138
Safe firearm storage may reduce blood lead levels in children (www.brown.edu)
submitted 1 month ago* by to c/science@lemmy.world
70 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 7 points 1 month ago (1 child)

The amount of upvotes is pretty hilarious considering you can't buy assault rifles anywhere. Shows how uneducated people truly are on the subject.

"Assault rifles" aren't available without special federal licensing and several hoops to jump through with ATF-- assuming you're trying to describe a rifle that's tactical in appearance and is "full auto".

An "AR-15" is Armalight Rifle, not assault rifle. They're actually a smaller caliber than pretty much every hunting rifle out there. While tactical in appearance, they're still 100% semi-auto, as are all firearms purchased by anyone in the US.

I'd also like to point out several places like Dick's Sporting Goods, Walmart, and a few others have reduced or completely eliminated carrying firearms all together, and might only carry ammunition (which you do need to be at least 18 to buy with ID or 21 in some instances). Other retailers have started adopting stricter rules on sales to reduce liabilities as well.

The issues with firearms has primarily been laxed storage by family/parents making easy access, lack of education in safety (where accidents often happen from mishandling), or the glorification in the media giving those seeking the attention their "15 minutes of fame"... (Personally, for the 'mass shooters' I feel its less to do with mental health issues like the media tries to claim it is, while realistically, I think a lot of it is desensitizing and glorification having made a name for themselves, however wrong/bad it is, and again, getting that spotlight).

I'll just add, both my son and daughter had firearms exposure in a safe and controlled environment and know how to handle them. The point is, if a friend ever says, "wanna see my dad's Gun?" They'll know how to handle the situation by understanding the dangers, walking away and telling an adult. If they're ever facing a school situation they'll better understand what one looks like and tell the nearest adult, etc.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    Gun people insisting that the word "assault rifle" only applies to automatic or select fire rifles (or better yet, doesn't apply to carbines or submachine guns) because it's a fixed definition set by Adolf Hitler himself (seriously, it's a calque from WWII Germany) is a tired and irrelevant argument.

    If we're gonna be sticklers for definitions, the 1994 assault weapons legislation made a strict legal definition, and that's what most people mean when they're describing that.

    But whatever you want to call two-handed firearms with detachable magazines, whether they fit the WWII definition, the Army field manual definition, the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban definition, or whatever else, I think everyone knows what people are talking about. Even if it's technically a carbine or a submachine gun or a pistol with a foregrip.

    We're not negotiating a legal document, we're just talking about gun culture generally on an internet forum.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago* (1 child)

    Gun people insisting that the word "assault rifle" only applies to automatic or select fire rifles (or better yet, doesn't apply to carbines or submachine guns)

    Um.. In this example, a rifle is still semi-auto only*. A carbine is >16" barrel while still retaining functionality of a full-sized rifle. And an SMG is similar to a carbine but fires smaller pistol ammunition.

    Theoretically, a carbine and/or SMG would in fact still qualify by it's "select fire" rate if they had one. A lot of reproduction firearms are made to look like the military counterpart (like an MP5 or AK-47 can't be legally bought, so they make clones in a semi auto-only). You cannot legally own any firearm that has more than 1 round fired per trigger action (without going through a lot of work to obtain a FFL). Aka you squeeze the trigger and only 1 round is fired. Select-fire would apply to military-grade where you could have select fire to burst or full-auto...

    A detachable magazine doesn't define "assault" rifle. In this case being semi-automatic and not bolt-action (where you manually work a lever to unload and reload rounds) but either could still be fed by a detachable magazine or individually for the BA.

    But whatever you want to call two-handed firearms with detachable magazines

    I would call every pistol a "two-handed firearm with a detachable magazine", because this isn't the movies! You should have one hand gripping while the other hand secures/steadies. Unless you're wounded, uneducated or inexperienced, a thug, or in a movie, I don't recommend 1-handing any of them!

    Even if it's technically a carbine or a submachine gun or a pistol with a foregrip.

    I don't know of too many people willing to install a foregrip on a pistol, but you do you 😁

    Look, calling all of them by a generic name like "assault rifle" is only meant to sound big and scary to everyone who doesn't understand otherwise. So claiming "it's all the same" actually isn't. I wouldn't call a motorcycle a car just because it's motorized and has wheels, same with a bigger van, truck, or RV. I don't think you would either, because you're educated enough and experienced enough you call them by their proper classifications.

    Edited missing words

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago

    My argument is that quibbling about definitions only works when we're talking about strict legal definitions, and the thing with the law is that the definitions are whatever the lawmakers want them to be. As a result, the legal definitions depend on context and place (such that an American legal definition would not apply in Canada or France or India), so any global discussion of guns should stay away from legal definitions.

    There's a whole world of firearms that are legally classified by the ATF as pistols, but that are visually, ergonomically, and tactically indistinguishable from submachineguns that happen to fire semiautomatic, complete with a brace and where adding a foregrip might change the legal status. That's all I was referring to with my pistol comment: the legal definitions have diverged from common understanding of what types of firearms fall into which types of categories.

    You can go out and complain that the word assault rifle should only apply to automatic/burst/select fire rifles, but that's not what anyone else means when they describe assault rifles in a colloquial sense. If you're talking the strict legal definition, well, the 1994 law had a strict legal definition of assault weapons covering semiautos, too.

    So my original point is simple: interjecting into a conversation about guns in a colloquial and cultural discussion, and insisting on the WWII military definition of assault rifle is out of place, especially when plenty of automatic weapons would not qualify under that definition. This discussion wasn't the place for you to make that argument about definitions.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent