Re:We've known how to prevent a school shooting for more tha...
by ThrowawayR2 on Wednesday June 08, 2022 @01:22AM
(#31663545)
> "The shooters are using weapons of war already. Assault rifles are for soldiers."
This is the kind of ignorance, in as non-pejorative sense as possible, that actually makes it harder for knowledgeable advocates of gun control to succeed. Repeating this is viewed akin to how we on HN would view anyone repeating the unintentionally hilarious "11 Signs Your Child Is A Hacker" (https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/signs-yo...).
At the distances involved and against untrained and unprotected victims, pistols (much easier to aim than a long arm), shotguns (more lethal), and hunting rifles (which use larger, more powerful bullets than assault rifles; look up "battle rifle") are just as effective at creating carnage. (Every last one of these types of firearms have been extensively used by soldiers in wartime as well, so the "weapons of war" fearmongering just sounds, well, ignorant and who takes uninformed opinions seriously?) So, to the point, what exactly do people think banning assault rifles will do other than cause the deranged to switch to one of these other types? It is pure security theater that is obvious even to non-firearms owners.
Ban the other types as well, you say? While some might wish otherwise, even less public support exists in the US for that since those are commonly owned for self-defense and for sport.
This is the kind of ignorance, in as non-pejorative sense as possible, that actually makes it harder for knowledgeable advocates of gun control to succeed. Repeating this is viewed akin to how we on HN would view anyone repeating the unintentionally hilarious "11 Signs Your Child Is A Hacker" (https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/signs-yo...).
At the distances involved and against untrained and unprotected victims, pistols (much easier to aim than a long arm), shotguns (more lethal), and hunting rifles (which use larger, more powerful bullets than assault rifles; look up "battle rifle") are just as effective at creating carnage. (Every last one of these types of firearms have been extensively used by soldiers in wartime as well, so the "weapons of war" fearmongering just sounds, well, ignorant and who takes uninformed opinions seriously?) So, to the point, what exactly do people think banning assault rifles will do other than cause the deranged to switch to one of these other types? It is pure security theater that is obvious even to non-firearms owners.
Ban the other types as well, you say? While some might wish otherwise, even less public support exists in the US for that since those are commonly owned for self-defense and for sport.