CitiBank to Dictate to Merchants the Age at Which Customers Can Buy Guns

[Lexicus]

That doesn't jive with your earlier statements though about your belief that no one should have guns.

Well, that's why I said it would be a good starting point.

Yeah it does. Lexicus thinks everyone is a psychopath.

"You mean the person most likely to shoot me is myself? I can't let that happen..." *shoots self*

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Merchants are assigned "merchant codes". Your bank can't tell specifically what is getting purchased, but they can tell that it's a grocery store purchase, gasoline store purchase, entertainment purchase, travel purchase, etc. It's how they're able to give tiered reward categories for different purchases, or allow redemption only for specific categories.

AFAIK, there's no "gun store" (or anything comparable) category.

re: credit cards & liquor - credit cards can't be legally obtained here without being age of majority, so I'd say liquor salespeople should have a stronger argument, since a minor can't actually use a credit card to purchase liquor without performing credit card fraud in the first place.

That's there. I had credit cards when I was 19. I lived at the time in a state where the drinking age was 18, but I routinely traveled to a state where it was 21.

And, wait, what? Canadians can't get a credit card until they are 21? What's up with that?

 

[Zelig]

That's there. I had credit cards when I was 19. I lived at the time in a state where the drinking age was 18, but I routinely traveled to a state where it was 21.

And, wait, what? Canadians can't get a credit card until they are 21? What's up with that?

Age of majority is 18 for federal laws. Provincial laws (which cover drinking age and credit cards, among other things) are either 18 or 19. (Some of the 19-year provinces have a specific exemption for allowing 18 year-olds to vote, keeping that in line with the feds.)

I guess only the 18 AoM provinces would be able to screen liquor purchases based on credit cards. (Although Google says you can actually authorize your kids with secondary credit cards... which my parents certainly never offered to do.)

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Age of majority is 18 for federal laws. Provincial laws (which cover drinking age and credit cards, among other things) are either 18 or 19. (Some of the 19-year provinces have a specific exemption for allowing 18 year-olds to vote, keeping that in line with the feds.)

I guess only the 18 AoM provinces would be able to screen liquor purchases based on credit cards. (Although Google says you can actually authorize your kids with secondary credit cards... which my parents certainly never offered to do.)

Even if they can screen by merchant code a credit card handler still can't flag a liquor purchase. Assuming that a "liquor store" has an actual "liquor store" code and not a "sundry small retailer" code (which seems more likely), there are things besides liquor that can be purchased at a liquor store. So tagging a young adult's credit card with a "can't be used at liquor stores" tag would be way out of line.

 

[Lemon Merchant]

At a Canadian liquor store, about all you can buy is liquor.

 

[Synobun]

At a Canadian liquor store, about all you can buy is liquor.

Yeah, I was about to say this. Liquor is more controlled here than it is south of the border. I've never been in a liquor store that had anything besides alcohol.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Canada is just weird. It's almost like it was a foreign country or something.

 

[Zelig]

Even if they can screen by merchant code a credit card handler still can't flag a liquor purchase. Assuming that a "liquor store" has an actual "liquor store" code and not a "sundry small retailer" code (which seems more likely), there are things besides liquor that can be purchased at a liquor store. So tagging a young adult's credit card with a "can't be used at liquor stores" tag would be way out of line.

Yeah, I was just saying that if you could count on only adults (or fraudsters) having credit cards, then if someone is paying with a credit card, then regular anti-fraud techniques that a retailer employs should be enough indication that they're an adult.

re: non-liquor purchases, in most provinces, minors aren't actually allowed in liquor stores unless they're accompanied by a parent/guardian anyway.

Merchant codes aren't reliable anyway. My normal liquor store comes up as "grocery store" because it shares the code with the retailer's grocery store across the parking lot. Liquor stores by the same retailer that aren't "attached" to a grocery store come up as "misc retail" (or somesuch).

 

[Berzerker]

Who do you think is going to invade your home?

A criminal... Its happened before.

This is kind of the crux of the matter here. You have to sort of be the kind of person who is quite ready to kill for the whole "gun defense" thing to work, and people who are quite ready to kill are actually the last people I want having guns...

Then how do you propose deterring criminals if the people most qualified to deter them cant because you banned guns? Are cops on your list of people who shouldn't have guns?

If you have a gun, your child is 40 times more likely to be on the receiving end of it than the person breaking into your house.

I'll take that under advisement if a child is living here, but I suspect you're way off on that stat. Whoever made it probably didn't count all the criminals who were deterred by gun owners, true? If you're a burglar would you invade the home of a gun owner, a large dog owner, or someone who is much more defenseless? If you made the mistake of invading the 1st home you wouldn't hang around long at the first sign of an armed homeowner present.

No, it really isn't. That's your fantasy world at play again right there. Ask anyone who has been a victim or witness to a crime. The "I can't believe this is happening" response (which is really a LACK of response) gives the criminal, who not only believes it but prepared for it, an insurmountable advantage. No gun can change that. If the criminal brings a hammer and murderous intent the homeowner with a gun and a fantasy gets clubbed with the hammer just like anybody else. The sellers of guns will refuse to accept that up to and beyond their dying breath, but it's the truth.

Criminals are deterred by gun owners every day in this country, some even end up dead or in the hospital with a hole in them. Weren't you just bragging about how you dont need no stinking gun to deal with a home invasion because you have a hammer? But now you'd become a befuddled victim if you had a gun instead? The home invader may have the element of surprise but the victim has the home field advantage - they know their house and they can lie in wait for the criminal.

You guys brought up Zimmerman, he wasn't even a homeowner, he got sucker punched and beat up and still shot his attacker. So much for insurmountable advantages...

If guns were banned fewer people would die, the law abiding wouldn't have any and criminals would have fewer guns. And the weak will need some other weapon to give them a fighting chance.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Criminals are deterred by gun owners every day in this country, some even end up dead or in the hospital with a hole in them. Weren't you just bragging about how you dont need no stinking gun to deal with a home invasion because you have a hammer? But now you'd become a befuddled victim if you had a gun instead? The home invader may have the element of surprise but the victim has the home field advantage - they know their house and they can lie in wait for the criminal.

You guys brought up Zimmerman, he wasn't even a homeowner, he got sucker punched and beat up and still shot his attacker. So much for insurmountable advantages...

If guns were banned fewer people would die, the law abiding wouldn't have any and criminals would have fewer guns. And the weak will need some other weapon to give them a fighting chance.

Well, your continuing descent into fantasy coupled with the constant misrepresentations of what I said has become annoying, so I guess the only reasonable response here is ...ummm...no, can't say that...or that...or that...guess nothing appropriate is allowed.

 

[Berzerker]

the reasonable response would be showing my error

 

[Timsup2nothin]

the reasonable response would be showing my error

Tried that. You refused to abandon your fantasy and go hit someone with a hammer. You also refuse to see your obvious errors no matter how deeply your nose is rubbed in them.

 

[Commodore]

A criminal... Its happened before.

Yeah, but what you fail to see is that since it has never actually happened to Lexicus, then in his mind it never happens at all to anyone.

 

[Lexicus]

Are cops on your list of people who shouldn't have guns?

Very much so

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Yeah, but what you fail to see is that since it has never actually happened to Lexicus, then in his mind it never happens at all to anyone.

Actually, the problem is that for every ONE that it happens to there are SEVERAL kids shooting their sibling, parent, or playmate; person thinking their spouse or child or neighbor is a prowler and shooting them, idiot shooting themselves, etc etc etc. So the entire "safety in guns" argument leaks in every direction.

 

[Commodore]

So the entire "safety in guns" argument leaks in every direction

Only in the strawman way you present the argument. In realty, there are very few gun owners who rely on their firearm as the primary means of home defense. Most people who decide to buy a firearm for home defense also take other measures to deter criminals from attempting to break in, with the firearm being a last resort for when every other deterrent has failed.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Only in the strawman way you present the argument. In realty, there are very few gun owners who rely on their firearm as the primary means of home defense. Most people who decide to buy a firearm for home defense also take other measures to deter criminals from attempting to break in, with the firearm being a last resort for when every other deterrent has failed.

I call BS on this. If "every other deterrent has failed" then you are dealing with a supremely determined invader, which means the gun isn't going to help. If they looked at your dog, your over engineered locks, your perimeter surveillance, and your concertina wire, and did not say "yeah, maybe the neighbors" then they aren't some passing burglar, they are coming for YOU. And they are gonna come prepared, and they are gonna get you.

The "primary means of home defense" is pretty simple. It's called the odds.

 

[Bugfatty300]

Actually, the problem is that for every ONE that it happens to there are SEVERAL kids shooting their sibling, parent, or playmate; person thinking their spouse or child or neighbor is a prowler and shooting them, idiot shooting themselves, etc etc etc.

They should be more careful.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

They should be more careful.

Sure, but they aren't. Statistics collected basically for as long as there have been guns demonstrate that more than adequately. So the solution is obviously not "well just keep on keepin' on and expect that they will be more careful."

 

[Bugfatty300]

Sure, but they aren't. Statistics collected basically for as long as there have been guns demonstrate that more than adequately. So the solution is obviously not "well just keep on keepin' on and expect that they will be more careful."

The fatal accident rate per gun owner is actually extremely low. Non-fatal incidents are a lot more frequent but still relatively rare compared to other stuff people do like sports, etc.