A serious analysis of "Guns don't kill people... people kill people"

Yes! You are absolutely correct, of course.

What I'm doing is taking the premise given and taking it to its logical conclusion. However, this is pure logic. Pure logic doesn't consider factos outside the premise given. You conclusion DOES. But that's a problem with the premise. Not with the conclusion.

But your point is obviously valid. If we take in factors from reality not included in the premise (like Heller), the conclusion would have to be closer to what YOU say. It's just that the premise doesn't include it. And pure logic demands that conclusions come from the premise, and not from anywhere else.

What this prove is that the premise is insufficient on its own to reach ANY conclusion that is useful in reality.

 

"Guns don't kill people. People kill people." A complete and intact statement. There is no "therefore" required.

 

No idea. Off topic, though. Not to mention irrelevant....

 

So your solution is for the US government to violate the law and ban some sort of weapon?

 

Yep! To transport people and stuff from point A to point B.

Of course in my younger years it had other BETTER uses. Like taking your girl to the drive-in and getting yourself in trouble. But they weren't DESIGNED for that, so they were uncomfortable as hell.

Seriously, I haven't MENTIONED automobiles. Nor are they of any relevance whatsoever to anything I have said. Stop with the pseudo-intelectual self gratification.

 

It would require an amendment to make banning guns constitutional.

 

wrong as usual. you claim the only purpose of those weapons is to kill as many people as fast as possible. Obviously none of those governmental agencies agree with your erroneous claims

 

Nope. Automobiles were intended as weapons of war. That was what they were invented for. They can be used as paper weights or called ice cream cones. But their only REAL purpose for eternity is weapons of war. Your attempt to infer taking your girl out in one is a real purpose is pseudo intellectual masturbation.

 

Take a good faith guess at what you think it means. Communicate that guess, and then we can have discourse regarding that guess. I'm sure you're research will show that is how communication works.

I, for example, don't know what you mean by "designed to shoot many people in a short amount of time" That's why I want to know the difference in design between something designed to shoot many people, and something that's designed for the defense of many people. Do you see no distinction between an offensive weapon a defensive weapon? Is there such a thing as a defensive weapon, in your view?

 

They issue assault weapons that are not designed to shoot people? I guess they can serve as great door stoppers too...

 

Doesn't sound interesting enough....

That's ok. Everybody else did. Doesn't seem too difficult to understand but.... you never know who's going to read it.

 

You brought up automobiles in your OP. Might want to get your memory checked.

 

Simple reason. For progressives. socialists/communists don't believe that citizens should have the ability to defend themselves from government. Or their criminality. The demand that government be able to quickly subdue the people to enforce their tyranny. It's not fashionable for these folks to admit that....

 

Proclaiming that I must justify something I have the right to do with a need really indicates you don't know what a right is.

If someone wants to buy a gun just because they think it looks cool that's justification enough.

 

Oh, now I remember! I mentioned them as an example that somebody with no arguments to counter mine might use to try to change the subject.

How about that! My predictive powers are improving! And YOU are getting more predictable.

 

They make assault weapons that are designed to set people on fire.
They make assault weapons that are designed to electrocute people.
They make assault weapons that are designed to incapacitate people with sound pressure.
They make assault weapons that are designed to irradiate people.
They make assault weapons that are designed to poison people.
They make assault weapons that are designed to cut people.

So, yes. They do make assault weapons that are not designed to shoot people. But they also make tools with similar malevolent uses that were designed with benevolent uses in mind.

Kalashnikov struggled with this problem. He would tell you that the intent of his design was to protect his country's borders. The intent was not to shoot many people. The intent was to protect many people. He lamented the idea that his rifles were used in manners that he did not intend.

 

Just because a tool has a capability, does not mean that is what it is designed for.

A weapon is a tool. The ultimate purpose of that specific tool is to do what the possessor of that tool wants. In the vast majority of cases, that purpose is for hunting, self defense or just plain target practice. In the vast majority of cases, the owner of his specific tool has no desire to punch holes in anybody.

The last time I fired my 30 special revolver, I did a little multi-tasking. I got in some target practice while punching some air holes in a burn barrel. I also punched a couple of drain holes in the bottom.

 

So many people try their best to have a good faith discussion. Some don't. Can't blame me for trying.

 

Define "assault weapons"...

Yeah... I think the sale of flame throwers should be banned too. Was that your point? You certainly took the loooong road to make it, didn't you?

 

True. But irrelevant. We know what assault weapons are designed for. I doubt any weapon designer has ever made a modification to a design of one to account for the size of the door it could be used to hold open.

 

If you want to have a good faith discussion, I suggest you do like I do. You state your point and then you support it with arguments, references, quotes... whatever is appropriate. See the OP of ANY of the threads I open for examples.

But, no matter how you do it, off topic questions and remarks will NOT accomplish the task. At least not in the threads I open.

Oh! And don't forget to read my sig! Especially the part about you doing YOUR OWN research. Asking me to do your research or make your point for you is not going to happen.

 

"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 ..."

 

I’m “trying” to live in the real world. It seems everyone wants to pretend in a world of alternative facts these days.

Gun law has been settled by the Supreme Court and, isn’t likely to change. At least not in the foreseeable future. Unless, TRAITOR tRump is reelected and achieves his dream of dictatorship. He would then certainly go after everyone’s guns. It would quickly become a reign of terror as he tries to consolidate and intrench his power.

Then all the gun grabbers ( and everyone else) would understand graphically why the founders wanted to protect gun ownership.

 

But you claimed that the purpose was to punch holes in people. If that is the purpose, it is one of the most misused tools ever invented because only a very small percent of those tools are ever used for that purpose.

 

Does that include flame throwers? If it doesn't, @Fangbeer might be interested in learning that.