• Semi-Hemi-Demigod@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    18
    arrow-down
    12
    ·
    1 year ago

    Loves me a good gun pedantry thread. As if the kids aren’t just as dead from “not an assault rifle.”

    Threads like this are why we’ll always have this problem. God bless America.

    • agent_flounder@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      As if the kids aren’t just as dead from “not an assault rifle.”

      Totally agree. I think the focus on a particular type of firearm is a distraction.

      Because many of the things people cite as a reason to ban “assault weapons” are shared by many other firearms.

      Many other rifle rounds are at least as powerful as the 5.56 NATO (in terms of delivered energy). Plenty of firearms can be loaded with 30 round magazines (even Glock pistols). And it’s moot anyway because magazine changes are quick and easy. Pistol grips exist on some firearms (and all, you know, pistols) not that a rifle grip isn’t entirely functional also. Nearly all modern firearms designs are semi-automatic. One shot per trigger pull, no action needed to chamber a round (versus lever action, bolt action, pump action, etc). Automatic weapons have been tightly controlled since the 1968 federal firearms act.

      So let’s all be honest with ourselves whatever side of this discussion we are on. It isn’t really about the AR-15 or “assault rifles”. If you want to ban or further restrict access to that style of weapon because of its capabilities in the hands of a nutjob, and you want to make an effective policy, you are really going to need to ban or restrict access to all firearms. Some already know this. The ones arguing against a particular type, I think, don’t.

      And since there are so many firearms already owned by Americans, the only way for the policy to be truly effective is getting guns out of people’s hands, nationwide, via a combination of buy-back or confiscation.

      There are still arguments for or against. Whatever. But let’s not argue as if assault rifles are magic. They’re more or less as deadly as any firearm.

    • spaceghoti@lemmy.oneOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      1 year ago

      Clearly, the freedom to own and shoot a gun overrides the freedom to live and breathe. And that’s before we start tracking all the gun-related injuries that don’t end in death.

          • Garbanzo@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            What are you trying to point out with your link? All I’m seeing is more guns = more homicide, but it seems like your point was that guns are not effective self defense tools and I’m not seeing the connection.

            • spaceghoti@lemmy.oneOP
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              8
              arrow-down
              7
              ·
              1 year ago

              https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2759797/

              Objectives. We investigated the possible relationship between being shot in an assault and possession of a gun at the time.

              Methods. We enrolled 677 case participants that had been shot in an assault and 684 population-based control participants within Philadelphia, PA, from 2003 to 2006. We adjusted odds ratios for confounding variables.

              Results. After adjustment, individuals in possession of a gun were 4.46 (P < .05) times more likely to be shot in an assault than those not in possession. Among gun assaults where the victim had at least some chance to resist, this adjusted odds ratio increased to 5.45 (P < .05).

              Conclusions. On average, guns did not protect those who possessed them from being shot in an assault. Although successful defensive gun uses occur each year, the probability of success may be low for civilian gun users in urban areas. Such users should reconsider their possession of guns or, at least, understand that regular possession necessitates careful safety countermeasures.

              Is that clear enough for you? Possessing a gun for self defense increases the chances that you or your loved ones will be hurt in the act of defending yourself. The mere presence of a gun creates an escalation of violence during confrontations, regardless of whether or not the justification is “self defense.”

              • agent_flounder@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                That’s an interesting study. I didn’t reply to the earlier post as I wanted to get a chance to review and think on it more. Appreciate the added clarity here.

              • Garbanzo@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                5
                ·
                1 year ago

                It’s clear that you’ll move the goal posts and pull out something new when someone points out your flawed argument. Stop trying to do your side favors and the debate might have a snowball’s chance.

                • spaceghoti@lemmy.oneOP
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  arrow-down
                  4
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  I’m sorry. Does offering clear, reliable sources to prove my point offend you? That sounds positively horrible for you. How about a hug?

                  • Garbanzo@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    arrow-down
                    3
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    clear, reliable sources to prove my point

                    Did you forget the part where you supplied a link to sources that didn’t relate to the point you were making?