• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    -261 year ago

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

    • Aaron
      link
      fedilink
      231 year 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.”

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        -211 year 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?

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          191 year ago

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

          • r3df0x ✡️✝☪️
            link
            fedilink
            01 year 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.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              71 year ago

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

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                3
                edit-2
                1 year 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

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              31 year 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?

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            -191 year 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.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              91 year ago

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

                • @[email protected]
                  link
                  fedilink
                  51 year ago

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

                  • @[email protected]
                    link
                    fedilink
                    -11 year ago

                    It’s really weird to me that you don’t seem to think that understanding what you’re asking for is important

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              61 year 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.

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                -71 year ago

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

                  • @[email protected]
                    link
                    fedilink
                    -21 year ago

                    I’m telling people that theyre only helping their opponent when they have strong opinions about an issue they don’t understand at all.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            -91 year ago

            OP sure did own me by laughably uninformed yet insufferably opinionated. Trump voters own me like that too.

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                -51 year ago

                It’s something that people who understand the issue do. People who scream about banning a thing that’s been illegal for 100 years are dipshits.

                  • @[email protected]
                    link
                    fedilink
                    11 year ago

                    If what is being discussed is assault rifles, those have been illegal since 1934. You’re right that it was effective, none of these mass shootings was perpetrated with an assault rifle.

                    Facts dont care about your feelings.

                    Really ironic statement considering I’m asking people to understand what it is they’re trying to ban and they’re coming back with WHO CARES CHILDREN ARE DYING

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          21 year 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.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            31 year 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.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            21 year ago

            There’s your problem, “video games” are not necessarily representative of reality.

            “Assault weapon” is a term invented by gun control activists to A) sound scary to drum up support and B) expand their bans to handguns.

            “Assault Rifle” is an actual term, where they got the idea, and the source of this intentional confusion caused by MDA and Everytown. Assault Rifles are defined as “A select fire rifle in an intermediate calibre intended for infantry use.” The bolded parts in the above definition mean the AR-15 is not in this catagory, as it is only semi-automatic (no select fire) and intended for civilian use, not infantry. The M4 and the M16 are both rifles that do fit the above definition, and the AR-15 is cosmetically similar, but the main function (the select/semi part) is different. In fact, civilians have not been able to own rifles that are select fire since 1986 (unless you have your Class III SOT, the permit required to own one, but for that you basically have to be building/selling them to mil and/or police).

            Video game devs aren’t necessarily known for being experts on guns, laws, etc, but to be fair to them, they don’t need to be, because video games aren’t real (sadly, as much as I would love to live in my Viva Pinata 1 garden I have had to come to terms with the imposibility of my dreams).

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            01 year 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.

                • @[email protected]
                  link
                  fedilink
                  41 year 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.

                • @[email protected]
                  link
                  fedilink
                  11 year ago

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

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                01 year ago

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

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          21 year ago

          (80s, but other than that you right.)

          Of course the reason they (those at “the top” of the gun ctrl debate, MDA, Everytown, etc) are trying to conflate select fire assault rifles and their visually similar but mechanically different civilian owned semi automatic rifles is because they want to slowly chip away at semiautomatics but it’s harder to drum up support from all but the most fervent with that position, so they pretend they’re select fire to trick people like those in these comment sections who don’t actually know how guns function, nor what any of those words mean, nor the gun control laws we already have, into banning them so then when absolutely fuck all changes except the 500/yr killed by rifles are now killed by pistols and they can say "see we tried the rigistry and whatnot and it did nothing, the jews are still commiting too much crime so turn in your guns or else we’ll round you up (sorry, errant Hitler quote about gun control, which he leveed against the jews yet expanded for his crews), so we have to ban it all.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            01 year 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.

            • r3df0x ✡️✝☪️
              link
              fedilink
              -11 year ago

              An AR-15 is still an assault rifle. It’s based on the assault rifle. Trying to hide that is just pandering to the anti gun side.

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                01 year ago

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

                  • @[email protected]
                    link
                    fedilink
                    21 year ago

                    Yeah, I’ve set back your progress in getting assault rifles banned, set it back all the way to 1934

                  • @[email protected]
                    link
                    fedilink
                    01 year ago

                    Tbf I’d argue that we’re atill arguing definitions because the anti crowd refuses to learn them, instead opting for “nuh uh.” If, instead, the antis would use the new information to say something like “ok fine, assault weapons is the wrong term, let’s use their term and say that has to be banned,” the conversation would progress. Of course, the pro side would still disagree, but at least then the argument wouldn’t be like

                    “so the definition of assault rifle requires it to be select fire, that was banned in 1986”

                    “nuh uh, it is an assault rifle cause I said so. Weapon of war.”

                    Instead it’d be something like

                    “All rifles are only responsible for 500/60,000 gun deaths for a rate of .2%, banning ARs solves nothing.”

                    “Yeah but they are cosmetically similar to the rifles the Military uses and I don’t like that.”

    • Encrypt-Keeper
      link
      fedilink
      English
      41 year ago

      Well the best way sure isn’t to use the word “pontificating” lmao

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        31 year 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.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      01 year 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

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        11 year ago

        Unless you know the bare minimum about the thing you want to outlaw, let the adults handle outlawing it.