Thanks for the help.
Thanks for the help.
365 comments
-
-
Pfft these kids don't even know what kind of guns they're being killed with...
-conservatives
-
-
My favorite from them is "define assault weapon." My definition is "who the fuck cares? Let's regulate all guns."
-
I feel like whoever first started bringing the term "assault weapon" to gun debates really killed the argument.
Admittedly, the only useful argument I've ever heard on the idea of grouping them has been the thought that they are purchased for their popularity and "coolness", eg based on their appearance in some movie or video game, not specifically for their practical use of any civil kind. And, people who buy guns with no practical purpose in mind for them (as opposed to say, a person holding a restraining order expecting to defend themself) are more likely to end up letting them into an unsafe situation (by theft, jadedness, or pure accidents)
Still - not a strong argument, and I'd prefer it if we focused on how guns are used, not how black and tacticool they are.
-
All guns after 1899 are regulated chief. How about we fix our society instead of trying to collect millions and millions of lawfully owned firearms.
Here we can start with
Singler payer healthcare
Ending the war on drugs
Ending for profit prisons
Paying teachers more
Making a living wage law
Building more schools and funding under funded schools in inner cities where 95% of the violence happens
Creating safety nets for all kids under 18, so they don't have to worry about where their next meal is coming from or where they're going to sleep.
While we're at it, let's get RCV and ban insider trading for Congress thrown in as well.
-
-
That's because legally speaking, it is not a machine gun.
Disbarring effectiveness from the conversation (although bumpfire is hilariously innacurate compared to true fully automatic fire), bumpfire also requires a degree of skill to actually pull off, even with a bump stock, as you have to manipulate the firearm in a way that it actually can continuously fire, something that would be very difficult to do in a stressful situation.
Bumpstocks also make semiautomatic fire much more difficult.
I should clarify that I'm not defending bumpstocks, I'm just saying that banning bumpstocks was a farce, especially since you can still bumpfire without them due to the existence of physics.
-
I would imagine bump stocks are actually less effective than regular aimed semiautomatic fire in just about every situation. That's why bans like this are pointless. People don't realize how fast a person can already shoot a semiautomatic rifle, while actually being able to properly aim at what they are trying to hit.
-
-
You can bump fire any gun without a bump stock or a trigger mechanism, on a lot of guns it's stupid easy and you can do it without experience. It doesn't turn it into a "fully automatic machine gun". Someone with barely any firearm experience can take any pistol or rifle and be shown how to bump fire within like a minute. It has nothing to do with accessories, although things like those can make it a little easier.
I'm a big advocate for better gun control, but what you're implying is just dishonest, even if unintentionally.
Posting that kind of stuff makes you sound like you have no idea what you're talking about (the way you worded it just sounds cringey) which makes people less inclined to be influenced by what you say, and hurts support of gun regulation by convincing witnesses that everybody who likes gun control is misinformed.
-
It's not semantics. When legislation is being written, it has to be very specific. If you can't even get the definition correct, how are you going to be expected to accurately write laws about it? It's even worse when the general population is pressuring their representatives to write laws on something they also know nothing about. There is a very clear distinction between semi-automatic and automatic. To say otherwise, you are absolutely clueless or intentionally being dishonest.
-
No. We just don't want people trying to ban things they don't have even a basic understanding of. When someone says "ban high capacity clipazines" it tells us they don't even know what they are talking about.
-
There is nothing wrong with being conversant in proper terminology.
"These people" aren't the only ones who play semantic games: if you have ever wondered, then been punched in the taint, about what any of the letters in lgbtqia+ mean you will understand how ridiculous people of any ideology get about using the "right words".
-
-
-
Ooooh, I thought it was THOTS and prayers. That one still makes more sense though
-
Mmm tater tots
-
Thots and players
-
-
-
"By hiding from the guy and not letting him shoot you, you're infringing on his 2nd amendment rights, so who's the real monster here? Ok bye"
-
Haven't we had many records of "good guys with a gun"
Who pull out their weapon and then either get shot by police who mistake them for the shooter or put it back because they can't tell what's going on in the chaos?
-
Well here's some, 1 or 2 of which the police did indeed do that but tbh at least some other people were saved if not the defender. At least he actually did kinda die a hero even if the cops are stupid and trigger happy (what else is new?)
https://crimeresearch.org/2023/08/cases-where-armed-citizens-have-stopped-active-shooter-incidents/
-
The percentage is incredibly small.
Out of nearly 560 mass shootings this year, we are looking at something ridiculous like less than 1% was a "good guy with a gun" that helped. And for some of those "good guy with a gun", they also end up dead from police shooting at them.
In other words, you're more likely to hope the shooter is struck by lightning.
-
This is why I never took the Republican Party seriously, even before the days when they came out as being domestic terrorists.
Anyone who is honestly more afraid of not having a gun than they are of not having a doctor, has the mindset of a 7-year-old who's Daddy just let him watch Die Hard.
-
Most of those "mass shootings" are gang violence, and when a shooter gets taken out by another shooter it's just part of the violence.
The mass shootings where the point is a massacre have a slightly better rate of "good guys with guns," but still admittedly not great.
It's completely irrelevant though, the point of the right to bear arms is so people can join a radical militia and help put down slave revolts, conquer land from the Indians, and fight tyranny, in the order of importance to the Founding Fathers.
-
-
I doubt more than a tiny percentage of people who carry do so specifically to stop mass shootings
-
-
Your cries for help are meaningless if you can't tell the difference smh
-
Judging by her educational history and political present day, I'm guessing she's not fond of being lectured or otherwise informed by anyone about anything.
-
They could call it a "fnorplgleek" for all I care.
Until they figure out how to prevent any and all fnorplgleeks from having the ability to injure, main, or kill another human being when the fnorplgleek operator wishes to harm you unlawfully, they can expend 100% of their thinkbox time figuring out how to do so. Like, pin their wetware CPU to working out a solution. Interconnect them Borg style.
If the response is "well no, not like that" then we recognize that it's a compromise that continues to put victims in front of said fnorplgleek operators.
brb getting a "Down with fnorplgleeks" t-shirt made
-
are "fnorplgleeks" pencils? because what you described sounds like a problem with pencils.
-
So you wouldn't care if the legislation was written to ban anything that has the potential to kill?
Guns, cars, knives, bleach, rope all could fall into that category. See how words have specific definitions and actually matter quite a bit? Especially when the law is concerned. Why do you think there's different categories of homicide? Do you think manslaughter and 1st degree murder should carry the same penalty?
-
-
Because knowing the names of things = knowing safety?
-
If it's trying to kill me then that is kind of more important than it being called or not called the Assualt Rifle 15
-
I would be concerned for your knowledge of gun safety if you didn't know this too. She's a lunatic, but she has a point.
-
This is just bullshit GOP deflection whenever someone calls it what it is.The AR in AR-15 may stand for Armalite, but an AR-15 is still an assault rifle.
The U.S. Army defines assault rifles as "short, compact, selective-fire weapons that fire a cartridge intermediate in power between submachine gun and rifle cartridges.
And
...examples of intermediate cartridges are the 7.92×33mm Kurz, the 7.62×39mm and 5.56×45mm NATO.
-
Wtf, no she doesn't?! I don't need to know the details of how guns are named to see the effects they have. It's like saying you can only criticize someone running over people with a car if you can name the manufacturer's home country, completely absurd.
-
"Well technically, the babies died because of gravity, not because I throw them out of the window." -throws_babies_out_of_windows
-
Why does knowing what AR stands for mean you understand gun safety? Do they have a corporate model vocabulary lesson in gun safety classes?
-
Imagine agreeing with Boebert. Yikes
-
-
-
Just don't mention assault rifle, you'll trigger someone.
(I got one!)
-
The best way to be taken seriously is to show how misinformed you are about the subject you're pontificating on
-
The people don't need to be taken seriously, the issue does. Arguing over semantics isn't helpful unless it's "Legislating against assault rifles won't do anything because that's not a thing. We need to ..." And the words after the ellipsis can't be "..do nothing."
-
Anybody looking for an excuse to stop taking somebody seriously was never going to.
-
Well the best way sure isn’t to use the word “pontificating” lmao
-
Lmfao dude you took that bait like a champ
-
Dude, an M-16 is an assault rifle.
The term comes from the military who wanted a lower calibration version of an M-14 (which was defined as a battle rifle. M14s are 7.62mm nato, m16s are 5.56mm nato)
The definition is a selective fire (semi auto, 3r burst, full auto, or whatever the preferred flavor is today,) chambered for an intermediate (5.56 nato) cartridge.
Assault weapon is the term that has no specific meaning, and is now used to refer to SBRs and other weapons based on or otherwise derived from the AR-15- more broadly any semi auto rifle with a large box magazine derived from a weapon meant for combat. (The 94 assault weapons ban followed the broader definition. More or less)
What ever you want to call them, AR derivatives need to be controlled. Especially SBRs.
-
Unless you know exactly all the specks of a weapon used to muder you, you aren't allowed to ask not to be murdered. It's that one simple trick that all murderers should remember
-
-
-
GOP: 💭 & 🙏
-
🧻
-
-
The GOP are a bunch of rinos who support the second amendment but.
They instantly support gun control the moment a group they don't like gets interested in guns.
-
When have they supported gun control? I keep hearing them say things like "gays with guns don't get bashed" and "firepower is empowering".
-
Panthers
-
After the mass shooting by a "trans" shooter, they all started coming out of the woodwork to make transphobic anti gun talking points.
-
The only one I know is the mulford act signed in by then gov Reagan
-
Just wait, when gays start forming armed militias like the proud boys, they'll change up their rhetoric real quick.
-
-
-
Thots and Prayers!!!! Ok!!!
-
They got the thots! Have you seen Lauren's Boberts?
-
-
I take your point loud and clear.
Aside:
It is worth being conversant and properly educated about the things that are important to you if you want to engage meaningfully with people who disagree. That means knowing the vocab, syntax, and lingo.
For example, if you hate manga / anime / Japanese character retardation like I do, it's worth knowing the difference to tell people it's stupid on their own terms.
-
So I have to read Mein Kampf to tell people Hitler's ideas were terrible?
-
No, but if you say something like "if we would have just shot all those communists like hitler after world war 1 things would have been a lot better" people arent going to listen to anything else you have to say.
-
No, but you ought to know what some of the ideas were; conversant does not mean expert. It's only really necessary to use the right vocabulary if you want to change any minds, but it's STILL better not to use words that are actively incorrect (and are also painfully simple and germain to the discussion).
If the point is just to be loud and obnoxious for people who already superficially agree with you, by all means, throw all this out: you can just be really mad about Hitler's treatment of Jews in focus camps while he was the leader of Poland.
-
do you want to engage meaningfully with hitler?
-
-
-
I know so many people who think they are helping by critiquing like this when they are not. And also expect a “thank you” for their destructive distraction. If there were a hell I hope they are the first to burn or freeze in it.
-
We need the linux neckbeard copypasta but for guns.
-
In this case I do think it’s a good response. Both sides have a boogeyman, but it’s time for The Final Nightmare. This time, Freddie’s dead. Or wait, maybe we want to avoid little Freddie being dead. My point is, many are intentionally talking at cross purposes, using loaded terms to invoke rage at their target rather than actually discuss what’s in their crosshairs. Someone needs to smack their hands with a ruler until they grow up.
While we do need a better way to limit the violence people commit with firearms, I have no better idea how but I know it starts with actually talking, using the same vocabulary, facing the same reality, finding goals we can agree on.
-
It starts by making your country better. More like in Europe here. It's like the US actively goes out of its way to punish people who weren't born with a silver spoon up their ass. The way the American systems work seem to me to be actively toxic to a regular person's mental health.
So you have a country full of a large population of people getting mentally damaged from unnecessary and avoidable stress in life... And THEN there are also loads of guns.
"But most gun deaths are from people using pistols to commit suicide" gee I wonder if that doesn't mean something, hmmm?
-
-
-
This is who we are.
A garbage, labor camp of a country filled with selfish people who'd literally rather have the option to buy whatever they want than protect children from a continuous stream of violent death, when they aren't calling to further defund their schools to cut the taxes an actual society would require to function.
Oh, but I better root for the home team like its a fucking game, amirite? At this point, I'm rooting for climate change, AI, and all our other for profit monuments to greed to eat us and wipe the board clean.
-
-
The point of the right to bear arms is to have some defense against an oppressive government if needed.
-
-
Want to get Republicans to jump on gun control? Just have minorities show up exercising their right to bear arms.
Ask Reagan.
-
Yes it is, but you do you and your history changing...gun control is rooted in racism btw.
-
Yes it is.
Historians could only "uncover" this reason because it's buried under the actual reasons. All the rationale behind the constitutional amendments was highly documented at the time, public, and easily accessed and referenced.
-
-
-
-
-
Too real. I don't know how internet gun nuts have yelled at me that assault rifles aren't real and the media invented it.
-
Assault rifle means something, and there are very few of them in civilian hands, and they are (almost?) never used in crimes because they're so hard to get already. Making them harder to get would accomplish nothing. Assault weapon is the made-up term that is based more on looks than function.
-
-
Spot on
-
This is why you should have bought and practiced with a weapon for self defense.
Because if the bad guy is in your house, the police are too far away to be helpful.
-
Yeah, those kids at Uvalde should have had weapons training.
-
-
365 comments
“Also, there is no way that the gun was a part of this crime! Guns don’t kill people. Only the mentally unstable people we goad into mass shootings with the weapons and ammo we sell them kill people.”
Weapons, ammo, and an ideology built on hatred.
Most mass shooters are right-wing nutjobs.
"extremists"
To play devil's advocate (and weather the downvotes for doing so), alcohol doesn't drive drunk, and most people who use it do so responsibly.
If a bunch of peeps who don't drink wanted to stop drunk driving, they would see the best solution as just banning alcohol. Its a simple solution and makes sense. Nations like saudi arabia have banned alcohol and have significantly less drunk driving incidents. It wouldnt make sense to them why so many people would resist such a simple and proven solution. If they won't ban it all then atleast ban the liquor, etc.
Meanwhile the people who drink responsibly wouldnt want to have to give up drinking just because a few idiots drive drunk. They would see the best solution as finding ways to stop people from choosing (or being able) to drive drunk, while still allowing themselves to use it responsibly, but that is a much harder thing to do.
Maybe we should have licensing and registration requirements for guns like we do cars... nobody on the "guns aren't the problem" side of the argument is ok with anything like that either.
Of course, it's illegal to buy alcohol under 21, and it's illegal for someone to sell it to you if you're obviously impaired. We have some restrictions about it.
I like your analogy. I'm just trying to refactor based on the NotJustBikes mindset of a well-developed city that has little to no requirement for driving a powered vehicle.
"Drunk person riding their bicycle into the canal and drowning" doesn't quite have the same impact.
That said, the Venn diagram of countries with cities designed primarily around car usage vs the countries with a serious gun abuse problem seems to intersect with just one country. So your analogy still stands.
Worst part about this shitty argument is that if they believe it’s a mental health issue then why are they so adamant about slashing spending for mental health programs and treatment 🤔
Guns don't kill people, the government does!