No you’re actually at step 0.2: “argue about the definitions of words used in describing the problem”.
It’s really weird to me that you don’t seem to think that understanding what you’re asking for is important
Sure, boss, and when somebody cries about their kid getting hit by a truck on the way to school, you can show up and say, “Well, akshually, it’s a crossover SUV, so it has a unibody.” I’m sure that completely changes the issue. /s
If there’s an epidemic of people being killed by pickup trucks, and a bunch of dipshits are on the internet screaming “we have to ban SUVs!” despite SUVs already being illegal, then yes, yes I will.
Your commitment to pendantry over empathy and common sense is rock solid, at least.
Man, those words in my mouth taste weird.
If you don’t understand what we are talking about in regards to gun violence at this stage of modern history you have no business debating anyone.
I understand that if you’re advocating for a ban on assault rifles, which have been banned since 1934, you’re not helping anyone but your opponents.
No, you apparently don’t understand. The contemporary public refers to “military-style” weapons as assault rifles. That is, if the gun looks at home in the hands of a soldier in camouflage the general public refers to it as an assault rifle. Again, if you do not understand the discussion around gun violence in today’s world you should not be arguing over it.
Also, you’re still arguing semantics and haven’t actually said anything, in any of your replies to anyone, about what can be done to curb gun violence which is the exact point the OP meme was making.
Semantics my ass. Calling for a ban on something that is already illegal instead of addressing the real problem is going to get you nowhere and make you look foolish in the process.
