• lobut
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    35
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    Just don’t mention assault rifle, you’ll trigger someone.

    (I got one!)

    • thecrotch@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      41
      ·
      8 months ago

      The best way to be taken seriously is to show how misinformed you are about the subject you’re pontificating on

      • Aaron@lemmy.nz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        26
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        8 months ago

        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.”

        • thecrotch@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          11
          arrow-down
          32
          ·
          8 months ago

          Assault rifles have been illegal since the 30s. You’re advocating a ban on something that’s already banned and has been for almost a hundred years. Do you see how stupid and unhelpful that is? Why should I take your issue seriously when you don’t seem to even understand it?

          • AmberPrince@lemmy.world
            cake
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            23
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            8 months ago

            Cool. You are successfully arguing semantics instead of considering the issue of getting less kids shot in school.

            • r3df0x ✡️✝☪️@7.62x54r.ru
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              5
              ·
              8 months ago

              I have a solution, but the capitalists will hate it because it will impact their sales. Pass common sense SSRI laws and prohibit minors from taking them. Make it harder for adults to be proscribed them. Investigate doctors who over proscribe them.

              • AmberPrince@lemmy.world
                cake
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                8
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                8 months ago

                At least you have a solution unlike the other guy. I disagree with it, but at least it is an actual proposed solution.

                • Nalivai@discuss.tchncs.de
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  7 months ago

                  Oh, in this case I have a solution too. We need to heavily regulate uses and distrubution of moon regolith. The solution is way better than that guy’s is, because there is not a lot of moon regolith available and it’s hard to get, so it will be very easy to achieve. Of course it has nothing to do with the problem, but neither is his

              • RedAggroBest@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                8 months ago

                What? How is making a class of antidepressants harder to get at all a gun control solution? What the hell am I missing here? Did everyone just see “common sense” and “laws” and forget to read the rest?

            • thecrotch@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              7
              arrow-down
              26
              ·
              8 months ago

              And you’re appealing to emotion instead of making any effort to understand and effectively solve the problem you have strong opinions about. You’re entitled to your opinions but if you don’t know what you’re talking about maybe shut up, you’re not doing anyone any favors being an uninformed loudmouth.

              • AmberPrince@lemmy.world
                cake
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                12
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                8 months ago

                You still haven’t discussed the actual issue of how to stop people from getting shot up by guns.

                  • irmoz@reddthat.com
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    7
                    arrow-down
                    2
                    ·
                    8 months ago

                    No you’re actually at step 0.2: “argue about the definitions of words used in describing the problem”.

              • Iceman@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                9
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                8 months ago

                How many school shootings have we had now? How could you not understand that kids geting shot is at the very core of the issue? You’re not calling out a fallacy here, you’re acting like a psychopath ignoring the issue.

                You bait yourself to get triggered by an obvious joke. You argue semantics even after being called out on it and don’t even know what an appeal to emotion is. Ever wonder if you’re the one that needs to stop typing for a bit? You come of as nothing but the uninformed loudmouth you ask to shut up.

                • thecrotch@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  arrow-down
                  11
                  ·
                  8 months ago

                  You’re probably right, why understand a problem when remaining ignorant and screaming loudly is so much more likely to solve it

          • Inktvip@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            8
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            8 months ago

            If they’re banned since the 30’s, how come I keep stumbling on YouTube content featuring them?

            Note, I’m not from the US, so an ‘assault rifle’ to me is everything that is listed in that category in video games.

            • Zoboomafoo@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              8 months ago

              If they’re banned since the 30’s, how come I keep stumbling on YouTube content featuring them?

              Banned isn’t the right word. Heavily regulated (for an American) would be closer. To purchase a full-auto weapon, you need to undergo a background investigation including getting fingerprinted and pay a $200 tax. The same process is required for purchasing or creating suppressors, short barreled rifles or shotguns, calibers above .50, and explosive weapons like grenades, missiles, etc.

              Manufacture of new legal-for-civilians machine guns was banned in the 1968 Gun Control Act, any legal ones you see on youtube or that you can rent at a range were manufactured before that bill. Because of the scarcity, they’re worth at minimum tens of thousands of dollars which is a greater financial barrier than the $200 stamp, roughly $4500 when the 1934 NFA bill was passed.

              No machine gun that’s gone through the above process has been used in a crime by a civilian not in law enforcement, and only a handful of crimes have been comitted with the other items covered by the act.

            • thecrotch@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              9
              arrow-down
              10
              ·
              8 months ago

              An assault rifle is full auto, or burst fire, a machine gun basically. That’s also the case in every video game I’ve played. You can own them if you get a special federal license, it’s expensive so there aren’t many out there. Guys will set up businesses charging people $50 to shoot one for a few minutes. That’s probably what you saw on YouTube. No mass shooting in recent history was done with an assault rifle.

              An assault weapon is an imaginary legal term created during the Clinton administration so it could look like they were doing something about gun violence. The awb defines assault weapons using superficial cosmetic items like a bayonete mount, a pistol grip, a flash suppressor, etc. The same gun with 2 of these is legal, 3 of them and suddenly it’s illegal despite no functional changes to the gun. Assault weapons and the assault weapon ban were idiotic ineffective political theater.

              Mass shootings are usually carried out with a semi-auto rifle, which means it automatically reloads the chamber and is ready to fire another round as fast as you can pull the trigger. The most popular one is the ar-15. It’s the standard semi-auto rifle, they’re everywhere because they’re cheap, common, and reliable. They show up in mass shootings because they’re so common, not because they’re necessarily dealer than any other semi auto rifle. The AR stands for “armalite rifle”. It’s the civilian version of the M-16 assault rifle.

              • SupraMario@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                7
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                8 months ago

                Also they sunset the AWB because it didn’t do shit…VA tech and Columbine happened during the AWB…it was shit legislation based off emotional dribble.

                  • SonOfSuns@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    4
                    ·
                    8 months ago

                    My understanding is that it was quite effective and no one reversed it, rather, the law was written to only be in effect for 10 years, then the law expired because Congress did not renew it. If someone has good sources on this though (it’s effectiveness, ineffectiveness, whatever), I’m very interested to read more about it.

                  • thecrotch@sh.itjust.works
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    8 months ago

                    Correlation is not causation. Read the AWB. There’s nothing in the bill that would prevent mass shootings.

                • thecrotch@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  3
                  ·
                  8 months ago

                  Yeah, it was feel good legislation, total stroke job. They could bring it back tomorrow and it wouldn’t do a damn thing.

            • thecrotch@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              6
              ·
              8 months ago

              The ban was strengthened in 1986. Assault rifles have been essentially illegal since the national firearms act of 1934. Assault rifles have been used in 0 recent mass shootings, and people on the internet screaming for an assault rifle ban to solve the problem of mass shootings are fucking idiots.

                • thecrotch@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  arrow-down
                  5
                  ·
                  8 months ago

                  Ok, introduce a bill to ban assault rifles. I’m sure it’ll be very effective and solve the mass shootings problem.

      • KepBen@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        Anybody looking for an excuse to stop taking somebody seriously was never going to.

        • thecrotch@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          8 months ago

          I don’t need an excuse. If they don’t have a clue what they’re talking about it’s a pretty easy decision.

      • FuglyDuck@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        7 months ago

        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.

      • Nalivai@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        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