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