• lennybird@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    You included more than simply a link to a wiki page.

    Pretty sure my points are self-evident by context.

    • flying_monkies@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      No, I provided a link to the wiki page with the tldr from the article on the weapon/armor for anyone who didn’t want to click on it.

      The fact you believe there’s some sort of point I’m trying to make by linking the wiki article that covers the bank robbery and includes the information on the weapons, tactics and outcome and think “I’m trying to make a point” speaks volumes about you.

      • lennybird@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Ah, so indeed it was more than just a link. An emphasis on armor and weapon, curiously, despite that already being mentioned by the original user. Interesting.

        Tell me, how does it “speak volumes?” when I’m merely providing obvious context and correcting misconceptions?

        • flying_monkies@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Because that was the persons comment I linked to was regarding the weapons and armor.

          I’m sorry you don’t like what the wiki says and you apparently feel the need to read more into an article and a direct quote of statements from the article. Maybe you could try linking documents you approve of that answers a persons question in the future?

          • lennybird@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            My apologies if I misunderstood. There are just a lot of gun nuts out there who would twist the two points you coincidentally highlighted in order to claim that regulation of these things is pointless when that simply is not the case (especially when “home made” is a half truth). Since you clearly agree, then again, my apologies.