Ask Lemmy
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com.
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
6) No US Politics.
Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world or !askusa@discuss.online
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
view the rest of the comments
I agree, take the word gun out of an argument and replace it with car or tool, something common.
If the argument no longer makes sense, neither does the argument.
The difference is that guns have only one purpose.
People can get hurt during an accident while using a tool, but for a gun, something gets hurt every time it's used as intended.
I don't think we should be using power tool regulations for guns.
A gun can be used in defense. I don't understand the want to remove the one thing that gives you a chance at survival, while a literal fascist is in power right now....one that just built a concentration camp and sells merchandise to it like it's funny...guns are dangerous, but they're the only thing that equalizes everyone when force comes into play.
This is fucking idiotic.
Are you not aware that the government has bigger, better, and more autonomous guns than you do?
Tell that to the people of Vietnam/Iraq/Afghanistan...those bigger guns cannot patrol a street corner. Occupation requires soldiers.
You know how you change the people who support you into rebels? Bomb the house right next to theirs and kill a few of them as well as the rebels.
Lmao, you think they were fighting back with 9mm pistols that they carried to Walmart to feel tough?
Bruh those armies fought back with conventional military guns and mixtures of conventional military explosives and IEDs.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War_casualties
Afghanistan is the same thing....small arms and IEDs. If you don't know what an IED is and suggest that civilians cannot build them, then you're arguing in bad faith.
Small arms doesn't mean pistols, it means weaponry that doesn't have to be mounted to something else.
It includes automatic and semi-automatic military rifles (like M16s and AKs) and light machine guns (like SAWs and RPDs).
Again, those wars were fought primarily with military weaponry, not handguns.
Pistols are military weaponry. Most pistols are designed for sale to militaries as their primary audience.
Regular pump shotguns were used in WWII for clearing trenches. The really common AR-15 in the US is a very close equivalent of the M16. Most hunting rifles are comparable to most sniper rifles.
Which small arms are used mainly comes down to what is available to carry, what ammunition is available, and how well they hold up in local conditions. The AK range is extremely popular because it holds up extremely well in a wide variety of conditions with minimal maintenance and it does especially well in desert/sandy conditions compared to almost every other rifle. It is also mass produced in a ton of places and as a result ammunition is plentiful.
They mainly use weapons produced for militaries because that is what is available and reliable enough for their use. They would have used any small arms they could get their hands on that performed as well.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/small%20arm
Civilian rifles are semi-auto...
Around 20million AR pattern rifles are in civ hands in the usa.
Edit: downvoting us doesn't make you correct. This isn't reddit. Votes don't matter here
Exactly. A gun is not a car; it has no other purpose other than to kill. The “tool” argument is disingenuous at best.
Tbf, a hammer is also a tool with only one use, sometimes a job needs a specific tool. "Killing" just so happens to include self defense, if you happen to need to defend yourself it helps to have the best tool for the job instead of hammering a nail with your wrench.
A gun is not the only means of self defense; in fact, They’re terrible at it. Ironically, a hammer is probably a better tool for self defense.
Edit go ahead and downvote me, facts don’t care about your feelings.
Ok, and how many defensive uses of a firearm occurred that year where the defender did not kill the attacker? Cases where the attacker was merely injured, or the defender missed, or the attacker ran off at the sight of the firearm? Why are those entirely omitted, does it only count as self defense if the attacker dies, not if one successfully stops the attack without a justifiable homicide?
And while we're at it, how many justifiable homicides occurred that year with your defensive weapon of choice, The Hammer? If the metric used to determine a weapon's viability for defense is simply justifiable homicides/yr, blind bet: it's less than 274.
Btw
While around 45% of people own a gun, only 21% of people carry a gun ever, and even less carry everywhere always, and this figure doesn't take into account whether or not the victims had a gun on them with which to defend themselves. This stat is entirely meaningless without controling for that.
Well that's illegal unless you're in Texas at night, so, unless that's all they're counting this makes me further question the voracity of the study. You're telling me that 0.3 percent of people in the study successfully justifiably killed someone for something that is illegal to kill people for? That's not how this works lol.