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

The only thing wrong with that sentence is that it lacks the most important part. "Therefore..."

So let's try to do a serious analysis to determine the proper "therefore". And by "serious" I don't mean what some unintelligent person once said to me. It was something about "punishing" guns... or something like that. Please keep dumb arguments like those to yourself, if you have any.

Given that this is a serious discussion, we need to deal with reality. It's not possible to stop ALL gun violence. For various reasons: including political, practical,... and other types. But we can try to reduce gun violence that is carried out with "military style weapons" (or "assault weapon".... whatever you want to call them makes no difference). Basically weapons that are designed to shoot many people in a short amount of time. The name is irrelevant. You can call them "ice cream cones", for all I care.

1- The purchase: The minimum number of people required for "people kill people" are two: the person who buys the gun, and the person who sells it. Or course, there CAN be other people involved. But this is the minimum. But this is the CORE part of the process of killing.

2- After the purchase the assault weapon may be stolen, sold by the owner to a third party, ... anything can happen. But none would have happened if "1- The purchase" had not happened.

3- Before the purchase gun manufacturers built that gun.

So here is the serious analysis: We can try to control guns 2- After the purchase. But it becomes almost impossible. There is no way to STOP gun theft. Or any other way in which bad people obtain guns. We can try to deal with mental illness, but that doesn't work often. We could try confiscating, but that would probably create even worse problems.

It would not be a good idea to control it 3- Before the purchase, in the sense of outlawing the manufacture of these weapons. After all, we DO need military-style weapons for ... the military. And maybe (up for debate) other areas like, I don't know... the police... maybe? Military-style weapons plausibly have other uses. So outlawing the MANUFACTURE would be as dumb as outlawing other necessary products. Like outlawing the manufacture of cars to stop car accidents, or something dumb like that (remember: this is a serious proposal. Please remember to keep dumb arguments to yourself)

So this leave us with ONE element: "1- The purchase" So the above phrase becomes

"Guns don't kill people, people kill people... THEREFORE... we need to outlaw the sale of military-style weapons to people"

There. I completed the phrase...

 

The military is made of people and the purpose of our cops and military is is to defend you, Golem.

Are you proposing that the people in the cops and military have rights above and beyond your right to defend yourself and your homeland?

Because in reality we all have equal individual rights. We also have roughly equal individuals wrongs. But one wrong that applies to everyone is theft of property. The right to defense is a property of being an individual, and you taking my right is called "theft".

In some states they shoot thieves as a matter of legal recourse.

The proper conclusion to your reasoning, if one applies logic, would be-

"guns don't kill people, people kill people, therefore we need use guns to prevent people from killing people".

 

How many people are killed in the US per year with military style weapons. Last I heard, it was zero, or at least not a major problem.

 

You only mentioned "military-style weapons" (whatever that means). Is it your position that all other firearms (not military-style) don't have the potential to kill if one of these types of firearms is used to shoot someone? For example, if a S&W 686 .357 revolver is used to shoot someone does it not have the potential to kill someone?

 

Except you don't.

 

It's probably true that you will never hear of any if you only listen to wingnut media.

 

No. My position is that we don't have the political climate to outlaw them. It would be impossible, in my personal opinion. "Military-style weapons", we do have the climate. And it's growing.

 

How many are killed each year in the US by military style weapons?

 

the problem is-every major firearms action has been used by the military

this is nothing more than a not so subtle demand to ban all guns.

and its an idiotic argument-the entire purpose of the second amendment is to PROTECT MILITARY USEFUL WEAPONS

 

there has NEVER been a case in the USA of a private citizen using a legally owned rifle that is a model issued by the USA military in at least 60 years. Not a single case of an M14 being used in a murder, not a single case of an M16 being used in a murder, and not a single case of a M4 being used in a murder involving a private citizen. So it's complete nonsense to want to ban military weapons

 

Come to think of it, I have four military style weapons.

I own a WWII era Enfield 303 bolt action rifle.

I own a Taurus knockoff of a 9mm Beretta.

I own a Para USA 45 911 ACP.

I own a 38 Special Revolver. I can't remember the manufacturer. (My personal favorite.)

I am guessing that none of those are what Golem would have considered to be military style weapons.

 

except people are starting to realize how dishonest the term military style weapon is as a term

the following popular firearms have been actually issued by the US Military

1) the Springfield 30-06 bolt action A3-03 rifle-numerous hunting rifles have been based on this or are actually customized versions of this

2) the Mauser K98 bolt action rifle-see 1

3) Winchester Lever action rifles-used by various military units in the late 1800s
the most popular deer rifle for decades

4) Winchester model 1897 and Model 12 shotguns-widely used in WWI and WWII and then Remington 870 and Mossberg Model 500 pump shotguns.=all used by the US Military and sold by millions to clay target shooters and hunters

5) the Remington 700 and Winchester 70 bolt action rifles-among the most popular hunting rifles of all time-The Winchester 70 is the rifle legendary Nam Sniper Carlos Hathcock used to take out dozens of NVA enemy. Remington 700s have been used as well in sniper units

6) the Colt 1911-for 100 years, one of the most popular pistols for centerfire target events and versions have dominated USPSA/IPSC and other action events for 40 years-the 1911 was also the US standard Military issue from pre WWI to the mid 1980s.

7) Beretta 92 and SIG 320s are hugely popular in private hands, these are the last two US Military pistols of general issue- the SIG 226 and 228 have also been issued-the SEALS chose the SIG-also an extremely popular civilian handgun

6) the Smith and Wesson K frame 38 revolver-the standard police issue for decades- owned by millions of target shooters-carried by US military since WWI era and was well known as something pilots carried for protection

so tell us Golem what exactly are you thinking you can ban?

 

What is a "Military-style“ weapon?

 

It has nothing to do with saving lives. It's about disarming the populace so we're easier to control.

 

So, you think the 28th Amendment has a chance of being ratified?

 

almost everything. sitting on my desk is a K-Bar F/U Knife and a Randall Model 1 which has been used extensively the the US military since WWII.

 

Everything is a military style weapon. Lever actions, pumps, revolvers, semi-autos, muzzleloaders, cap-and-ball, even crack barrel single shots.

 

its as bullshit a term as "assault weapon". since none of things called "assault weapons" by gun banners feature the ONE capability needed for MILITARY ASSAULT, it is obvious to gun banners, any weapon that CAN be used for CRIMINAL assault can be called an "assault weapon"

 

I got a military issue Yugoslavian P.A.P. from the 80's. It still has the bayonet and grenade launcher though I do not have any grenades. I use it for deer hunting. It used to be you could pick one up for about $200. It is the poor man's 30/30.

 

Read my sig. If you have a point to make, you'll have to do your own research. I only do mine.

 

The answer is ZERO. A point which you have meticulously avoided.

 

THAT is the problem? Phew!. I thought it would be more problematic than that.

I believe you are mistaken. That one is TOO easy to solve. But if you're right and I'm mistaken, I think we could have a full military-style weapon ban before the end of the decade

 

well the anti gun movement can define that term to mean anything from a k-bar knife to a military policeman's billy club

 

I bet you are wrong. and as I said-every firearm on the market can be called "military style" by dishonest people

 

It seems what is the problem is we tend to have done the most research because we know that no US civilian has ever used any military issued rifle that has standard issue over the last 60 years to murder anyone