5 ms·

It's weird how this article is ostensibly about the violation of gun-owners' privacy, but can't help but wander into the 2nd amendment discussion with sentences

It's weird how this article is ostensibly about the violation of gun-owners' privacy, but can't help but wander into the 2nd amendment discussion with sentences like: > Last month at a high school in Georgia, a 14-year-old used an assault rifle to kill two students and two teachers and wound seven more people. The assault rifle in question is an "AR-15 style rifle". I.e. not an assault rifle. > Semi-automatic-only rifles like the Colt AR-15 are not assault rifles; they do not have select-fire capabilities.[1] In conclusion, I don't know who this article is for. Gun owners and pro 2nd amendment readers will probably be put off by technical errors like this and the thinly veiled contempt for gun ownership. Many non-gun owners and anti-2nd amendment readers will probably think: "good, fuck em". [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle

kevin_thibedeau 2y ago
Depending on the state, scary features like a carry handle or a bayonet mount upgrade a semi-auto to banned status. Bayonet on a bolt action? No problem.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
matthewdgreen 2y ago
The article is reporting on a privacy violation. If the fact that it also expresses opinions you dislike makes you want to disregard those facts -- then you're making bad decisions and you should do better. Personally I think it's valuable to have this information out there. Both for the folks whose privacy was violated, and for people who are concerned about how closely the gun industry works to coordinate its customer database with lobbying groups. (PS I own a gun and don't like anything about this news, from either of those perspectives.)
- generalizations 2y ago
  > you're making bad decisions and you should do better. This part was unnecessary btw.
- Modified3019 2y ago
  >then you're making bad decisions and you should do better. Please be mindful that this sort of talking down to people poisons conversation. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html >Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't cross-examine. Edit out swipes.
rootusrootus 2y ago
> Gun owners and pro 2nd amendment readers I'm a gun owner and I can overlook them using a term in a way that it is popularly used among laypeople, even if it is technically not correct [0]. Discarding the content of the article on that premise would just be abdicating my responsibility to think. [0] I gotta say, though, who exactly gets to insist on the definition of a general term like assault rifle? Seems like another instance of useless gatekeeping. A distraction.
jjulius 2y ago
Can you really blame people for all of the confusion around whether or not an "AR-something" is 'technically' an "assault rifle"? I mean, if you go to the Wiki article that you cited, the piece you quoted links to the Wiki article about the Colt AR-15, which says: >The term "AR-15" is a Colt registered trademark which it uses only to refer to its line of semi-automatic rifles. So, yeah, sure, it's not technically an automatic rifle, but if the manufacturer is going to call it a semi-automatic, I'm not going to fault the average joe for not getting it perfect. "Semi" is halfway there, or at least "is that thing to a degree", after all. To be entirely honest, the whole semantics debate around "BuT iT'S nOt AuToMaTiC" misses the forest for the trees and shouldn't be given much space. As another person said, a distraction.
- whaleofatw2022 2y ago
  AR meant Armalite, the original designing company IIRC. Is the AR-19 an assault rifle too?
  - jjulius 2y ago
    >Is the AR-19 an assault rifle too? If this is something that you're genuinely asking me for my opinion on, then I'd ask you to re-read my comment, because you've missed my point entirely.
- wakawaka28 2y ago
  >To be entirely honest, the whole semantics debate around "BuT iT'S nOt AuToMaTiC" misses the forest for the trees and shouldn't be given much space. As another person said, a distraction. It's not a distraction. The government is always trying to reduce functionality of available firearms as well as increase costs. There is a huge difference between fully automatic weapons and semiauto. Nearly all guns on the civilian market are semiautomatic, aside from some antique designs, and full auto weapons manufactured prior to the NFA. I don't agree with the NFA's infringements on our 2A rights but I think a fair number of gun enthusiasts might agree with restricting full auto somehow. Semiauto is a big step down from that, and going away from semiauto is a HUGE step down from there. The AR-15 has been vilified to an unfair extent. There is no particular feature about it that makes it more dangerous than other semiautomatic rifles that shoot ammunition in the same ballpark as far as caliber and velocity. Moreover, the whole point of having a weapon like that is for it to efficiently and accurately hit whatever you need it to hit. The only real way to protect your rights is to be adequately armed. The Founders knew that. The right solution to be secure is not to ban guns, it is to get more guns in more hands. Without a gun you will always be victim to someone who is bigger than you, groups of thugs, and any criminal who doesn't let the state dictate his choice of weapons.

kevin_thibedeau 2y ago

Depending on the state, scary features like a carry handle or a bayonet mount upgrade a semi-auto to banned status. Bayonet on a bolt action? No problem.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

matthewdgreen 2y ago

The article is reporting on a privacy violation. If the fact that it also expresses opinions you dislike makes you want to disregard those facts -- then you're making bad decisions and you should do better. Personally I think it's valuable to have this information out there. Both for the folks whose privacy was violated, and for people who are concerned about how closely the gun industry works to coordinate its customer database with lobbying groups. (PS I own a gun and don't like anything about this news, from either of those perspectives.)

generalizations 2y ago
> you're making bad decisions and you should do better. This part was unnecessary btw.
Modified3019 2y ago
>then you're making bad decisions and you should do better. Please be mindful that this sort of talking down to people poisons conversation. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html >Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't cross-examine. Edit out swipes.

rootusrootus 2y ago

> Gun owners and pro 2nd amendment readers I'm a gun owner and I can overlook them using a term in a way that it is popularly used among laypeople, even if it is technically not correct [0]. Discarding the content of the article on that premise would just be abdicating my responsibility to think. [0] I gotta say, though, who exactly gets to insist on the definition of a general term like assault rifle? Seems like another instance of useless gatekeeping. A distraction.

jjulius 2y ago

Can you really blame people for all of the confusion around whether or not an "AR-something" is 'technically' an "assault rifle"? I mean, if you go to the Wiki article that you cited, the piece you quoted links to the Wiki article about the Colt AR-15, which says: >The term "AR-15" is a Colt registered trademark which it uses only to refer to its line of semi-automatic rifles. So, yeah, sure, it's not technically an automatic rifle, but if the manufacturer is going to call it a semi-automatic, I'm not going to fault the average joe for not getting it perfect. "Semi" is halfway there, or at least "is that thing to a degree", after all. To be entirely honest, the whole semantics debate around "BuT iT'S nOt AuToMaTiC" misses the forest for the trees and shouldn't be given much space. As another person said, a distraction.

whaleofatw2022 2y ago
AR meant Armalite, the original designing company IIRC. Is the AR-19 an assault rifle too?
- jjulius 2y ago
  >Is the AR-19 an assault rifle too? If this is something that you're genuinely asking me for my opinion on, then I'd ask you to re-read my comment, because you've missed my point entirely.
wakawaka28 2y ago
>To be entirely honest, the whole semantics debate around "BuT iT'S nOt AuToMaTiC" misses the forest for the trees and shouldn't be given much space. As another person said, a distraction. It's not a distraction. The government is always trying to reduce functionality of available firearms as well as increase costs. There is a huge difference between fully automatic weapons and semiauto. Nearly all guns on the civilian market are semiautomatic, aside from some antique designs, and full auto weapons manufactured prior to the NFA. I don't agree with the NFA's infringements on our 2A rights but I think a fair number of gun enthusiasts might agree with restricting full auto somehow. Semiauto is a big step down from that, and going away from semiauto is a HUGE step down from there. The AR-15 has been vilified to an unfair extent. There is no particular feature about it that makes it more dangerous than other semiautomatic rifles that shoot ammunition in the same ballpark as far as caliber and velocity. Moreover, the whole point of having a weapon like that is for it to efficiently and accurately hit whatever you need it to hit. The only real way to protect your rights is to be adequately armed. The Founders knew that. The right solution to be secure is not to ban guns, it is to get more guns in more hands. Without a gun you will always be victim to someone who is bigger than you, groups of thugs, and any criminal who doesn't let the state dictate his choice of weapons.