Own a Assault Weapon? soon the Sheriff will be at your home

[trish]

It's intended civilian purpose.

Now you're just making things up. Semi-automatic weapons are DESIGNED FOR KILLING. There's no getting around it.

You contradicted yourself

No, I didn't and I explained why not (I didn't say automatic and semi-automatic weapons should be banned because they kill, but because they are not designed to serve the purposes of civilian life. Civilian use includes hunting.) You have only indicated an alternate use for semi-automatic weapons which is ulterior to it's design (yes you can use sabers to open champagne bottles but that is not the purpose of a saber). You have yet to point out the contradiction. The tact demeans you.

If guns had the sole purpose of killing, they would not be sold to anyone, ever, anywhere right?

Wrong. It's not illegal to hunt, or to calibrate your sights by shooting in your hunting rifle at a target.

You don't vilify cars even when though when misused they kill people.

Of course not. I vilify careless drivers, careless gun owners and sometimes careful gun owners even when they're using their weapons for they're designed use. That's the difference. Guns are DESIGNED TO KILL. Cars are not.

So you're saying a misused car CAN NOT Cause bodily harm that does not result in death.

No. I am not. READ CAREFULLY. When a car or a gun is used carelessly, the results can be lethal. When a gun is used properly and for it’s intended purpose, something dies. Not so with a car.

You've been missing points as well

Nice non-response to a valid point. I take then you agree. If you have a gun in your home, it is more likely it will be used in a suicide, or be involved in an accident than to protect against a life threatening intruder. A firearm in the home puts your family at risk.

[my my my!]

Now you're just making things up. Semi-automatic weapons are DESIGNED FOR KILLING. There's no getting around it.

Making what up? Getting around what? The fact is that they're sold to civilians for safe use. And they're misused by idiots. If you want really want to get technical, they're designed for firing a projectile at a high speed. In the military this is for killing, with civilians this is for target shooting/hunting/collection/display, why can't you make that distinction?.

No, I didn't and I explained why not (I didn't say automatic and semi-automatic weapons should be banned because they kill, but because they are not designed to serve the purposes of civilian life. Civilian use includes hunting.) You have only indicated an alternate use for semi-automatic weapons which is ulterior to it's design (yes you can use sabers to open champagne bottles but that is not the purpose of a saber). You have yet to point out the contradiction. The tact demeans you.

I pointed out the contradiction clearly, you just refuse to acknowledge it.

Wrong. It's not illegal to hunt, or to calibrate your sights by shooting in your hunting rifle at a target.
Just as it is not illegal to calibrate your gun for non lethal target shooting. You assume guns are only for killing. But I already know you can not see that point so no use of bringing it up anymore.

Of course not. I vilify careless drivers, careless gun owners and sometimes careful gun owners even when they're using their weapons for they're designed use. That's the difference. Guns are DESIGNED TO KILL. Cars are not.
So you'll vilify a driver that drives carelessly, but you wont vilify that it is indeed a bad person that misuses (because the gun is sold for recreational use) a gun? That is a contradiction. Again, you don't see it.

No. I am not. READ CAREFULLY. When a car or a gun is used carelessly, the results can be lethal. When a gun is used properly and for it’s intended purpose, something dies. Not so with a car.
I read quite clearly, at this point you just keep repeating yourself saying the same thing over and over again. You are deciding what is the proper way of using a gun, in your mind it is to kill and nothing else.

Nice non-response to a valid point. I take then you agree. If you have a gun in your home, it is more likely it will be used in a suicide, or be involved in an accident than to protect against a life threatening intruder. A firearm in the home puts your family at risk.[/QUOTE]
I agree that a gun being misused can be a risk. But so can a knife, rope, a roof to jump off of. A roof is to provide shelter. Not to jump off as this could result in injury or death. Depressed/psychotic individuals use roofs as they were not intened to. A gun sold to civilians is NOT (I already know your answer Trish, and you are incorrect) for killing humans. Animals yes. But so is a bow and arrow.

The fact is , you're quite set in YOUR viewpoint that:
A: guns are only designed for killing and therefore cannot be used for anything else without it being some sort of jack off substitution

B: Cars are meant to drive , therefore are excused from vilification and not comparable to guns

C: you did not contradict yourself, even though you have several times

D: you pick what guns people deserve, based on YOUR habits and preferences although they might not agree with you.

Now how I feel:

A: a gun is an object originally designed exclusively for killing, but Is now sold legally for target shooting/hunting/collection and display

B: you actually make anti-gun people look bad

C: It is pointless to continue addressing you directly in this matter. Although that does not affect my other opinion of you, which is that you're pretty cool

D: There does need to be legislation, regardless of how you and I , or anyone else on this forum feels about guns and gun violence.

[hippifried]

You're all way off topic. Nobody cares about "gun deaths" any more than they care about death from heart disease. People are bent out of shape over the deliberate killings, especially the domestic terrorism in the form of mass shootings that's becoming more frequent. The tool is the only part of this that can be controlled at all through legislation. Anything else would require recognizing & admitting who the terrorists are. But apparently, delving into that aspect just opens a whole new vault of off topic ad hominem bullshit that further obfuscates the point. Oh well... I guess we're stuck talking about curing social ills by withholding some of the things that infect, & help assholes be sick.

BTW: ATF got lumped together like that because they were originally a tax collecting agency of the Treasury Department. Taxation was the preferred & perhaps the only form of regulation during reconstruction & up through the depressions. The bureau was given to the Justice Department in 2002.

[buttslinger]

I wrote a long sarcastic piece, but it got too personal so I deleted it.
The gist was that being the Policemen of the World, and maintaining prisons and mental facilities costs tons of money, and is costing the average American more than they're getting back, there are hidden taxes everywhere, and the 1950s family is shot to hell, girls have to work 50 hour weeks too, so they can have two hours of peace a day in front of the TV. Money = Freedom It's not the Mitt Romneys that are shooting people, it's the people that have been pushed to the limit. And that's getting to be more and more people.

[trish]

they're designed for firing a projectile at a high speed.

You're characterization is way to general. What distinguishes a gun from an automatic ball thrower it that a gun is DESIGNED TO KILL. Yes, you may find other purposes for a semi-automatic weapon and sell it for those purposes. But it was designed to kill, not butcher targets while giving the shooter an erection.

I pointed out the contradiction clearly

I'm afraid you don't know what a contradiction is. You have to show that I claimed two propositions, one having the form "not-p" if the other had the form "p."

You assume guns are only for killing.

Wrong. They can be used to break bottles. But they are DESIGNED FOR KILLING.

you wont vilify that it is indeed a bad person that misuses

I do and have in the last post indicated my abhorrence of a bad people who misuse guns. I simply also vilify bad people who do not misuse but use guns for the purposes for which they were designed; i.e. killing other people.

I agree that a gun being misused can be a risk. But so can a knife, rope, a roof to jump off of.

So you believe that someone who has a roof put on their home is placing their family at risk; the same amount of risk as keeping a firearm in the home?

guns are only designed for killing and therefore cannot be used for anything else without it being some sort of jack off substitution

Of course they can be used for all sorts of things. Hammering nails. Even target shooting. But you cannot deny they are DESIGNED FOR KILLING. I'm not even against competitive target shooting, or target shooting just for fun. Someone might even buy a gun for that purpose alone. It may be sold for that purpose. Nevertheless, that gun was DESIGNED FOR KILLING and that is what distinguishes it from a car.

you pick what guns people deserve, based on YOUR habits and preferences although they might not agree with you.

Sorry, I don't get to pick what guns people use or deserve. If I did, I would ban semi-automatic weapons because they were not designed to serve civilian purposes, regardless of the fact that civilians put them various purposes ulterior to their design. I'm sure I can find a really cool, safe and peaceful use for a nuclear warhead. That doesn't mean it wasn't designed for mass destruction and that it's just too dangerous to allow me to own one.

a gun is an object originally designed exclusively for killing, but Is now sold legally for target shooting/hunting/collection and display

I "feel" the same way. I also think some guns shouldn't be legally sold for those purposes.

you actually make anti-gun people look bad

I'm sorry you feel that way. But I'm not an anti-gun person. I'm actually a gun-person who would like to see some rational limits placed on gun owners. There are too many accidents, too many suicides and too many murders perpetrated with semi-automatic weapons.

It is pointless to continue addressing you directly in this matter. Although that does not affect my other opinion of you, which is that you're pretty cool

I doubt there is anything I can say to change your mind. But other people will also read our conversation and perhaps be swayed to your or my view. In any case, thanks for the conversation and the complement.

There does need to be legislation, regardless of how you and I , or anyone else on this forum feels about guns and gun violence.

Agreed. And I do like the post you made some pages back suggesting some of the things that should be in that legislation.

[my my my!]

You're characterization is way to general. What distinguishes a gun from an automatic ball thrower it that a gun is DESIGNED TO KILL. Yes, you may find other purposes for a semi-automatic weapon and sell it for those purposes. But it was designed to kill, not butcher targets while giving the shooter an erection.

Where do you get this assumption, that someone gets an erection while shooting? And you think mine is a generalization? I stated a fact, not a guess about people getting an erection

I'm afraid you don't know what a contradiction is. You have to show that I claimed two propositions, one having the form "not-p" if the other had the form "p."

I know exactly what a contradiction is, and you contradicted yourself. That is all. I'm not going to re-quote and paste your comments and outline everything that led me to that conclusion.

Wrong. They can be used to break bottles. But they are DESIGNED FOR KILLING.
No, for the military now they are designed for killing humans. For civilian use, they are designed for hunting/target shooting/collection and display. There is a difference. (see Hummer vs Humvee analogy later)


So you believe that someone who has a roof put on their home is placing their family at risk; the same amount of risk as keeping a firearm in the home?
No, I'm saying that the person who is suicidal/homicidal will still commit the act regardless of firearms being in the house. It does not make a roof "bad". Just like that does not make a firearm "bad".


Of course they can be used for all sorts of things. Hammering nails. Even target shooting. But you cannot deny they are DESIGNED FOR KILLING. I'm not even against competitive target shooting, or target shooting just for fun. Someone might even buy a gun for that purpose alone. It may be sold for that purpose. Nevertheless, that gun was DESIGNED FOR KILLING and that is what distinguishes it from a car.

Original military Design and intent, and intended use for civilians are two very different things. A Humvee was released and DESIGNED in a civilian version aka "Hummer", that does not mean people are going to but a 50 cal machine gun on it and patrol in it.

Sorry, I don't get to pick what guns people use or deserve. If I did, I would ban semi-automatic weapons because they were not designed to serve civilian purposes, regardless of the fact that civilians put them various purposes ulterior to their design. I'm sure I can find a really cool, safe and peaceful use for a nuclear warhead. That doesn't mean it wasn't designed for mass destruction and that it's just too dangerous to allow me to own one.

But with you wanting to exclude or suggesting exclusion of semiautos because of your prerogative is in essence "picking" what people use or deserve based on your own experience and beliefs.

I "feel" the same way. I also think some guns shouldn't be legally sold for those purposes.

see point above.

I'm sorry you feel that way. But I'm not an anti-gun person. I'm actually a gun-person who would like to see some rational limits placed on gun owners. There are too many accidents, too many suicides and too many murders perpetrated with semi-automatics weapons.

I agree about limits. Rational differs depending on who you ask in this case., Sorry If I mistakenly associated you with anti-gun but some of your points seem to lean you heavily that way. You're saying "ban/take away the weapons I DONT agree with, but leave me mine".

I doubt there is anything I can say to change your mind. But other people will also read our conversation and perhaps be swayed to your or my view. In any case, thanks for the conversation and the complement.
Likewise, no hate or apathy implied.

Agreed. And I do like the post you made some pages back suggesting some of the things that should be in that legislation. [/QUOTE]
Thank you.

[broncofan]

Unfortunately... you miss each point I made.

1st - There should be regulation regarding gun ownership greater than exists today.
2nd - The first point means that I am in favor of gun ownership - if the first point can be accomplished.

3rd - The numbers are important. Gun deaths are like shark attacks - they take a greater proportion of attention then appropriate. Guns are easy news stories with easy taglines that can be exploited.

I understood each point. Your use of statistics was just inept in my view. The issue is not how many deaths are caused by a particular factor but the number of preventable deaths. To analyze what can be done to make a device safer one must consider risk and utility. How much would it cost to avoid a certain number of deaths? What utility is given up in avoiding those deaths? If there are available means of preventing thousands of deaths and they are not taken, this attracts attention.

The examples you gave are not comparable. Of course there are things that kill more people than guns; that does not mean that they are susceptible to a solution or further that a great deal is not being done already. So again, another important consideration would be the sufficiency of the regulatory structure in place to address that area. As I stated, pharmaceuticals are much more heavily regulated than guns and have much greater utility. If any industry deserves immunity it's one that develops products that improve quality of life rather than inherently dangerous products with little value. I think issues of obesity and environmental cancers do not get the attention they should. But doing something to prevent obesity would not crowd out the attention given to the issue of guns, in which as you say there are good public policy solutions.

Edit: Just in case you aren't reading between the lines of my argument it is this. You cannot say gun deaths get more attention than they deserve by simply showing the number of deaths by cause. This would imply that an issue only gets attention based on how many people die. Here are some suggestions for why certain things attract attention. If the death could have been prevented by modest regulation, people tend to pay more attention. If it is the result of a criminal act and the criminal has been facilitated by loose regulation, people will pay attention. Again, this all goes to avoidability and the cost of avoidance. The lower the cost of avoidance, the more public outrage will be engendered when the unattractive outcome is not in fact avoided.

[volkov2006]

74 days since Newtown and 2284 gun deaths, up 22 since yesterday.

[mrtrebus]

Ban guns!

[trish]

Where do you get this assumption, that someone gets an erection while shooting? And you think mine is a generalization?

Someone certainly does. I never said everyone does. That would be a generalization. Nevertheless, it remains the case that what distinguishes a gun from an automatic ball thrower is the former was designed to kill, the latter was not.

I know exactly what a contradiction is...

The evidence is against it.

No, for the military now they are designed for killing humans. For civilian use, they are designed for hunting/target shooting/collection and display.

Yet one designer can patent a single design, have two guns built exactly in accord with that design and yet one will be used to kill and the other solely for target shooting. Two guns built in accordance with one design. It is a bit sophomoric to keep insisting that guns are not designed for killing.

But with you wanting to exclude or suggesting exclusion of semiautos because of your prerogative is in essence "picking" what people use or deserve based on your own experience and beliefs.

Well, I would scratch the phrase "in essence 'picking' what people use or deserve," ('cause the essence of picking what people use is actually picking what people use) but other than that you got it. All us have only our own experiences and beliefs to go on (as long as "experiences" is interpreted broadly; so as for example to include our conversation here).

Later.