• @paprika
    link
    58
    edit-2
    7 months ago

    deleted by creator

    • Flying SquidOP
      link
      fedilink
      228 months ago

      My favorite from them is “define assault weapon.” My definition is “who the fuck cares? Let’s regulate all guns.”

      • @Katana314@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        148 months ago

        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.

        • @Zoboomafoo@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          3
          edit-2
          8 months ago

          I feel like whoever first started bringing the term “assault weapon” to gun debates really killed the argument

          That would be the pro gun control side. They wanted to conflate assault rifles as in the actual military rifles, and the downgraded civilian semi-auto rifles. The distinction is important, look up the process it takes to purchase a machine gun in the US sometimes. They deliberately want a culture of ignorance around guns, because the goal is total disarmament, not effective regulation.

          You can see the result in this thread and others. People will claim that someone can just walk into a Walmart and buy a machine gun. Politicians talk about banning “fully semi auto assault weapons”. The OP image and plenty of comments here mock the idea that someone should expect a base amount of knowledge in the subject before proposing new laws. Someone trying to define proposed regulation or correct a mistaken assumption about current laws is branded an “Ammosexual”.

          • @Katana314@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            18 months ago

            I’d kindly ask you not to put words in my mouth. I am pro gun control. I am not pro total disarmament - logically, such a thing isn’t even at all practical, especially because it isn’t achieved in any of the countries we use for comparisons about “what works”.

            People are constantly misinformed about tons of issues across the world, including journalists. Take your blame to them. Don’t use it as an illogical thread to make a different point.

      • @SupraMario@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        -88 months ago

        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.

          • @SupraMario@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            -28 months ago

            You’re the one who acts like more laws will stop these shootings. They’re not even enforcing the ones on the books…at the end of the day, you either tell the truth and have the military go door to door and round up the firearms, causing a civil war or you put in more feel good laws about firearms you think look scary.

            • @hansl@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              38 months ago

              Or you do a gun buyback program like Australia did. Then make firearms illegal without a license and a reason.

              Then, like all other first world countries, you literally see murder plummeting.

              • @SupraMario@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                38 months ago

                Australia has around 1mil firearms in private hands…had a 60% turn in rate, and never had the murder rate we do anyways. If 60% of the USA turned in the firearms, you’d be left with over 100 million still out there.

                • @hansl@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  38 months ago

                  It’s going to take 20-40 years to get into a comparable state to other first world countries. The difference is whether we start now or in 30 years. If we start in 30 years, it will take 50-70 years.

                  • @SupraMario@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    38 months ago

                    No it would not, it would take hundreds of years a potential millions of lives, because you just started a civil war…and you’re not going to like who the military sides with.

        • Lemminary
          link
          fedilink
          16
          edit-2
          8 months ago

          I don’t think a single one of the things you said would help curb gun violence or even school shootings at all. Your list is nice for everything else but how about addressing the glorification of guns and the shooters in the media? Maybe regulate the incitement of violence online and in the political discourse? How about blocking the radicalization of young men via dangerous conservative rhetoric online, eg. YouTube? Handle cases of bullying that go actively overlooked? Maybe intervene in child abuse and provide help for teenagers with poor mental health who feel ostracized? And the most important of all, block the easy access to these damn guns?

          I bet someone better educated on this topic could come up with a better list. But my point is that you’re dying on this tired hill of “it’s not the guns” in this thread but you’re failing to hit the nail on the head on everything else while being condescending towards everyone else:

          stupid fudd sheep dog

          Because you’re not even interested in addressing the real issue (and fail to provide a reasonable, insightful solution) so long as nobody’s touching the damn guns. What you’re doing is akin to whataboutism. What the heck does insider trading in Congress have to do with anything?

          • @SupraMario@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            -38 months ago

            I don’t think a single one of the things you said would help curb gun violence or even school shootings at all.

            Most “school” shootings are drug and gang related in inner cities, with handguns. Rifles are very rarely used, hell, they’re very rarely used in murders in general. Most of our gun homicides are from gangs and drugs, not from random shootings. Ending the cycle of locking up drug users and keeping drugs illegal which is a major source of income for these gangs would start curbing the violence over night. Making sure kids have safety nets to go to and not gangs also would stop the flow of new members to gangs.

            Your list is nice for everything else but how about addressing the glorification of guns and the shooters in the media?

            How do you plan on doing that? You going to ban violence in movies and video games? Or ban rap/rock music? You going to ban the press from reporting on murders?

            Maybe regulate the incitement of violence online and in the political discourse?

            Uhh again how do you plan on doing this? You going to setup a great wall just like china has and enforce it via draconian police?

            How about blocking the radicalization of young men via dangerous conservative rhetoric online, eg. YouTube?

            Apparently you think only white christian male Republicans shoot people…

            Handle cases of bullying that go actively overlooked?

            Sure, I’m game for that, but I’d be covered with more funding so we have smaller classes…like I said above

            Maybe intervene in child abuse and provide help for teenagers with poor mental health who feel ostracized?

            Yea…I said that…safety nets for anyone under 18…

            And the most important of all, block the easy access to these damn guns?

            And how do you plan on doing that? Most guns used in crime are not purchased legally.

            I bet someone better educated on this topic could come up with a better list. But my point is that you’re dying on this tired hill of “it’s not the guns” in this thread but you’re failing to hit the nail on the head on everything else while being condescending towards everyone else:

            I’m being condescending because the mass majority of people who want gun control, have no clue about A) the current laws and B) what our gun violence actually comes from. You clearly have shown you don’t know in this very post.

            Because you’re not even interested in addressing the real issue (and fail to provide a reasonable, insightful solution)

            I mean I did provide solutions that would actually do something, or society is broken, removing a plastic rifle that scares you, isn’t going to solve it.

            so long as nobody’s touching the damn guns.

            Pandoras box was opened, and you’re not going to close it without causing a civil war. Taking rifles that make up a rounding error in the deaths each year is pants on head stupid. Because at the end of the day, you’re not wanting to stop the deaths, you’re wanting to get rid of something that scares you.

            What you’re doing is akin to whataboutism. What the heck does insider trading in Congress have to do with anything?

            I mean it’s not but ok…insider trading is where a lot of Congress gets their money, cut the flow means you cut their power and it means you’re less likely to have greedy fucks who aren’t in it to better society running the nation.

            • @Katana314@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              48 months ago

              I think the one part I agree with is the rifles vs handguns debate. In spite of their prominence in mass shootings, I think the thing we need to regulate more is handguns, not rifles. They’re used for concealed carry - for bringing death to another person’s home. Shotguns and rifles are more than adequate for home defense or hunting, and they’re much less practical to steal or transport.

              I think it was Australia that even restricted personal gun purchases to that category of weapon.

        • Captain Howdy
          link
          fedilink
          98 months ago

          Wait, what?!? Nuance? GTFO of my guns bad echo chamber with your actually achievable solutions that I would normally otherwise support wholeheartedly!

        • @havokdj@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          58 months ago

          Because fix society hard, blame gunz instead.

          It’s ironic because guns at the end of the day are a tool to enact the will of it’s user. Take the gun away, and you still have a problem to face.

          All that guy is gonna do is find a gun illegally or something else to do what it is he is going to do. Mass shooters will steal box vans, people will go on knife stabbing sprees, police will become more oppressive as they have nothing to fear from the people anymore.

          It’s funny that I tell people this all the time. I would say I lean more toward the left, but liberals think that if you aren’t 100% a liberal, you’re a conservative, and that’s why we will never experience the change we need to see in this country.

          • @SupraMario@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            4
            edit-2
            8 months ago

            Always said, if the Dems ever want to control the gov. For a long time, just drop gun control and be in support of firearm rights. They’d wreck every election.

    • @havokdj@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      118 months ago

      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.

    • @force@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      9
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      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.

      • @Djtecha@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        38 months ago

        Then you’ll have no issue with banning bumpstocks then eh? And other mechanisms that move this from skill based to technology based?

        • @aidan@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          -128 months ago

          No. Because the whole point of guns is to equalize people regardless of skill. Normal people can’t spend their lives training, terrorists can.

          • @matter@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            128 months ago

            “Everyone can kill people regardless of skill” seems much worse than 'only highly skilled people can". None of these shooters ever “spent their life training”.

          • @Djtecha@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            -28 months ago

            Look man, I just want less gun violence in this country. And my solution is to ban guns. If you have a better idea I’m all ears.

              • @Djtecha@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                17 months ago

                These aren’t actual solutions. Taking aways all guns is a concrete step. We need concrete steps from the gun loving crowd.

            • @aidan@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              38 months ago

              It’s pretty easy to get guns in my country yet there’s still not much gun violence. Similarly a lot of the states with the most lax gun laws in the US have the least gun violence.

        • @SupraMario@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          98 months ago

          “I don’t care about guns deaths, just the guns that scare me the most”.

          Implying that a revolver isn’t used in crime to kill people is hilariously misinformed ignorance. More people every year are killed by revolvers, than a plastic semi auto rifle.

    • @SpezBroughtMeHere@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      78 months ago

      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.

    • @FluorideMind@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      58 months ago

      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.

      • @PersnickityPenguin@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        -38 months ago

        But it’s irrelevant, people just don’t want violent murderers to have the ability to fire large volumes of bullets at them first thing in the morning.

        FFS, let us get a cup of coffee first!

        • @FluorideMind@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          -18 months ago

          If you really feel so strongly about it, you would educate yourselves the small amount required to even talk about what you’re trying to ban.

          • @Jeremyward@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            18 months ago

            I would be for a ban of semi auto weapons period. Bolt action is more than good enough for hunting or target shooting, heck even home defence, a shotgun is pump action but still highly effective.

          • @Jyek@lemmynsfw.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            08 months ago

            Then how about in instances where it is unlikely for the vast majority of people in one of the most populated countries in the world to learn about something like guns and how they work, we just have a registry of firearms that are approved for use in the US. Manufacturers can form fill and submit new equipment to be on that list legalizing them to be sold to the public through authorized dealers and then we don’t ever have to worry about the broad sweeping bans on weapons that probably shouldn’t have been in the hands of the aforementioned underqualified, less than educated civilians. Especially in cases where those civilians may intend to do harm to other, less than educated civilians.

            It should not be a requirement that I know how a weapon works to fear harm from that weapon. I should not have to know the difference between the pomel and the guard of a sword to be allowed to fear being cut apart by one. Telling people to educate themselves does nothing for your argument. All you are saying is “I’m smarter than you and you’re wrong.” And that’s just not helpful in cases where regardless of one’s education on the matter of guns, we still hold different views on which guns people should be allowed to carry.

            I do not care if it’s a clip or a magazine or if it’s bump-fire or fully automatic or machine automatic. You know the intention of people’s words when they are concerned about these matters and want legal restrictions put in place. It should not be accessible to civilians to fire 10s of bullets a second.

            Preventing mass shootings from happening is a matter of restricted and monitored access. There are hundreds of countries where gun violence is a non-issue. Why is it an issue here? How do we be more like countries where it is not an issue? What steps can we take to not fear for our lives? I don’t like having to look over my shoulder when I go out.