That wasn't a strawman. I asked a question. — Thorongil
I agree that there are restrictions on the means of self-defense, but I don't think that extends to banning all guns. Why do you think it does, if indeed you think that? — Thorongil
No, I clearly said, for example, many handguns don't qualify as weapons of war.If there are no non-war-like weapons, and it doesn't seem that there are, then you're just against weapons per se, which would seem to indicate your opposition to the possession of any means of self-defense. — Thorongil
It's negative depending on context. It's not negative in a war setting.You clearly regard "war-like" as a negative quality in itself. — Thorongil
I don't think that it does. I think that it should, and I suspect that you know why I think that. — Sapientia
No. That's not what I meant anyhow. You can clearly see how, say, a pistol is very very different from the AR-15 with a bump stock. One can be used to EASILY kill many people at once, while the other cannot be used that way.I think a gun qua gun qualifies as a weapon of war. — Thorongil
No, they're not. This is just outright BS. Do a thought experiment - which weapon can kill more people faster? The answer will be clear. Of course, it's also possible to kill a lot of people with a pistol, just more difficult. So what I said is true:But they are. People have done just that with them. — Thorongil
That doesn't mean pistols are as capable of killing a large number of people as the upgraded AR-15. — Agustino
I asked a question. I agree that there are restrictions on the means of self-defense, but I don't think that extends to banning all guns. Why do you think it does, if indeed you think that? — Thorongil
I had in mind grenades, tanks, attack helicopters, fighter jets, bombs, machine guns, RPGs, etc when I made my comment. Civilians don't have access to these quintessential weapons of war. — Thorongil
You got to be kidding me :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:The 9mm Glock would be one. That's what the Orlando shooter predominantly used once he got into enclosed spaces, for example. — Thorongil
Given the same amount of time and the same situation, the AR-15 will kill more people. — Agustino
Vim vi repellere licet. — Benkei
Based on the interpretation by the Supreme Court, let's get on with actual laws:
1. prohibition on concealed weapons;
2. felony and mental health checks, no sale on a positive;
3. registration of gun owners;
4. qualification - a gun test like a driver's license, failed? you don't get a gun;
5. a limit to the number of guns one person can own;
6. prohibition to carry guns in public places;
7. prohibition on dangerous guns to include fully automatic rifles. — Benkei
Nothing to do with its capacity to kill a lot of people quickly.1. More concealable. — Thorongil
Same as above.2. Ammunition and firearm are lighter, allowing shooter to carry multiple pistols and ammunition. — Thorongil
:confused:3. Less moving parts, therefore, less opportunities to malfunction. — Thorongil
Yeah, but when someone just wants to kill people, accuracy isn't so important as other factors - like being able to spray a lot of bullets quickly, covering a large area.4. More accurate at close range with less recoil. — Thorongil
Hmm, sure. But again, this has nothing to do with the potential of the weapon. The one has greater destructive potential than the other.5. Harder to disarm an active shooter, especially if the shooter has no "real" training or understanding of "Pie" with regards to clearing a room. — Thorongil
Not true. It's harder to hit a target with a pistol since firing rate is slower. Close quarters it doesn't make much difference, but at some distance it does.8. Requires less skill to operate with efficiency. — Thorongil
Have you, or anyone on this thread, asked WHY is it that in a country that has a 'right to bear arms', that these arms are banned from public ownership? — charleton
Guns exist today and they didn't in the past. I fail to see how this fact disables the right to own and carry them for self-defense. The natural right to self-defense wasn't invented by the Romans. It applies to human beings as such. A hunter gatherer who defends himself with a sharp rock against someone or something threatening his life is as justified in doing as the Roman who defends himself with a steel Gladius and the modern individual who defends himself with a gun. — Thorongil
What country are you talking about?
If you are speaking of the USA, what exactly do you mean by "banned from public ownership"? — ArguingWAristotleTiff
The one has greater destructive potential than the other. — Agustino
You've not demonstrated this claim. — Thorongil
[The AR-15] shoots a .223 Caliber or 5.56 mm round at roughly 3,300 feet per second, which is about three times the muzzle velocity of a typical Glock pistol.
The AR-15's effective firing range is also more than 1,300 feet at the least, whereas a typical Glock's firing range is just over 160 feet.
Chipman, the senior policy analyst at Giffords and former ATF special agent, told Business Insider that the AR-15 is so powerful that they weren't allowed to carry it during indoor raids because the rounds travel so fast that they could penetrate a victim, then a wall, then a bystander through that room.
...
But so many mass shootings become mass shootings "because the AR-15 was used," he said, adding that the damage the weapon does to the human body pales in comparison to a handgun. [my note: in context it's clear that the writer meant to say that a handgun pales in comparison to the AR-15]
"I've talked to ER physicians," Chipman said. "Rifle rounds are so devastating to the human body."
ALL GUNS CAN kill, but they do not kill equally.
Compare the damage an AR-15 and a 9mm handgun can do to the human body: “One looks like a grenade went off in there,” says Peter Rhee, a trauma surgeon at the University of Arizona. “The other looks like a bad knife cut.”
A bullet with more energy can do more damage. Its total kinetic energy is equal to one-half the mass of the bullet times its velocity squared. The bullet from a handgun is—as absurd as it may sound—slow compared to that from an AR-15. It can be stopped by the thick bone of the upper leg. It might pass through the body, only to become lodged in skin, which is surprisingly elastic.
The bullet from an AR-15 does an entirely different kind of violence to the human body. It’s relatively small, but it leaves the muzzle at three times the speed of a handgun bullet. It has so much energy that it can disintegrate three inches of leg bone. “It would just turn it to dust,” says Donald Jenkins, a trauma surgeon at University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio. If it hits the liver, “the liver looks like a jello mold that’s been dropped on the floor.” And the exit wound can be a nasty, jagged hole the size of an orange.
These high-velocity bullets can damage flesh inches away from their path, either because they fragment or because they cause something called cavitation. When you trail your fingers through water, the water ripples and curls. When a high-velocity bullet pierces the body, human tissues ripples as well—but much more violently. The bullet from an AR-15 might miss the femoral artery in the leg, but cavitation may burst the artery anyway, causing death by blood loss. A swath of stretched and torn tissue around the wound may die. That’s why, says Rhee, a handgun wound might require only one surgery but an AR-15 bullet wound might require three to ten.
Then, multiply the damage from a single bullet by the ease of shooting an AR-15, which doesn’t kick. “The gun barely moves. You can sit there boom boom boom and reel off shots as fast as you can move your finger,” says Ernest Moore, a trauma surgeon at Denver Health and editor of the Journal of Trauma and Acute Surgery, which just published an issue dedicated to gun violence.
Handguns kill plenty of people too, of course, and they’re responsible for the vast majority of America’s gun deaths. But a single bullet from a handgun is not likely to be as deadly as one from an AR-15.
If we accept your line of thinking then stopping at guns would be entirely arbitrary and we might as well include grenades and anti-personnel mines as those exist too. — Benkei
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.