615
this post was submitted on 09 May 2024
615 points (94.0% liked)
News
23397 readers
3505 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. 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. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
So now you're going to defend your own ignorant statement with, "I should know better?" You should not make blanket assumptions about who owns what. I think you are living under a rock.
Fine. I'll play your game this once, but do you really need it spelled out to you that the AR-15 and other rifles designed to look like military weapons even though they aren't is what society associates with right-wing assholes who are ready to shoot up those durn libruls and queers?
Whether you think it's a fair association or not is irrelevant. That's what a large segment of the population associates that gun with, including many gun owners.
Bitch about it all you want, them's the breaks.
Now, any more silly game-playing you want to do?
I despise games, but I despise ignorant bullshit more. I don't want to play games with you. The AR-15 is a popular choice among rifle owners in the US typically because of the availability of parts and ammo... that's the main reason. It can accommodate both 5.56 and .223, so again, if you're actually keeping one around to protect yourself against ______ (fill in the blank) you'll have a better chance at acquiring ammo.
I'm the polar opposite of a right-wing asshole (the asshole part may still hold), but if more ARs and AR parts are being produced, it's simply a matter of practicality in the long-term.
Fair association? What the fuck are you talking about? I could give a fuck about perceptions, but assuming that everyone that owns an AR is a right-winger is dumb. I don't think YOU get to speak for a large segment of the population; you simply speak for yourself.
The difference between 5.56x45mm NATO and .223 Rem is so negligible that it's almost entirely academic. The vast majority of rifles that can use one can use the other. You can't buy separate dies for reloading, and they don't have separate sections in reloading manuals. Yes, 5.56 can produce much higher chamber pressures when fired in a .223 chamber, but in most cases you aren't going to have problems.
And as far as AR-15s... They're modular, easy to work on, parts are readily available. That's what makes it the most popular rifle platform in the US, period. The Mini-14, for example, is the IP of Sturm, Ruger & Co; they're the only ones that make the rifle. An AR-15 is an AR-15, almost regardless of who makes it (other than BCA or PSA). That's nearly unique among firearms; there really aren't any other guns on the market where exactly the same firearm, made to the same set of specs, is made by many different manufacturers. Only Glock makes the Glock 17. Only Sig makes the P320 (so far, despite it being the Army service pistol), and only Beretta makes the model 92/M9; that's why you see so, so many different choices in pistols, because there's not any single standard design that's all made to exactly the same spec. (And, BTW, 1911s are awful in that way, as are all AKs; everything needs to be hand fit.)
I can’t help that you don’t like the general public perception of people who own the gun that you own. It doesn’t change that perception and being rude about it also doesn’t help.
It’s also not about what I personally believe, so please stop suggesting it is.
You need to stop assuming what the general public perceives. You are misapplying your personal perception. Who is the general public, am I excluded from that?
Making incorrect assumptions and speaking on behalf of the "general public" is incredibly rude. Take some of your own advice.
Assuming?
Let's start with the Republican-sponsored act to make the AR-15 the national gun of the U.S. - https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/1095/cosponsors
Then there are the AR-15 pins Republican politicians wear- https://time.com/6253690/ar-15-pins-congress/
And the AR-15 giveaway fundraisers Republicans hold- https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2023/10/19/virginia-write-in-race-gun-giveawway/
Here are a whole bunch of Republicans begging the army to keep selling AR-15 ammo on the market- https://thereload.com/republicans-urge-army-to-continue-sale-of-surplus-ar-15-ammo/
Here's Lindsay Graham saying he has an AR-15 to defend himself from gangs- https://www.cbsnews.com/news/lindsey-graham-ar-15-protect-home-gangs/
And we can finish with this article about how the AR-15 has become the symbol of the right- https://www.newsweek.com/how-ar-15-became-symbol-us-right-1792587
So no, I don't think I'm assuming anything.
Yes, what you are doing is making an assumption. Again, you do not speak on behalf of "the general public." You speak on behalf of a portion of the general public and your entire premise is based on a no true Scotsman fallacy.
I gave you a huge mountain of evidence. Claims made with evidence are not assumptions. Why are you being so dishonest? All I can think is you didn't even bother to view those links. The right has undeniably made the AR-15 their symbol. I have shown that very clearly. Because they have made it their symbol, the general public associates them with it. That's not an assumption, that's how it works when someone makes something their symbol.
Am I making an assumption when I think the general public associates red baseball caps with MAGA Trumpers? No, because that's one of their symbols.
Again, I understand that you do not like it that a gun you own is viewed as a right-wing thing by people, but blame the right.
You provided several links (many of which were not relevant) that support the idea that a portion of the population (not the whole of a population) believes something. I am having a hard time figuring out why you are unable to differentiate a % of something from the whole of something.
Again, you are doing the same thing, so I guess you're consistent. I associate "MAGA" hats with Trumpers, sure... but my initial inclination when I see a red hat from afar is that it's a baseball cap (maybe Angles, Cards, Reds...). Once again, I am a portion of the "general public" that you're completely ignoring; and in doing such, you make a logical fallacy.
I see, you think "general population" means "everyone in the entire country." It does not. You also seem to think that symbols have no meaning, which is weird.
You clearly aren't.
“General population” is typically in reference to prison populations; but the term can be used when referencing a full sample size, E.G. 70% of the general population associates red caps with MAGA.
Ah, so you do know what it means. Then I'm not sure why you suggested it meant 100% of the population.
You’re clearly still misunderstanding and misusing the term. “General population” is 100% of itself.
Everything is 100% of itself.
A pear is 100% of itself. Even if you eat part of it, it's still 100% pear.
You’re almost there…
Now when you say “a pear” you’re not taking about portions of the pear, you’re talking about the whole thing.
So when you say “general population…” without qualifying the specific portion you’re referring to… go ahead, I’ll let you say it…
Yes, I am referring to 100% of the people to whom I am referring. I'm not sure why you think that is a great revelation. I'm talking to 100% of you right now.
100% of me is a % of the general public. Thus, the general public does not agree that all AR-15 owners are conservative dickbags.
So you're saying that if I claim "the general public likes chocolate" and you personally don't like chocolate, it isn't true?
Correct.
If you want to say “there’s a percentage of the general population that likes chocolate,” that would be a true statement; but by the same account, it also means “there is a percentage of the general population that does not like chocolate.” The former implies the latter, and when it breaks down like that, you’re really not saying fuck-all.
Provide some percentages.
So you do think "general public" means "100% of the population."
Good luck getting the rest of the world to agree with you on that. That's certainly not what I meant.
What % of the public do you need in order to qualify usage of the statement “general public?”
Is it 51%? That would mean 49% do not agree.
What part of "that’s certainly not what I meant" is unclear to you?
Or are you claiming that you know what I meant better than I do?
What did you mean?
I think it's a little late to be asking me what I meant at this point since you were so sure you knew up until now.