this post was submitted on 05 Aug 2026
650 points (98.9% liked)

Technology

87550 readers
3377 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
[–] fartographer@lemmy.world 5 points 2 weeks ago (15 children)

Using what? Shotgun, paintball gun, pellet gun: I'll donate to this campaign/defense fund. Handgun, canon, or rifle: go fuck yourself.

[–] DanceMomsSavedMe@lemmy.zip 19 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (9 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.

Edit: I was wrong about this. The issue is that handguns and rifles will keep traveling and potentially kill someone. A shotgun with birdshot would not do that.

[–] Earthwormjim91@lemmy.world 13 points 2 weeks ago (6 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 6 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Earthwormjim91@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Well if you’re aiming up toward a camera on a pole, and miss, there’s a 100% chance it hits something else behind it. That being a person is low, but that’s not the only irresponsible thing to hit with a bullet.

Also, there are 30-40 deaths every year from inadvertent falling bullets from shooting up into the air.

[–] EvilHankVenture@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I'm not defending shooting into the air, I'm just disputing the "extremely high likelihood" that you will hit a person.

[–] Earthwormjim91@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago

I mean, if you just gloss over half of what I said sure.

You’re not disputing anything because that’s not what I said.

I said you have an extremely high likelihood of hitting “something or someone” behind it.

Which is absolutely true.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments (11 replies)