• Smoogs@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    I know so many people who think they are helping by critiquing like this when they are not. And also expect a “thank you” for their destructive distraction. If there were a hell I hope they are the first to burn or freeze in it.

        • Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          I mean if we want to restrict anything an adult, teenager, or even older child could use to effectively kill four year olds, that’s a long list.

          Targeting the most popular rifles in the country is a poor choice policy-wise though. It does very little to reduce homicide in general, and only maybe somewhat reduce casualties from a category of violence that’s claimed about 1400 people since the sixties.

            • Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.org
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              Anything that an adult, teenager or older child could use to effectively kill a 4 year old? Not really. That’s a lot of amputations and we’d have to come.up with a disposal plan for all those arms and legs. Though I guess with everyone being a quadriplegic the ban on boxcutters would be easier to stomach.

              Being serious though, look at homicide weapon stats in the US. If you wanted to prevent homicides, you’d restrict handguns and crack down hard on gang crime. For example, crank up penalties for concealed carry without a permit up to something just shy of extreme and make it somewhat more difficult to get a permit (not remotely impossible, but basically thoroughly vet people for it and have a yearly renewal that repeats the whole process). Rifles are not remotely a common homicide weapon - more people are killed bare handed in a given year in the US than are killed with rifles of any description.