3 ms·

You're arguing a different thing, that it doesn't make sense to ban a gun based on its aesthetics. However, SalesForce is banning the sales of guns based on th

You're arguing a different thing, that it doesn't make sense to ban a gun based on its aesthetics. However, SalesForce is banning the sales of guns based on their aesthetics, and describing the guns that they're banning as "assault-style" is accurate. How else would you phrase it?

axaxs 7y ago
I mean, it's their right, but for the reasons I pointed out, it comes off as foolish to me. Like that they are taking a stance against something completely arbitrary. Just my .02.
- CydeWeys 7y ago
  I mean, I agree, I think it would make more sense to repeal the Second Amendment, and then ban all autoloading firearms and all handguns, similar to what many other nations have done. I don't think it makes sense to go after guns based on aesthetics. However, when people do, it doesn't make sense to quibble with the terminology used when that terminology is actually accurate.
  - oreo83 7y ago
    The terminology isn't actually accurate though. Did you read his response?
- Ill_ban_myself 7y ago
  So you're saying that the important thing is how they look, right? That they can have a big impact simply based on their appearance and that it signals a certain intent even though their appearance may have no direct bearing on their effectiveness?
kevas 7y ago
Actually... "assault" has a completely different meaning than aesthetics. There are "battle rifles" and included under this umbrella is the M1 Garand, which is a larger caliber. The US Military realized that they needed a weapon that only shot out to 100-400(ish) meters rather than 700-900 meters, which was needed for WW1 & WW2. The "assault rifle" came about and actually refers to the ammunition rather than the weapon. The "assault" caliber is meant to take a person out of the fight rather than kill them.
- CydeWeys 7y ago
  Note that the phrase being discussed here is "assault-style", not merely "assault".

axaxs 7y ago

I mean, it's their right, but for the reasons I pointed out, it comes off as foolish to me. Like that they are taking a stance against something completely arbitrary. Just my .02.

CydeWeys 7y ago
I mean, I agree, I think it would make more sense to repeal the Second Amendment, and then ban all autoloading firearms and all handguns, similar to what many other nations have done. I don't think it makes sense to go after guns based on aesthetics. However, when people do, it doesn't make sense to quibble with the terminology used when that terminology is actually accurate.
- oreo83 7y ago
  The terminology isn't actually accurate though. Did you read his response?
Ill_ban_myself 7y ago
So you're saying that the important thing is how they look, right? That they can have a big impact simply based on their appearance and that it signals a certain intent even though their appearance may have no direct bearing on their effectiveness?

kevas 7y ago

Actually... "assault" has a completely different meaning than aesthetics. There are "battle rifles" and included under this umbrella is the M1 Garand, which is a larger caliber. The US Military realized that they needed a weapon that only shot out to 100-400(ish) meters rather than 700-900 meters, which was needed for WW1 & WW2. The "assault rifle" came about and actually refers to the ammunition rather than the weapon. The "assault" caliber is meant to take a person out of the fight rather than kill them.

CydeWeys 7y ago
Note that the phrase being discussed here is "assault-style", not merely "assault".