• Buelldozer@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    16
    ·
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    Time and time again: They’ll gladly act when they can use overwhelming force. But when they are up against a similarly armed individual (ar-15 firing similar rounds to the military, body armor, etc), they cower in fear.

    You mean twice? Uvalde and Cloward? I can think of other times where regular street cops did in fact charge in right away even in the face of killers armed with AR-15s.

    Because if we didn’t have ready access to assault rifles that were literally designed for military purposes and that fire one of the nastier rounds in existence

    The .223 / 5.56mm isn’t even CLOSE to one of the nastier rounds in existence. It’s an intermediate cartridge with low power relative to real rifle calibers like the 7.62, .308, or 30-06. At 100 yards or less, the distance most mass shootings take place, even a 12 Gauge shotgun is vastly more destructive.

    …then maybe “a good guy with a gun” would have any effect at all.

    Plenty of “Good Guys with a Gun” have ended shooters armed with shotguns and rifles. The issue isn’t one of weaponary but of numbers, there just AREN’T that many overall and the odds of there being one in the right place at the right time are nearly zero. They can be amazingly effective when it happens though.

    And just in case anyone thinks bump stocks or illegal modifications will let them stand up to the army: the army has “real” tanks, air support, drones, and a lot more explosives per soldier.

    Afghanistan, Iraq, Vietnam, Syria…the list of conflicts that show this to be false as very long. Full Auto fire, whether through illegal modification or Bump Stock is stupid anyway and even the US Military has put controls on its use.

    …a concealable pistol chambered for one of the small caliber/high velocity rounds is more effective for a resistance force.

    It’s so great that it’s commonly used by literally no resistance force anywhere in the world. It is commonly used by Concealed Carry Weapons Permit holders though…like the one in the link up above.

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

        I know its hard when someone shows up with actual data to counter false opinion but Ad Hominem is never a good response.

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

        Nah, it’s the loud opinion in these threads that all gun owners hate children or something because they don’t support “common sense gun control.” Nuanced discussion isn’t allowed, only name calling group hate against gun owners is.

        • NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          11
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          10 months ago

          Piles of dead kids because of a complete lack of gun control

          Gun nuts: Excuse me, you are using incorrect terminology and guns are actually amazing and we need more good guys with a gun

          At this point? Nobody is saying the gun nuts hate children. We are increasingly worried that you are getting off on the sight of dead kids.

        • shalafi@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          10 months ago

          I feel ya. We can’t talk in forums like this because of posts like OP’s. Nothing will get better, only more polarized, and ironically, more death.

          I think the issue is that liberals have an ignorant view of guns and gun owners. I used to, and ignorance is OK! But FFS, be willing to learn and engage. I call you on your BS, you call me on mine, we learn.

          When we bring facts to the table, facts that can be argued in good faith, we’re immediately called baby killers. That’s not helpful. In fact, it’s harmful.