• chitak166@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    10 months ago

    I mean, so? The point is that there isn’t legislation against ‘assault-style’ weapons. Every piece of legislation specifies what is and is not allowed. Whether it impacts the ergonomics, appearance, or function of the firearm is completely irrelevant to my point.

    He was trying to argue that there is no such thing as ‘assault-style’ weapons, and I countered by saying there is no legislation targeting ‘assault-style’ weapons. Each piece of legislation specifies what is and is not allowed.

    • scoobford@lemmy.one
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      Yes, but it is a problem when we discuss these things. Most people are in favor of banning “assault-style weapons”, but people’s conceptions of what that means vary wildly.

      This is just like asking if people support educating kids. Everyone wants their kids to be educated, but some want their kids taught that the earth is 6,000 years old and that climate change isn’t real, and others want them taught the history of systematic oppression in America.

      As for the actual bans, I’m not aware of any " assault-style weapons" bans that didn’t ban something stupid because it looks scary. Many have included magazine capacity restrictions, which you can definitely make an argument for, but also regulated something stupid, like pistol grips on rifles.