587
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 06 Apr 2025
587 points (100.0% liked)
politics
23457 readers
2483 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
The source loses my respect for calling it an "assault rifle" when it almost certainly was not. This summary (which I assume was written by MicroWave) calls it an "assault-style rifle", which has no meaning at all.
This is not an assault rifle, and not fully automatic. If it was, the gun's existence would have been almost certainly illegal.
Words have meaning. The meaning in this case is important. Use your words.
At this point it's difficult to take this critique seriously when right wing gun nuts use arguing over minutiae like this to prevent any kind of constructive discussion whatsoever.
Yes, there is a technical definition of an "assault rifle". It's also a shorthand that regular people not familiar with firearms use to mean "gun that looks like something the military carries" or something approaching that. It's not even relevant here. We do not need to break up every single discussion involving firearms with arguments over meaningless definitions.
they do it to intentionally derail the conversation. Fuck them.
Who fucking cares
“…which has no meaning at all.”
OK. So I go to a donut shop, and ask for a Boston Creme. The clerk pulls out a donut and gives it to me, I pay him and say thank you and am on my way.
Next, I go to a donut shop, and ask for a Boston Creme. The clerk pulls out an assault-style rifle, waves it around, I pay him and say thank you and am on my way.
Yeah, words have meaning. What part of returning to his vehicle, pulling out a firearm and threatening the protesters with it did you fail to attach meaning to?
He threatened assault with a rifle. The fact that we don’t know if the firearm was legally classified as an assault rifle, in any sane location on earth, would be immaterial.
Or are you worried that he may be confused with someone who could have got a few more shots off into the crowd before being disarmed or killed, due to their faster firing firearm with rifled barrel?
What would you call it?
A rifle
why not just say "a gun" then? why attempt any amount of specificity that folks who aren't firearm nerds might still possibly understand to any extent?
The article says "gun" seven times. It's accurate and gets the point across about his crime, unlike "assault rifle", which falsely states that he had an illegal type if gun.
"Rifle" is a word that everyone knows is a type of gun. Even if not everyone knows the specifics, news people should at least look up the word before using it if they don't know. It's wrong for news people to use falsely the phrase "assault rifle" because of their ignorance.
What was the actual model of rifle that this article discusses?
Nobody knows. The police didn't say. There are no photos close enough to identify it.
So how do you know it wasn't literally an assault rifle?
Because assault rifles (or any fully automatic rifles) are highly illegal in the US, and very rare in practice. If it was an assault rifle, its existence would have been as notable of a crime as his brandishing and threatening. The police would have been unlikely to let him go, would likely have confiscated the gun, and would have reported all that to the media.
It was a rifle, used for an assault, ergo, an assault rifle.