Justices Agree on Right to Own Guns

[Foxfyre]

Admittedly, I haven't kept up with all the did too - did not - your mama wears army boots exchanges for the last several pages - these interspersed with a logical argument here and there - but I will admit that I lost track of whatever it is that is been asked or debated at this point.

 

[Diuretic]

That doesnt have anything to do with the potential harm standard you set.
One last time:
How does the potential harm of every man having a penis not justify the restriction/prohibituon of same?

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 doesnt address the question I aksed you.
You're supposed to provide a specific and precise description as to how the level of potential harm is sufficient to warrant the prohibition of one, but not the other.
One last time:
How, specifically and precicely, is the 'potential harm' of everyone owning an automatic weapon is sufficiently greater than that of everyone owning a semi-automatic version of an automatic weapon to justify the banning of one, but not the other?

It's the nature of the firearm. A fully automatic weapon can inflict much more damage in a very short period of time when compared to a s/auto. Simple as that.

 

[Bern80]

I don't understand what you're asking. And wrong about what? Mannlicher rifles? I said I was going from memory.

But the other points - I don't understand what you're getting at.

It's these darn analogies that just keep getting in the way of your arguments I guess.

One of your arguments was that automatics should be banned because there purpose was to kill people.

By that standard you should have to ban muskets as well. That was their purpose for a time or to use my more accurate term, what they were predominantly used for. When technology improved killing people was what the bolt action rifle was predominantly used for and so you should ban ownership of those as well.

 

[Diuretic]

an inanimate automatic weapon can have many targets. Only a person can determine what that target is. Thus it is incorrect to give an inanimate object a purpose that it doesn't have the ability to determine on it's own. Rebut it.

Firstly, since you quoted my challenge, are you going to take it upl?

Now, to yours. An inanimate automatic firearm has no targets. You're quite right, it just sits there, doing nothing. It doesn't become a weapon until it's used. But its purpose, especially for a machine gun, is in the design.

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.

But sometimes it's not possible.

I mean I could go into a laboratory and not know the purpose of half or more of the instruments and equipment there. I'd have to ask. "What's this for?" As I hold up a glass instrument hoping that the answer isn't, "storing smallpox, boy are you in trouble!"

Take a shovel for example. If you want to shovel a huge pile of shit you wouldn't use a garden fork. A shovel is designed for the job. Shovels pile up shit effectively and efficiently. A backhoe is required for big shit jobs but for small shit jobs a shovel does the trick. You could show an adult a shovel and ask what it's purpose is and you'd be told, "shovelling shit of course, everyone knows that!"

It's why you don't see people in the workplace or the street or at home or at school or anywhere else, saying to each other repeatedly, "what's that for?"

We know what things are for.

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

Point rebutted. Q.E.D.

 

[Diuretic]

Admittedly, I haven't kept up with all the did too - did not - your mama wears army boots exchanges for the last several pages - these interspersed with a logical argument here and there - but I will admit that I lost track of whatever it is that is been asked or debated at this point.

Don't tell anyone Foxfyre but.....so did I, I'm just finding my way with a flashlight low on battery power

 

[Bern80]

It's the nature of the firearm. A fully automatic weapon can inflict much more damage in a very short period of time when compared to a s/auto. Simple as that.

So we're adding a new variable now, huh? time. Probably because you can't get around the facts. We can make educated estimates as to what the potential harm of things will be because we know what the harm actually has been in the past. We have a rough idea of how many people will die as a result of cigarettes. We can make a fairly accurate guess as to the potential harm of automobiles this coming year. Both are great then deaths from firearms. ALL TYPES OF FIREARMS.

Your potential harm argument DEMANDS that you do something about the cigarettes and the cars Diuretic because they have shown to have much greater potential for harm. So why don't you?

 

[Diuretic]

It's these darn analogies that just keep getting in the way of your arguments I guess.

One of your arguments was that automatics should be banned because there purpose was to kill people.

By that standard you should have to ban muskets as well. That was their purpose for a time or to use my more accurate term, what they were predominantly used for. When technology improved killing people was what the bolt action rifle was predominantly used for and so you should ban ownership of those as well.

Oh, okay, thanks for clarifying. The earliest firearms were so expensive that the only people who could afford them were professional (in the sense of working for money) soldiers (mercenaries really, this was before the concept of state owned standing armies) I suppose they claimed them as a tax deduction...... Yes, their purpose was to kill people, they were first and foremost military weapons. But there weren't many around and I would think that they would have been built by hand primarily which would have kept numbers down. So gun control wasn't really an issue.

Arquebus and muskets and the rest of the firearms of the 16th and 17th centuries weren't all that efficient and effective either. I mean the early arquebus couldn't even punch a ball through decent plate armour.

With the improvement in technology and the ability to produce firearms in huge numbers their costs were reduced and they became available to the average person, that is, the non-military person. Legislatures around the world had to deal with the fact that firearms were readily available and had to decide if and how to regulate their possession and use. If a legislature decided that gun control was warranted they then had to decide on classification of firearms. Now I can't give you examples from every legislature on the planet so I'll just have to try and take an intuitive approach to this.

A single shot firearm is less effective than a bolt-action repeater which is less effective than a fully automatic firearm. If we can agree on that then everything else should follow.

By "effective" I mean in ability to discharge its purpose.

A single shot rifle can be used to kill an animal, bird or human. But using a single shot rifle to kill several birds, several animals or several humans would be problematic.

Should single shot rifles be banned because they can be used to kill humans? No, on balance because of the limited ability of the single shot rifle to kill humans in numbers of more than one I don't see the need.

A bolt action repeater rifle can be used to kill an animal, bird or human. Because of its action it's much more effective and efficient than a single shot firearm. In the hands of someone competent it's entirely possible to kill several animals, several birds or several humans.

Should bolt action repeater rifles be banned because they can be used to kill humans? Again, on balance, I don’t think so. The bolt action needs to be worked to reload and provided there isn’t some sort of extended magazine with a ridiculous amount of bullets in it then the magazine has to be replaced every five or seven shots or whatever the regular capacity is (I’ve never owned a rifle, only a shotgun and a revolver). So for those reasons I thin a ban isn’t required.

A machine gun can be used to kill many animals, birds or humans. In the hands of someone competent it can kill a great number of animals, birds and humans very efficiently. Because it can be used to kill a high number of humans very efficiently it should be restricted to ownership by the military and some units in civilian police forces.

 

[Bern80]

Firstly, since you quoted my challenge, are you going to take it upl?

fraid i missed that. what is it you want answered?

Now, to yours. An inanimate automatic firearm has no targets. You're quite right, it just sits there, doing nothing. It doesn't become a weapon until it's used. But its purpose, especially for a machine gun, is in the design.

Why is it that you can't seperate your opinion from fact? How can you possibly look at automatic firearm, see how it works - it's design - and say, that's for killing people? It is not objectively possible to reach that conclusion. You made the same mistake with your shovel. It's not for shoveling shit. It's for shoveling, period.

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.

Okay let's tackle function. What is an automatics function? What does it do? Not what CAN it do? Just simply what does it do?

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

Wrong again. We know automatics have been used to kill people which is really quite different. You fully admitted you can't make the purpose of an automatic be killing people w/o your buddy Kalishnekov (whom let's face it, you don't really know what his purpose was either). Yet for your argument you remove the human component and say this objects purpose is to kill people. It simply isn't accurate. Any objective person should be able to see that.

Apparently 'we' don't as most everyone here disagrees with you. This would fall under the it's true because Diuretic says so. Have you ever considered taking a poll on your presumption?

 

[Ravi]

So you are of the belief that an inanimate object has the ability to choose it's target as well, huh?

No...I'm of the belief that automatic weapons were made to kill people.

 

[Diuretic]

So we're adding a new variable now, huh? time. Probably because you can't get around the facts. We can make educated estimates as to what the potential harm of things will be because we know what the harm actually has been in the past. We have a rough idea of how many people will die as a result of cigarettes. We can make a fairly accurate guess as to the potential harm of automobiles this coming year. Both are great then deaths from firearms. ALL TYPES OF FIREARMS.

Your potential harm argument DEMANDS that you do something about the cigarettes and the cars Diuretic because they have shown to have much greater potential for harm. So why don't you?

No, time isn't a new variable at all, not in my argument at least.

And I've addressed the ban all things argument that some have put forward.
I look at the primary purpose of the objects discussed, not the misuse of those objects which is what my objectors were relying on. If simple "potential harm" were the only discriminator used to ban things then we'd be walking around stark naked in a wilderness.

My argument has been that the potential harm from machine guns being widely available to private citizens justifies their prohibition. If you're going to use my argument at least use the whole argument and don't strip it back to minimalist absurdity.

 

[Bern80]

Oh, okay, thanks for clarifying. The earliest firearms were so expensive that the only people who could afford them were professional (in the sense of working for money) soldiers (mercenaries really, this was before the concept of state owned standing armies) I suppose they claimed them as a tax deduction...... Yes, their purpose was to kill people, they were first and foremost military weapons. But there weren't many around and I would think that they would have been built by hand primarily which would have kept numbers down. So gun control wasn't really an issue.

Arquebus and muskets and the rest of the firearms of the 16th and 17th centuries weren't all that efficient and effective either. I mean the early arquebus couldn't even punch a ball through decent plate armour.

With the improvement in technology and the ability to produce firearms in huge numbers their costs were reduced and they became available to the average person, that is, the non-military person. Legislatures around the world had to deal with the fact that firearms were readily available and had to decide if and how to regulate their possession and use. If a legislature decided that gun control was warranted they then had to decide on classification of firearms. Now I can't give you examples from every legislature on the planet so I'll just have to try and take an intuitive approach to this.

A single shot firearm is less effective than a bolt-action repeater which is less effective than a fully automatic firearm. If we can agree on that then everything else should follow.

By "effective" I mean in ability to discharge its purpose.

A single shot rifle can be used to kill an animal, bird or human. But using a single shot rifle to kill several birds, several animals or several humans would be problematic.

Should single shot rifles be banned because they can be used to kill humans? No, on balance because of the limited ability of the single shot rifle to kill humans in numbers of more than one I don't see the need.

A bolt action repeater rifle can be used to kill an animal, bird or human. Because of its action it's much more effective and efficient than a single shot firearm. In the hands of someone competent it's entirely possible to kill several animals, several birds or several humans.

Should bolt action repeater rifles be banned because they can be used to kill humans? Again, on balance, I don’t think so. The bolt action needs to be worked to reload and provided there isn’t some sort of extended magazine with a ridiculous amount of bullets in it then the magazine has to be replaced every five or seven shots or whatever the regular capacity is (I’ve never owned a rifle, only a shotgun and a revolver). So for those reasons I thin a ban isn’t required.

A machine gun can be used to kill many animals, birds or humans. In the hands of someone competent it can kill a great number of animals, birds and humans very efficiently. Because it can be used to kill a high number of humans very efficiently it should be restricted to ownership by the military and some units in civilian police forces.

So in that long history lesson all you've really said is that there are a number of deaths that you are willing to tolerate. 30 students at Virginia tech dead from a handgun is okay, but you'd have to draw the line at 50 with an automatic huh?

And you still haven't rebutted why you aren't crusading against cars and cigarettes when there is statistical proof there potential for harm is much greater.

 

[Bern80]

No, time isn't a new variable at all, not in my argument at least.

And I've addressed the ban all things argument that some have put forward.
I look at the primary purpose of the objects discussed, not the misuse of those objects which is what my objectors were relying on. If simple "potential harm" were the only discriminator used to ban things then we'd be walking around stark naked in a wilderness.

My argument has been that the potential harm from machine guns being widely available to private citizens justifies their prohibition. If you're going to use my argument at least use the whole argument and don't strip it back to minimalist absurdity.

Just answer this. When at the end of the day I determine what an object will be used for, of what relevance is primary use or purpose as you perceive it?

if you thought by an large people would handle automatics safely you wouldn't be making this argument. They would be similar to cars. yes some people will die as result of car accidents but you deem that acceptable because for the most part people are safe in their operation of them. i think we take for granted how cautious and how safe we really are with cars, which causes us to view them as safer than guns. We wear seatbelts, we get trained to drive them, we have to pass a test, when we're driving we stop at intersections, we obey traffic signs, we're mindful of others, we slow down when neccessary, etc. I bet you never really thought about that. We have done those things for so long and so repetitively that they're almost a part of our subconcious. We literally don't have the perspective to see how much safety is involved in dealing with automobiles. What if guns were the same? And what reason is there really to think that automatics would not be handled with the same level of respect?

 

[Diuretic]

fraid i missed that. what is it you want answered?

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

Why is it that you can't seperate your opinion from fact? How can you possibly look at automatic firearm, see how it works - it's design - and say, that's for killing people? It is not objectively possible to reach that conclusion. You made the same mistake with your shovel. It's not for shoveling shit. It's for shoveling, period.

I could use that shovel in this thread

Okay let's tackle function. What is an automatics function? What does it do? Not what CAN it do? Just simply what does it do?

When? In what context?

Wrong again. We know automatics have been used to kill people which is really quite different. You fully admitted you can't make the purpose of an automatic be killing people w/o your buddy Kalishnekov (whom let's face it, you don't really know what his purpose was either). Yet for your argument you remove the human component and say this objects purpose is to kill people. It simply isn't accurate. Any objective person should be able to see that.

Apparently 'we' don't as most everyone here disagrees with you. This would fall under the it's true because Diuretic says so. Have you ever considered taking a poll on your presumption?

A poll? No, why?

 

[Diuretic]

So in that long history lesson all you've really said is that there are a number of deaths that you are willing to tolerate. 30 students at Virginia tech dead from a handgun is okay, but you'd have to draw the line at 50 with an automatic huh?

And you still haven't rebutted why you aren't crusading against cars and cigarettes when there is statistical proof there potential for harm is much greater.

On cars and cigarettes. Yet again I say that the primary purpose of a car is to transport people. The primary purpose of a cigarette is to get nicotine into the body. The misuse of cars and the abuse of tobacco in cigarettes is harmful. The intended use of a car isn't harmful. The intended use of tobacco, stimulation, isn't harmful of itself as other variables have to be in place for harm to take place. On those grounds banning isn't warranted.

On the number of deaths to be tolerated. If a machine gun had been used at Virginia Tech the numbers would have been greater. That's exactly why I favour prohibition of fully automatic firearms.

 

[Bern80]

On cars and cigarettes. Yet again I say that the primary purpose of a car is to transport people. The primary purpose of a cigarette is to get nicotine into the body. The misuse of cars and the abuse of tobacco in cigarettes is harmful. The intended use of a car isn't harmful. The intended use of tobacco, stimulation, isn't harmful of itself as other variables have to be in place for harm to take place. On those grounds banning isn't warranted.

This is one you're just not gonna get I guess. And even if true it still makes no sense. You're willing to tolerate a higher death rate because their purpose isn't killing? Yeah that's logical.

On the number of deaths to be tolerated. If a machine gun had been used at Virginia Tech the numbers would have been greater. That's exactly why I favour prohibition of fully automatic firearms.

I just find it interesting that you will tolerate the death toll from a weapon you will allow and not what you think the death toll will be from a weapon you won't allow.

 

[Bern80]

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

I have several times. I'm wating for you to tell me why said rebuttal is inaccurate. It's inaccurate because what it will be used for resides with the purpose. I'm waiting for you to tell me why, even if true, it is relevant when I won't be using one to kill people.

When? In what context?

WOW didn't know that was such a toughy. What does an automatic do? What is it's function? What does it mechanically accomplish?

A poll? No, why?

Just curious if you'd wager on it. I would.

 

[Diuretic]

This is one you're just not gonna get I guess. And even if true it still makes no sense. You're willing to tolerate a higher death rate because their purpose isn't killing? Yeah that's logical.

Logic hasn't got much to do with it. It's about what the public will tolerate. Patently they'll tolerate the more deleterious effects of the misuse of cars and the abuse of nicotine. I can't hear anyone screaming for cars and tobacco to be banned.

I just find it interesting that you will tolerate the death toll from a weapon you will allow and not what you think the death toll will be from a weapon you won't allow.

As I said, if a machine gun had been used at VaTech the death toll would have been far higher. I'd preferred it had never happened but my point is valid. No getting around it.

 

[Diuretic]

I have several times. I'm wating for you to tell me why said rebuttal is inaccurate. It's inaccurate because what it will be used for resides with the purpose. I'm waiting for you to tell me why, even if true, it is relevant when I won't be using one to kill people.

The issue isn't your behaviour. The issue is general behaviour.

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.

Just curious if you'd wager on it. I would.

I don't know what the point of it is but if you want to run a poll that's your business. If you mean are most readers of the thread convinced that your arguments are proven and mine aren't and you want to confirm that, no problems, poll away. A poll result won't affect my thinking - some good counter-argument will though.

 

[Bern80]

The issue isn't your behaviour. The issue is general behaviour.

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

It fires bullets rapidly.

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

I don't know what the point of it is but if you want to run a poll that's your business. If you mean are most readers of the thread convinced that your arguments are proven and mine aren't and you want to confirm that, no problems, poll away. A poll result won't affect my thinking - some good counter-argument will though.

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.

 

[Bern80]

Logic hasn't got much to do with it. It's about what the public will tolerate. Patently they'll tolerate the more deleterious effects of the misuse of cars and the abuse of nicotine. I can't hear anyone screaming for cars and tobacco to be banned.

That doesn't make it any less hypocritical.

As I said, if a machine gun had been used at VaTech the death toll would have been far higher. I'd preferred it had never happened but my point is valid. No getting around it.

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.