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

If you say so.

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

Guns are designed to shoot bullets, people decide whether to shoot at a target on a shooting range, a deer in the woods or people in the street. It is silly to blame an inanimate object for the behavior of people.

I ask again; so? — Michael

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.

It is silly to blame an inanimate object for the behavior of people. — Sir2u

Nobody is doing that.

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.

The legislature is quite capable of passing gun control legislation whilst scientific institutions look into how to prevent house fires.

If you're against any gun legislation, what is your proposed remedies to the issue of gun violence in America?

Nobody is doing that. — Michael

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.

The legislature is quite capable of passing gun control legislation whilst scientific institutions look into how to prevent house fires. — Michael

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?

If you're against any gun legislation, what is your proposed remedies to the issue of gun violence in America? — Buxtebuddha

Let's see. Based on what he has said, it seems that his proposal is to either ban people or wait until we can fix them so that they don't try to kill each other anymore.

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

Because most of the mass shootings stem back to an imbalance in the mind within one person or very rarely two and mental illness cannot be seen but only expressed. When it is expressed in the non verbal way with a firearm, people listen and begin to think about where the motive part of this action was formed.

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

No it isn't.

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?

Ask them, not me. But what does this have to do with gun control? — Michael

It has everything to do with the reason behind people's desire to control firearms.

If you're against any gun legislation, what is your proposed remedies to the issue of gun violence in America? — Buxtebuddha

I have never said that I am against gun legislation, what I have said is that I do not see how it will help as the people here are proposing to do it. A total blanket ban on arms will not work. It is not cost effective, it will not stop killings by people that want to kill, and as far as many people in the USA are concerned it is a violation of their rights. All of this has been explained in previous posts.

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.

But what does this have to do with gun control? — Michael

If it was easier to tell when people were not fit to own guns then the police would be able to act against them. That is called gun control. Science could give them the tools they need.

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

Amen.

“It occurred to me that if I could invent a machine - a gun - which could by its rapidity of fire, enable one man to do as much battle duty as a hundred, that it would, to a large extent supersede the necessity of large armies, and consequently, exposure to battle and disease would be greatly diminished.” - Richard Gatling, inventor of the Gatling gun.

Here's someone who actually designed a gun, basically saying that he designed it so that it could be used to kill lots more people.

Gun controls should be focused on people that are obviously dangerous, criminals and mentally ill — 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?

and more money should be spent on preventing guns getting into their hands. — Sir2u

Ah, yes, just throw money at the problem. I'm sure the government will spend it wisely, :up:

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.

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

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.

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

"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?

Ah, yes, just throw money at the problem. I'm sure the government will spend it wisely, :up: — Buxtebuddha

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. 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.

"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

What? :lol: How about you respond to the content of my reply? Thanks :up:

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

I don't support a blanket ban on all firearms, but nice try.

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 thinking banning AR-15's is also a solution sought in fixing a problem. Do you disagree?

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

I think you should read what he said again.

"and consequently, exposure to battle and disease would be greatly diminished."

His purpose in designing it was to stop or at least reduce killings in the battle field. He thought that if people new that it was useless to fight against a machine like that they would stop doing it.

Battle fields are where soldiers fight, not where people have guns in their houses. And again we come to the real problem, it is the people that decide upon the target, not the guns.

What? :lol: How about you respond to the content of my reply, thanks :up: — Buxtebuddha

I did reply, if you cannot understand it I am sorry.

I don't support a blanket ban on all firearms, but nice try. — Buxtebuddha

So exactly what is it that you do support?

I thinking banning AR-15's is also a solution sought in fixing a problem. Do you disagree? — Buxtebuddha

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.

Did he, or did he not, set out to design a gun which could by its rapidity of fire, enable one man to do as much battle duty as a hundred? The answer is of course that he did, and that he was quite successful. And that means that it was designed with the capacity of being used to kill lots more people than was previously possible (and that's exactly what happened), otherwise none of it makes any sense.

But let's look at another quote:

“I was in the hospital, and a soldier in the bed beside me asked: ‘Why do our soldiers have only one rifle for two or three of our men, when the Germans have automatics?’ So I designed one. I was a soldier, and I created a machine gun for a soldier. It was called an Avtomat Kalashnikova, the automatic weapon of Kalashnikov—AK—and it carried the date of its first manufacture, 1947.” - Mikhail Kalashnikov, inventor of the AK-47

Now, for what reason could a soldier require a gun? Ah yes, shooting bullets... That explains it all perfectly. The full picture. Nothing more to examine here. Case closed.

I did reply, if you cannot understand it I am sorry. — Sir2u

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.

So exactly what is it that you do support? — Sir2u

I'm more interested in what you support, seeing as I asked first, I think you should tell before I do.

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

As I've been trying to do, you need to explain why your alternatives will make the difference. At present, you've made baseless assertions, so I have no reason to take you seriously until you do.

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.

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

A toothpick is just a tool designed to pick stuff. Whether or not it's used on teeth has nothing to do with its design. And a fishing pole is just a pole which may or may not be used for fishing. It has nothing whatsoever to do with people or fish or people using fishing poles to catch fish. It doesn't suit my agenda to give a complete picture, so that's how it is. Understood?

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

I had already answered your question, in case you missed it here it is again.

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

I have stated my position several times, if you do not understand then please feel free to ask for clarification on any of the points I have made.

As I've been trying to do, you need to explain why your alternatives will make the difference. — Buxtebuddha

Once again, I have already explained everything in previous posts, feel free to go back in the thread and read them. As for you trying to explain, how can you explain your position when you have not even stated what it is.

At present, you've made baseless assertions, so I have no reason to take you seriously until you do. — Buxtebuddha

At present, you've made absolutely no valid assertions, so I have absolutely no reason to take you seriously even if you do.

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

No, they were designed to shoot lots and lots and lots of bullets. What the stupid people did with those bullets is not the gun's problem. If the people decided that it's purpose was to kill then that is the people not the gun, all the gun can do is shoot bullets not make decisions about where the bullets go.

Case closed. — Sapientia

That is the simplest way to admit that you are wrong. You don't even want to talk about those "circumstances" you mentioned?

No, they were designed to shoot lots and lots and lots of bullets. — Sir2u

I stand corrected. :lol:

And candles were simply designed to produce light. It had nothing whatsoever to do with us wanting to see things better in the dark.

Here, sweetie, I'll try this again. 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? All that you have done so far is throw the coals in the laps of "scientific institutions", not once providing any substance that might prove your solution right. If you cannot do so, say so. If you will not do so, then I'm done speaking to someone so intellectually disingenuous.

You don't even want to talk about those "circumstances" you mentioned? — Sir2u

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. But I think that you're already largely aware of the situation in the US, as are other participants, and I think that you're very much set in your ways and can't be reasoned with. You've demonstrated in this discussion and others an unwillingness to concede, even when it would be reasonable to do so.

Here, sweetie, I'll try this again. — Buxtebuddha

Try using a little less sarcasm in your writing, it might help people take you as a serious person. Even if you are not one.

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

I could answer as some people here do and reply that I have no idea because I am not in a position to make those decisions or that I am not a law maker so it does not correspond to to me to decide.

But as I have said before, I have explained how I think these things could be accomplished. Go back and read them.

All that you have done so far is throw the coals in the laps of "scientific institutions", — Buxtebuddha

Which is a hell of a lot more than you have done yet.

not once providing any substance that might prove your solution right. — Buxtebuddha

How do you propose anyone prove that they are right without the proposal first being carried out, that is really pathetic. What I suggested is a possible way to solve the problem, I have never stated that it is the only way nor that it will work.
And the truth is I don't have to prove anything to you, it is you that is saying that I am wrong so it is up to you to prove that I am.

Please explain why my idea would not work, after you have read them of course.

As you say,

If you cannot do so, say so. If you will not do so, then I'm done speaking to someone so intellectually disingenuous. — Buxtebuddha

So sad, especially from someone that tries to act as an intellectual.
So far in this conversation your contribution has amounted to little more than "you are wrong" "you are incorrect" and a few insults.
Let us hear how to solve the problem from a true intellectual, please enlighten us with your wisdom.

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

Same answer as always when there is nothing to say. How can you know whether it would be productive or not until you tell us whatever you have to say.

But I think that you're already largely aware of the situation in the US, — Sapientia

I have no real information about the situation in the USA that what I read on the internet.

and I think that you're very much set in your ways and can't be reasoned with. — Sapientia

If I am given a real reason to believe something I will believe it. Try giving me a real solution to the problem of guns in the US, At least something better than those that I have proposed that you think are useless.

You've demonstrated in this discussion and others an unwillingness to concede, even when it would be reasonable to do so. — Sapientia

No, I have demonstrated that I am not going to be bullied into excepting your ides that I consider incorrect, just as you fail to concede even when it would be reasonable to do so.
Try coming up with some reasonable ideas and tell me about them, but please don't repeat "ban the guns" unless as someone recently said you are prepared to specify how this would be done.