Some mentioned the other one was old. Heres a two-day old article on the same issue.

  • random65837@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    If your argument is that limiting magazine capacity for people not commuting crimes, has an effect on people that ignore laws and will not produce any real life result as a consequence of that, than yes, you are.

    • PizzaMan@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Now you’ve moved the goal posts.

      These two statements:

      • has an effect on people that ignore laws

      and

      • criminals that by definition dont follow the law and have no issues comiting murder, will swap those 30rd mags for 10’s becuase those are legal

      are fundamentally different claims.

      • random65837@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        Goal posts are exactly where they’ve always been. You want the innocent hindered/punished for the crimes of criminals with laws/regulations that only apply to those who follow laws in the first place. Law that aren’t new, and have proven useless. You’re clearly not a CA resident, or a gun owner because this is elementary school simple, yet clearly over your head.

        • PizzaMan@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Goal posts are exactly where they’ve always been

          Not anymore, because

          • has an effect on people that ignore laws

          and

          • criminals that by definition dont follow the law and have no issues comiting murder, will swap those 30rd mags for 10’s becuase those are legal

          are not the same. They are fundamentally different claims. One is focused on effect, the other on intent.

          You want the innocent hindered/punished for the crimes of criminals with laws/regulations that only apply to those who follow laws in the first place.

          That’s not what I want.

          You’re clearly not a CA resident, or a gun owner because this is elementary school simple, yet clearly over your head.

          And this is an ad hominem.

          • random65837@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            1 year ago
            • Not anymore, because

            has an effect on people that ignore laws and

            criminals that by definition dont follow the law and have no issues comiting murder, will swap those 30rd mags for 10’s becuase those are legal are not the same. They are fundamentally different claims. One is focused on effect, the other on intent.

            Those are constant facts, they move nothing. Unless you’re claiming that criminals follow laws.

            That’s not what I want.

            Then explain why you support regulations that will only accomplish just that.

            And this is an ad hominem.

            No, that’s obvious. The ad-hominem would be you virtue signalling children as a way to violate the rights of the law abiding.