3 ms·

I always see gun promoters trying to divert the discussion from the real issue (read: mass shootings and terrorism) towards the technicality of the term "assau

I always see gun promoters trying to divert the discussion from the real issue (read: mass shootings and terrorism) towards the technicality of the term "assault weapon". Would calling these guns "weapons of mass murder" be more accurate? Does that distinction really makes a difference? Why does a law abiding citizen of America needs mass murdering guns with thousands of rounds?

ams6110 9y ago
If they are law-abiding, what's the problem?
- RealGeek 9y ago
  This terrorist was a law abiding citizen until yesterday. If your law abiding neighbor is building bombs in his garage, is that a problem?
- mariallery 9y ago
  Because any of these law-abiding people owning a gun could snap some day and go rogue? I'd say that's a really good reason to reduce the guns availability.
  - abhi3 9y ago
    removed
    - RandVal30142 9y ago
      >Because any of these law-abiding refugees Taking your garbage edit of the parent comment and setting it totally aside: Legal firearms routinely become illegal, most often when they are stolen by people who are already criminals. Unlocked cars are a great source of 'legal' pistols as it turns out. The problem of small arms proliferation is real and it is one of the reasons U.S. and other modern nations regulate them so much.
- maxerickson 9y ago
  The law.
ThrustVectoring 9y ago
The technical details here matter. What features do we want the firearms owned by law-abiding citizens to have? The use of the term "assault weapon" is a tragedy of discourse norms that conflates in the minds of many the incidental features of military assault rifles with the necessary features for weapons to be used for mass murder. And for what it's worth, if you can make an intensional definition for "weapons of mass murder" that includes the most dangerous weapons for mass-murder purposes without unnecessarily curtailing the design space for the socially acceptable uses for weapons, please go for it.
- polotics 9y ago
  The feature I want those weapons to have: it shouldn't be possible to kill people with them. Is this too much to ask? "Not killing people", is this a liberal snowflake's wet dream? "Not killing people"? Think about it.
  - ThrustVectoring 9y ago
    Killing people is a socially accepted use of these weapons in the US. Home defense is a big one. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_doctrine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_doctrine
    - RandVal30142 9y ago
      >a socially accepted use of these weapons in the US No it isn't. Homes in the U.S. are primarily built of wood, rifles can and will produce a tremendous amount of over penetration in such "self defense" scenarios. The idea of some idiot who cannot comprehend ballistics in an emotional panic lacing up my neighborhood with a 30rd mag fed rifle is terrifying. Take some self defense courses please.
- paxunix 9y ago
  If you are going to argue about terminology, argue first about how can there be a "design space for the socially acceptable uses of weapons". The phrase is laughable. Weapons are for killing--that's why they're called weapons. Arguing about what to actually call the physical thing that does the damage is missing the point and is trying to draw attention away from the real purpose of the thing.
prostoalex 9y ago
Using an emotionally charged epithet weakens the argument.

ams6110 9y ago

If they are law-abiding, what's the problem?

RealGeek 9y ago
This terrorist was a law abiding citizen until yesterday. If your law abiding neighbor is building bombs in his garage, is that a problem?
mariallery 9y ago
Because any of these law-abiding people owning a gun could snap some day and go rogue? I'd say that's a really good reason to reduce the guns availability.
- abhi3 9y ago
  removed
  - RandVal30142 9y ago
    >Because any of these law-abiding refugees Taking your garbage edit of the parent comment and setting it totally aside: Legal firearms routinely become illegal, most often when they are stolen by people who are already criminals. Unlocked cars are a great source of 'legal' pistols as it turns out. The problem of small arms proliferation is real and it is one of the reasons U.S. and other modern nations regulate them so much.
maxerickson 9y ago
The law.

ThrustVectoring 9y ago

The technical details here matter. What features do we want the firearms owned by law-abiding citizens to have? The use of the term "assault weapon" is a tragedy of discourse norms that conflates in the minds of many the incidental features of military assault rifles with the necessary features for weapons to be used for mass murder. And for what it's worth, if you can make an intensional definition for "weapons of mass murder" that includes the most dangerous weapons for mass-murder purposes without unnecessarily curtailing the design space for the socially acceptable uses for weapons, please go for it.

polotics 9y ago
The feature I want those weapons to have: it shouldn't be possible to kill people with them. Is this too much to ask? "Not killing people", is this a liberal snowflake's wet dream? "Not killing people"? Think about it.
- ThrustVectoring 9y ago
  Killing people is a socially accepted use of these weapons in the US. Home defense is a big one. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_doctrine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_doctrine
  - RandVal30142 9y ago
    >a socially accepted use of these weapons in the US No it isn't. Homes in the U.S. are primarily built of wood, rifles can and will produce a tremendous amount of over penetration in such "self defense" scenarios. The idea of some idiot who cannot comprehend ballistics in an emotional panic lacing up my neighborhood with a 30rd mag fed rifle is terrifying. Take some self defense courses please.
paxunix 9y ago
If you are going to argue about terminology, argue first about how can there be a "design space for the socially acceptable uses of weapons". The phrase is laughable. Weapons are for killing--that's why they're called weapons. Arguing about what to actually call the physical thing that does the damage is missing the point and is trying to draw attention away from the real purpose of the thing.

prostoalex 9y ago

Using an emotionally charged epithet weakens the argument.