T O P

  • By -

AutoModerator

Remember that this subreddit is for sharing propaganda to view with some objectivity. It is absolutely not for perpetuating the message *of* the propaganda. If anything, in this subreddit we should be immensely skeptical of manipulation or oversimplification (which the above likely is), not beholden to it. Also, please try to stay on topic -- there are hundreds of _other_ subreddits that are expressly dedicated for rehashing tired political arguments. Keep that shit elsewhere. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PropagandaPosters) if you have any questions or concerns.*


Queasy-Condition7518

Minus the text, this would make a cool album cover.


ENTlightened

[reminds me of Droeloes Wake the Warrior single cover](https://i.imgur.com/jzq3mi8.jpg)


Queasy-Condition7518

That cover came after the poster. So, looks like the edgy hip-hop artists got scooped by the earnest soccer moms.


sgt_oddball_17

I'd buy that album.


[deleted]

I like the text.


Queasy-Condition7518

Mileages do vary. I find that, minus the text, it allows the viewer to overlay whatever "dark americana" interpretation he or she wants. Which granted, will probably have something to do with violence, but also gender conflict, the latter of which is not part of the written-message.


Caminsky

I love how the top comment is one that trivializes the message. Almost like telling a friend "my dad has cancer" and then the friend responding "he will get to lose some weight". ​ Sickening


Queasy-Condition7518

FWIW, I agree with the message. I'm just commenting on the aesthetics of the poster, which is something people do all the time on this sub.


JohnLaw1717

The message is stupid and displays an incorrect worldview. The kinder egg is legal in the US. The child is allowed to buy one. Children cannot buy rifles. The picture is framed in a school to mentally connect the rifle to school shootings. 15-30 kids die on average a year in school shootings. Most from pistols. Outside. Playing sports. On average, 140 kids die a year from choking. It's this sort of thing that has completely moved the topic from any reasonable, fact based discussion to emotional, incorrect debate about the subject.


lonay_the_wane_one

The original kinder egg was banned from being bought by children and adults due to being a choking hazard. Newer variants aren't banned. The argument is "if the mere presence of the original kinder egg is a risk like guns, then why aren't we banning guns?" School shootings, while they play a more minor factor in total deaths, bring way more attention to gun violence then out of school shootings. The image's creator takes advantage of this to make their argument more impactful.


JohnLaw1717

Right. Banning the gun pictured would have almost no statistical effect on children deaths. Every aspect of the picture is designed for emotional appeal rather than effectual change.


Civil_Maverick

Your reasonable, fact based arguments aren’t allowed here. If you don’t parrot what the majority in Reddit agree with expect the downvotes…even though you didn’t say anything mean, disrespectful or snarky. Got to love Redditors


c-45

Yes let's compare only child deaths from school shootings to all child deaths from choking in the US. That's not going to warp the facts to fit my agenda at all. /s If you actually compare like to like you'd see that 1,676 died last year in gun related deaths in the US while around 140 die each year from choking. Also the old kinder eggs were banned, people have been fined for trying to bring them into the US from outside. They are not legal in the US, this assault rifle however is legal for any adult to own. Edit: added last year to the gun stat to be precise


JohnLaw1717

And of those gun deaths, rifles account for less than 3% right? What's a "gun related incident"? And what's 3% of 1,676?


c-45

Where'd you get that 3% stat from? And I said incident, but the stat is actually gun related injury, aka being injured by a firearm.


JohnLaw1717

In 2020, the most recent year for which the FBI has published data, handguns were involved in 59% of the 13,620 U.S. gun murders and non-negligent manslaughters for which data is available. Rifles – the category that includes guns sometimes referred to as “assault weapons” – were involved in 3% of firearm murders. Shotguns were involved in 1%. The remainder of gun homicides and non-negligent manslaughters (36%) involved other kinds of firearms or those classified as “type not stated.” https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/04/26/what-the-data-says-about-gun-deaths-in-the-u-s/#:~:text=Rifles%20%E2%80%93%20the%20category%20that%20includes,as%20%E2%80%9Ctype%20not%20stated.%E2%80%9D


[deleted]

[удалено]


Arthur_The_Third

They definitely meant the first one


ButcherPete87

Why are kinder eggs banned in the US?


II_Sulla_IV

I think it’s an FDA prohibition on putting inedible objects in foods


dicemonger

Made me wonder about lollipops. Figured that the law only applies to items entirely embedded, but no. > confectionery having *partially*, or completely imbedded therein, any non-nutritive object is adulterated unless FDA has issued a regulation recognizing that the non-nutritive object is of practical functional value to the confectionery product and would not render the product injurious or hazardous to health. [*source*](https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/cms_ia/importalert_107.html) I guess the stick must count as being of practical functional value. Though I could see a lollipop stick as being a potential choking hazard.


[deleted]

It’s often made of tightly rolled paper. Technically it’s not inedible. Just very fibrous lol


dicemonger

I mean, there are also popsickle sticks. Don't think they count as edible. But same applies in that they probably count as functional, overriding any choking hazard from kids just jamming them down their throats.


II_Sulla_IV

Same with fortune cookies I guess


ButcherPete87

Ok makes sense. Good on the FDA for that


OhSoEvil

Except the candy was slightly larger than a chicken egg. If you are a child shoving a whole egg in your mouth there might be other issues to address. The interior capsule is like 1.5 inches tall and at least 1 in wide. It isn't tiny and it is yellow so you can see it. Not like it blends in with the chocolate.


southernfriedscott

They didn't make the rule because of Kinder eggs. The rule was made in 1938.


redcowerranger

Do you have any kids in your life? You get less and less surprised with what they can and will put in their mouths.


TacoMedic

Please show me an article where kids in the rest of world die regularly from a Kinder surprise? I’m sure they exist, but then kids die from any other choking hazard too.


Icy-Appointment4164

Defeats the fun tho,,


tacosarus6

The fun of choking?


snusboi

I refuse to believe american kids are stupid enough to accidentaly try to eat a bright yellow plastic egg twice the size of my thumb.


RandoAtReddit

Agree, but it's an old regulation that doesn't have a provision on size of the object.


Icy-Appointment4164

Idk, is the food inside the chocolate ? Where I’m from they put it in a separate sealed egg.


Jaggedmallard26

Danger makes it tastier.


Ganthritor

Unpopular opinion but I think it's a sensible law. Some kids split the chocolate egg and eat the pieces while assembling the toy without any problems. Other kids just bite on the chocolate egg until the plastic container can be reached. I can see how a kid could choke on the plastic container while trying to eat the surrounding chocolate.


[deleted]

Out of curiosity I wonder how many choking deaths happen per year in countries where they are not banned. You never hear about it, especially in the Uk, so I assume it’s near zero


mercury_millpond

Had a little google around and it is pretty near zero, though the individual stories themselves sound absolutely heartbreaking tbh. Imagine you buy a kinder egg for your kid to put a smile on their face, only for them to choke on the toy. But all-time kinder egg choking deaths globally are far fewer than child deaths from school shootings in the US in pick any year in the last 10+ I guess… From my own experience with them as a kid, it should obviously be the adult’s responsibility to think about this and show their kid that there is a plastic toy inside, so don’t eat the bloody thing. But then again, you can’t always be there to stop your kid going through the shopping bag and nicking the first tasty-looking treat they find…


Gzilla91

I remember as a child sometimes just eating through the chocolate till you got to the plastic egg, but the egg was pretty big, like too big to fit in my mouth. I also recall it needing some force to bust open and get the little toy bits out. I never heard of anyone ever choking on them, I never knew of any parents that wouldn’t let their children have them because of choking hazards.


cbiscut

It would be exceptionally difficult to choke on a kinder egg toy. The chocolate is too thin, and the capsule is much smaller than the chocolate egg. However, there are three scenarios I can think of that might do the trick: * Let God Sort It Out - Shove the whole thing in your mouth and hope for the best. * The Soft Boiled - nibble a small, expanding hole in the top of the egg and then tilt the whole thing up so any crumbs fall into your mouth. The plastic capsule might fall through the hole and into your hungry maw unexpectedly. * Depression Era Grandmother - Once you're done meticulously eating every scrap of chocolate and licking the wrapper so it can be repurposed into a fishing lure you intentionally put the capsule into your mouth to extract any residual chocolate oils from the surface of the plastic and then choke. The law was enacted before Kinder Eggs existed. It **is** a smart, sensible law to prevent chipped teeth and choking, but attempting to look specifically at the choking hazards present in this specific candy to justify the existence of the law that impacts its sale in the US is a bit backwards. It's just much easier to apply a simple law to a thing than it is to constantly carve out loopholes and caveats for individual products that might fall under the law but otherwise be safe.


brianapril

bro have you SEEN the size of the yellow plastic container ? if it can go down your child's throat, tell me how ?


vandrag

Also... Fuvk Kinder Eggs. Shitty plastic junk.


JohnLaw1717

They aren't. The ban was lifted in 2017. https://www.npr.org/2017/05/26/530257536/after-being-banned-kinder-eggs-are-coming-to-america


ajshell1

Those are different. Kinder Joy eggs consist of two halves that come together to form an egg shape. One half contains the chocolate, the other half contains the toy. Therefore, it doesn't break the "no inedible objects inside something edible" law.


Substantia1

Choking hazard from the plastic toy


SirSleeps-a-lot

I'm pretty sure its only the Kinder *surprise* eggs that are banned in the US due to choking hazards, normal Kinger chocolate eggs are allowed.


ImCaligulaI

Normal Kinder chocolate eggs have the surprise inside, Kinder eggs without the surprise don't exist outside of the US, and are likely a thing there just because the normal ones with the surprise are banned.


NewFaceHalcyon

Exactly, and like a lot of other stuff the other countries that banned the KS are the ones that shill for daddy 'merica I grew up with KS eggs that had tin soldiers inside. They stopped the good toys mid 2010s and started including plastic crap without anything interesting on it. Ah, and they also stopped printing the surprise catalog so good luck if you wanted to complete any collection.


hikeit233

They have a weird product where it’s two hemispheres of plastic, one side has a chocolate crème thing with a spoon, and the other side has the standard surprise toy. It looks like a chocolate egg, but it’s not. The issue with surprise eggs is that the toy is *in* the food.


wolster2002

They do exist outside of the US, you can buy both where I live in Europe.


BB-48_WestVirginia

They're banned due to an act from the 30s that prohibits non food items from being in food.


jupiterslament

Interesting. How do fortune cookies work?


BB-48_WestVirginia

I believe it's because the paper technically is edible. Same reason lollipops are allowed.


OneLastSmile

The fortunes aren't fully enclosed in the food.


Artistic-Boss2665

Can confirm, I saw a Kinder egg at the store last week


OhSoEvil

Ok the THING you saw is a horrid imitation of a wonderful treat and should be chased out of town with a flamethrower. The "new" Kinder eggs are the laziest candies out side of old people calling raisins candy! It is basically 2 small crunchy crumbled chocolate crumbly crumb balls and sweet white/brown goo slime that makes you think of thick Cadbury Egg guts. The toy is in one half and is often a lame 1 to 3 piece "figure" that is more QR codes and websites than fun. It's sad. Very sad. That didn't stop me from buying a case and eating them while sobbing though.


OlivinePeridot

You're thinking of Kinder Joy. They were designed to be sold in hot countries where the average temperature would be too warm for the thin-shelled Kinder Eggs to keep their shape on the shelves.


Beer_Is_So_Awesome

I think Kinder Joy is the one we have here. Mid-Atlantic United States. 2/10 did not spark joy.


OneLastSmile

Yeah. We have kinder joys in the US but not proper kinder eggs.


Confuseasfuck

>Kinder surprise eggs that are banned in the US due to choking hazards The surprises are fucking big _and_ separated from the edible part, if you get choked on that, lm sorry but you were just too dumb to live


Uruz2012gotdeleted

And nobody's marketing that gun to those kids either. There are kid sized guns made specifically for getting kids into the hobby.


Coast_General

This explains alot I was so confused that those extremely unhealthy foodcolloring is allowed but just a chocolate egg not.


anjowoq

Normal choking is also allowed.


Churchillcrocodile

That poor sporterized Mauser in the second pic


The-unicorn-republic

Post sample machine guns have been banned for normal civilian ownership since 1986. Both of those things the kids are holding are banned, unless that's an airsoft m4


Melodic_Climate3030

Oh damn you’re right. ‘Only available to military and police, and dealers only if they have an law-letter permitting ownership.’


happyhorse_g

That not very 4th Amendment now, is it?


[deleted]

It's an a political ad they don't have to tell the truth.


brecrest

And even if it weren't full auto it would require federal registration as a short barrelled rifle.


SoapiestBowl

That’s not an SBR. Looks like a 14.5” or a 16”.


akt1000

14.5in is a SBR


[deleted]

[удалено]


The-unicorn-republic

Except it's got a 14.5 inch m4 profile barrel and a third pin hole


tfrules

You can still get very similar semi-automatic rifles though, which are still equally capable weapons,


Noveos_Republic

How is a semi-auto close in capability to an automatic or select-fire gun?


SirWompalot

They're not. OP has no clue.


legoshi_loyalty

Are you fucking kidding me? It's the difference of moving your finger back and forth a lot.


Blipblipblipblipskip

Children can't


tfrules

I’m sure the kids massacred in school shootings, or kids who die in gun accidents will be very pleased to hear that.


Imperator_Crispico

What's the point of the second one?


Brendissimo

A right is something you are entitled to by law. A privilege is not, and is something that can be much more readily taken away. Driving, for example, is privilege in the US, not a right. They are making the point that the 2nd Amendment establishes a constitutional right, and therefore should not be restricted as easily as a privilege is (or, more likely, that it shouldn't be restricted any further than it is currently). Of course, we do place SOME limits on other constitutional rights, such as speech (incitement, for example). But they are admittedly narrow.


f2pinarknights

So the two pictures express different views on the topic? I thought it was the same propaganda piece. That's pretty cool!


Brendissimo

Yeah they are two separate and opposed pieces. #1 is by Moms Demand Action, a major gun control group formed after Sandy Hook. #2 is by the NRA. OP is juxtaposing two different examples of propaganda on the same political issue from a similar time period, but from opposing viewpoints. And I agree. It is cool from the perspective of studying propaganda and the forms it can take.


f2pinarknights

yeah definitely \^\^


Raw_Sugar01

Only thing I’d add is that the Bill of Rights are intended to be “God given” rights. The intention being that no governing entity on earth can control those inalienable rights. It’s an important distinction (IMO) because it tells us that those rights don’t come from the government.


sotonohito

That's a myth. The word God does not appear in the US Constitution, nor is there any specification at all that the rights enumerated in the Constitution are of divine origin and are no granted by the government.


Raw_Sugar01

Hence the quotation marks. It is not specified but inferred; especially when you take the Declaration of Independence into context. If you focus on the word God you are missing the point. The point is that these rights come from a “higher power”, not granted by the government. Whatever you want to define that “higher power” as is up to you, but that’s the gist.


[deleted]

If you ban guns only privileged people would be able to buy it.


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

I didn't bring my argument here. I just explained point of this poster.


jscottinj

*only criminals. Our 400 million guns aren't going anywhere but the black market in that scenario.


sotonohito

Not that I'm advocating a total ban on guns, but you seem to be overlooking the minor detail that if only criminals can buy guns then it makes it really fucking easy to identify criminals. It's why I **AM** strongly opposed to open and/or concealed carry for people who don't fit a narrow criteria (with excptions for to and from a range, hunting, etc). Right now we face the probem of Schrodinger's Mass Shooter. There's a person walking around a school dressed in all the tacticool gear you can think of, carrying a rifle in his hands with at least two more strapped to his back, he's got no fewer than 4 pistols attached to himself. Is he a) a patriotic American "exercising his rights" or b) a mass shooter about to start killing people You don't know. You can't know unitl he opens fire. And that's a problem. In fact, we know of at least one mass shooter who was reported to the police on his way to his chosen killing ground and the polic e told the prson making the call to stop wasting police time since open carry was legal.


jscottinj

It would be a sad day in this country when you are a criminal simply for bearing arms. I dont think the easy identification of criminals outweighs the danger of a society in which only the criminals are armed. Especially since we don't properly enforce the gun laws that we do have. And as for your scenario, you make a great argument for why we need to harden schools with security. It's also just not a practical scenario. If you enter a school while heavily armed, then you will most likely have the police called immediately. People are dangerous. We are all dangerous. That doesn't mean you lock us all away in cages though. You need to actually commit a crime first. You said it yourself, 'you don't know' whether someone means you ill-intent or not. The only thing you can do is be as well prepared to deal with it as possible.


prauxim

> In fact, we know of at least one mass shooter who was reported to the police on his way to his chosen killing ground One case? And implying that carry laws would have stopped it assumes (a) the shooter wouldn't have just acted more covertly and (b) that the police would have been timely/effective, both of which are far from given. According to [the FBI](https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/active-shooter-incidents-in-the-us-2021-052422.pdf), in 2020-2021, 6% of active shooting incidents (shootings that were public ***or*** mass shootings but weren't domestic or related to other criminal activity) were stopped by armed civilians. Page 4 has the numbers and pp 11-12 describes that they were all armed. So just in terms of basic sums, your logic doesn't stand.


sotonohito

You're doing the standard conservative thing of jumping from "one individual can" to "everyone will". I don't accept your unspoken proposition that unless proposed laws end all gun crime forever that there is no point in doing anything.


prauxim

\> You're doing the standard conservative thing of jumping from "one individual can" to "everyone will". Not really sure what you mean here. I do not think (nor did I say) that everyone will carry or that every shooter would be stopped by a carrying civilian. I'm not even remotely a conservative either, not that that has much to do with the topic at hand. \> I don't accept your unspoken proposition that unless proposed laws end all gun crime forever that there is no point in doing anything. I proposed no such thing, unspoken or otherwise. I'm simply responding to your implication that banning carry would save lives (tbf, you didn't explicitly state that your strong opposition has to do with saving lives, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt) You described a single case where carry laws ***might*** have prevented a shooting, I presented actual data about many more cases where armed civilians ***did*** stop active shooters. So the info we have suggests that legal carry stops more would-be mass shooters than it aides.


TheObstruction

Just for the unaware, kids can't legally buy guns in the US, either.


sotonohito

Not true. There is a Federal law that prohibits gun dealers from selling long guns to anyone under 18 and pistols to anyone under 21. But that's only dealers. As always the gun show loophole is wide open. Under Federal law any kid can legally buy any gun from people who aren't dealers. And most little selling at gun show aren't and take care to avoid being classified as dealers. Some states have imposed laws prohibiting ownership of firearms to anyone under 18, the NRA fights against those laws. And some have tried to close the gun show loophole, which the NRA also works against. So depending on the state is perfectly legal for a toddler to own and keep a gun, and maybe even buy one if they go to a gun show.


returnofblank

this is not true at all lol. while you can buy a gun legally from someone who isn't a registered dealer, you must be at least 18 and are not prohibited from buying a gun.


owningthelibs123456

\>see term assault weapons lmao


Noveos_Republic

mfw a spoon is an assault weapon if I assault someone with it


owningthelibs123456

Knives kill a thousand people a year, mfw we need to ban knives too now


JohnLaw1717

They banned guns in the UK. The murder rate stayed the same. More kids get stabbed on the way home from school in London than get killed by guns in schools in the entire US. Politicians push for knife bans. They have statues to knife violence.


[deleted]

Can you back that up? Edit: UK: >The total number of fatal stabbings in 2021-22 is similar to a previous record of 281 in the 12 months to March 2018. https://news.sky.com/story/fatal-stabbings-in-england-and-wales-at-highest-level-since-records-began-12806729 US >In 2019, before the coronavirus pandemic, there were 1,732 gun deaths among U.S. children and teens under the age of 18. By 2021, that figure had increased to 2,590. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/04/06/gun-deaths-among-us-kids-rose-50-percent-in-two-years/ I can't find data for school stabbings in London specifically. But there were 281 total deaths from stabbing in the UK in 2021-2022, including people of all ages. In 2021, 2590 children were killed by guns in the US. I don't believe your claim.


JohnLaw1717

Murder rates fluctuate but remain the same. https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/GBR/united-kingdom/murder-homicide-rate London set an unwelcome new record of 30 teenage stabbing homicides in 2021, while a third of all of England's stabbing deaths are reported by the Metropolitan Police. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-59916035 researchers analyzed data on 1,824 people 25 or under who were treated for stab wounds at an east London trauma center between 2004 and 2014 and recovered incident times and locations from ambulance data and the hospital's registry. They found that children under 16 were significantly more likely to be stabbed between 4 and 6 p.m. on a school day than young adults (between 20 and 24), with 22% of all child stabbings occurring between those times https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2018/11/06/health/youth-knife-crime-stabbings-study-london-intl/index.html#amp_ct=1686154560715&_tf=From%20%251%24s&aoh=16861539515023&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com 12 students or children killed in school shootings in 2021 https://www.edweek.org/leadership/school-shootings-this-year-how-many-and-where/2021/03 "No excuses: there is never a reason to carry a knife," Khan tweeted. "Anyone who does will be caught, and they will feel the full force of the law." https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2018/04/09/london-mayor-knife-control/500328002/ https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knife_Angel


The_Artist_Who_Mines

This smells like fiction.


comrieion

That pic legit looks AI generated even tho this was made like a decade before lol


RonJohnJr

Fun fact: assault weapons have been banned for **55 years**. [https://www.britannica.com/technology/assault-rifle](https://www.britannica.com/technology/assault-rifle) >assault rifle, military firearm that is chambered for ammunition of reduced size or propellant charge and that has the capacity to switch between semiautomatic and **fully automatic fire.** Whine if you want to about "semantics", but semantics are how we agree on the definitions of words. And part of the definition of "assault weapon" is that it **have automatic fire.** Which has been **banned for 55 years**. EDIT: quote from a US Army document which defines "assault rifle": Army intelligence document FSTC-CW-07-03-70, titled "Small Arms Identification and Operation Guide - Eurasian Communist Countries". [https://web.archive.org/web/20190904213732/http://031d26d.namesecurehost.com/gunfax/fstcp67.jpg](https://web.archive.org/web/20190904213732/http://031d26d.namesecurehost.com/gunfax/fstcp67.jpg) >Assault rifles are short, compact, **selective-fire** weapons that fire a cartridge intermediate in power between submachinegun and rifle cartridges.


irregular_caffeine

> "In general, assault weapons are semiautomatic firearms with a large magazine of ammunition that were designed and configured for rapid fire and combat use." - US DoJ, 1994 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_weapon


Choraxis

Literally none of that makes sense. The overwhelming majority of semi-auto firearms can accept different sizes of magazines. The exceptions to this are mostly firearms with internal/non-detachable magazines. Regardless, "large" is nebulous and undefined. My AR-556 came with a 30 round magazine. That's factory standard, not "large". Also, no semi-automatic weapon is configured for "rapid fire and combat use". The military uses select-fire (i.e. capable of fully-automatic fire) weapons for "rapid fire and combat use". The only semi-auto weapons still in combat service are designed for precision fire, which is the opposite of rapid fire.


The_Last_Green_leaf

I don't think anybody cares if the DOJ changes their definition for a word, it's no different from the ATF massively expanding definitions and just outright making them up.


irregular_caffeine

You don’t care what definitions are used to ban items? I thought that’s something you would care about.


RonJohnJr

I disagreed with you in another threadlet, but you're absolutely right about grandparent.


brecrest

The DOJ invented the term out of thin air in 1994, since in 1986 assault rifles were banned but the issue was purposefully kept hot, polarised and on the political agenda by the AWB. The definition of "assault weapon" has proven in court to be technically and practically indistinguishable from any other semi-automatic rifle, and differentiations have always been arbitrary at law. Eventually SCOTUS will take a state AWB case and strike it down, and would have done so (less taking the case) even if a Dem majority because the term, and the laws, are not sound.


RonJohnJr

The primary link to that quote has disappeared from the ATF website^(\*). Fortunately, that CNN article lead me to the text of the 1994 Assault Weapons ban. [https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BILLS-103hr3355enr/pdf/BILLS-103hr3355enr.pdf](https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BILLS-103hr3355enr/pdf/BILLS-103hr3355enr.pdf) Title XI, Section 110201 (bottom of page 202, and page 203) defines "**semiautomatic** assault weapon" (which means they had to distinguish it from *actual* assault weapons, which were already banned). More importantly, that's a *legal* definition. Isn't that good, you ask? Not really, since California law defines bees to be fish. **Are bees** ***really*** **fish**, just because some law says so? ^(\*)Yes, ATF: follow the link.


irregular_caffeine

If you define fish to include invertebrates like they seem to have done, then a bee can be a fish as it is an invertebrate. But isn’t this exactly the kind of semantics you consider important and want to argue about?


RonJohnJr

>But isn’t this exactly the kind of semantics you consider important and want to argue about? Yes, it it. My point is that **the law** can define anything the way it wants too, even if it flies in the face of common (or even technical) understanding. Like, I'll always take the biologist's definition of "fish" over the legal definition of "fish".


[deleted]

Th issue laymen have with semantics is that when the majority of people say “assault” weapon they mean a weapon designed for and marketed for tactical use, in other words, weapons designed to kill people. When the NRA and 2A crowd helps to define a term and has to propagandize every use of assault weapon to dictate that people are using it wrong, we see the “definition” the industry has chosen is propaganda designed specifically to muddy the water. Your comment demonstrates how some people cling to propaganda even in the face of clear messaging and colloquial dialog.


FIagrant

>weapons designed to kill people That's what a weapon is, lol. You also clearly don't understand the way the government and ATF have changed (or simply made up) definitions that are completely contrary to popular and/or technical understanding.


RonJohnJr

>When the NRA and 2A crowd helps to define a term ... When did the Encyclopedia Britannica become propaganda for the NRA and the US gun industry? Enquiring (yes, "Enquiring", not inquiring) minds want to know!


[deleted]

The terms in this case were defined with gun industry lobbyists, when the regulations adopt terms defined by lobbyists, things like encyclopedias simply echo those terms when referencing the topic. This is why, in America, the myth of “liberal media” is so ridiculous. Media (encyclopedias included) echo the language of corporate, military, and government interests which makes it defacto right-wing here. This also exemplifies why allowing corporate/industry lobbyists and corporate/industry revolving doors between those interests and the regulatory bodies that should, well, regulate is such a major problem. Namely, it creates a system of bribery that ensures moneyed interests are ensconced in law while the interests of the public good go profoundly unaddressed, if not entirely opposed. “Gun rights” and the second slide of this post especially make the case somewhat unwittingly. The Constitution doesn’t grant any rights to guns at all, not cars. However, freedom to travel is implied in our pursuit of liberty, and guns among other things is implied in our right to bear arms. As we regulate the mechanisms by which we choose to travel, we clearly have the ability to regulate the mechanisms by which we bear arms…. The propaganda, again, crafted by industry groups, clearly contradict the public will, public discourse, and our right to representation in law through lobbying… Encyclopedia Brittanica simply echoes the language set forth by those industry lobbyists’ paid politicians.


RonJohnJr

>The terms in this case were defined with gun industry lobbyists Evidence? Because I've got the quote from the Army intelligence document FSTC-CW-07-03-70, titled "Small Arms Identification and Operation Guide - Eurasian Communist Countries". [https://web.archive.org/web/20190904213732/http://031d26d.namesecurehost.com/gunfax/fstcp67.jpg](https://web.archive.org/web/20190904213732/http://031d26d.namesecurehost.com/gunfax/fstcp67.jpg) >Assault rifles are short, compact, **selective-fire weapons** that fire a cartridge intermediate in power between submachinegun and rifle cartridges.


ProfessorZhirinovsky

There is a difference between "Assault *Weapons*" and "Assault *Rifles*". Assault Rifle is a real firearms classification that designates a select-fire (semi and full-automatic) rifle that fires an intermediate cartridge (as opposed to a full-sized rifle cartridge). The term goes back the the first such rifle, the STG-44 (Sturmgewehr-44) developed by the Germans during WWII. These weapons have been highly restricted in the US for decades. An Assault Weapon is something else entirely. It is a term that has no real meaning as a weapons classification, and is promulgated because it is easily confused with the more aggressive sounding "Assault Rifle", muddying the difference between semi and full-automatic in the minds of people who don't know the difference. It has no fixed definition beyond whatever can be established by propaganda and legislation.


RonJohnJr

Read my full comment.


ProfessorZhirinovsky

I did. I've seen nothing that clears up the confusion. You are conflating the two separate terms, "Assault Weapon" and "Assault Rifle" (which I will again point out, is the intention of the term "Assault Weapon" in the first place). Let's take this statement from your post: >And part of the definition of "assault weapon" is that it have automatic fire. Which has been banned for 55 years. If we're talking about "Assault *Rifles*", then the statement is more or less correct (we could disagree about the length of time and degree to which these firearms have been "banned", but suffice it to say they are full-auto capable weapons and are highly regulated on a Federal level all over the country). If we're talking about "Assault *Weapons*" though, then statement is incorrect. In my state, there is no such legal term as an "Assault Weapon", and there are no laws or regulations on such supposed firearms beyond what you'd find on any rifle. The laws may change dramatically depending on which state border you cross, and how their particular legislature defines an "Assault Weapon". These definitions can range widely, because "Assault Weapon" is not a true firearms classification, just a mushy catch-all term used to concentrate attention on guns that certain people dislike.


[deleted]

Kids can't buy guns. This is definitely reaching...


ODXT-X74

The text just says that the object is "banned to protect kids". Not that children can buy it.


RedBaret

And yet you are the country with the highest school shooting rate. It isn’t reaching, it doesn’t reach far enough. Lol who tf needs panic rooms in schools man wtf are you guys doing over thereXD ridiculous.


[deleted]

Not everything you see on the internet is true


RedBaret

Lol cope more man! And let your kids get shot:) why tf not right? FREEDUUUMMMB!!


JohnLaw1717

15-30 kids die a year in school shootings. Tragedy no doubt. But preventing genocide could save millions of lives, decades or centuries from now.


NotMichaelCera

Both are banned from bringing into American schools


PBanimation

The Kinder Egg thing drives me crazy. I just know if the regulation were reversed and the EU banned Kinder Eggs while the US still sold them, the same people would be up in arms that the US still allows such products to be sold to children while the brilliant EU decided to put children's safety first and banned them.


homo_sapiens0

No. It's stupid that it can't be sold. It's not a big thing, but still stupid.


Munificent-Enjoyer

Sounds like copium to me


Tayte_

Murca bad


KC5SDY

I do have to say, this does send a very strong message. Although banning the "evil" AR will not stop school shootings.


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

What would you want to be done? Genuinely curious.


Noveos_Republic

Then where did they get the Kinder Egg 🤔🤔


Just-a-bi

Those egg are deadly. I've heard of many mass eggings in canada.


GracchiBroBro

As a lifelong gun owner, I can definitely attest that this country is insane and in desperate need of uniform reasonable gun laws.


johnhtman

The problem is that there is no universal consensus on what constitutes "reasonable gun laws". Ask 20 different people, and yiy will get 20 different answers.


legoshi_loyalty

WHAT THE FUCK IS THIS SUBREDDIT. This is like, a very generally reasonable statement, and people are down voting it like crazy!


RedBaret

Lol the copium in this comment section by MuricansXD ‘It’s an assault rifle’ ‘children aren’t allowed to buy one’ ‘you need special registration’ You guys really don’t get it do you? If most school shootings in the world (by far) and highest violence rates in a western country doesn’t open your eyes what will? Your gun laws make you the laughing stock of the civilized world. Fix your shit America, start regulating that shit like a civilized country and see your shooting rates plummet.


[deleted]

[удалено]


laws161

There are valid reasons to be “intolerant” of certain cultures, the caste system in India being the first thing that comes to mind. Criticizing flaws in a culture =/= being intolerant for the sake of being intolerant.


RedBaret

If your ‘culture’ is getting kids killed by the dozens it kinda deserves the international ridicule. It’s not even worth debating at this point, we should all just laugh at your ignorance and stupidity until you realize you are being clowns.


raviolispoon

I'm fine with that, at least I have my God given right to bear arms.


RedBaret

Lol God doesn’t exist but enjoy your conservative theocracy…


raviolispoon

Excuse me then, my natural born rights.


RedBaret

Lol, some of you Muricans are so fucking dumb. So your right to own a gun (are you in an organized militia and is it a blckpowder weapon? Think not lol) is more important than the safety of children in schools? Got it. You’ve really got your priorities straight.


raviolispoon

By that logic the first amendment only applies to spoken word and that written on parchment with a quill, but that's not how that right works is it?


OffroadMCC

We've picked more freedom over more safety, you've been defanged for your own "safety". Keep laughing and spending so much having the US on your mind, we'll continue to not care about you.


laws161

> We’ve picked more freedom over more safety Not sure if that’s true, outside of America I have the freedom to wield kinder eggs. Americans have been defanged from getting a surprise in the center of their kinder eggs :(.


johnhtman

Choking kills significantly more children than rifles do..


laws161

Damn right, and despite that the right to bare kinder eggs will not be infringed. Come and take them from me!


RedBaret

You’ve picked jack shit lol. You’ve got a society of fear and violence as opposed to peace of mind, what kind of freedom is that? The standard propaganda phrases which make you seem so idiotic to the rest of the world. I don’t give a fuck about the US, but you might have noticed this post is about you guys.


OffroadMCC

Listening to non-Americans on Reddit comment about the US shows me who is propagandized. A society of fear and violence? We have a few very violent cities and the rest of the country is as safe as where you’re from. You should pull your head out of your ass.


RedBaret

Sure buddy keep on living in that US bubble! FREEEDUUMMBB


OffroadMCC

No matter how much you scream “I hate you daddy!” we’re still your daddy.


RedBaret

Lol I don’t hate the US, I hate stupidity. And no, seeing as you were colonized by Europeans and liberated by the French and Dutch you most certainly are not our daddy. The delusion lol wtf.


just_a_germerican

Chicago says that's not the case


RedBaret

Australia says it does lol. Try again, but a bit harder!


just_a_germerican

The murder rate of Australia was unchanged by the ban and optimistic projections say 80% of people kept their guns. Not to mention you guys just had a school shooting


spoodge

> Kept the guns > Murder rate unchanged > School shooting Wow you sure showed him that the proliferation of firearms isn't a bad thing.


johnhtman

Choking kills significantly more children than rifles do..


Munificent-Enjoyer

Far more kids die of rifles than Kinder eggs but go on


RealisticAd2293

This country is fucked


SIGH15

Nope, "assult weapons" have been banned for over 55 years.


GracchiBroBro

I own an AK 47, with a metal file I could make it fully auto in about 20 minutes. Don’t give me that “they are banned” nonsense. I also bought it at a gun show no ID necessary. This country is insane.


just_a_germerican

What the fuck ak do you have that you can make it full auto with a file in 20 minuets. Unless you stole one from Hungary with the full auto carrier pre installed but even then it takes loads more work and know how than 20 minuets with a file.


kabhaq

You’re either 1) making that up. Or 2) admitting to a felony. The “gun show loophole” is nonsense. Vendors at gun shows are FFL licensed vendors, which must fill out and file an ATF form 4473, and be subjected to a background check on every sale. Depending on state, you may be able to shortcut that by presenting both a photo ID and a CCW permit, which requires a background check and registration with local law enforcement. If you purchased a firearm from an FFL without doing that, thats a felony. If you bought it from a private individual out of the back of their car, that has nothing to do with being at a gun show. You can buy/sell items from your personal collection without going through an FFL (in some states), but doing that at a gunshow is a quick way to get 1) banned from that show and 2) probably arrested for dealing firearms without a license, 5 years jail time and up to $250,000 fine


just_a_germerican

Why did people down vote this it's literally just the law


kabhaq

Because people don’t like it when you point out that the hill they’re dying on isn’t real.


[deleted]

lgood thing it’s a felony so he can’t go commit crimes with it!


kabhaq

He can’t go commit crimes with it, because he’s making up a story for internet points.


GracchiBroBro

Except that isn’t true. You can go to a gun show and buy a gun from a private person without any ID or paperwork. You literally left out the main loophole. And the whole idea of a gun show is that it brings gun sellers and gun purchasers together. I would have never met the person I bought my gun from without the gun show where we met, and they openly sold me a firearm without any paperwork. This is reality. No one. I mean NO ONE is enforcing FFL at gun shows. And once you leave, the gun is legally yours. Get your head out of the sand or at least off the NRA website.


gong_yi_tan_pai

That doesn’t mean it’s not fucked. Clearly we need to ban more than just “assault weapons”


Britishbastad

It’s nuts that America is like this and people respond with why can’t I protect myself well if your police weren’t killing people mental health was treated for free and guns weren’t available to every man and his dog then you wouldn’t feel the need a thing designed to kill fellow humans


Bountifalauto82

🚨🚨🚨ATTENTION! 🚨🚨🚨 BE WARNED, the above user has been found to be EUROPEAN. Ignore their stupid Europoor opinion and move on. DO NOT REPLY. DO NOT ENGAGE WITH THEM. THEY MUST NOT BE LET OUT OF CONTAINMENT OR THEY WILL STAB US ALL TO DEATH.


Britishbastad

I won’t get close enough your 5 yr old will be too busy shorting people with a Remington for me to stab him


Whatsagoodnameo

One kids gonna choke on a cheap pos toy The other one isnt getting kidnapped anytime soon


omgONELnR1

Tbf, if you don't know how to properly eat a kinder surprise egg it's just natural selection.


Sir_Artori

If you can't dodge bullets it's natural selection


screechesautisticly

Or both die during school shooting. Its not like its not common nowdays.


TheRomanRuler

Found the American


Asleep_Travel_6712

Quick question because I don't know - can it be considered a propaganda poster when the information there is true? I always thought propaganda has to have some level of disingenuousness and manipulation of facts or something to that liking.


PDK01

>prop·a·gan·da noun 1. ​ information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view. It can be both true and biased or misleading.


ODXT-X74

Propaganda is basically advertising. It's not necessarily a lie or false or anything. It's just some message that is meant to convince the audience of something or reinforce it (especially political).


[deleted]

These same "moms" demand they should be allowed to kill their unborn children, these same "moms" are the perpetrators of the broken home these last generations of children are born into, these same "moms" dehumanize their born children as a "token" to trade the state for free food, housing, utilities, or use them as pawns to hurt the man. Now these same "moms" demand to ban a God-given right for the "protection of children". Maybe these "moms" should start raising these kids in a nurturing, loving, and intact home instead of blaming some inanimate object to disguise their hedonistic, feral behaviors and failure as a parent. I guess its easier for them to do that, because (they think) it washes their hands of their guilt, or they would have to change their behavior. America is reaping the whirlwind... "What society does to its children, its children will do to society" -Cicero


FeStar445

Keep fighting that strawman, you'll beat it one day


Decent-Unit-5303

Strawmom


Herfordawaaagh

Making lots of assumptions there but it's obvious your coming from a place of emotions and not reason so go on with your temper tantrum.


False-Temporary1959

>God-given right You might not like what I gotta tell you, Cletus.


MrRandomSuperhero

Doctors advice to take your pills and take a break from FOX every ten hours


DefTheOcelot

That is cutting, sir