Justices Agree on Right to Own Guns

[Diuretic]

And what about general behavior has convinced you that people owning automatics would be risky?

You cited VaTech in an earlier post. I responded by suggesting that the death toll would have been far higher if a machine gun had been used.

And why would you say that is NOT it's purpose as well?

Because you asked - WOW didn't know that was such a toughy. What does an automatic do? What is it's function? What does it mechanically accomplish? It fires bullets rapidly.

Its purpose isn't to fire bullets rapidly. It's purpose is to kill human beings.

I doesn't seem much of anything will affect your thinking. Instead of objecively critiquing your own argument you repeat the same thing over and over. Instead of rebutting counter some very valid couner arguments you repeat the same thing over and over. I have told why your arguments don't work. All you've done is restate your position. For your argument to work my arguments can't work. And you have yet to show me that my arguments are invalid in any way.

I'm always persuaded by a good counter argument.

 

[Diuretic]

That doesn't make it any less hypocritical.

Ah the fickle public.

So long as we're clear that 30 deaths is an acceptable amount for you to allow ownership of handguns. You would also have to establish factually that indeed more deaths would result in automatic rifle ownership. 37 states already allow ownership of them and so far that has not born out to be true statistically. The regulation that are in place I do agree with for the most part.

I've got no authority over the regulation of handguns anywhere so the idea that there's a death rate "acceptable" to me is patent nonsense. I'd also point out that it's an ad hominem and therefore of no value in the discussion.

The only way anyone could "establish factually that indeed more deaths would result" would be to set up a grisly experiment where two identical jurisdictions where used, one as the experimental group, one as the control group and over a given period measure the differences where one had unfettered ownership of fully automatic firearms and the other prohibited them from civilian ownership (except for some police). So I can only hypothesise that indeed more deaths would result if fully automatic firearms were available to private citizens to own.

 

[LOki]

The designer intends purpose - form follows function. Kalashnikov thought about the purpose of the firearm he designed and made the design meet that purpose. Provided someone is a reasonably knowledgeable adult they can look at nearly any common object and know what its purpose is.

This has been put to you before: Kalashnikov developed the AK-47 to save lives. Look it up.

We know that machine guns are for killing people. That's their purpose.

The purpose of machine guns, if the designer imparts the purpose, is to save lives.

The primary purpose of a machine gun is to kill people. Rebut it.

Done (again)--the primary purpose of a machine gun is to defend human life and liberty; the means by which it is used to effect it's purpose does not change that purpose.

Even if we stipulate to your assertion that the primary purpose of a machine gun is to kill people--I will ask yet again--So what?

 

[Diuretic]

This has been put to you before: Kalashnikov developed the AK-47 to save lives. Look it up.



The purpose of machine guns, if the designer imparts the purpose, is to save lives.



Done (again)--the primary purpose of a machine gun is to defend human life and liberty; the means by which it is used to effect it's purpose does not change that purpose.

Even if we stipulate to your assertion that the primary purpose of a machine gun is to kill people--I will ask yet again--So what?

If the military on "your" side is going to prevail against the "other side" then yes, they need to be able to kill effectively. Machine guns allow that. Killing the "others" may save yours. That's how wars work.

And from that it follows that the primary purpose of a machine gun is indeed to kill human beings. Because of that they should be restricted to the military and certain police units.

 

[LOki]

If the military on "your" side is going to prevail against the "other side" then yes, they need to be able to kill effectively. Machine guns allow that. Killing the "others" may save yours. That's how wars work.

If "your" military is on the "other side"--what then, you still have no need? How do revolutions work? Any differently?

And from that it follows that the primary purpose of a machine gun is indeed to kill human beings.

The primary purpose of a machine gun remains to defend human life and liberty; the means by which it is used to effect it's purpose still does not change that purpose.

Because of that they should be restricted to the military and certain police units.

It seems that an equally valid argument is that since oppressive governements use the military and police to oppress the governed (that's how oppression works), and the military and police need to be able to kill political "criminals", "insurgents" and "rebels" effectively, and machine guns allow that; because of that they should be restricted from the military and police units.

If your argument is "people" can't be trusted with fully automatic weapons, then that argument applies to the miitary and police as well. I just don't think that's your argument.

Even if we stipulate to your assertion that the primary purpose of a machine gun is to kill people--I will ask yet again--So what?

 

[Diuretic]

If "your" military is on the "other side"--what then, you still have no need? How do revolutions work? Any differently?

How do revolutions work? I would think they work in more or less the same way everywhere. It's instructive to study the successful and the unsuccessful ones.

The primary purpose of a machine gun remains to defend human life and liberty; the means by which it is used to effect it's purpose still does not change that purpose.

The primary purpose of a machine gun is to kill humans.

As has been pointed out in this thread, the machine gun is an inanimate object. It has a design purpose but it's use is determined by the person holding it. The person holding it can tell the machine gun that, "your primary purpose is to defend human life and liberty" but the machine gun is inanimate, it isn't alive, it has no sense organs, it can't hear; it has no brain, it can't think. The machine gun is a machine, it acts in accordance with the laws of physics. Until someone acts upon it, it will do nothing. If it sees oppression, if it sees a threat to life and liberty, it will do absolutely nothing. It will do nothing until a human picks it up and operates it.

It seems that an equally valid argument is that since oppressive governements use the military and police to oppress the governed (that's how oppression works), and the military and police need to be able to kill effectively, and machine guns allow that, because of that they should be restricted from the military and certain police units.

If you think it's a good idea to disarm the military and certain police units, say so. Just don't let the word get out though.

If your argument is "people" can't be trusted with fully atomatic weapons, then that argument applies to the miitary and police as well. I just don't think that's your argument.

You're right, it's not my argument.

I haven't got any millitary service so I can't speak for the military.

I do know that certain police units have access to machine guns in my jurisdiction and I do know how restricted and carefully guarded they are. I know that only certain officers in those units are allowed access to those firearms and I do know that there is a very stringent competency requirement and all sorts of restriction on their use.

I did say I have no military experience but I would imagine the military doesn't encourage its personnel to take home machine guns.

I know that before a police officer (where I live) is permitted to apply to enter that unit that they undergo a stringent battery of psychological (and physical, but that's not relevant here) tests before they're allowed to join and commence training. The purpose of course is to make sure that an officer is fit to be trusted with superior firepower in the shape of a machine gun. The officer has to demonstrate that trust in his or her being armed for specific duties (not routinely) isn't misplaced.

Even if we stipulate to your assertion that the primary purpose of a machine gun is to kill people--I will ask yet again--So what?

It's good to avoid indiscriminate killing of human beings in a domestic setting. Indiscriminate killing of human beings is part of warfare but not part of normal domestic society.

 

[manifold]

I see you guys still can't land this friggin plane.

 

[LOki]

How do revolutions work? I would think they work in more or less the same way everywhere. It's instructive to study the successful and the unsuccessful ones.

Have there been any revolutions where the general populace was better armed than the military? I certainly know of none, but if there have been such instances--Did any of the failed revolutions fail despite the general populace being better armed than the military?

The primary purpose of a machine gun is to kill humans.

As has been pointed out in this thread, the machine gun is an inanimate object. It has a design purpose but it's use is determined by the person holding it. The person holding it can tell the machine gun that, "your primary purpose is to defend human life and liberty" but the machine gun is inanimate, it isn't alive, it has no sense organs, it can't hear; it has no brain, it can't think. The machine gun is a machine, it acts in accordance with the laws of physics. Until someone acts upon it, it will do nothing. If it sees oppression, if it sees a threat to life and liberty, it will do absolutely nothing. It will do nothing until a human picks it up and operates it.

I have not been disputing that guns are tools. I certainly have not argued that the function of the tool is to kill. You, however, have been demanding that the purpose of fully automatic weapons is essentially murder; you've done so by insisting that the purpose of the weapon is only to kill. Yet, if someone uses a fully automatic weapon to defend human life and liberty (the intended pupose I claim it has) without killing anybody, then it still does so in direct contradiction to the purpose you have wrongly ascibed to it.

In any case, what's the point in pointing out that fully automatic weapons can kill people? Even if we say that fully automatic weapons are FOR killing people, SO WHAT?

If you think it's a good idea to disarm the military and certain police units, say so. Just don't let the word get out though.

I didn't say it was a good idea, I said it was just as valid an argument--since your argument demands placing decent folks at the mercy of power thirsty tyrants and violent criminals, why don't you just admit that you think it's a good idea place decent folks at the mercy of power thirsty tyrants and violent criminals?

That was fun.

You're right, it's not my argument.

Good. Then why restrict their ownership of fully automatic weapons as if you presume they can't be trusted with them?

I haven't got any millitary service so I can't speak for the military.

I do know that certain police units have access to machine guns in my jurisdiction and I do know how restricted and carefully guarded they are. I know that only certain officers in those units are allowed access to those firearms and I do know that there is a very stringent competency requirement and all sorts of restriction on their use.

I did say I have no military experience but I would imagine the military doesn't encourage its personnel to take home machine guns.

I know that before a police officer (where I live) is permitted to apply to enter that unit that they undergo a stringent battery of psychological (and physical, but that's not relevant here) tests before they're allowed to join and commence training. The purpose of course is to make sure that an officer is fit to be trusted with superior firepower in the shape of a machine gun. The officer has to demonstrate that trust in his or her being armed for specific duties (not routinely) isn't misplaced.

I see that his speaks some to why we can entrust fully automatic weapons to the State (in the form of it's military and police); I certainly have no problem with the State possessing superior firepower to foriegn enemies and criminals--I just don't think there's any problem with the people possessing superior firepower than the state. This,however, appears to be the real problem you have with private ownership of fully automatic weapons.

It's good to avoid indiscriminate killing of human beings in a domestic setting. Indiscriminate killing of human beings is part of warfare but not part of normal domestic society.

So what?

I am not advocatiing indiscriminate killing of human beings, and no argument I (or anyone else) have presented even remotely suggests it. It's long past time for you to drop the presumption that the indiscriminate killing of human beings is what owning a fully automatic weapon means, and that the indiscriminate killing of human beings is what fully automatic weapons are for.

In any case, what's the point in pointing out that fully automatic weapons can kill people? Consider all the everyday items laying around that can be used to kill people. Consider all the everyday items laying around that can used to kill busloads of people. Even if we say that fully automatic weapons are FOR killing people, SO WHAT?

 

[Diuretic]

I see you guys still can't land this friggin plane.

Damn, I love Mermphis Belle - one of my very favourite films, really

 

[LOki]

I see you guys still can't land this friggin plane.

Hi. I liek pie.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I didn't realise you were serious. But I think you're trying to argue that anything which is potentially harmful should be banned. Is that correct?

This is the basis for your argument re: machineguns.
And, you didnt answer the question, having been asked one last time.

It's the nature of the firearm.

So, you can't specifically show the difference, nor can you explain how that difference warrants their prohibition, after having been asked one last time.

Given the fact that you have refused to answer these questions, its plain that you cannot supper/defend your argument, which then can only be considered to have failed.

 

[M14 Shooter]

You cited VaTech in an earlier post. I responded by suggesting that the death toll would have been far higher if a machine gun had been used.

The death toll would have been much higher had the shooter decided to shoot more. Being the only guy with a gun, it doesnt matter what kind of gun you have. The idea that an automatic weapon would have necessarily resulted in more deaths is unsupportable.

Its purpose isn't to fire bullets rapidly. It's purpose is to kill human beings.

Just like every other gun.
Thus, an argument where only specific sorts of gun should be banned because its purpose is ti kill human beings necessarily fails.

I'm always persuaded by a good counter argument.

No, you aren't.

 

[Diuretic]

Sometimes you just have to sit back and watch....