Well, to say that the purpose of a gun is to shoot bullets is like saying that the purpose of a car is to burn fuel to spin wheels. It's nonsense. — Michael
That's how they behave, but their purpose isn't their behaviour. Their purpose is the primary use to which they were designed to serve. In the case of cars it's transport; in the case of guns it's killing and/or hurting people. — Michael
I ask again; so? — Michael
It is silly to blame an inanimate object for the behavior of people. — Sir2u
You say that you want to improve health and safety right, would it not make more sense to look at the things that cause more deaths each year first and solve those problems before moving on to the smaller stuff.
Nobody is doing that. — Michael
The legislature is quite capable of passing gun control legislation whilst scientific institutions look into how to prevent house fires. — Michael
If you're against any gun legislation, what is your proposed remedies to the issue of gun violence in America? — Buxtebuddha
The legislature is quite capable of passing legislation to pay for scientific institutions to look into why people kill each other. So why do they not do so? — Sir2u
By saying that guns need to be banned you are saying that they are to blame for the deaths, that if they did not exist there would be no problems. — Sir2u
The legislature is quite capable of passing legislation to pay for scientific institutions to look into why people kill each other. So why do they not do so?
Ask them, not me. But what does this have to do with gun control? — Michael
If you're against any gun legislation, what is your proposed remedies to the issue of gun violence in America? — Buxtebuddha
Amen.Gun controls should be focused on people that are obviously dangerous, criminals and mentally ill, and more money should be spent on preventing guns getting into their hands. — Sir2u
Gun controls should be focused on people that are obviously dangerous, criminals and mentally ill — Sir2u
and more money should be spent on preventing guns getting into their hands. — Sir2u
Here's someone who actually designed a gun, basically saying that he designed it so that it could kill lots more people. — Sapientia
What is your point? It was not his fault that his gun was used by a bunch of idiots for purposes other than what he wanted it to do. He thought that the simple threat of a weapon like that would end the wars. — Sir2u
Focused by whom? The government? And do you want the government going even deeper into the bowels of healthcare and what constitutes mental illness? — Buxtebuddha
Ah, yes, just throw money at the problem. I'm sure the government will spend it wisely, :up: — Buxtebuddha
"What ever is necessary for the health and safety of the citizens" is the motto of those that believe banning guns is the solution to killings, so why should they complain about a thing like that? — Sir2u
So taking all of the guns off the people will be done for free? I have already discussed this in previous threads, you can read about it there. — Sir2u
And I really do not think that any scientific investigation into what you consider a serious problem is "throwing money at the problem". I would call it seeking a solution.
I thought the point was obvious. He designed a gun, not just to shoot bullets, but to shoot bullets at people. Otherwise none of it would make any sense whatsoever. — Sapientia
What? :lol: How about you respond to the content of my reply, thanks :up: — Buxtebuddha
I don't support a blanket ban on all firearms, but nice try. — Buxtebuddha
I thinking banning AR-15's is also a solution sought in fixing a problem. Do you disagree? — Buxtebuddha
I did reply, if you cannot understand it I am sorry. — Sir2u
So exactly what is it that you do support? — Sir2u
No I do not disagree. But I think that is roughly the equivalent of closing the barn door after the chickens, pigs and horses have run away. There are supposedly 5,000,000 AR-15's in the USA. Would banning the sales of them now really make that much of a difference? And it would not be cheap to remove those already out there. — Sir2u
It's utterly ridiculous that someone can't see the difference between an AK-47 and a toothpick or an Uzi and a fishing pole. — Buxtebuddha
I asked you how you would carry out the solution you've proposed and you've yet to answer. If you want to sidestep providing any substance to your argument, fine. — Buxtebuddha
Gun controls should be focused on people that are obviously dangerous, criminals and mentally ill, and more money should be spent on preventing guns getting into their hands. — Sir2u
The legislature is quite capable of passing legislation to pay for scientific institutions to look into why people kill each other. So why do they not do so? — Sir2u
I'm more interested in what you support, seeing as I asked first, I think you should tell before I do. — Buxtebuddha
As I've been trying to do, you need to explain why your alternatives will make the difference. — Buxtebuddha
At present, you've made baseless assertions, so I have no reason to take you seriously until you do. — Buxtebuddha
And that means that it was designed with the capacity of being used to kill lots more people than was previously possible, otherwise none of it makes any sense.
So I designed one. I was a soldier, and I created a machine gun for a soldier. — Sapientia
Case closed. — Sapientia
You don't even want to talk about those "circumstances" you mentioned? — Sir2u
Here, sweetie, I'll try this again. — Buxtebuddha
If your solution to gun violence is to combat "dangerous, criminal and mentally ill" people, what are the ways in which these people are to be dealt with? — Buxtebuddha
All that you have done so far is throw the coals in the laps of "scientific institutions", — Buxtebuddha
not once providing any substance that might prove your solution right. — Buxtebuddha
If you cannot do so, say so. If you will not do so, then I'm done speaking to someone so intellectually disingenuous. — Buxtebuddha
I would be more inclined to talk about it if I thought that there was a genuine reason behind your request, or if I thought that it would be productive. — Sapientia
But I think that you're already largely aware of the situation in the US, — Sapientia
and I think that you're very much set in your ways and can't be reasoned with. — Sapientia
You've demonstrated in this discussion and others an unwillingness to concede, even when it would be reasonable to do so. — Sapientia
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.