this post was submitted on 05 Aug 2026
604 points (99.3% liked)

Technology

86896 readers
3735 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] DanceMomsSavedMe@lemmy.zip 15 points 12 hours ago (2 children)

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.

[–] fartographer@lemmy.world 4 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

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.

[–] DanceMomsSavedMe@lemmy.zip 1 points 6 hours ago

That's fair actually and does make sense.

[–] Earthwormjim91@lemmy.world 12 points 12 hours ago (2 children)

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.

[–] EvilHankVenture@lemmy.world 5 points 8 hours ago

If by "extremely high likelihood" you mean "a remote but non zero chance" then I agree. It's obviously too high a chance to take when it could result in someone's death, but there's just to much empty space between people to make it likely he would hit someone.

[–] DanceMomsSavedMe@lemmy.zip 5 points 11 hours ago

That's fair acrually but I would hope he would walk up to it and shoot it and not try to hit it with a scope from 100 yards away.

There is truth in what you say though.