• @Smoogs@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    8
    edit-2
    2 years ago

    I know so many people who think they are helping by critiquing like this when they are not. And also expect a “thank you” for their destructive distraction. If there were a hell I hope they are the first to burn or freeze in it.

    • @AA5B@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      4
      edit-2
      2 years ago

      In this case I do think it’s a good response. Both sides have a boogeyman, but it’s time for The Final Nightmare. This time, Freddie’s dead. Or wait, maybe we want to avoid little Freddie being dead. My point is, many are intentionally talking at cross purposes, using loaded terms to invoke rage at their target rather than actually discuss what’s in their crosshairs. Someone needs to smack their hands with a ruler until they grow up.

      While we do need a better way to limit the violence people commit with firearms, I have no better idea how but I know it starts with actually talking, using the same vocabulary, facing the same reality, finding goals we can agree on.

        • Schadrach
          link
          fedilink
          22 years ago

          I mean if we want to restrict anything an adult, teenager, or even older child could use to effectively kill four year olds, that’s a long list.

          Targeting the most popular rifles in the country is a poor choice policy-wise though. It does very little to reduce homicide in general, and only maybe somewhat reduce casualties from a category of violence that’s claimed about 1400 people since the sixties.