The cowardly police force who did jack shit in Uvalde are now claiming the shooter had a "battle rifle," and the libs can't decide what retarded angle to take. They seem split between a few choices. Ironically, "ACAB" is the least objectionable when it comes to gun rights.
The other options are "hahaha, myth of good guy with gun busted," which ignores that at least these cops were bastards, and my favorite "hahaha, and they said there was no such thing as a battle rifle!" which ignores that...well, it ignores a fuckton.
There is a battle rifle. But the shooter didn't have one. The cops are just absolute retards. Everyone is spinning up over a comment by, and giving credence to, the people who fucked up in every way imaginable.
For a few examples:
"AR-15s" is trending on Twitter. Always a good time.
My favorite Reddit comments are the idiots saying they know a lot about guns, but all of them get it wrong. Calling M16s battle rifles. Talking about 5.56 vs 9mm penetration while ignoring tumbling. Acting like anyone ever claimed that there was no such thing as a battle rifle. The whole thing is amazing. The biggest mistake aside from their general ignorance, is taking the lying Uvalde cops at their word about 'battle rifles' and armor piercing capabilities, or that the existence of rifle could sensibly result in the tactical holdoff of a freaking army of (allegedly) trained law enforcement officers.
Here's a good one:
The gunnit line for years has been "AR-15 isn't an assault rifle, it isn't a military weapon, it's chambered for the same rounds as a handgun, it's a peashooter, it's harmless" apparently they don't believe that bullshit themselves and boy howdy am I not surprised.
For the first part, it's not an assault rifle, it's not military, and I've never heard the other load of nonsense. And then they finish by, once again, giving credence to a bunch of losers who stood around while kids were murdered. Yeah, I'll take their opinion on anything with a grain of salt.
Basically, Uvalde cops are shit, anti-gunners know they're shit, but will still believe their lies wholesale if it means they can hate on guns. Disgusting. And stupid, very stupid.
Take it from someone who has been "debating" gun control with Gun Control Advocates on a very large forum (Arstechnica) for almost 20 years: there is no reasoning them out of their beliefs.
Yes, they are ignorant. Yes, they are emotional. Yes, they are illogical. THEY DONT CARE
You have to get very personal and very direct with them: "If you get what you want, gun owners will not comply. You will have to send the police, with guns. Gun owners will resist. Some will die. The ones you don't get in the first raids will then become insurgents, with everything that means. From there, the assassinations begin. Here is where you come in. Clinton rules are in effect, you see. Regime supporters get the bullet, too. THAT MEANS YOU. Are you willing to stake your life on your beliefs? You just might have to."
They don't like it when they get their noses rubbed in the logical consequences of their actions. I usually get blocked at that point.
Debating gun control is simultaneously amusing and depressing. Depressing because, as you say, they're emotionally wrapped up, and can't be reached logically, so you'll never have a meaningful discussion. Best you can hope for is to convince a few undecided people watching the discussion, but you're still just talking to a brick wall, which is pretty frustrating.
Amusing because anti-gunners are some of the most ignorant people around, so "winning" arguments against them is easy and hilarious. It just doesn't matter, because the two debaters are playing with different rules. Still funny, though.
You get them on their ignorance, that's what solidifies my opinions about gun control and I'm British. I hate the idea of boomers trying to police tech and the internet in general because I know the average boomer in politics knows less about using both than my own parents. Seeing pro gun control people argue about guns is actually really embarrassing if you even understand a little about guns.
The one you usually see get spammed about is either accusing people with lots of guns of having a small dick or being a redneck which is just 90's era white liberal rhetoric.
For what its worth 20 years ago I was that annoying twat who was 100% pro gun control, but have since done a complete 180. The reasoning that finally got to me was realising that a society works much better when people are encouraged to take responsibility for their own safety and of their community, so why then should law abiding citizens be denied access to the most effective tool for self defense? Also the lie that Australia is completely gun free yet there are guns everywhere you look: they are just being held by cops.
this.
make sure that they understand... confiscation will require use of force, and if tyrants are declaring that society is going that far, everyone from politicians to cops to supporters of gun confiscation will all be hunted for sport.
private firearm ownership in the US is bigger than all militaries on the planet combined.
There are more effective tactics.
"I agree. If a man is trying to rape a woman she shouldn't have access to a gun to defend herself. What if she hurt him?"
Take some indefensible stance about a realistic scenario. Checkmate. Either they realize their stance is retarded and needs to be backpedaled, or they stick to their guns (no pun intended) and announce to everyone they are immoral rapist enablers.
I use a similar tactic with abortion debates. It's hilarious and pisses off lefties. Ask me how!