Erik Haugen @ech@qoto.org

@pilhofer what happened? nothing? He's still calling out authoritarianism where he sees it, I guess. Maybe publishing on truth social helps him reach more people and shouldn't be seen as an endorsement of Trump, like, at all?

@voron Or maybe he's more nuanced: https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2020/11/26/intv-n26.html

You might be falling for the idea a lot of conservatives fall for, that established-company censorship only impacts Alex-Jones–type nutjobs, and then concluding that if Taibbi is fighting it he must be a Nazi.

@ML2 Sort of similar in that they're both about tearing down institutions that he sees as defective. He talks a lot about authoritarianism, right – he's against over-powered govt'-propped financial institutions (as is Elizabeth Warren... and Tucker Carlson...) and also against the authoritarianism of the identity-left (i.e. what you see on mainline mastodon instances, so obviously he isn't popular here).

See also Justine Tunney. She's a populist, so simultaneously a hero of OWS and also a neo-reactionary Trump ~supporter.

@mmasnick I don't know, if I were him I'd be syndicating as many places as possible, too.

@freemo But then your point about painting them pink applies.

@freemo well, there are different definitions; I mean maybe people really like the way the CA assault rifle ban or the FAWB were written; if so this is a useful shorthand.

@trz4747@mstdn.social Not ones available to civilians, no – those are certainly not "quintessentially assault rifles". I feel like you aren't reading what I'm writing, I think this conversation isn't going anywhere, so this is likely my last post in this thread.

To answer your yes or no: no, I don't think I favor banning semiautomatic rifles generally, and I don't know of any characteristics AR-15s have on top of that that would make any difference. So "no", I guess.

all the best.

@trz4747@mstdn.social Well, if @Pat and Wikipedia are correct about what an "assault rifle" is, then they're already essentially banned for civilian use.

So this is clearly not what the people @freemo are talking about mean by the term: people in the US clamor for banning "assault rifles" so they clearly don't mean the thing that is already banned nationwide.

I'm not sure how else to clarify the point here.

What do you mean by the term?

@trz4747@mstdn.social Well, I don't know what you mean by "assault weapon". That is my objection. I'm not sure how else I can clarify.

FAWB is like CA's law, isn't it? Do you see it as an improvement? It seems equally absurd, since it is so similar.

@Pat here has given a totally different definition of assault weapon. By that definition, "assault weapons" have been pretty hard to get since 1986 or so, and remain so even after FAWB expired. So that clearly isn't what you mean.

You didn't seem to know about how FAWB means silly stuff like that adding a flash suppressor would turn an otherwise legal weapon into an "assualt weapon", so your definition clearly isn't "as US laws define the term".

@Pat The term "assault weapon" has lost most of its meaning, unfortunately.

Yes: automatic/select-fire weapons are generally illegal in every state, and those are almost never used in "mass shootings" (probably because they're illegal and really hard to get).

However, this is not what people mean when they respond to shootings like in TN with "we need to ban assault rifles".

And it isn't what California means when it bans assault rifles. (It means things like flash suppressors and various safety features, because it's absurd.)

I think @freemo is objecting to this use of the term, not yours.

@trz4747@mstdn.social From the laws that ban "assault rifles". California's "assault rifle" ban, for example, allows you to own semiautomatic rifles with detachable magazines. But not if it has a flash suppressor, or a folding stock, or <insert random list of features nobody cares about>.

Literally that: you could have two rifles totally identical except one has a flash suppressor and the other doesn't. That makes it an "assault rifle", in CA, and it becomes illegal.

I assert to you that this is silly nonsense, and has little chance of saving any lives. I think that was @freemo's point.

In other words: "My only point here is "assault rifle" bans, as I've seen them at least, seem pretty stupid."

@trz4747@mstdn.social I don't understand that as a response to what I said.

As you think of all the mass shootings you've read about in the news, at any point have you ever said to yourself "I know, we should ban flash suppressors! That will solve the problem!"

Probably not.

But, that is what "assault rifle" bans do, and little else. It's weird.

@jbouie This is a good article! Great point about equating Foster and Rittenhouse.

My main quibble is the way Balko is describing the driver immunity laws.

If you're driving and your car is surrounded and attacked, I think it's pretty reasonable that you should be able to try to get away, and aren't really responsible for the safety of an attacker that is in front of your car. (See Alexian Lien, for example.) That's clearly the point of e.g. the Oklahoma law, which is what I'm assuming Balko's referring to.

(I don't know if we have any reason to think Perry was in this kind of danger, though, and "I didn’t want to give him a chance to aim at me." seems to settle that case!)

@trz4747@mstdn.social To be clear, I was not trying to "make a different argument": IIUC they generally do quite a bit more damage per hit than most pistols, all else being equal. I'm sure they make fine hunting rifles, but I am not trying to make a political point by noting that.

My only point here is "assault rifle" bans, as I've seen them at least, seem pretty stupid. Mass shootings probably aren't that much easier to carry out or more deadly if the rifle used has a flash suppressor, for example.

Along those lines, saying AR-15s are "assault rifles" muddies things. Assault rifle bans don't ban all AR-15s, for example, so it misleads in that context. The "assault rifle" bans don't ban them because they do more damage; that is clear. They instead address other silly unrelated things.

@Pat But that isn't what "assault rifle" means, when people talk about banning them.

@JonKramer Well, that may be overstating the point. I'd much rather be shot by a 9mm pistol than a 5.56 rifle.

But "assault rifle" isn't the thing that matters, I think. (Hunting rifles can do far more damage than an "assault rifle", depending.)

@schwern of course not, although if you surround a car and threaten the driver you should obviously expect the driver at least to drive forward (or reverse) rapidly in order to get away, which might kill you depending on where you are standing. (see: Alexian Lien) And if you also threaten the driver with a gun, you should expect maybe more.

Sounds like maybe neither of those things happened in this case, though.

@schwern @dcjohnson "you go talk to the driver" vs. "surrounding his car and banging on it" – kind of give different impressions. (The video doesn't look like the car was totally surrounded or anything, though; like Perry could have driven away, I think.)

@graphictruth Well, I'm sure it came up, it was literally the main defense argument used in the trial, wasn't it?

I don't think "peers" means "people with the same proclivities & interests" but I suppose you have a point.

@Renegade_GDI@mastodon.world I'm not sure what the upshot of noting 6 seconds is. He was stopped for 6 seconds, right? That's plenty of time for anyone to know he wasn't there to plow into the crowd, at least. What else does the 6s tell you?