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

I think he knows that but if he concedes that obvious point-all his obtuse arguments in favor of banning guns evaporates

 

I think your argument applies to some and I think mine applies to others. so we really don't disagree- except perhaps only as to numbers

 

I only argue against his insanity because he tends to use a thread like this to prove he's right in another similar thread, "claiming" that no one proved him wrong.

Well, I'm noone.

He is wrong of course; which isn't hard to prove.

 

He is wrong. And it's very easy to prove. There is no language in the constitution that would permit congress to make any law banning guns.

And he can't answer that, so he will never answer that.

His next post will completely ignore what I've just said here.

 

if the gun banners actually could find said language, they wouldn't spend so much time trying to misinterpret the second amendment

 

He's never going to post any language from the constitution that would permit congress to make a law banning arms.

Because he can't.

Which is awesome.

 

I would like to show a case, a very recent case, just finished in the U.S. District Court of Oregon. I am going to give you the link to the information which is fairly lengthy, but in case you don't wish to take the time to read it all, I'm going to copy/paste the basic facts.

Portland Gang Member Sentenced to Federal Prison for Straw Purchasing 64 Firearms and Trafficking Dozens to Unlawful Possessors

One recovered firearm linked to 17 Portland shootings, including 2 homicides

PORTLAND, Ore.—A self-identified member of Portland’s Unthank Park Hustlers, a local Bloods gang set, was sentenced to federal prison today for straw purchasing more than five dozen firearms from area gun shops and trafficking many of the guns to individuals prohibited by law from purchasing or possessing them.

Edward Charles Green, 25, of Gresham, Oregon, was sentenced to 30 months in federal prison and three years’ supervised release.

The rest of the article discusses shooting after shooting after shooting involving guns Green and his brother had straw purchased, and the investigations that followed and ultimately led to their arrest and prosecution.

https://www.justice.gov/usao-or/pr/...deral-prison-straw-purchasing-64-firearms-and

30 months is 2 1/2 years.

Federal law prohibits knowingly making any false statement in connection with purchasing, or attempting to purchase, a firearm. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) requires prospective firearm buyers to complete ATF Form 4473. This Form requires buyers to answer several questions, including those about the buyer’s competency, criminal history, drug use, immigration status, and history with domestic violence. Applicants who knowingly make false statements may also face criminal prosecution for a felony and up to 10 years in federal prison.

https://www.atf.gov/news/pr/federal...those-who-lie-connection-firearm-transactions

Also in the atf link above are details of two recent sentences as follows ....

Sentencings:

• AMY CARWILE, 46, and KEVIN CARWILE, 48, both of Purcell, Oklahoma, were sentenced on August 3, 2022, to serve three months in federal prison. According to public record, the Carwiles were engaged in the business of selling firearms, and dating back to 2012, they made false statements and failed to maintain proper records in connection with their firearm business. Transaction records indicate that the Carwiles had sold approximately 253 firearms through their off-the-books operation. Records further reflect law enforcement seized 112 firearms that were to be sold without completing the appropriate and required paperwork. Their federal firearms license to sell firearms has been revoked.
• EDDIE WAYNE MORRISON, 34 of Duncan, Oklahoma, was sentenced to time-served, or essentially 16 months in federal custody, on December 29, 2022, for making a false statement during the purchase of a firearm. According to public record, Morrison purchased a firearm from EZ Pawn in Duncan. Prior to purchasing a firearm, Morrison had been deemed incompetent by a court. He was also subject to a protective order in Love County. A judge had ordered Morrison detained in federal custody since August 12, 2021, until sentencing. He is currently serving a term of two years of supervised release.

So ... Of course people have thought of enforcing the laws on the books, but our justice system isn't doing it. Law enforcement brings forth the cases, but then courts are handing down sentences of 30 months (where 2 homicides resulted) for over 60 straw purchases, or three months for selling 253 firearms by a dealer "off the books", or 16 months in another case for lying on the form about having been deemed incompetent by a court and that he was subject to a protective order.

All of these offenses are punishable by 10 years for each offense.

Conservatives who value our gun rights have been begging the justice system to robustly punish crimes like these for a long time. How many times have you heard "enforce the laws on the books" from 2A supporters? These light sentences are exactly why 2A supporters continually say that. I would think that liberals like you would be all for slamming these people hard. I would think that liberals and conservatives could both agree on this. All of these offenders should be removed from society for a long, long time and serve as examples to others who may think about committing these crimes.

Agree?

 

LOL. Yep. I quoted you making a comparison between manufacturing of cars and guns in the OP. I quoted you doing what you said is dumb.

Glad we agree you are the one who made the first reference to automobiles in the thread contrary to your claim. Glad we agree you DIDN’T say it would be dumb to bring up cars in a discussion about guns. Glad we agree you actually DID bring cars up in a discussion about guns.

Your wife cooking again?

LOL.

 

It makes almost no difference what they were designed to do.

For example. This was the purpose of original Colt 1911 45 Cal pistol.
"American units fighting Tausūg guerrillas in the Moro Rebellion in Sulu during the Philippine–American War using the then-standard Colt M1892 revolver, .38 Long Colt, found it to be unsuitable for the rigors of jungle warfare, particularly in terms of stopping power, as the Moros had high battle morale and often used drugs to inhibit the sensation of pain." American units then adapted the Colt 1911 45 Cal Pistol because of its stopping power. They continued to use Colt 1911 as a standard issue for another fifty years even though they were no longer fighting the Moros.

The claw hammer was designed to drive nails and to pull nails all with the same tool. They have been used as murder weapons. They work very well to tighten barbed wire fences. I frequently use the claw to straighten nails.

In short, the intended purpose of an object or tool is of lesser importance than for what it is used.

Your generator was intended to be used to provide backup power for your house. However, they are also convenient to use to provide electrical power where commercial electrical power is not readily availalble.

I have no intent to use my guns to kill an intruder. I hope to convince him that stealing my possessions or attacking my family is too large a risk. Besides, cleaning blood and gore off of a rug is almost impossible and it would likely cost me a lot of time and money.

 

False. But not the topic of this thread.

You denied my claim that a human being could be basically torn apart by some of these assault weapons, I give you examples of shootings in which they were.

By which I mean what is described here:

https://www.insider.com/uvalde-doctor-details-horror-seeing-kids-bodies-ripped-apart-shooting-2022-6

https://www.theatlantic.com/politic...land-should-change-the-debate-on-guns/553937/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/interactive/2023/ar-15-damage-to-human-body/

Not the topic of this thread, though.

Also not the topic of this thread. I would encourage anybody who has a point to make that is outside the purview of this thread to open their own thread and make their point.

It makes a huge difference, but not to the topic of this thread.

The topic of this thread is a discussion of the sentence "Guns don't kill people.... People kill people". Usually used by gun advocates, but NEVER with a "therefore". And if we were to use the most logical conclusion AND accept the premises as valid (and they have flaws... but let's assume it doesn't, just for the sake of argument), we would have to conclude what I said: "... therefore, we need to keep guns away from people".

I guess the constant attempts to change the subject by those who would expect might use that sentence (I don't know if they have) indicates that there is a consensus that my conclusion would be the only logical one.

For everything else, there are OTHER threads in which all the above posters have participated. But, just like they do here, after a few failed attempts to rebut the point made in THOSE threads, they also decided to try to derail the them. A curious poster might want to verify this here (just ONE example... but it's probably my favorite of all threads I have ever started): http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/history-101-why-the-2nd-amendment.586263/

I think maybe some of the posters quoted above may want to debunk the main point in THAT thread. But won't do it THERE, because the arguments are compelling and tightly documented.

So.. since nobody has anything to rebut the point I made in the OP of this thread (about the "Guns don't kill people..." statement), I guess the only possible conclusion is that my case is made....

As for the other topics, most are discussed in the threads about THOSE specific topics. And, if they aren't, posters can open their own threads.

 

You are the one who claimed it made a difference. I demonstrated that it makes no difference, but now you don't want to talk about it.

My guns have never killed anyone and they have no desire to kill anyone. They just lay there motionless until I pick them up.

If you can get the lawless to give up their guns first let us know and then we can have conversation about the law abiding giving up their guns. Not sure why we need to have that conversation, because we are not the ones causing the problem.

To follow your recommendation. Convince the lawless to give up their guns and therefore there is no need for the law abiding to give up their guns. If you can't convince the lawless to give up their guns and therefore you go ahead and try to get the law abiding to give up their guns anyway you, you are putting the law abiding at greater risk. Therefore, the logical answer is to not give up our guns under any circumstances.

 

It is a topic of this thread. You want to "outlaw the sale of military-style firearms", (which are already controlled by the FFA of 38 and 68 btw), his claim that the federal goverment doesn't have the power to outlaw the sale of any firearms "that are in common use", is a valid point for this thread.

I did not. I'm cutting and pasting from the first time you tried to misquote me on this; btw.
You said:

To which I replied:

I didn't "deny your claim, I pointed out that, unfortunately, I have seen what firearms are capable of. When you "quote" me, at least actually quote me.
Not the topic of this thread, though.

Apparently the topic of this thread is "Golem is right and when he's wrong IT'S NOT THE TOPIC OF THIS THREAD".

You made it "the topic of this tread", when you took us all down the rabbit hole of the "purpose of military-style weapons is to kill people"; which is untrue.

But it must all so include all the other side trips you've taken about gun control, IN THIS THREAD.

Which I put to rest in my post #423
"No, you “completed the phrase to support a narrow view point, YOUR, narrow view point.

My, equally valid, narrow view point might be:

“Guns don’t kill people therefore we need to outlaw laws that ban the sale of a particular type of firearm.”

Which, by the way, the Supreme Court already has.

But, to your point, strictly speaking, “military-style weapons, weapons capable of fully automatic fire, are already “outlawed” for sale to “people”, the general public."
end of my post #423
Your narrow assumption of what follows "therefore" is biased, poorly thought out and ... WRONG.

The only consensus of the posters in this thread is: "you don't know what the hell you're talking about when it comes to firearms". <-period SO, don't EVEN try to use your assumptions here to prove a point in another thread, like you so often do.

By your opinions and your own posts that have been proven false.

You're case is made alright, you've proven here that you're manipulative, misquote other posters to make your point SEEM correct and, you haven't a clue about firearms.

You'd be better off to stick to them because your firearm knowledge and gun law knowledge equates to ... ZERO.

 

The Federal government has banned assault weapons in the past. It did it in 1993. I see no reason why it would lose that power. BUT, if this activist Supreme Court decides to legislate and remove that power, then it won't be possible until a new non-activist Supreme Court takes over.

I don't see anything relevant to this thread to debate. We will know when the case is presented to SCOUTS...

Ok. I thought you did but I stand corrected. It wasn't the topic of this thread anyway.

What I'm trying to say is that this is what they are DESIGNED for. I have said plenty of times that you could use them as door stoppers. But that's irrelevant. For any absolutely unavoidable use (I don't know of any), in the definition I referenced, there are plenty of alternatives that are NOT assault weapons. If there is no alternative, hey can make their case when the law comes up for discussion. However, if we err, we MUST err on the side of saving lives. Hunters, collectors, ... everybody will just have to adapt. Human life is more important than any of that.

There is nothing complicated about it.

I agree... It's basically what I'm trying to say in the OP. Except instead of "a particular type of firearms" I said "military style weapons". Which refers to a "type". But my point stays the same whether you call them that or "assault weapons" or "military-style weapons",... ANY shorthand you want to use for a list of weapons like the one in the link I provided makes no difference to my point. ... "a-particular-type" is as good a name as any. I usually use the other two because they are more widely utilized by the general public and by lawmakers. I am not fixated on semantics.

Point is that I am completely aware of the red herring many gun advocates use to avoid the discussion. And I call it out before the fact by saying "you can call them 'ice-cream cones', for all I care" I don't CARE what you call them. And too many gun advocates always use semantics to hide from debating the REAL point!

 

none of the diversionary emoto-jerking stuff you post cites any proper constitutional power. Bullets shot by people kill people. What do you think the purpose of the second amendment was about? None of the stuff you cited actually proves Obliteration. obliteration is what happens when someone is hit by a semi going 70 MPH or a direct hit with a mortar shell

 

Article I, Section 8, Clause 18

I've told you this many times. BTW, the Necessary and Proper Clause is not the topic of this thread either. If you have something to say about that, open your own thread.

 

LOL pathetic-find a single federal gun control law or proposed law that cites that as its constitutional authority. another swing and a miss but I am sure you will claim its just another flesh wound

 

Patently false.

 

Golem-why do you start threads that you get thrashed on-and then declare that every point that refutes the unsupported silliness that you post is not on topic? it gets old

 

This is the clause Golem cited
Article I, Section 8, Clause 18: [The Congress shall have Power . . . ] To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

pray tell @Golem what the foregoing powers are etc

 

I have the distinct feeling that you often confuse the Constitution of the United States with the Articles of Confederation.

 

That was before Heller and Bruen. The Supreme Court can't legislate and never has.

Whoa, you were the one that wants to "outlaw the sale of military-style firearms.

"YOU" brought it up and then responded twice, accusing me wrongly - twice. So you made it a topic of this thread.

I thought we were discussisng, outlawing the sale of military-style firearms.
"Guns don't kill people, people kill people... THEREFORE... we need to outlaw the sale of military-style weapons to people" -Golem/post #1
What, then, IS the topic of this thread?

You're wrong. The underlying cause of the type of gun violence you want to solve by,"outlawing the sale of military-style weapons", will not be solved by "outlawing the sale of military-style weapons. We have a broken society that has left many people behind. Behind without a job that will support their family, behind without mental health care, behind with children that cannot be fed, behind because the jobs their fathers and mothers considered were an inheritance were shipped overseas. That has to be fixed to solve "gun violence".

Outlawing the sale of or banning firearms of a "style" will NOT solve that problem and therefore will NOT save a life.

IF, outlawing the sale of a "style" or "type" of weapon would solve the gun violence problem, then semantics would be very important. But it won't so as far as I'm concerned that point is settled.

I don't believe you have a "REAL point". You are "fixated" on the solution that keeping "guns" out of the hands of people will solve school shootings and mass shootings in public places; it won't. Because it's illegal to do what you want to do, ban firearms, you try to dance around that by conjuring up "Thread Topics" that are ... really ... meaningless.

 

ALL of them. Off topic, though....

 

Not when you make them ON topic by bringing them up and/or responding to them.

As far as: "It took me along time to research the validity of my arguments" goes. It appears to me that, that "research is done nightly in your easy chair with a bottle of scotch.

 

Exactly! But legislation passed by an activist Supreme Court can be undone by a less activist Supreme Court.

IF any of those were an impediment, that is.

Actually, it always HAS.. And you just mentioned two pieces of legislation.

Yep!

This is not intended to "solve it" Just to save lives. As many as we can. They have pretty much solved it in other countries. But even if we can't in our country, that doesn't mean we can't reduce the insane loss of innocent lives we see today..

For this reason I opened ANOTHER thread with more things we could do.

The rest of your post appears to be about "solving"... gun violence, I guess.... Not what this thread is about.

 

I don't and am not allowed to. I only respond to the poster out of courtesy. I checked with the mods and that's allowed so long as we do it briefly and don't stray too far from what the OP has set as the topic. I once had a complete thread removed because it went totally off-topic.