Ok, introduce a bill to ban assault rifles. I’m sure it’ll be very effective and solve the mass shootings problem.
Notice how we’re still quibbling over definitions? Because of you?
Yeah, I’ve set back your progress in getting assault rifles banned, set it back all the way to 1934
Are you trying to respond to something I said? Because you’re not doing very well.
Oh no a guy who doesn’t understand the issue he’s talking about thinks I’m doing a bad job
Excuse me? What exactly do you think my understanding of the issue is? I’m not the one using the term “assault weapons” or pushing for a redundant ban on assault rifles. I’m just the guy saying “don’t let the conversation get stuck on the definition of types of guns otherwise we’ll never end up discussing gun control.” Different statements. Don’t pretend they aren’t, boo. Playing pretend is for kids, remember? Remember when daddy told you that?
Why are you defending people who don’t know what they’re talking about what good could come from that
“I’m on your side, you’re just doing it wrong”
Nah, not falling for that shite
Well I’m Sure eating your own will be really effective, best of luck with that
Tbf I’d argue that we’re atill arguing definitions because the anti crowd refuses to learn them, instead opting for “nuh uh.” If, instead, the antis would use the new information to say something like “ok fine, assault weapons is the wrong term, let’s use their term and say that has to be banned,” the conversation would progress. Of course, the pro side would still disagree, but at least then the argument wouldn’t be like
“so the definition of assault rifle requires it to be select fire, that was banned in 1986”
“nuh uh, it is an assault rifle cause I said so. Weapon of war.”
Instead it’d be something like
“All rifles are only responsible for 500/60,000 gun deaths for a rate of .2%, banning ARs solves nothing.”
“Yeah but they are cosmetically similar to the rifles the Military uses and I don’t like that.”
