_portrait.jpg){kind=link}
this post was submitted on 26 Aug 2023
872 points (97.5% liked)
Leopards Ate My Face
6814 readers
1296 users here now
Rules:
- The mods are fallible; if you've been banned or had a post/comment removed, please appeal.
- Off-topic posts will be removed. If you don't know what "Leopards ate my Face" is, try reading this post.
- If the reason your post meets Rule 1 isn't in the source, you must add a source in the post body (not the comments) to explain this.
- Posts should use high-quality sources, and posts about an article should have the same headline as that article. You may edit your post if the source changes the headline. For a rough idea, check out this list.
- For accessibility reasons, an image of text must either have alt text or a transcription in the post body.
- Reposts within 1 year or the Top 100 of all time are subject to removal.
- This is not exclusively a US politics community. You're encouraged to post stories about anyone from any place in the world at any point in history as long as you meet the other rules.
- All Lemmy.World Terms of Service apply.
Also feel free to check out !leopardsatemyface@lemm.ee (also active).
Icon credit C. Brück on Wikimedia Commons.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I think you're going to find a large number of people who think these are common sense laws rather than "nonsense." Regarding assault rifles, a number of the states that have "banned" them will even still allow you to have one with a license.
Assault rifles and large capacity magazines constitute a very small minority of guns and gun equipment in the US, and equating these two issues with "not supporting gun rights" is again giving in to Republican propaganda. In reality, there are millions of people who support gun rights and who also support limitations on weapons that can be used to kill large numbers of people at once
Assault rifles also constitute a miniscule percentage of gun crime, and yey they're still the specter that legislators go for. To me that just says the people wanting to legislate away our rights aren't informed enough to make these decisions. Thus they spout nonsense
The issue banning or limiting assault rifle ownership is trying to address is mass murders. Banning assault rifles certainly isn't "legislating away your rights," though, because there are still a shit ton of guns you'd still be able to own. By your logic, your rights are being infringed already by not being allowed to own a machine gun, or a grenade launcher, or even a tank on up. In reality, there are no rights that are completely unlimited. For example, see the limitations on every other right outlined in the Bill of Rights. As a society, we determine where that line is drawn to support our social contract. A majority of people wanting to draw the line slightly further in one direction than you prefer isn't "legislating away your rights."
Again, the vast majority or mass murders are committed with handguns. Those stats that say we've had more shootings than days bin the year always include handgun murders.Banningg assault rifles won't noticeably decrease the number of mass shootings.
You're lumping shootings where 2 or more people are killed like gang shootings and family violence in with large-scale indiscriminate shootings of strangers.
I know, that's why I said stats from places like GVA or Everytown tend to include those shootings in their numbers.
You don't want to do anything about that either, so you don't get to argue both points. The sad truth is, we've given up the idea that kids should grow up without needing to have active shooter training in schools. Now we just want to give them a chance while the shooter has to reload.
You're right, I don't support gun control. As a populace, we have a right to our arms, and any attempt to remove them must be opposed.
Dumb