The term “automatic” is quite often used to refer to semi-auto. I believe this is because people with any training tend to ignore the full-auto option unless they’re filming a Hollywood movie.
While it wasn’t the point of the discussion, many guns are designed in such a way that illegal fire mode conversion is pretty easy, for instance with bump-stock attachments.
I hope there’s some sarcasm behind the “sadly” portion. Aside from collecting views for YouTube from target range spraying, the only use case I can think of for them is gunning down crowds of innocent people.
This mf out here looking at the trolley lever, and saying “We have an option to hurt fewer people, but we shouldn’t consider it because we should only ever look for a solution that hurts no one.”
Fewer guns means fewer bodies, even if it doesn’t end violent incidents. Even if we’re going to tackle mental health too, that is also a valuable conclusion in my eyes.
I don’t agree with this sentiment. People have a right to armed defense. Ask any woman who’s been sexually assualted, or man even, and ask of they would’ve liked to have a firearm and sufficient training instead prior. I guarantee most will say yes.
I’d say people have a right to defense against a reasonable threat - and that there’s some very confused interpretations of “reasonable”.
For instance: A military installation is going to install an AA gun because it’s not unreasonable to think an opposing country might try to bomb them.
But your home is also easily within bombing range of other unfriendly countries. Why not have an AA gun there? (Assuming, for a second, cost is negligible) Because the minute risk that a plane would ever specifically target your home is outweighed by the increased safety risks of having a dangerous piece of artillery in an otherwise peaceful area. In that case, you are making the problem worse, not better.
If a woman has received threats from an old ex, I wouldn’t complain about her carrying something to defend herself. But a world where everyone is using the same excuse, or painting over personal reasons of “It looks cool”, to the point they have more guns than people, is a world that is going to be unsafe either way; especially because having a gun doesn’t necessarily keep you safe from other guns.
A man standing outside a station with a machete threatening people has a far, far lower rate of injuries/death than a man with an automatic weapon.
We don’t have easy access to automatic weapons (sadly), they’re are predominantly semi automatic
The term “automatic” is quite often used to refer to semi-auto. I believe this is because people with any training tend to ignore the full-auto option unless they’re filming a Hollywood movie.
While it wasn’t the point of the discussion, many guns are designed in such a way that illegal fire mode conversion is pretty easy, for instance with bump-stock attachments.
I hope there’s some sarcasm behind the “sadly” portion. Aside from collecting views for YouTube from target range spraying, the only use case I can think of for them is gunning down crowds of innocent people.
Which still doesn’t defend that mental illness doesn’t mean not dangerous. Less bodies is still dangerous. serious injury and harm. Still dangerous
This mf out here looking at the trolley lever, and saying “We have an option to hurt fewer people, but we shouldn’t consider it because we should only ever look for a solution that hurts no one.”
Fewer guns means fewer bodies, even if it doesn’t end violent incidents. Even if we’re going to tackle mental health too, that is also a valuable conclusion in my eyes.
I don’t agree with this sentiment. People have a right to armed defense. Ask any woman who’s been sexually assualted, or man even, and ask of they would’ve liked to have a firearm and sufficient training instead prior. I guarantee most will say yes.
I’d say people have a right to defense against a reasonable threat - and that there’s some very confused interpretations of “reasonable”.
For instance: A military installation is going to install an AA gun because it’s not unreasonable to think an opposing country might try to bomb them.
But your home is also easily within bombing range of other unfriendly countries. Why not have an AA gun there? (Assuming, for a second, cost is negligible) Because the minute risk that a plane would ever specifically target your home is outweighed by the increased safety risks of having a dangerous piece of artillery in an otherwise peaceful area. In that case, you are making the problem worse, not better.
If a woman has received threats from an old ex, I wouldn’t complain about her carrying something to defend herself. But a world where everyone is using the same excuse, or painting over personal reasons of “It looks cool”, to the point they have more guns than people, is a world that is going to be unsafe either way; especially because having a gun doesn’t necessarily keep you safe from other guns.