Re: Todays rant

On 12/12/2024 8:48 AM, AMuzi wrote:

On 12/12/2024 7:19 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:

On 12/11/2024 4:59 PM, AMuzi wrote:

On 12/11/2024 3:06 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:

On 12/11/2024 3:00 PM, AMuzi wrote:

On 12/11/2024 12:10 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:

On 12/11/2024 12:36 PM, AMuzi wrote:

On 12/11/2024 11:07 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:

On 12/11/2024 6:06 AM, John B. wrote:

>
>
Reality is that ALL firearms are dangerious. [sic]

>
John, are ALL firearms equally dangerous? Really?
>
Of course not!
>
The AR was specifically designed to be more dangerous to the enemy than its predecessor. If that were not the objective, there would have been no need for a new design.
>
>

>
That was 65 years ago. Designs have progressed.
>
Also, although I haven't looked recently, for many years the #1 fatal round in USA was .22LR overwhelmingly.
>
Without editing or rephrasing Mr Slocumb's comment, "all firearms are dangerous" in in fact obviously true.

>
John was using "All firearms are dangerous" specifically as a defense of wide proliferation of AR- style rifles. Check the thread. By ignoring that fact, his buddies are pretending that all levels of danger are equally bad.
>
Ignoring levels of danger is beyond absurd. If you accept that, you may as well extend the concept to straight pins, stairways, sunburn and hell, everything else in the world. And you may as well advocate for private ownership of nuclear weapons.
>
(And I'll note that the gun fetishists here actually _have_ tried to do that with other everyday items! I won't remind people of their other chosen items, because that will just set them off on other illogical chases.)
>

>
>
Every farmer in my are has plenty of ammonia rich fertilizer and a few hundred gallons of diesel. Not one of them has emulated Timothy McVeigh. Not once.
>
Materiel is not volition.
>

>
Ammonia-rich fertilizer and diesel fuel were not designed with the intent to kill humans.
>
>

>
Oh, for all the difference it made to 19 children; 168 people altogether.
>
Perhaps the difference is in the act and the actor not the tool.

>
Still a bad analogy, the same used to compare deaths from car crashes, kitchen knives (any manner of pointy objects) - all lethal when used with the intent to murder, but none designed with the intent to murder.
>
The AR-15 when used for the intended design is specifically lethal to humans. That cannot be said for fertilizer, ammonia, cars, ball-point pens......
>
>

 So you agree with me that the crucial aspects are the actor and the act, not the hardware.
 

To a certain extent.
If every human being could be trusted to act responsibly, allowing a device that was developed expressly to kill other human beings to be possessed without any restrictions wouldn't be a problem.
But Humans can't be trusted.
Following your posit to the extreme, there should be no reason therefore to prevent me from mounting a fully-operational m134 minigun on the roof of my car. Hey, I'm a responsible adult, never been arrested, I've never committed any acts of violence, even had a security clearance for a time. If the criteria is _solely_ 'the actor and the act', why shouldn't I be able to do that?
Why shouldn't _any_ one who has never had any history of violent behavior _not_ be allowed to own weapons of war? It's not like people with no history of violence have _ever_ engaged in a mass shooting....
--
Add xx to reply