the machine gun. Ranges that allow Class III will want to see the stamp. If you get pulled over and the gun is discovered/inspected, law enforcement will definitely want to see it too. You may be required to present the firearm for inspection on demand by the BATFE.
  
  You may not transport the fully automatic firearm across state lines for any purpose without prior consent of the Federal government. You must request this in advance and provide details on where the firearm is going, when you are leaving and when it will return to its registered location of residence.
  
  You cannot leave the presence of your fully automatic firearm. If someone else is shooting it, you must be with it, legally speaking. The one exception to this is if you have formed a legal trust for the purpose of possessing the firearm, in which case all beneficiaries of the trust (usually family or employees) may have access to the firearm.
  
  So yes, provided you meet and abide by all of conditions above, a normal citizen can purchase and possess an assault rifle.
  - try2bhelpful on 03/03/2018 - 07:51
    
    Yes, but people still seem to be able to get hold of one. Everything you have said above is if someone gets one legally, in a country awash with weapons it is much easier for someone to get one illegally.
vicosads on 01/03/2018 - 17:05

+5

if the gun grabbers were serious they'd go for the illegal guns first, but thats gonna be targeting a certain demographic….. instead go after responsible gun owners
infinite on 01/03/2018 - 17:19

+6

The NRA put out a membership report today and over 500,000 NEW members joined……. in the last 4 days.

The irony of of the faux-outrage and virtue-signalling from OP and ignorant individuals like them getting so completely shot down & having the opposite intended effect, is nothing short of delicious to say the least.
- dowanted on 01/03/2018 - 17:52
  
  +2
  
  Quite a few companies have revoked their partnerships with the NRA as a result of the Parkland shooting. Whether or not you agree with their decisions is another story, but the media storm following the shooting has been a nightmare for the NRA. One that, surprisingly, hasn't faltered yet.
  
  As for new members, this consistently happens after every major shooting in the US. The amount of certain guns sold also spikes due to fears over them being banned.
  
  RE the "faux-outrage" comment, I'm not sure what you expect people do. Many of their leaders are funded by a company that is dead-set against any sort of gun reform or regulation, because it affects $$$. So, their leaders have failed the country and people are lashing out in any which way they can.
- [Deactivated] on 02/03/2018 - 15:52
  
  I remember the same thing happening after every shooting and when the NRA pushed their "Obama is going to take your guns" propaganda.
  
  While you're having a dig at the OP, remind yourself that his/her virtue-signalling has less power than millions of dollars worth of fear-mongering propaganda pushed by the NRA every year.
- try2bhelpful on 03/03/2018 - 08:05
  
  Just because there are more members does not make the organisation a positive for society. We can all name organisations that were incredibly popular that were responsible for the mass slaughter of people. The NRA membership is only 6% of gun owners in the USA yet they have an influence that is out of proportion to these numbers and are directly responsible for the deaths of Americans by stalling any meaningful legislation. The ready availability of guns makes it much more likely a felon will get access to a gun. Australians need to be vigilant to keep the supply of guns in Australia under control, The NRA are trying to use mouthpieces in Australia to water down our laws as we are a pretty powerful example of how gun laws can work.
pformag on 01/03/2018 - 17:53

+5

Will you be boycotting all car manufacturers, considering cars kill more people than guns?
- cashews on 01/03/2018 - 18:45
  
  No I dare say he's more intelligent than that.
- Pacify on 02/03/2018 - 02:31
  
  Yeah, cars which play a fundamental role in our every days lives, and the core to how society functions are the same as guns which are literally only use to kill people.
  
  Solid logic man. Solid.
  - [Deactivated] on 02/03/2018 - 12:49
    
    +1
    
    I think you meant practically not "literally".
    
    Guns have other uses. Livestock slaughter and pest control come to mind. It is not to long ago that people had to hunt for food; food being quite essential to every day lives.
    
    I think we can establish that guns are NOT literally only used to kill people.
Kangal on 01/03/2018 - 21:29

+1

Not effective enough. We need to boycott OzBargain who are sharing deals from such companies.
auna on 01/03/2018 - 22:51

Where is the option to support them even more than before?

Walmart stopping sales for under 21 is proof that the gun right advocates are 100% correct. These type of age related erosions are very dangerous to the future. The age of maturity has really gotten ridiculous according to the modern world - 21 will become the new 18. It’s already 26 for insurance and other purposes, so the slippery slope is there.
bobbified on 01/03/2018 - 23:24

+3

I've found it interesting that Australia has been used as an example where gun control has worked well by saying that there hasn't been any massacres since the banning of certain types of guns after the Port Arthur incident.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I didn't think we had a problem with mass shootings prior to the Port Arthur incident either when those guns were still legal.

So did the ban really work? Or was it just coincidental that it seemed like the ban was effective?
- THICKnSLOW on 02/03/2018 - 00:36
  
  +5
  
  We stopped shooting each other, instead we get drunk and coward punch victims
- Pacify on 02/03/2018 - 02:32
  
  +4
  
  We did. Port Arthur wasn't the only mass shooting we had a string of them. Port Arthur was just the biggest one.
  
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_in_Australia
  - bobbified on 02/03/2018 - 07:23
    
    Port Arthur wasn't the only mass shooting we had a string of them
    
    Not that it makes things any better, but a lot of incidents on that wiki list isn't gun-related and where there are gun-related incidents, there seems to be a similar amount of incidents before and after 1996.
    - hayne on 03/03/2018 - 00:39
      
      +1
      
      Bobbified - yes and no. If you want a relevant comparison, count the number of "spree shootings" (i.e. the equivalent of the US mass shootings where a nut with a gun kills random civilians).
      
      So in the decade leading up to Port Arthur, there were 7 spree shootings resulting in the deaths of ~70 people (if you exclude the deaths from the killer committing suicide).
      
      In the 22 years since - there have been zero.
      
      Gun-related deaths and suicides have also fallen significantly since 1996.
      
      Note that these are correlations. But you can draw some informed inferences from these correlations.
- [Deactivated] on 02/03/2018 - 17:25
  
  +1
  
  That's not how the emotional public digests statistics.
  
  You're making the issue overly complicated. It's about how great it is to ban guns. Less crime. Why compare it to before? It has nothing to do with the present. You're creating straw man arguments.
- machej on 03/03/2018 - 20:10
  
  +2
  
  We have had quite a few shootings though so I'd say you're quite correct it's quite likely coincidental. Many countries that have more relaxed gun laws don't have these issues like the Czech Republic, Switzerland and New Zealand. People seem to love beating around the bush when it's clear as day that the US isn't focusing on mental health issues and has crazy people going on rampages.
Skinnerr on 02/03/2018 - 04:20

+7

Where was the moral panic after Sandy Hook? Scratch that, where was it after the Mandalay Bay? The FBI was warned and did nothing, instead beating this Russia dead horse into oblivion. It is media baiting and they are going after the lowest hanging fruit in America - legal gun ownership.
- hayne on 03/03/2018 - 00:44
  
  -1
  
  You didn't see the moral panic after Sandy Hook? Are you serious?
  
  You're not aware that Obama tried to pass a raft of common sense gun control legislation afterwards? Which didn't get through the legislature.
  
  I think maybe you have a short memory but the furore was huge.
- try2bhelpful on 03/03/2018 - 08:19
  
  -2
  
  So the charges that have already been laid are beating a dead horse, yeah right. Even members of the GOP and social media organisations themselves have said the Russians were using troll bots to influence the election. Many social media sites are changing their models to reduce the influence, The question is if the President of the USA is compromised, I think that is probably an important one to get to the bottom of.
  
  As to the FBI missing this guy I would love to know how many nut jobs with ready access to firearms is on the FBI books. Combine that with the NRA screaming about everyone’s god given right to a gun they would’ve screamed even louder about rights infringements if everyone on the books was rounded up based on reports.
  
  I just love the argument you can’t change the second amendment, these people are in desperate need of a dictionary.
FatBlanket on 02/03/2018 - 06:23

Arming the teachers is stupid. What they need to do is arm all the other students.
- [Deactivated] on 02/03/2018 - 17:26
  
  I think removing everyone's arms is the solution… And their guns too.
Chochkee on 02/03/2018 - 10:34

+2

As a recent highschool graduate? hahaha, tell me more about how you are educated and informed enough to have an opinion.

The funny thing is liberals(lefties in the states) are pushing for voters to be younger because it suits their agenda, but they are also pushing for the age to get a gun to be much older. Uh pretty ironic you are mentally developed enough to vote, but not own a gun?
- Emerald Owl on 02/03/2018 - 22:15
  
  +1
  
  Lefties in both places, liberals in the USA*
- hayne on 03/03/2018 - 00:46
  
  I'm not sure I see the irony. What does having the mental capacity to vote have to do with owning a gun? I'd much more relaxed about giving someone the right to vote than giving them an assault rifle which could be used to fire 400 rounds a minute with lethal effect.
- try2bhelpful on 03/03/2018 - 08:24
  
  -1
  
  Since when do people graduate from high school, graduation was when you earned something like a degree. Please come back when you can use the remote and stop watching FOX news. You appear to be just parroting them and shock jock comments.
Cleremy on 02/03/2018 - 10:50

Given that these shootings are generally drills or carried out by multiple shooters and covered up I think we can safely say that the NRA has nothing to do with these shootings.

Some people blame them on psychiatric drugs but really it's a "Hegelian Dialectic" push by the establishment to disarm the United States populace so that the government there can give itself the option of further tyranny down the road if it needs it.

Look at way police in Australia openly carry a revolver and a Taser, its clear the government doesn't want a gun free country, they just don't want YOU to be on a level playing field should they wish to violate your person or property.
whirlpool_guy on 02/03/2018 - 12:17

IMHO, should boycott PayPal first
shangoz on 02/03/2018 - 12:56

+1

Oh, Why don't you boycott the one selling weapon to Iran and Taliban etc those countries and organisations first?
MessyG on 02/03/2018 - 15:28

+2

Oh OP, so naive. Guns is one of those topics you don't touch with a ten foot pole on Ozb.
Haha Hihi Hoho on 02/03/2018 - 17:30

dont arm them with guns, arm them with flashbangs, when bullets start flying, you want them to have a chance to get out of the line of fire not join the gun fight, also start putting kevlars materials on their doors as well.
trevor99 on 02/03/2018 - 17:32

+5
"Citizens should be disarmed for the safety of the community"

Some leaders that have used that argument and enacted that policy:

Hitler

Stalin

Mao

Pol Pot

Switzerland has a higher level of gun ownership with no problems.

USA gun murders have around halved in 20 years so there is no escalating crisis.

USA mass shootings do have a general commonality though - psychotropic medication.

Think
- Ahbal on 02/03/2018 - 20:15
  
  +3
  
  You wrote it far more eloquently than I could.
  
  Its this point people don't mention when they say to ban guns:
  
  —"USA gun murders have around halved in 20 years so there is no escalating crisis."
  
  Media reporting on shootings have increased, but that does not mean the shootings themselves have.
  
  A very similar scenario to how the medias obsession with Trump during his campaign ended up helping him win the election.
- Cleremy on 03/03/2018 - 14:55
  
  -1
  
  It's misinformation to include Hitler in that list as far as I'm aware:
  
  “The 1938 law signed by Hitler that LaPierre mentions in his book basically does the opposite of what he says it did. ‘The 1938 revisions completely deregulated the acquisition and transfer of rifles and shotguns, as well as ammunition,’ [law professor Bernard E.] Harcourt wrote. Meanwhile, many more categories of people, including Nazi party members, were exempted from gun ownership regulations altogether, while the legal age of purchase was lowered from 20 to 18, and permit lengths were extended from one year to three years.”
  
  Source
  - [Deactivated] on 03/03/2018 - 19:56
    
    During the period of Hitler's rule as Fuhrer, the gestapo were prohibited from issuing firearms license to Jews. This comes 3 years after the beginning of the disarment of Jews in 1933.
    
    The laws were later (1938) relaxed to the members of the NSDAP (Nazis) to not require a permit for firearms.
    
    The deregulation of firearms quoted above (which is a bit dubious quoting a news website that is quoting a book that is quoting the law) is disingenuous as it purposely omitted the fact that firearms were first confiscated and regulated before deregulating it to those loyal to the ruling party.
kaleidoscope on 03/03/2018 - 02:44

+1

If a persons mentality goes down to the level of taking bunch of innocent lives to fulfill his depression or anger, he won’t just stop because there isnt easy access to guns…
- cryptos on 03/03/2018 - 03:02
  
  Um yeah, but perhaps he shouldn't have easy access to a semi auto rifle based on the main US military assualt rifle, a weapon designed purely for combat warfare.
nobarginsarehere on 03/03/2018 - 03:56

-2

Only law changes in the USA will make a difference

This wont happen with the amount of money the NRA throws around

They will keep deflecting to bump stocks and violent games until the media forget about it, until it happens again
- [Deactivated] on 03/03/2018 - 10:25
  
  "only law changes in the USA will make a difference".
  
  Huh? Of course, I guess? Change = different.
  
  "This won't happen with the amount of money the NRA throw around".
  
  How much is that? How much are the opposition throwing by comparison? At what point the throwing of money, either objectively or relative to the opposition's does the things that are happening stop happening?
  
  "They will keep deflecting to bump stocks and violent games until the media forget about it, until it happens again?"
  
  … The f?…
frostman on 03/03/2018 - 10:55

-5

Nothing will stop the mass school shootings until the people of America wake up from their slumber and protest against the government and the lies they've been told.
The NRA is a multi-billion dollar industry, all their board/director/ kids go to some prestige school with armed bodyguards which means they will never suffer at the hands of the mass shootings, hence they don't really care.

It's a vicious cycle of lies which has resulted in people arming themselves to the teeth.

1.) USA propagate islam is a terror group to further support illegal invasions and keep the populous quite about where their tax money is going
2.) USA invade these counties with the vast support of Americans to further gain land control, oil, resources and fuel unsustainable debt in those countries
3.) Meanwhile, these Americans think that terror is being wiped out however the Threat Level in US remains high.
4.) The average red-neck arms themselves as a result
5.) As poverty stricken the US, health crisis worsens given tax money is siphoned into a war machine, some people resort to drugs and alcohol and guess what? some of these people are armed!
- [Deactivated] on 03/03/2018 - 19:38
  
  You're suggesting that people need to go against the government so that there will be gun control. That's going to rip the space-time-political paradox a brand new a$$hole.
  
  USA does not propagate Islam as a terror group. It does however identify that many major terror groups claim service to Islam.
  
  USA invasion of Muslim countries may be motivated by Big Oil but it does not fuel unsustainable debt in those countries. You can't invade a country and put the tab on them. It doesn't work that way.
  
  Americans don't think that terror is wiped out. If anything, there is a culture of fear and over reaction. This cannot be news to anyone.
  
  It is more likely an average red neck spews rubbish like this than finding any data on red necks and firearms.
  
  Poverty isn't caused by the government not subsidising healthcare. People don't become poor because the government isn't relocating funds from the working class to the unemployed for healthcare. They certainly don't become poor and then decide to buy drugs/alcohol and then buy guns and go enroll themselves is schools to start a school shooting (which is what this topic is about).
  - frostman on 03/03/2018 - 20:32
    
    1.USA does not propagate Islam as a terror group. It does however identify that many major terror groups claim service to Islam.
    
    true, because Stephen Paddock was also identified as a radical muslim hehehe.
    You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink
    
    2.USA invasion of Muslim countries may be motivated by Big Oil but it does not fuel unsustainable debt in those countries. You can't invade a country and put the tab on them. It doesn't work that way
    
    I guess you don't know how wars work…you MUST must be one of these people that obtains their political information from Hollywood movies. I bet you loved Olympus Has Fallen
    
    Let me introduce you to a new world outside your cabbage patch, when a country is invaded and ultimately FUBAR, the in-debt government needs to borrow money as the average civilian cannot contribute in any form of tax, meanwhile import/export is slowed to a standstill.
    At the same time home-grown companies (mainly defence linked to Government) profit largely from sales, here are some facts for your simple mind:
    
    https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2013/03/10/10-…
    
    3.Americans don't think that terror is wiped out. If anything, there is a culture of fear and over reaction. This cannot be news to anyone.
    
    Exactly your own words, there is a culture of fear which the NRA lives off buy selling more guns to the mass idiot to protect themselves from this fear. Why didn't this culture of fear exist in the 90s or 80s in the same form it is today?
    
    You're suggesting that people need to go against the government so that there will be gun control.
    Yes nothing wrong with the mass populas protesting, demanding answers and calling for the sacking of the useless president that was placed in office by the NRA
lostn on 03/03/2018 - 20:06

Boycott them if you want, but I'm going to continue buying stuff from them. I care more about getting good bargains than politics.
Sage on 04/03/2018 - 00:26

-1

Pffft, the NRA are for gun control. They're not making anything worse.
kerryww on 04/03/2018 - 12:20

Not to try and change the subject, but, as us Aussies look on horrified at U.S. gun laws, they, our cousins in the U.S. look at our gambling and drinking laws just as horrified.

They find it hard to believe an 18 yr. old can walk/drive to a bar at the end of his/her street, get drunk and gamble away his/her total months wages in just a couple of hours on poker machines.

Want to gamble on the pokies in the U.S.? First you've got to fly to Las Vegas. Want a drink? First make sure you're 21 years. No matter how old you are, no drinking and gambling at the same time. You can't even buy a drink at a strip club.

We think they're crazy and they think we're crazy. Maybe we're all just crazy.
- BuyoTheCat on 04/03/2018 - 13:25
  
  The legal drinking age is 21 in USA, but that does not stop people under 21 from drinking.
  
  What is crazy is: They are not even talking about banning guns. They just want stricter checks from when someone goes into a store and leaves with a firearm. They cannot even pass that.
Autonomic on 04/03/2018 - 16:21

It's crazy to me to see how right wing ozbargain is.
- OBEY YOUR MASTERS on 04/03/2018 - 16:33
  
  +1
  
  Why would that be crazy? Perhaps you're not used to centrist or right wing people speaking their minds?
  - Autonomic on 04/03/2018 - 17:25
    
    +1
    
    I'm not only talking about this thread, but over several that I've seen on OzB. Many negative comments and attitudes towards gay/lesbians, transgender individuals and muslims, to name a few groups. It's one thing to have a a different opinion but quite another to have such negative opinions towards your fellow ozbargainers, colleagues and so on.
    - [Deactivated] on 04/03/2018 - 18:00
      
      +1
      
      Most negative opinions (non-popular opinions) are substantiated (sometimes poorly articulated). The negative opinions that have no factual merit are censored. Some negative opinions however well substantiated have also been censored to prevent inflammatory posts. (Refer to condom re LGBT deals).
      
      If anything, this forum is a safe-space that doesn't represent actual widespread feelings towards said groups.
    - Autonomic on 04/03/2018 - 18:33
      
      @tshow: not sure what you mean. Are you saying the attitude of the average ozbargainer is actually worse than they appear re:LGBT individuals?
    - [Deactivated] on 04/03/2018 - 18:37
      
      +1
      
      @Autonomic:
      I think the non-vocal community are far more disapproving of recent social constructs (I'm being non specific to the list you've made).
    - Autonomic on 04/03/2018 - 18:49
      
      @tshow:
      
      To be honest that's quite a shame.
      
      The Ozbargain community (in non political contexts) are generally very positive and helpful. It's crazy to think that some would help with one hand and then write negative comments about them with the other.
    - [Deactivated] on 04/03/2018 - 19:09
      
      +1
      
      @Autonomic:
      Only a very small minority of OzBargain have negative opinions about anything (apart from bad deals).
      
      There are conflicting points of view but it is disingenuous to call a perspective you are not in agreement with a negative opinion.
      
      For example, you've posted in this thread and implied that OzBargain is right wing and being right wing is crazy. Now, if I'm pedantic, I'd say that is a negative opinion but let's move on. The issue being discussed is gun control and in this case some are proponents and some are opponents. Correct me if I'm wrong but you consider those opposed to gun control as having a negative opinion.
      
      With LGBT issues, most people here have nothing against LGBT but some hold religious views that homosexuality is a sin. The religion with the most extreme expression of homophobia so happens to be the religion you've outlined as being discriminated against.
      
      I don't think there is anything to shame here. Many of the views expressed here are in direct conflict with what I believe in but I am not going to condescend the entire netizen community here.
    - Autonomic on 04/03/2018 - 19:29
      
      @tshow:
      
      You have to admit highly upvoted comments are in some way representative of the communities opinion as a whole. Comparing transgender individuals to animals and being anti gay marriage I think are very clearly negative opinions.
      
      Just to clarify, I'm surprised at how right wing it is, which is different to saying ozbargain IS right wing.
      
      Also being anti gun control is not the same as supporting the NRA. You only have to see their recent
      
      Finally I think you're being disingenuous if you're implying the reason people are anti muslim on ozbargain is because they are anti LGBT.
    - [Deactivated] on 04/03/2018 - 19:53
      
      +2
      
      @Autonomic:
      Firstly, I've never mentioned a numerical correlation of being anti Muslim and LGBT. I pointed out the fact that Muslims are anti LBGT. So if you're pro Islam, you're anti LGBT since Islam does not tolerate LGBT. So by that logic (and I'm not saying it is logical, just going with the aforementioned flow) there is no way of getting away from being labelled negative.
      
      Now, the issue of gun control and the NRA, it doesn't matter. Whether we are debating gun control or the NRA, the point stands. Does supporting the side you are against mean that it is a negative opinion?
      
      And the comparison of LGBT to animals needs to be clarified here - the comparisons were to highlight that you cannot change your gender just as you cannot change your species. No one called a transgender person an animal (and if they did I'm sure it would be censored hence absent my knowledge).
      
      Lastly, I close the loop with anti-gay marriage and Islam. If I support gay marriage, I am surely going to disagree with Islam. If I am Muslim it would be blasphemy to bless a homosexual wedding. It seems the only option that does not end in a "negative opinion" is that I am not Muslim. So if I'm Muslim, do I need to be supportive of gay marriage?
    - Autonomic on 04/03/2018 - 20:13
      
      @tshow:
      
      You can't just reduce it to sides. If you are homophobic then that is by definition a negative opinion. As for whether they called transgender individuals animals or not, I'm not sure. If the comments were vitriolic enough that a mod had to specifically call them out, then it's beside the point. I also don't see how removing the comment means anything here either - someone still tried to make the comment.
      
      Again, the negative opinions of muslims on Ozb are not due to their opinion on LGBT. If someone says "I don't like Islam's opinion on LGBT issues" I would agree with them. However we both know that is not the reason people are anti-muslim both in general and Oz, I'm sure you agree. Secondly there are muslims that are LGBT and there are muslims that do support gay marriage or are indifferent to it.
      
      Christianity as a whole is anti-LGBT, but I definitely do not assume every christian I meet is anti-LGBT. I apply the same benefit of the doubt to muslims.
    - [Deactivated] on 04/03/2018 - 20:23
      
      +1
      
      @Autonomic:
      I will concede that anti-muslim semantics are not born of the LGBT issues alone however, it is strongly linked to Islam's intolerance in general (it has been quoted sufficiently, to death even).
      
      I never once said OzBargainers were homophobic. The only time I used that word was in relation to Islam.
      
      One can be anti-gay marriage without having to be homophobic. Marriage is a legal construct, being gay is a sexual preference. Gay people can be anti-gay marriage. Many young straight people are against marriage.
      
      So the two questions remain valid and unanswered.
      
      Does opposing the side you take on the gun-control/NRA issue make it a negative opinion?
      
      If I'm Muslim, do I need to be pro-gay marriage and in the process, blaspheme? (if I don't have to be pro-gay marriage, it means I have concession on religious ground)
    - Autonomic on 04/03/2018 - 21:02
      
      @tshow:
      
      Personally I've yet to hear an argument that's anti-gay marriage that's not borne of homophobia.
      
      For 1. I don't think I ever said either side of gun control holds a negative opinion.
      
      For 2. I'm not sure I understand the question. As I said in my previous comment, there are pro-gay marriage muslims, muslims that ARE gay and muslims that are indifferent. You can fall into either of those categories.
    - [Deactivated] on 04/03/2018 - 21:32
      
      +1
      
      @Autonomic:
      
      You implied that OzBargainers make a lot of negative opinions in a thread that's manifested a majority anti gun control sentiments. I'm using this as an example to substantiate my implication that you poll comments that conflict with your view as a negative comment.
      
      You cannot be Muslim (and let's not muddy the definition here. You have to practice Islam and pledge your faith. It's one of the five pillars) and be gay. To quote The Prophet (peace be upon him) said: If you find anyone doing as Lot’s people did, kill the one who does it, and the one to whom it is done (38:4447) there are no newer doctrines regarding the gays so by the rules of Quranic abrogation, this is the only interpretation. It is also evident that globally, most (if not all) non Muslim countries do not punish homosexuality. All ten of the countries that have a death penalty for homosexuality are Islamic states. I believe this should count for substantiation.
      
      Non homophobic argument against gay marriage
      
      Marriage was adopted by the government pre-contraceptive era. To be married meant to lay together, ergo child bearing. Any marriage benefits (which Australia has hardly any if any) would be to promote procreation and population growth. Today, there are no reasons to get married save religious reasons.
      
      If two people want to be together and commit for the duration of their life, which marriage is marred by high divorce rates anyway, these two people do not need a stranger from the governor's office to confirm this. If a relationship cannot survive without a piece of paper, no amount of bureaucratic celebration is going to help.
      
      The church (or any other religions) and state should be separate. If marriage does not support population growth any further, it is an outdated law. It can still exist ceremonially, and each religion is free to accept or decline marriage and any orientation of marriage just as every individual has the right to choose their faith.
      
      Governments should stay out of marriage altogether, straight and/or gay.
    - Autonomic on 04/03/2018 - 22:17
      
      @tshow:
      
      I was actually very explicit when I spoke about negative comments. Here is what I said (bold for emphasis):
      
      Many negative comments and attitudes towards gay/lesbians, transgender individuals and muslims, to name a few groups.
      
      Surely you agree LGBT muslims exist, as well as those who voted yes for gay marriage, as well as those who are indifferent to gay marriage? Doesn't that invalidate your argument? For another example, all religions obviously expressly forbid believing in other gods….yet inter-faith friendships, relationships and so on exist everywhere. Also I would like to add that there are plenty of christian countries that also have horrific laws regarding homosexuality. Not as bad as the death penalty…but 14+ years of imprisonment is not far behind.
      
      Your first argument against gay marriage isn't homophobic if you ban all non-child bearing couples. If you're infertile for whatever reason, or don't want to have children then you can't get married. If you're saying only religious couples get married, well I have news for you…
      
      Your other three arguments are about marriage in general so I don't see how they're reasons to oppose gay marriage specifically.
    - [Deactivated] on 04/03/2018 - 22:41
      
      +1
      
      @Autonomic:
      
      To quote you more completely
      "I'm not only talking about this thread, but over several that I've seen on OzB. Many negative comments and attitudes towards gay/lesbians, transgender individuals and muslims, to name a few groups".
      
      Very disingenuous to quote yourself out of context. The words omitted weighs heavily in your intent.
      
      A group calling themselves Muslim LGBT is as valid as the rape culture in colleges. One can claim something without it being true. I've just quoted Islamic text and law. There are 76 countries (actually fewer because a few do not have anti LGBT law in writing) and the overwhelming majority of these countries are official Islamic states. I think the Islamic holy book, their government and caliphate better represent their religion than a few LGBT ultra-fringe members.
      
      As for inter-faith friendships? That's exactly why people are anti-muslim because they don't believe a devout Muslim can hold a non-muslim to par with a muslim.
      
      I am not making multiple arguments with my last statement. There was the one. Government should stay out of the business of marriage. I didn't say only religious people get married. I said marriage should be kept ceremonially only and that religions that celebrate marriages are free to include or exempt any form of marriage they wish.
      
      It is an argument against gay marriage is it not? I'm saying all marriage should be removed from government. I'm not homophobic now as I am the one including gay-marriage as all marriage, you're saying it's not the same as marriage which is besides the point and homophobic at the same time.
      
      To prevent further derailment here, I'll summarize. I'm calling you out for being a bigot as you clearly stated (and attempted to later conceal) that you think a lot of OzBargainers make negative comments. I believe the negative comments are infact just views you disapprove.
    - Autonomic on 04/03/2018 - 23:02
      
      @tshow:
      
      Well to clarify I meant this and other threads are examples of how right wing ozbargain is. The negative comments (the next sentence) is still explicitly about the aforementioned groups.
      
      I would not call being against all marriages being against gay marriage. That's just semantics.
      
      I also personally know several muslims who have non muslim partners so no it's not forbidden.
    - [Deactivated] on 04/03/2018 - 23:07
      
      +1
      
      @Autonomic:
      Marriage between a Muslim and a non Muslim is strictly forbidden in Sharia law. I believe written law trumps analogy.
    - Autonomic on 05/03/2018 - 06:08
      
      @tshow: sorry but every muslim does not follow sharia law. It's not an analogy, it's reality. Muslim - non muslim marriages exist.
Andard on 04/03/2018 - 23:44

Take it easy on the tide pods op
djthornton on 09/03/2018 - 15:22

+1

Normally I would just steer clear of any engagement in this discussion but this particular misconception drives me up the wall. Firstly, let me say that the NRA literally has NOTHING to do with what happened in the recent Florida shooting. The extent of their involvement is that they supported the Junior Reserves Officer Training Core (JROTC) that the shooter attended which is actually a great program for young people wanting to join the military. Three JROTC members who were killed in the shooting were actually honoured with a ceremony and medals by the organisation.

Further, every single person in the NRA cares about kids getting shot. It’s literally the one thing everyone from every side of this debate can agree on: keep kids safe. Here’s where we get to the punch line:

The NRA is also not the reason that particular gun reform is vastly unpular. Gun reform is unpopular because there are over 300 million guns in the USA with the vast majority of people owning a gun. The left is proposing a full semi automatic weapon confiscation (more than 200 million guns) as was blatantly clear from the recent stacked town hall (https://www.google.com.au/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2018/02/22/p…). It’s not the NRA fighting back because they want children dead. It’s the NRA fighting back because their 6 million law abiding gun owners don’t want to have their guns taken away.

Another thing. The NRA is not a massively influential organisation because it is supposedly paying people off (which by the way is nonsense because it’s donations are significantly less to the Republican Party than say planned parenthood’s donations to the Clinton (4 million vs 1 million from the NRA to Trump according to opensecrets.org)… who has a political agenda again?). It is a massively influential organisation because these 6 million American gun owners believe strongly in supporting organisations which will uphold their second amendment rights. Not a single one of these mass shooters has been a member of the NRA, because the NRA upholds values of gun responsibility as much as the right to own a gun.

So in answer to your question, no, nobody should be “boycotting the NRA”. They haven’t done anything immoral or worthy of punishment here. Any propagandist ideas saying otherwise are simply not based on fact. That is the truth. If you do some research into the facts, not just what CNN is reporting, I think you’ll come to the same conclusions.

That being said. There does need to be reform in America in the mental health system, and the speed of due process to have someone’s gun removed. Further, the federal and local law enforcement systems failed on a colossal scale in the recent Florida shooting. Over 45 times the police were called to this kid’s house. He posted on social media, buzzfeed, YouTube, and other sites that he was going to be the next school shooter. The FBI was notified twice, and did not pursue the investigation. Sooo if you’re looking for someone to blame, how about the 4 members of the police department that stood outside the school while the shooting was happening, or the FBI who failed to do their jobs?

Happy to provide sources for any of these claims but a simple google search should yield you the same results.

Should We Boycott Amazon and FedEx?

Poll Options

Comments

New Forum Topics