Replying to @⁨fartographer@lemmy.world⁩

Lol, what?

“I support it if he used a shotgun but by gawd if he used a handgun he can burn in hell”

This makes no god damn sense man.

Edit: I was wrong about this. The issue is that handguns and rifles will keep traveling and potentially kill someone. A shotgun with birdshot would not do that.

Edited ⁨⁨Aug⁩ ⁨6⁩, ⁨2026⁩, ⁨16:36⁩⁩en

Replying to @⁨DanceMomsSavedMe@lemmy.zip⁩

Well, shotguns generally are extremely range limited, and birdshot is pretty mild after a couple dozen feet. You’re not gonna hurt someone accidentally, even if you completely miss the thing.

Handguns and rifles have an extremely high likelihood of hitting something or someone behind whatever you’re shooting at and travel great distance. Miss the camera, and you end up doming some poor bastard just walking down the street a mile away, or hitting some kid chilling in their room.

Replying to @⁨DanceMomsSavedMe@lemmy.zip⁩

Basic gun safety states to know your target and what lies beyond it. Even a simple .45 has the potential to go through a camera, wall, and into a person, meaning that a perfect shot still has a non-zero chance of your bullet taking out a person or ruining someone’s day.

Using one of the first gun types displays foresight and consideration that I’d desire in a politician. The second type indicates a reckless figure who is uninformed about the tools and power that they wield, and doesn’t embody the values of a politician I’d trust.

It’s not enough to take action and be a badass; it’s important to also show that you’ll at least try to keep your constituents safe.