Re: Todays rant

On 12/12/2024 2:49 PM, AMuzi wrote:

On 12/12/2024 11:51 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:

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:

>
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 in that case, why would a person possess such a device? Some level of intent to kill is what drives ownership.
Yes, yes, I know that Andrew is not intent on killing when he takes his AR to the range. But somewhere in there is "practicing in case I need it" as motivation. That is, the motivation is not to put closely spaced holes in paper, because a .177 air rifle can do that as well or better. Somewhere is "I can blast away and destroy."

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....

 Well, you could.
 Tedious lengthy process plus $200 will get you your very own  NFA tax stamp,

But nobody does that without harboring at least the image of using such a gun to kill other people.
I think it's a bit weird even when it's confined to the world of video games. But when it leads to possession and proliferation of devices designed for such killing, it's a real societal problem.
--
- Frank Krygowski