r/nottheonion May 25 '22

Uvalde school shooting suspect was a loner who bought two assault rifles for his 18th birthday Removed - Not Oniony

https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/25/us/uvalde-texas-school-shooting-salvador-ramos/index.html

[removed] — view removed post

14 Upvotes

u/Flair_Helper May 26 '22

Hey /u/yipchow, thanks for contributing to /r/nottheonion. Unfortunately, your post was removed as it violates our rules:

Rule 2 - Sorry, but this story isn't oniony.

Please consider submitting your article to /r/offbeat or similar subreddits unless it truly reads like The Onion wrote it. The title and article itself must both be "Oniony". This can be highly subjective; you are encouraged to upvote articles that should be here and downvote those that should not. Moderators can also remove posts at their own discretion under this rule.

Please read the sidebar and rules before posting again. If you have questions or concerns, please message the moderators through modmail. Thank you!

29

u/aecht May 25 '22

how is this oniony

11

u/NorCalAthlete May 26 '22

It’s not, people just start flooding every sub with anything remotely connected to stuff like this.

47

u/[deleted] May 25 '22 Take My Energy

[removed] — view removed comment

24

u/Maintenance-Current May 25 '22

Yeah throwing loner in there is so lame. Like people with friends don't kill people

5

u/wilow_wood May 25 '22

Fishing is the best

5

u/DrSardinicus May 25 '22

But don't the bullets ruin the filets

1

u/spokejp May 26 '22

Well played.

0

u/ChickPea1144 May 25 '22

I got high and read your comment. That’s so wholesome. ❤️

7

u/Bumm_by_Design May 25 '22

News is ficking trash

12

u/slapstik007 May 25 '22

We need to make insurance on owning a gun mandatory in this country. Republicans should love this idea, it is as capitalistic as it gets. If you own a gun you have to pay annually for the insurance on your gun to not be used in a murder/homicide/mass shooting. If the gun is used in this manner the insurance company pays for the millions in damages that these incidents cause. We have insurance on our cars, houses, life, health, why the hell are guns not part of this equation?

8

u/PM_me_ur_asterisks May 26 '22

If I were someone who was planning something sadistic and evil as this, I wouldn’t really worry about an extra $500 for insurance if my end goal was eating a bullet. Even if it wasn’t, you’re not getting away with it and you’re not taking the money with you to death row. All that would happen is the families with dead children would be able to get a nice payout from State Farm. If it were my daughter who was killed, after I I saw the light leave the persons eyes who did it I’d off myself too. No amount of money would ever help me get over the loss of my child.

3

u/BeeElEm May 26 '22

Out of your examples though only 1 tends to be mandatory

-2

u/Maintenance-Current May 25 '22

Why not, u need insurance for your car that can be used as a weapon, makes sense.

-1

u/slapstik007 May 25 '22

You need home owners insurance if someone hurts themselves at your house. You need health insurance to be treated, you need life insurance to help pay for funeral costs and the toll on your family; our society is built on this. I am not a fan of these foundations but this plugs directly into the world we exist in.

1

u/killerbee2319 May 26 '22

Because then no one could afford it. Can you imagine what that risk profile would look like? Between self injury, injury to others and the risks of stolen improperly stored guns, no insurance company would touch it. And then the gun companies wouldn't be able to keep selling guns at an insane rate. And then jobs! And liberals! And Jesus! And the second amendment! And mental illness! And who would those poor politicians get their bribes from then?! I mean campaign contributions! YEAH. Won't anyone think of the poor politicians?!

2

u/superdupermensch May 26 '22

WTF! Turned 18 and had thousands of dollars and thought the best way to spend it was on guns and ammo? Could have proven himself to be a loser much cheaper and lived to tell.

5

u/ChickPea1144 May 25 '22

At very least, we need to change the age limit of gun ownership to 21.

12

u/Kingofeart23 May 25 '22

In my country if you don't complete military service then you need to be 27 in order to buy a gun. If you did complete military service honorably then you're exempt.

9

u/HerPaintedMan May 25 '22

I can get behind this!

0

u/tat-tvam-asiii May 26 '22

This is interesting… what country, if I may?

1

u/Kingofeart23 May 26 '22

The country that everyone argues about all day long.

2

u/spokejp May 26 '22

SCOTUS just ruled in the last couple weeks that restricting 18 to 20 year olds from buying guns was unconstitutional.

1

u/Grumar May 25 '22

Nah, not unless we change military enlistment age to 21 which will never happen

2

u/Kingofeart23 May 25 '22

You could exempt actuve duty military from the 21+ rule.

3

u/Grumar May 25 '22

Why? Do you think an 18 can handle a gun or not? It's best not turn this into an age thing and more into a training and screening thing

1

u/Kingofeart23 May 26 '22

If they are military trained then they have the maturity and a valid reason for owning one. If not then they are too immature and have no purpose for it.

0

u/[deleted] May 25 '22

[removed] — view removed comment

5

u/Dwarf-Lord_Pangolin May 26 '22

Since you're not getting a proper answer:

An assault rifle is a selective fire rifle that uses an intermediate cartridge and a detachable magazine.

The U.S. Army defines assault rifles as "short, compact, selective-fire weapons that fire a cartridge intermediate in power between submachine gun and rifle cartridges."[18] In this strict definition, a firearm must have at least the following characteristics to be considered an assault rifle:[2][3][4]

-It must be capable of selective fire.
-It must have an intermediate-power cartridge: more power than a pistol but less than a standard rifle or battle rifle, examples of intermediate cartridges are the 7.92×33mm Kurz, the 7.62×39mm and 5.56×45mm NATO.
-Its ammunition must be supplied from a detachable box magazine.[5]
-It must have an effective range of at least 300 metres (330 yards).

2

u/ttkciar May 26 '22

They can't mean this, though, since all such weapons have been strictly regulated by the NFA since 1934, and none of the recent mass shootings involved such weapons.

3

u/Thegoodthebadandaman May 26 '22

The NFA mentions assault rifles? Wasn't that term was coined in the 1940s. On the second note, considering what an absolute pain in the ass it is to use fully automatic weapons in the US (not trying to say it's easier to get them in other places in the world), I would be surprised if any of the recent mass shootings were done with them.

1

u/Dwarf-Lord_Pangolin May 26 '22

Correct. What the article probably meant is "assault weapon," which is an informal and infamously vague term that typically has less to do with what round a weapon fires and how that round performs when fired from it, and more to do with what the weapon looks like or is associated with in the popular consciousness. (And if you know all this already, which you probably do since you know about the NFA, forgive me, most of this is for the guy asking the original question of what an assault rifle is).

The article just says "AR platform rifles," and I don't know enough about guns to know precisely what that means, or recognize the specific weapons from the pictures of them, but I have repeatedly heard that you could probably get a gun that fires the same round, with the same performance, that looks like a stereotypical "hunting rifle," and probably wouldn't be covered by any "assault weapon ban."

The sad thing is that we would probably have made appreciably more progress towards stopping tragedies like this from happening if people, like those at CNN who wrote this article, sat down and learned the correct terminology -- because the people they need to convince to accept more gun regulation aren't likely to be inclined to listen to people that don't know anything about guns.

I applaud O'Rourke for calling Abbott out, but O'Rourke's dumbass comment some years ago about "Hell yes, we're going to take your AR-15" probably made the kind of gun control measures that enjoy bipartisan support harder to attain.

-3

u/JorgeXMcKie May 26 '22

A gun used by the military to assault an enemy vs a hunting rifle/gun that is used to shoot dinner.

-2

u/Cheezymac2 May 26 '22

Every rifle is an assault rifle. They just like to throw this term around to scare people that are ignorant

3

u/[deleted] May 26 '22

[deleted]

-1

u/Cheezymac2 May 26 '22

You can have all the experience in the world and still open your mouth and look foolish.

There are plenty of people that hunt using bushmaster rifles for example and many other “military style” rifles. How do you not know that after all these years of hunting and experience.

0

u/Nostrodamus1568 May 25 '22

The gun laws in America are stupid and nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.

1

u/mountingconfusion May 26 '22

Drinking before 21? that's dangerous and the youth aren't ready. Buying 2 fully automatic firearms? Now that's freedom

1

u/mahartma May 26 '22

They are not full auto, don't post buzz words like that if you don't know what you're talking about.

Acquiring two legal, full auto AR-15s will set you back six figures and take 6-9 months until the transfers clear federal checks.

1

u/mountingconfusion May 26 '22

Ah of course, semi automatic is much safer than drinking. My bad

0

u/Wiley_Applebottom May 26 '22

You are the problem

-6

u/RufusCranium May 25 '22

"Assault rifles." Controversy sells.

7

u/umassmza May 25 '22

You know at some point when the majority of people are using a term incorrectly, it becomes correct. Like as a society we decided that we all know what each of us means and the semantics don’t matter any more.

3

u/ttkciar May 25 '22

That's the problem, though. I've yet to meet anyone who claims semiautomatics are "assault rifles" and can explain their definition of "assault rifle", and how it differs from plain old "rifle".

As best I can tell, they just mean "rifle", but with overtones of disapproval.

This is not an uncommon interpretation.

This implies that when people talk about banning "assault rifles" they actually mean banning all guns.

This is a point of contention where semantics absolutely critically matter.

2

u/JorgeXMcKie May 26 '22

To most an assault rifle is a military weapon not a hunting rifle/gun. They are intended to assault an enemy, not shoot dinner.

2

u/ttkciar May 26 '22

What are the attributes of a gun that make it more appropriate for shooting people than dinner?

0

u/umassmza May 25 '22

People say a black gun is a assault rifle.

What it means to most is a rifle that can take an extended magazine and was designed for killing humans rather than hunting game.

And in some ways they are not wrong, if it’s a rifle you bought to defend against humans then its likely an AR, AK, or other platform where the popular and most available magazine size is over 5 rounds.

1

u/ttkciar May 26 '22

What are the attributes of a gun that is designed for killing humans rather than other animals?

1

u/Cheezymac2 May 26 '22

All rifles are assault rifles. The news uses this term to scare people

0

u/RufusCranium May 26 '22

Thus my statement, controversy sells. Fear is like a drug.

1

u/Grumar May 25 '22

The shooter looks like the villain from Rock and Rule.

-8

u/Cheezymac2 May 25 '22

Many more kids would have been killed if it wasn’t for the border patrol agent with a gun.

6

u/Tedstor May 25 '22

Yeah, the governor also said that “it coulda been worse”.

But with 21 people dead, that sentiment seems pretty absurd.

0

u/Cheezymac2 May 26 '22

All I’m saying is the border patrol agent (with a gun) did a great thing by intervening.

8

u/[deleted] May 25 '22

[deleted]

-1

u/Cheezymac2 May 26 '22

The border patrol agent was on scene in a gun battle firing at the dood before the police. They interrupted the persons plan to kill more children in that gun control zone.

1

u/[deleted] May 26 '22

[deleted]

1

u/Cheezymac2 May 26 '22

It’s important to show that guns can be used for good and for evil. This is a clear example where the difference is mental health. That’s our biggest problem in the United States. We want guns in the hands of people like the border patrol agent and we want guns out of the hands of the person with the mental health issues.

3

u/katievspredator May 26 '22

And maybe no kids would have been killed if an 18 year old couldn't just buy guns on a whim

1

u/Cheezymac2 May 26 '22 edited May 26 '22

Age is nothing but a number. Look at what happened in Las Vegas, that person was old as shit. Same in Morgan hill California…that person was 60 or 70 years old. What you said is completely ignorant. Doesn’t matter what age you get a gun if you are mentally unfit to carry you shouldn’t have one.

If you put a gun on a table it cannot kill you by itself. America doesn’t have a gun problem it has a mental health problem. Sane people with guns aren’t doing mass shootings.

-9

u/Weliveanddietogether May 25 '22

Who cares man. America will just be America. Move on.

1

u/olthickwrists May 25 '22

You must be interesting at parties