Political Memes

*Weapons, ammo, and an ideology built on hatred.

Most mass shooters are right-wing nutjobs.

To play devil's advocate (and weather the downvotes for doing so), alcohol doesn't drive drunk, and most people who use it do so responsibly.

If a bunch of peeps who don't drink wanted to stop drunk driving, they would see the best solution as just banning alcohol. Its a simple solution and makes sense. Nations like saudi arabia have banned alcohol and have significantly less drunk driving incidents. It wouldnt make sense to them why so many people would resist such a simple and proven solution. If they won't ban it all then atleast ban the liquor, etc.

Meanwhile the people who drink responsibly wouldnt want to have to give up drinking just because a few idiots drive drunk. They would see the best solution as finding ways to stop people from choosing (or being able) to drive drunk, while still allowing themselves to use it responsibly, but that is a much harder thing to do.

Also, it's worth noting that he would be just as dangerous with a knife or a car or a bow.

-also conservatives

My favorite from them is "define assault weapon." My definition is "who the fuck cares? Let's regulate all guns."

That's because legally speaking, it is not a machine gun.

Disbarring effectiveness from the conversation (although bumpfire is hilariously innacurate compared to true fully automatic fire), bumpfire also requires a degree of skill to actually pull off, even with a bump stock, as you have to manipulate the firearm in a way that it actually can continuously fire, something that would be very difficult to do in a stressful situation.

Bumpstocks also make semiautomatic fire much more difficult.

I should clarify that I'm not defending bumpstocks, I'm just saying that banning bumpstocks was a farce, especially since you can still bumpfire without them due to the existence of physics.

You can bump fire any gun without a bump stock or a trigger mechanism, on a lot of guns it's stupid easy and you can do it without experience. It doesn't turn it into a "fully automatic machine gun". Someone with barely any firearm experience can take any pistol or rifle and be shown how to bump fire within like a minute. It has nothing to do with accessories, although things like those can make it a little easier.

I'm a big advocate for better gun control, but what you're implying is just dishonest, even if unintentionally.

Posting that kind of stuff makes you sound like you have no idea what you're talking about (the way you worded it just sounds cringey) which makes people less inclined to be influenced by what you say, and hurts support of gun regulation by convincing witnesses that everybody who likes gun control is misinformed.

Judging by her educational history and political present day, I'm guessing she's not fond of being lectured or otherwise informed by anyone about anything.

They could call it a "fnorplgleek" for all I care.

Until they figure out how to prevent any and all fnorplgleeks from having the ability to injure, main, or kill another human being when the fnorplgleek operator wishes to harm you unlawfully, they can expend 100% of their thinkbox time figuring out how to do so. Like, pin their wetware CPU to working out a solution. Interconnect them Borg style.

If the response is "well no, not like that" then we recognize that it's a compromise that continues to put victims in front of said fnorplgleek operators.

brb getting a "Down with fnorplgleeks" t-shirt made

Because knowing the names of things = knowing safety?