• irmoz@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    No you’re actually at step 0.2: “argue about the definitions of words used in describing the problem”.

    • thecrotch@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      It’s really weird to me that you don’t seem to think that understanding what you’re asking for is important

      • AmberPrince@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

        • thecrotch@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.

          • AmberPrince@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            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.

            • thecrotch@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              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.

      • SwingingTheLamp@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        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

        • thecrotch@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.