this post was submitted on 04 Apr 2024
137 points (96.6% liked)

Asklemmy

44174 readers
1789 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy ๐Ÿ”

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] tatterdemalion@programming.dev 2 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

An "assault rifle" is specifically a selective-fire rifle with detachable magazines and intermediate cartridges. AR-15s, AK-47s, and M16s meet this definition. You are likely thinking of "assault weapon," a term which is not well-defined.

And while it's true that most mass shootings and gun deaths in general are perpetrated by handguns, assault rifles are responsible for the deadliest mass shootings.

Because it is so challenging to pass gun control legislation in the US, the least we can hope to do is forbid ownership of the deadliest types of guns.

I agree that this is not sufficient though. We need to have more stringent requirements for acquiring any firearm. 28 states don't even require background checks for private sale of guns. Our laws fall way too short on gun trafficking.

The illegal gun market is just a symptom of the very legal gun market. The head of the ATF even said, "virtually every crime gun in the US starts off as a legal firearm."

We need background checks, and I don't think private unlicensed gun sales should be legal either.

[โ€“] Vendetta9076@sh.itjust.works 2 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (2 children)

Okay except most rifles, including AK47's AR15's and M16's are semi automatic only so they aren't selective fire. And if we ignore that requirement and go with the the other two requirements it means that .22lr hunting rifles with a box mag count as "assault rifles"

Pistols are still the deadliest type of guns no matter what metric you use.

The head of the ATF is also responsible for operation fast and furious. Not to mention that is a nothing statement when you think about it. Of course they start off as legal firearms. Gun traffickers are "legally" buying these weapons overseas end mass from firearm companies and warlords or they're being stolen from legal gun owners.

[โ€“] tatterdemalion@programming.dev 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

The head of the ATF is also responsible for operation fast and furious.

That's just whataboutism.

[โ€“] Vendetta9076@sh.itjust.works 2 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

Honestly true. I just think he's a moron so I discount much of what he says.

Also I looked up the statement about most guns being legal. Based on data from his own agency its 54%. While that is technically the majority, thats a coin flip. "Virtually all" in my books is 70% or higher.

[โ€“] tatterdemalion@programming.dev 0 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

Pistols are still the deadliest type of guns no matter what metric you use.

That's a silly statement. Why do you think soldiers prefer to use assault rifles in combat? I said "deadliest" meaning the most capable of killing, not the most statistically likely gun to kill someone.

[โ€“] Vendetta9076@sh.itjust.works 2 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

"Most capable of killing" doesn't mean anything though. A bullet is a bullet is a bullet. What gun its fired out of doesn't really matter when its against soft targets. 9mm 5.56 and 7.62 are all the same lethality.

Edit: Also comparing the use case of gangers and even school shooters with soldiers is foolish. The main benefits of a rifle (in war) are range, stability and higher cyclic rate. Virtually all rifles are semi automatic so cyclic rate doesn't matter. And at the range pretty much all school shootings take place in, pistol vs rifle doesn't matter. Stability is also largely irrelevant based on distance and the fact that unarmed civilians dont shoot back.

All this to say, 91% of school shootings are perpetrated with pistols. So this hyperfixation on "assault rifles" is silly. I say again, you've been lied to.

[โ€“] tatterdemalion@programming.dev 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Ok I don't really agree with all of your lines of reasoning but I'm curious what you think the solution to our gun problem is. We at least agree that we have a problem, right?

[โ€“] Vendetta9076@sh.itjust.works 1 points 8 months ago

Oh certainly.

Legislation needs to focus pistols. Cracking down on the black market of highpoints.