why anyone wants an "assault rifle"

I read in the newspaper that a 12-year old had injured two other kids with a gun.

Now, what about that "sanity check" the NRA wanted ?

Not too long ago, a teen nearby fell down their stairs, broke their neck, and died. Will you be seeking to outlaw stairs next? Do it for the children, man!

Cars kill more kids than guns. We need to get rid of cars as well.

Yes, and water drowns kids too. No baths, no showers, no water to drink.

The thing is no one wields water, wields cars, nor wields stairs to kill people. None of those are weapons designed to kill people. Hard to comprehend isn't it?

You're claiming that nobody has intentionally run another person over with a vehicle? You're claiming that nobody has intentionally been drowned? You're claiming that nobody has ever intentionally been pushed down the stairs?

All three of your counterexamples have been used as a weapon many, many times. Similarly, we will be seeing guns used for something other than violence in a few weeks over in Sochi.

Weak sauce, there, friend.

No, I didn't say that. You are strawmanning again, which is why it's impossible to have a logical honest discussion with you when you dishonestly warp other people's words. Also, you conveniently missed the fact that none of those were designed to kill people unlike guns. Don't bother to try again. It's rather pointless and a waste of time.

Thrasher said:

The thing is no one wields water, wields cars, nor wields stairs to kill people.

Click to expand...

Thrasher said:

No, I didn't say that.

Click to expand...

Well then, I must have misunderstood when you said exactly that.

Thrasher said:

Also, you conveniently missed the fact that none of those were designed to kill people unlike guns. Don't bother to try again. It's rather pointless and a waste of time.

Click to expand...

Will you be banning archery? Arrows weren't invented to tickle.

dteowner said:

Not too long ago, a teen nearby fell down their stairs, broke their neck, and died. Will you be seeking to outlaw stairs next? Do it for the children, man!

Click to expand...

Toff said:

Cars kill more kids than guns. We need to get rid of cars as well.

Click to expand...

I see you guys took your stupid pills today!

Look at the purpose of various things:
- Stairs - to move from one level to another.
- Cars - move from one location to another
- Knife - cutting objects
- Water - hydration
- Guns - kill

There is virtually no object that when either improperly used or involved in an accident that couldn't result in injury or death.

The difference is that the purpose of a gun is death. Whether hunting, defense, war, police action, or whatever - it is all about death. An 'accident' means that death is directed at the wrong person.

The problem I have with the NRA is that when there is killing done they say 'too soon' to have a discussion (I don't necessarily disagree - actions in the heat of passion are not generally good). But the result seems to be increased divisiveness rather than open discussion.

I support that the 2nd Amendment ensures right to own guns - and that right as a 'general principle' should NEVER be considered in question. It is as American as jazz, football and racism

But just like the 1st amendment is not absolute, neither is the 2nd. When the fundamental 'life, liberty, etc' is put in jeopardy, 'amendment protection' goes away.

To be real - my friends who have AR-15s that they use on their ranch to protect livestockl from predators are NOT the same people rampaging through schools and malls. And much is made of the 'mental health' issue ... which then brings up what sort of test should be done, who should do them and how decisions are made.

That is the real issue - there are always extremists who want to ban all guns, and others who think toddlers should have automatic weapons if they want ... but for most people, it is about how do we have a country where gun ownership is not fundamentally threatened, but at the same time it is more than a trivial thing for someone to amass an arsenal that can take out a school or theater.

@DTE. Ok. Fair enough. Bows and arrow were designed to kill people. But you're overlooking the most important criterium for banning. Does it frequently kill people, like guns? No. Then why ban them? We should ban things that are real threats, not strawmanned.

txa1265 said:

I see you guys took your stupid pills today!

Click to expand...

Clearly, we're not alone in that.

txa1265 said:

There is virtually no object that when either improperly used or involved in an accident that couldn't result in injury or death.

Click to expand...

I know you do some clarification in the next sentence, but I want you to think about this statement just a little bit before we deal with the clarification because you've hit the nail on the head perfectly here. Anything can be improperly used, with violent intent even. As Thrasher pointed out, even something as simple as water can be and has been misused as a weapon. Yet, we don't have national debates about anything but guns. That highlights shaky logic, plain and simple.

txa1265 said:

The difference is that the purpose of a gun is death. Whether hunting, defense, war, police action, or whatever - it is all about death.

Click to expand...

As I mentioned a couple posts up, there's going to be a whole lot of shooting going on in Sochi in a few weeks and I'm pretty sure death won't come into play at all. Thus, it IS NOT all about death.

txa1265 said:

That is the real issue - there are always extremists who want to ban all guns, and others who think toddlers should have automatic weapons if they want … but for most people, it is about how do we have a country where gun ownership is not fundamentally threatened, but at the same time it is more than a trivial thing for someone to amass an arsenal that can take out a school or theater.

Click to expand...

An excellent summation. As usual, the extremists of both sides generally dominate the discourse, making it easier to dismiss the foolishness of "the other side" and taking a reasonable middle ground off the table before it ever gets considered. That said, I see two significant differences between the sides on this one.

First, the gun ban folks have openly and repeatedly stated that their intent is to start small and take more and more baby steps until they reach their goal of a total ban. When that sort of "dirty pool" is openly on the table from day one, it makes it impossible for the NRA (I'll use them as our figurehead for simplicity, understanding that it will be sloppy) to give away that first step. Looking the other direction, I'm not aware of anyone in the NRA stating that they want to scale up. They're not saying, "We're going to get you comfy with assault rifles because we're really working toward private ownership of tanks."

Second, the limitation approach seems like working on the wrong thing. We all seem in agreement that "respectful" gun ownership is fine and that our real problem is keeping the guns away from the loons and the criminals. Well, if that's the real problem, work on the real problem. Instead, the gun control folks take the easy way out by taking guns away from everyone. You punish the NRA folks doing everything by the book because it's just too darn uncomfortable to target the actual problem people. Then y'all get surprised when that attitude doesn't go over terribly well. Unfortunately, with slippery slope tactics in play, it's tough for the NRA to be reasonable about targeting the actual problem people, too. So we end up doing a lot of screaming and going nowhere.

Guns are designed to kill people? That's all? They are never being used to defend people? Some are obviously missing half of their brains. Why doesn't these same half brainers advocate banning military? These organized violence probably killed the most innocent people before and after the musket was invented. Ironically, these half-brainers most likely are cheerleaders for organized violence.

Guns are also equalizer in a sense that they neutraliz physical poweress in a struggle. I doubt any thug would attempt to rob a little old lady with a gun on her hand pointing at him. But I guess in the logic vacuum of a half-brainer only contains tablets of "gun kills" carved in stone.

dteowner said:

there's going to be a whole lot of shooting going on in Sochi in a few weeks and I'm pretty sure death won't come into play at all. Thus, it IS NOT all about death.

Click to expand...

That is true - but misses the point. Think about it - WHY does target shooting exist as a 'sport'? Because of military training, which is singularly purposed to increase the killing efficiency of soldiers.

mudsling3 said:

Guns are designed to kill people? That's all? They are never being used to defend people?

Click to expand...

First off, semantics - I said "guns are designed to kill". Not PEOPLE specifically - one of the big purposes is hunting for food/sport and protecting livestock.

As for 'defense', let me give you an analogy:

Two people who are starving come across a meal on a table. One is closer and gets to it first, the second one still wants it and tries to take it away (setting an attack/defend context). They both have 9mm pistols, and simultaneously shoot each other dead.

Does one 'attacking' and the other 'defending' change the status of the two people? Does it change the operational status of the weapons? Could a normal person without ballistics distinguish which was the 'attack' gun and which was 'defending'?

Of course not - another analogy would be football: do the 6 points from a offensive touchdown pass score differently from 6 points from a defensive interception running back for a touchdown? No - they are the same.

Points are points, dead is dead, shooting is shooting.

Guns are designed to kill.

As for the military, it is designed for mass destruction ... or more to the point, to instill adequate fear of the ability to cause mass destruction that no one wants for it to happen. Without the realistic threat of using weapons for THEIR DESIGNED PURPOSE, which is death, there is no threat.

"Two people who are starving come across a meal on a table. One is closer and gets to it first, the second one still wants it and tries to take it away (setting an attack/defend context). They both have 9mm pistols, and simultaneously shoot each other dead."

That's half brainer's wet dream, isn't it?

"to instill adequate fear of the ability to cause mass destruction that no one wants for it to happen."

Guess that works real well.

I'm about as pro-gun as they come, and most of your posts make absolutely no sense. You hurt the argument rather than further it.

txa1265 said:

Two people who are starving come across a meal on a table. One is closer and gets to it first, the second one still wants it and tries to take it away (setting an attack/defend context). They both have 9mm pistols, and simultaneously shoot each other dead.

Does one 'attacking' and the other 'defending' change the status of the two people? Does it change the operational status of the weapons? Could a normal person without ballistics distinguish which was the 'attack' gun and which was 'defending'?

Click to expand...

Dead is dead, but you choose to ignore the difference between "dead right" and "dead wrong". For someone that values how a person died, those two people are not leaving the earth with the same moral standing (for lack of a better term). That's your choice, but you don't get to make that choice for everyone, nor do you have the logic to make your choice in any way "better". Thus, you knowingly attempt to invalidate the other side's argument before it even gets presented, which I believe you've said in the past is both invalid logic and poor form.

dteowner said:

Dead is dead, but you choose to ignore the difference between "dead right" and "dead wrong". For someone that values how a person died, those two people are not leaving the earth with the same moral standing (for lack of a better term). That's your choice, but you don't get to make that choice for everyone, nor do you have the logic to make your choice in any way "better". Thus, you knowingly attempt to invalidate the other side's argument before it even gets presented, which I believe you've said in the past is both invalid logic and poor form.

Click to expand...

What you are talking about involves morality and ethics, each of which are relative and depend on your point of view. My analogy was basically to illustrate that things like 'right or wrong', 'attack or defend', 'predator or prey', 'food or sport' are immaterial to the basic functionality and design of a tool.

My point had to do with the basic design of guns. What I am saying is that it IS to kill. Period. And honestly, I have a hard time believing that some would even find this as a point of debate.

Because there is no other option - and debating it suggests a political agenda. I actually have no political agenda with this line of discussion. I am just trying to say that equating death by car, baseball bat, snowball, or piece of toast to death by guns - and therefore banning those other things - makes no sense as a direct comparison because one produces death by design, while the others are accidental offshoots.

We don't debate that a chair is designed for sitting, that a steering wheel is designed for altering direction, or that sneakers are designed to be worn on feet ... yet somehow we feel the need to debate the basic design purpose of weapons?

Make sense?

for someone believes in moral, ethic relativity, but ironically preaches singular objective intention of human inventions. Perhaps the reason why these half-brainers always try to sue gun manufacturers - an inanimate object possess intrinct purpose "inbued" by the maker but independent of user.

for someone never seen a "chair", it is just a pile of wood. A long stick to those never seen a rifle.

John Browning created the 1911 to make tons of money.

mudsling3 said:

for someone believes in moral, ethic relativity, but ironically preaches singular objective intention of human inventions. Perhaps the reason why these half-brainers always try to sue gun manufacturers - an inanimate object possess intrinct purpose "inbued" by the maker but independent of user.

for someone never seen a "chair", it is just a pile of wood. A long stick to those never seen a rifle.

Click to expand...

I am not sure if you don't speak English or are not in possession of the intellect required to engage in a discussion related to 'facts' or if your statements are made ironically ... but it is clear that you are so wrapped up in your (obviously right wing) politics that you are trying to obfuscate basic physical principles in order to confuse the discussion ... not sure it is worth trying.

So instead, a basic challenge. Please describe to me the fundamental design purpose of a gun.

Well, txa, I've been making this point about a million times now - as have thousands of other people.

The logic simply doesn't get through - because the people who fail to argue against it keep trying to ignore it over and over again.

Everytime you think they've seen the obvious, they come back and utterly fail to reason once again.

Giving up would be the easy choice, but I guess the only thing we can do is keep making the same exact argument over and over. It's 100% relevant and logical - and there's nothing you can say against it that makes any sense, unless you're A-OK with people dying needlessly.

If people simply say: "I don't care if people die who might have lived" - then I can appreciate their position. That's the only logical response from people who support more killing.

That's the essence of the thing.

Unfortunately, DArt, that's simply not the essence of the thing. That logic simply doesn't get through - because the people who fail to argue against it keep trying to ignore it over and over again. You choose to ignore the conditions and situations and responsibility revolving around the misuse of a tool by people with intent that falls outside the bounds of decent society. You choose to punish the millions of people that use those tools properly because you lack the willpower to address the real problem. It's all "needless dead" to you. You're entitled to that choice, but you're not entitled to force it on others because you lack the basic logic to make it a reasonable expectation.

@Mike- so then, you seek to ban things that are designed for the sole purpose of killing that can be misused by people with violent intent? Will you be parading outside of the D-Con folks today? Thought not. Why not?