AR-15s were designed to shoot bottles? Cause I’m pretty sure they had human beings in mind. If you have some insider info on this I’d be glad to hear it though.
So it’s not about everything that can end up killing someone. It’s about things that are made specifically for the purpose of killing, which makes them, generally speaking, extremely good at killing and thus dangerous.
Your point being, what? Yes, they are dangerous, especially to potential criminals. If you want to utilise certain statistical anomalies as an excuse to criminalise them you will have to also criminalise swimming pools on the same basis, for the “common good”, since statistically they are more murderous, and the people need to be protected from them (and by extension, from thelselves.) Simply blurting out they are “designed” to kill is irrelevant. You can kill without a gun and on a similar scale using ingredients to manufacture a bomb. Or simply setting a building on fire. Should everything be banned and surveyed by the government since some nuts MAY use them to kill?
The same goes for cars. They may not be intended to kill but they definitely do have a decent homicide rate.
Nowhere in your post did you mention AR-15s. In fact, you talked about ALL guns, and I know plenty of people who own guns who have never shot at another living being but have shot at targets. I suppose you have never heard of skeet shooting or other shooting sports.
Let’s not forget archery as a sport too.
@ Jon Irenicus
I’m chewing the stuffing out of my couch in an effort to not quote you on the other forum.
Look, friend, I’m not pro gun control. However, if you’re argument is hinging on equating the lethality of guns to swimming pools and motor vehicles you’ve got yourself a weak ass argument. And it won’t convince anyone who isn’t already on your side.
But go ahead and see how far you get with it.
Gun control arguments are about weapons like AR-15s.
Wowy, for reals? You know people who own guns who haven’t shot at a living being before? Well it’s your lucky day. Go ahead and add National Acrobat to that list.
Pro Tip: If you’re not going to engage gun control advocates’ arguments (and just about anyone’s for that matter) on the merits of their arguments you’ll get no where, and be on the verge of a break down like this SkepticalMetal fellow.
“and be on the verge of a break down like this SkepticalMetal fellow.”
Me before argument:
Me after argument:
I think Autolykos correctly pegged you as a troll. I responded to what you wrote. There are plenty of gun control advocates that want to ban all guns for the citizenry. Maybe don’t be a dick and actually type what you mean next time.
I won’t hold my breath.
Autolykos is an overly sensitive, paranoid individual. I wouldn’t take much of what he says about people who aren’t exactly on the same page as him too seriously. Also, just because someone doesn’t immediately agree with you’re particular understanding of libertarianism doesn’t make them a troll. I just want people using good arguments. The contemporary debate about gun control isn’t close (like unimaginably far away from) talk of banning all guns. Their talking about reinstating the assault weapons ban and making things like background checks more rigorous and clamping down on gun shows.
If you gotta get your ass kicked a few times to figure out how to do it, so be it. As long as you figure it out
You were insulting instead of engaging in actual debate. Again, I have met plenty of people who advocate banning all guns for the citicenzry. I had no way of knowing you were talking about assault weapons when you said “all guns”. I responded to the actual words you typed.
I didn’t say “all guns”, so no you didn’t respond to the actual words I typed.
And you initiated the insulting with this chaming little bit:
"I suppose you have never heard of skeet shooting or other shooting sports.
Let’s not forget archery as a sport too."
Let’s not confuse things here.
“guns are made for killing” implies all guns.
“if you have some insider info Id be glad to hear it though” was an unnecessarily snarky comment especially considering the fact that you had not mentioned AR-15s at the time and was acting as though you had.
You started acting like a dick and I responded in kind. Let’s not confuse things here.
Not when the next section is:
“So it’s not about everything that can end up killing someone. it’s about things that are made specifically for the purpose of killing, which makes them, generally speaking, extremely good at killing and thus dangerous.”
It wasn’t unnecessarily snarky. It was an appropriately jocular response to your tongue in cheek question “How do you kill a bottle with a gun?”
Almost, but not quite.
How about this argument against gun control:
I’m not sure if you knew this, but neither this nor this was done using guns!
LMAO. You are so cute. It’s about things that are made specifically for the purpose of killing. LMAO. Exactly. You said that that all guns were made for killing. Not some. If you meant some, then qualify your statements with the word some. Don’t follow it up by qualifying it with “they are made specifically for killing”. In no way does that mean “some guns”.
My god.
And “generally speaking, extremely good at killing and thus dangerous” does not mean “some guns” either. That state was qualifying “things made for the purpose of killing”.
You are such a liar.
Yes, it was unnecessarily snarky. You made a comment about all guns being meant for killing. The meaning behind your response was that AR-15s weren’t made to shoot bottles, and I’m an idiot. But guess what? My comment had nothing to do with AR-15s. It had to do with your claim that all guns are meant to kill.
What’s especially interesting is that you don’t address the topic of gun sports and archery, but instead you preferred to insult and now are trying to pin them on me.
Cute. You are a troll.
Not all guns are made for the purpose of killing. Which means specifying “things that are made specifically for the purpose of killing” is limiting the “guns” mentioned in the previous paragraph.
It’s pretty straight forward.
"Guns are made for killing. Cars kill, at best, as a side effect or secondary function. " is pretty straightforward. Notice how you went out of your way to claim that cars only kill as a side effect, but with guns that is their express purpose?
Now you are claiming otherwise. Fine.
Yes, the guns that are talked about in gun control debates are guns made specifically for killing.
There are pallet guns, bb guns, nerf guns, rubber band guns, all kinds of guns before you even get to sport weapons that everyone knows aren’t made for killing and aren’t a part of gun control debates. Why you would expand it to sport weapons is beyond me. In every serious discussion about gun control, proponents specifically state they aren’t talking about taking hunting rifles. If you’re not familiar with the contemporary debate maybe you should familiarize yourself.