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

Not in the Army's specific definition.

 

Good for you! But the proponents of bumper stickers like "Guns don't kill people... etc" don't. We need to address their concerns too.

It will when the Supreme Court changes. It tends to do that every few decades. But nothing I have proposed in the threads where I have made proposals negates the Heller legislation anyway...

 

You first.

My point is that flame throwers are not designed to shoot people. I should think that was obvious. Do you know what they were designed for? Do you know how they were used offensively in battle. Do you know how they may be used to protect people? Or has that not yet been part of your extensive research?

Flame throwers are much more effective as a psychological weapon than a means for quickly setting humans on fire. They are actually not practical for that seemingly obvious purpose of roasting people. They are practical for removing flammable cover. They are practical for removing fuel sources for more dangerous fires.

 

That makes no difference to what they were designed to do. I bought a power generator three or four years ago because the power kept going out after hurricanes. We've been lucky and we haven't lost power since I bought it. That doesn't mean it was "designed" to sit in my garage and take up space.

 

I already did. The definition is here.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/1808/text

I don't see flamethrowers, though. But it is a good idea to include them, if you think they fit.

That is not even a point. A REAL point includes, as the OP indicates, a "therefore". So, "flamethrowers are not designed to shoot people... therefore..." Therefore... what? Finish the phrase.

Ok. So are you saying that they should or should NOT be included? Because assault weapons ARE practical for the obvious purpose of shooting people.

 

Are we going to agree to that definition? Do you know what selective-fire means?

 

No "we" don’t.

Not necessarily.

But,

is directly counter to “BRUEN”; that is, IF, by “military-style” you mean AR and AK type firearms. Actual military firearms are already “outlawed” by the FFA of 1938. But because AR's and AK's are semi-automatic and "THEREFORE" not "military-style weapons".

And Bruen protects the sale of “firearms in common use” now. Which covers AR’s for sure, because they are THE firearms MOST in common use and, as semi-automatic are not restricted by the FFA of 38.

 

Are you assuming that an act that has not passed contains a legal definition of something?

According to the NFA they do not meet the definition of a weapon. Do you accept that as true? Maryland law defines a destructive device. According to Maryland a "Destructive device" includes a bomb, grenade, mine, shell, missile, flamethrower, poison gas, Molotov cocktail, pipe bomb, and petroleum-soaked ammonium nitrate.

Is this the definition?

You asked a question. That question was "They issue assault weapons that are not designed to shoot people?" Which, as a matter of fact, isn't actually a question but instead is a statement with a question mark at the end. I answered that poorly worded question with examples of assault weapons that were not designed to shoot people.

Now you apparently want to take issue with the word assault. That's fine. An assault is a physical attack. A weapon is a tool you use to threaten or inflict physical damage to people or property.

I didn't comment on whether or not they should be banned.

Now that that's been cleared up, I think you should change your approach if you actually would like to reduce the public use of assault weapons, or any other weapons you find to be disagreeable. The other side of the argument has been abundantly clear that they view these weapons as tools for the purpose of defense. This is why I asked you what characteristics a tool designed for defense would possess. You declined to answer that question. I suggest you attempt to. If you want to remove a tool that a large number of people use for defense, you'll have a much better rate of success if you replace that tool with a better one. There's no need to ban the use of a tool that people would willingly give up in favor of a better one.

So what does the design of such a tool require? What does it do and how does it do it in a way that cannot be used offensively in a manner you do not intend.

 

You referenced automobiles as part of your argument. You set the precedent. I followed by using automobiles as part of my argument. You claimed falsely you didn’t mention automobiles. I simply pointed out your denial was false.

I’m very predictable. I tell the truth. If I reference automobiles I don’t deny it. I can back my claims with evidence. I use logical arguments. Yes. I’m very predictable.

 

If it does not make any difference what they were designed to do, we should get rid of automobiles, airplanes, chain saws, the list is nearly endless. They have all been used for evil.

I consider my guns as just as much a safety device for my family as the air bags in our cars. It is only the misuse of these items that is the problem. Not the items themselves.

 

That generator was designed to be capable of sitting in your garage and take up space and then be ready to go when necessary.

My guns are seldom taken out of storage, maybe every months or so and then used for an hour or two. However, my guns did not require any special engineering in order to spend most of their time in storage like your generator.

Your generator was more designed for how it spends the majority of time than my guns. Nothing you say about your generator is relevant to this conversation.

It still comes down to the intended use of an object is what the owner intends to do with it, not what it is capable of.

 

If they're included in the definition of the law, they're included... if they're not, they're not.

Easy as that. I have ZERO interest in getting into debates about "types" of weapons. I just want less people killed. That's all.

 

My first reaction is ... "they're not". But, what law are you talking about. What "official definition" are you talking about? If there is one I'm sure any rifle that would fit the modern/current definition of a military-style rifle would include, "selective fire" for semi, (at least) burst (usually 3 rounds with one trigger pull) and (maybe, maybe not) full auto.

Yes, "easy as that ^^^^^^

That's ludicrous, you're naming a "type" of weapon in your OP. We all want "less people killed" especially innocent school children and shoppers. So, address the problem of OUR broken society; because THAT is the problem causing the kind of gun violence you want addressed. Banning a "style" of firearm will not save one life.

 

It contains a definition. Which is what you requested.

Obviously the point this thread is making is that we need NEW legislation.

FEDERAL legislation, of course.

I gave you the link. You can look up on your own what the definition is.

True. It's called a rhetorical question. The intention being "reductio ad absurdum".

I absolutely do NOT! I could not care less what word you use. I already addressed this strawman in the OP

Look, the purpose of this thread is to demonstrate that the ONLY possible conclusion of the "Guns don't kill people, ...etc" narrative, from a purely logical point of view, is that people and guns need to be kept separate. As another poster pointed out, the premise is faulty. But, anybody who embraces it, must also embrace the only possible conclusion.

As explained in other threads, I DO want to reduce the number of guns in the hands of people. The way I would do it is explained in the thread
that is possibly my favorite thread I have ever opened.
http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/how-to-ban-guns-without-firing-a-single-shot.600040/

Wrong, I am not proposing to "remove" anything. As the above thread demonstrates.

Sorry... I don't think in binary. Not a question of how something CAN vs CANNOT be used, but of doing whatever we can do to REDUCE the number of shootings (particularly mass shootings. And there is a lot to do because, basically right now, we do almost NOTHING.

 

I mentioned cars as an example of a dumb argument that only dumb people would use. I did that to get it out of the way hoping for a more intelligent dialogue. The end of that paragraph says " Please remember to keep dumb arguments to yourself"

 

seems like a valid answer to me-well done

 

It makes EVERY difference what they were designed to do.

Exactly! In the case of the generator that's to provide power. In the case of gun is to shoot somebody. THAT's what they were designed to do.

 

why should he follow rules that you make, that you refuse to follow yourself?

 

tell us Golem-what were the founders contemplating arms be used for-the ones protected by the second amendment?

 

Which, the whole bill, is unconstitutional by the Heller/Bruin decisions of OUR Supreme Court.

which is a contrived label that is used to brand firearms with a scary title with the goal of "banning" them.

But playing along
Or, collecting
Or, building
Or, plinking
Or, target practice
Or, home defense
Or, hunting
Or a myriad of things, which is way Americans find so much "pleasure" in owning firearms; none of which are commonly considered violence.

 

I'm talking about this one.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/1808/text

But only because some here got fixated on demanding a definition. It'll be.... whatever list there is at the appropriate moment. My arguments don't care what definition is used, so long as it makes it more difficult than it is now to kill masses of people in just a few minutes..

We ban the sale of whatever we need to ban that DOES save lives. Countries that have done this have had great success. We might not have THEIR success at first, but we can still save many lives.

 

Not necessarily.

Or, collecting
Or, building
Or, plinking
Or, target practice
Or, home defense
Or, hunting
Or a myriad of things, which is why Americans find so much "pleasure" in owning firearms; none of which are commonly considered violence.

And, far and away, the vast majority of American owned firearms are NEVER used "to shoot somebody".

 

Huh? Questions in English are preferred.

 

Yes, that's the link I followed from your post #455; its UnConstitutional.

No ban, short of banning all guns, will do that. Banning one "style" of firearm will just force the lunatics committing these atrocities to choose another "style"; it won't stop them.

Then we agree, banning guns will not save lives, so we must address the social problems of our society IF we are to save lives.

Only when they ban all firearms.

No, you won't have "THEIR success" unless you use "THEIR" method of banning all firearms. Banning one "style" of firearm will not save "A" life.

 

stop the evasion-you understand the question perfectly.