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. — Sir2u

I went on to explain why I doubt that it would be productive.

I have no real information about the situation in the USA that what I read on the internet. — Sir2u

You're trying to understate it, as you are wont to do, but one can learn a heck of a lot about it through media, including the internet. You don't actually have to be there.

As for the rest of your post: been there, done that, but I don't need to develop it to the extent that you've pressed for. What you do with it is up to you. Like I've said, the culture needs to change, and tighter gun controls need to be implemented. The sooner, the better. And those who pose as obstacles need to be challenged and overcome.

Great, so still nothing. Yawn. Well, perhaps sometime you'll get off the question mark you've been sitting on and stop trolling. A man can dream...

Whereas the primary purpose of a gun is to kill and/or hurt people. — Michael

If it is, then you need to explain how exactly most gun owners don't in fact use it in this way.

(as if the pro-gun control argument is just that anything that can hurt people ought be banned). — Michael

I fail to have registered any other reason offered in favor of banning guns.

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

Yeah (although I'm slightly unsure of the metaphor employed here).

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

Did you know that the government will be the one in charge of regulating or banning guns, if such things are passed? Your concern here works both ways.

what are the ways in which these people are to be dealt with? — Buxtebuddha

Better mental health screenings and treatments. Better policing. Universalized gun-violence restraining orders. Reform of existing laws. Etc.

So you really think that saying that I am wrong makes you right?

Got news for you, it does not. It only means that you have nothing at all to add to the conversation.

So you pass your useless life telling other people that that they are dumb while being totally unable to show any reasons why they are. You refuse to even, out of courtesy, read the thread where thy information you ask for is and then say that other people are "intellectually disingenuous". Have you looked in a mirror recently?

I will, because of your obvious inability to understand the situation, review my position one last time. After that I expect you to provide reasonable information as to why I am wrong or shut the hell up.

I believe that because of the number of weapons already in existence and in the hands of the general public there is no feasible method of a total ban on guns. The shear cost and man power required is beyond that of a government that cannot solve the health and homeless problems that exist.

Any general ban on sales will make no difference on the present situation and probably little on the near future. There are according to government statistics about 300 million guns in the USA and over five million AK47 type arms among them. The only difference a ban will make is that decent citizens will no longer be able to buy them, criminals will still be able to obtain them freely.

Making gun license obligatory is sort of ridiculous because it cannot be enforced. No one actually knows who has most of the guns, except those of the honest people that already abide by the law and get permissions. A ban would mean that these are the first people to be punished.

A ban on sales to people with possible or actual mental, criminal problems or lack of proper training seems to be the best way to go if any sort of a ban is to be imposed. Unfortunately that will come at a serious cost, people will have to be hired and trained to oversee the mental health, criminal records and adequate training of anyone that wants to acquire a license.

A lot of those that really want guns for ill use will be able to find them without this hassle so the sales ban will be limited to catching those that do actually apply for permits. Unless this method is instituted in a very strict way it will not work either as has been shown to several times already by fully licensed killers buying the weapons days before the deed.

Scientific study of why people kill would help with to prevent future mass murders. But who is going to foot the bill for this?

A proper education is another way to help alleviate the problem. I am sure you can figure out how this will help.

Over to you now, this is my opinion. Go ahead and show me where I am going wrong.

If it is, then you need to explain how exactly most gun owners don't in fact use it in this way. — Thorongil

Because, in most cases, its primary purpose tends to be reserved for emergencies. The primary purpose of a fire extinguisher is not ornamental, it's to extinguish fires when they arise. Likewise, the primary purpose of a gun is to be used as the weapon it is, to be fired at live targets in order to kill or disable. But I suspect that you already know this, so the real question is why you're coming up with inventive ways to skirt around it.

I fail to have registered any other reason offered in favor of banning guns. — Thorongil

Well, additional reasons have been given, so I wonder why it is that you've failed to register them. It's not just that they can hurt people, it's part of a cost-benefit analysis, and this cost-benefit analysis is not going to be identical if you switch from, say, civilian use of assault rifles to civilian use of trucks.

Did you know that the government will be the one in charge of regulating or banning guns, if such things are passed? Your concern here works both ways. — Thorongil

I understand that, but if you're someone that screams at the top of your lungs about "muh freedumbs" and how terrible the government is, then throwing money at gun violence - through the government - makes a whole lot of no sense.

Better mental health screenings and treatments. — Thorongil

And this looks like what? Are we to stereotype and shame every "mentally ill" person into some category that says, "likely to shoot up a Waffle House" or "drive a minivan through cafes"? Who also is going to provide mental health screenings and treatments? The government? Private health providers? Who's going to assemble and sort the information? What happens when professionals disagree on person x's mental health and danger to society?

Better policing. — Thorongil

I agree that better policing is important, but as above, what does this look like? Are we to give police more power? What sort of power? Better training, more funding, what? Do we want to fund the NSA/HLS even more, which will mean the giving up of certain privacy privileges, other freedoms, etc.?

Universalized gun-violence restraining orders. — Thorongil

I don't know what this is, but traditional restraining orders provide very little practical defense against whomever the order is placed. The order merely serves as a warning and fuel in a court room after shit has already clogged the fan.

Reform of existing laws. — Thorongil

What sort of reform on what existing laws? Will they be federally mandated or left up to the states?

~

As I've said before in this very thread, living in a society - any society - is inherently restraining and unfree, so the idea that giving up one's freedom is some absolutely calamitously terrifying event every single time is just silly. Obviously unjust restraints are, well, unjust, but no matter the side or perspective taken on gun violence in America, a giving up of some freedom, however big or small, is inevitable. And it would seem that a great many people don't understand that. If you want to keep your AR-15 but have the NSA spying on you when you sleep, okie dokie. If you want to fire a bazooka in your backyard but have the government judge your children as potential mass murders because they are "x, y, or z", that's fine too. Personally, I'd rather give up my AR-15 if I owned one than the above. Perhaps I'm crazy though and should be placed on a list of mentally ill nutjobs who may kill people. *shrug*

Personally, I'd rather give up my AR-15 if I owned one than the above. — Buxtebuddha

But giving up your precious AR-15 (if you owned one) would be a "punishment", whereas being the victim of a school shooting is apparently something worth putting up with until we can "fix" humanity. (Yeah, like that's ever going to happen. And be careful what you wish for. Sounds like the stuff of dystopian fiction, like A Clockwork Orange. And besides, who's going to foot the bill? They may take our lives, but they'll never raise our taxes!).

Yeah man, if only we had some more them scientific studies to tell us why people kill each other, :snicker:

I understand that, but if you're someone that screams at the top of your lungs about "muh freedumbs" and how terrible the government is, then throwing money at gun violence - through the government - makes a whole lot of no sense. — Buxtebuddha

So who is going to pay for the regulation or banning of guns. If you think that the government would just be throwing money at gun violence makes no sense then you must have another candidate to foot the bill.

Who also is going to provide mental health screenings and treatments? The government? Private health providers? Who's going to assemble and sort the information? What happens when professionals disagree on person x's mental health and danger to society? — Buxtebuddha

Maybe the government would not be so gung ho to the idea of throwing money at gun violence but who is responsible for the safety of the people?

And this looks like what? Are we to stereotype and shame every "mentally ill" person into some category that says, "likely to shoot up a Waffle House" or "drive a minivan through cafes"? Who also is going to provide mental health screenings and treatments? The government? Private health providers? Who's going to assemble and sort the information? What happens when professionals disagree on person x's mental health and danger to society? — Buxtebuddha

Are you beginning to actually see the problems I mentioned?

I agree that better policing is important, but as above, what does this look like? Are we to give police more power? What sort of power? Better training, more funding, what? Do we want to fund the NSA/HLS even more, which will mean the giving up of certain privacy privileges, other freedoms, etc.? — Buxtebuddha

The people who believe they have the right to their guns see banning them as a threat to all of their rights, whether they are right or wrong I do not know but that is what they think. And now it appears that you are also afraid of losing your rights and privileges. If it makes for a safer country and you are not doing anything wrong why would you be worried about someone listening to you phone calls?

So when are you going to uncover your plan to save America? We are all waiting for it.

The people who believe they have the right to their guns see banning them as a threat to all of their rights, whether they are right or wrong I do not know but that is what they think. — Sir2u

They're wrong, clearly.

I understand that, but if you're someone that screams at the top of your lungs about "muh freedumbs" and how terrible the government is, then throwing money at gun violence - through the government - makes a whole lot of no sense. — Buxtebuddha

You're assuming it will cost an obscene amount of money. Have you taken a look at the US budgets recently? They run into the trillions of dollars. Exactly how much do you think the things I suggested will cost? Whatever the figure is, I'm quite sure there are some superfluous expenditures that can be cut to pay for such measures (if they even require federal funding).

And this looks like what? — Buxtebuddha

I would defer to the experts on mental health.

Are we to stereotype and shame every "mentally ill" person into some category that says, "likely to shoot up a Waffle House" or "drive a minivan through cafes"? — Buxtebuddha

Many mass shooters display these very warning signs. And no, this is not a "gut feeling" hunch. There are clear patterns to the behavior that leads up to mass shootings (assuming this is what we're concerned about here, as opposed to gangbangers in South Chicago).

Who also is going to provide mental health screenings and treatments? The government? Private health providers? Who's going to assemble and sort the information? What happens when professionals disagree on person x's mental health and danger to society? — Buxtebuddha

No law will ever be perfect. You apparently agree, though, I take it, that we ought to have better mental health screenings and treatments? If so, then you can go research such things yourself.

I agree — Buxtebuddha

Good.

I don't know what this is — Buxtebuddha

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/02/gun-control-republicans-consider-grvo/

What sort of reform on what existing laws? Will they be federally mandated or left up to the states? — Buxtebuddha

There are loads of gun control laws already on the books. They need to be better enforced, scrapped, or rethought based on effectiveness. I think it ought to be left to the states. New Hampshire doesn't have the same level of gun violence as California, for example, so a one size fits all approach by the federal government would be counterproductive.

They're wrong, clearly. — Sapientia

What proof do you have to back up this statement? Or is it just another of your silly personal opinions?

Whereas the primary purpose of a gun is to kill and/or hurt people. — Michael

If it is, then you need to explain how exactly most gun owners don't in fact use it in this way. — Thorongil

Because, in most cases, its primary purpose tends to be reserved for emergencies. — Sapientia

I just noticed this gem. Talk about confusion. I don't know what to think now. So many people have been blathering on about guns being made to kill and then Sappy says most people have them for emergency use only and that is why they do not get used for killing.
I would say that there is something wrong with someone's think processes.

The problem, basically, is that one side wants to leap frog over trying to implement a bevy of reforms that could greatly reduce gun crime and mass shootings without violating the rights of peaceful gun owners. No nuance. No pragmatism. Just an inarticulate grunt to ban guns.

Just an inarticulate grunt to ban guns. — Thorongil

Come on mate, what did you expect from them. They have no idea how to even look at the problem never mind solve it.
But I have an idea that would solve the problem, the one here in the discussion not the one in the US, let's just pretend that we understand what they are gabbling on about and maybe they will get their self esteem up to a reasonable level and be able to live a normal life. It must be awful try to cover up ones inferiority complex all of the time by belittling other people.

What proof do you have to back up this statement? Or is it just another of your silly personal opinions? — Sir2u

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/slippery-slope

I just noticed this gem. Talk about confusion. I don't know what to think now. So many people have been blathering on about guns being made to kill and then Sappy says most people have them for emergency use only and that is why they do not get used for killing. I would say that there is something wrong with someone's think processes.[sic] — Sir2u

I presume you're talking about your own confusion. There is indeed something wrong with someone's "think" process, and that someone is you. The statement of mine which you're referring to is consistent with my previous statements.

First of all, it's both true and obvious to anyone not in denial that guns were designed as weapons, not merely to shoot bullets. I've given more than enough analogies to show the fault in your account, as well as having quoted a few actual gun designers themselves and pointed out that your limited account would lack explanatory power to such a degree that one wouldn't be able make much sense of things in relation to what was said. (If I were you, I think I would've conceded that point some time ago, as it's frankly embarrassing not to at this stage. But I get it: you're too stubborn to do so, and especially to me of all people. Your pride is at stake).

It's also true that in most cases of gun ownership, a guns primary purpose tends to be reserved for emergencies. Yet, nevertheless, gun crime still occurs and is a big problem, especially in the US, given the disproportionate statistics of gun crime in the US compared to other countries.

If you need some time to wrap your head around all of that, then I suggest you think it over. But those statements are consistent. There's no contradiction implied. If you think otherwise, then it's down to you to attempt to demonstrate that. And if you do attempt it, then good luck, and please quote what I've said, rather than trying your hand at paraphrasing it (which isn't one of your strong suits, truth be told), so as to avoid misrepresention.

I just noticed this gem. Talk about confusion. I don't know what to think now. So many people have been blathering on about guns being made to kill and then Sappy says most people have them for emergency use only and that is why they do not get used for killing.
I would say that there is something wrong with someone's think processes. — Sir2u

You don't seem to have understood. The primary purpose of a fire extinguisher is to put out fires even if the vast majority of fire extinguishers are never actually used. The primary purpose of a gun is to kill and/or hurt people even if the vast majority of guns are never actually used.

And, of course, to say that the purpose of a gun is to shoot bullets and not to kill and/or hurt people is as wrong as to say that the purpose of a fire extinguisher is to spray water or fire or powder and not to put out fires.

And, of course, to say that the purpose of a gun is to shoot bullets and not to kill and/or hurt people is as wrong as to say that the purpose of a fire extinguisher is to spray water or fire or powder and not to put out fires. — Michael

Yes. We could do this all day. It works with practically anything. What have we had so far? Guns, swords, bombs, cars, toothpicks, fishing poles, candles, and fire extinguishers. And the list could go on. It's quite amusing.

How about pens? Why, they were simply designed to spread ink, rather than to be used for writing.

Welcome to the charade. :party:

And, of course, to say that the purpose of a gun is to shoot bullets and not to kill and/or hurt people — Michael

A gun is an artifact. Human beings apply the form to, and therefore invent the purpose of, the objects we create. If a gun is used to fire bullets at another human being with the intent to kill or harm, that is the gun's purpose. If a gun is used to shoot bullets at a target or hammer nails, that is its purpose. No one would walk up to the target shooter or hammerer and say, "excuse me, you're using this object incorrectly." The "correctness" of an object's use is determined by the human being and his or her intentions, not by the object's nature (even though the nature of the object will place certain constraints on what the object can be used for).

Moreover, this is not to deny that artifacts have a typical purpose when being used. In the case of a fire extinguisher, it is most typically used to put out fires. But this example doesn't align with gun use in the US. The vast majority of gun owners do not typically use their guns to "kill or hurt people." Most gun owners use their guns to shoot targets at gun ranges or shoot non-human animals, either for sport, as population control, or for sustenance. As for human beings, the number of them killed or injured by guns is on par with the most conservative estimates of defensive gun uses, but most of the latter do not involve firing the weapon, whereas most gun related deaths and injuries are either suicides or accidents.

Talking about the various alternative ways in which a tool can be used does not change its primary purpose. And typical use doesn't have to correspond with primary purpose. Even if guns aren't typically used as weapons by civilians, that wouldn't stop their use as weapons in gun crime being the serious problem that it is. The use of guns in clay pigeon shooting and whatnot should not be the top priority. If you see a ban as a punishment or a violation of your rights, then you should get a sense of perspective.

Talking about the various alternative ways in which a tool can be used does not change its primary purpose. — Sapientia

A gun's primary purpose (in the sense of what it was originally designed to do) would be to discharge a small projectile at great speed. Guns don't kill people on their own.

Imagine that humans went extinct. An intelligent alien species visiting the Earth, having no knowledge of the past existence of human beings, would not be able to conclude in coming across a gun that the purpose of this object is to "kill or hurt human beings."

A gun's primary purpose (in the sense of what it was originally designed to do) would be to discharge a small projectile at great speed. Guns don't kill people on their own.

Imagine that humans went extinct. An intelligent alien species visiting the Earth, having no knowledge of the past existence of human beings, would not be able to conclude in coming across a gun that the purpose of this object is to "kill or hurt human beings." — Thorongil

And this is as ridiculous as claiming that a fire extinguisher was designed to spray water rather than to put out fires because they don't put out fires on their own and an alien would not be able to conclude that this is its purpose.

You were far more reasonable when you suggested that the purpose of (some, at least) guns is for hunting or sport. And I'll grant you that (in those cases where that's true), in which case we have a starting place for sensible gun control laws; bolt-action rifles and shotguns for hunting and sport, and perhaps stretching to handguns stored in accredited shooting ranges that can be rented out for target practice.

It seems that you agree with me, then, that the primary purpose of guns used by the vast majority of lawful gun owners is not to kill or hurt people. So you were wrong, not us.

It seems that you agree with me, then, that the primary purpose of guns used by the vast majority of lawful gun owners is not to kill or hurt people. — Thorongil

I didn't say that. I said that "the purpose of (some, at least) guns is for hunting or sport."

So you were wrong, not us. — Thorongil

It's not mutually exclusive. Even if I am wrong in saying that the primary purpose of a gun is to kill and/or hurt people, you're still wrong in saying that the primary purpose of a gun is just to discharge a small projectile at great speed. How things work and the purpose they serve are not the same thing.

I didn't say that. I said that "the purpose of (some, at least) guns is for hunting or sport." — Michael

So you don't deny it either. Why not just come clean now?

I said,
"The people who believe they have the right to their guns see banning them as a threat to all of their rights, whether they are right or wrong I do not know but that is what they think."

You replied,

They're wrong, clearly. — Sapientia

I then asked,
Question #1

What proof do you have to back up this statement? Or is it just another of your silly personal opinions? — Sir2u

This is the statement that I asked for proof of.

You answer with a link to this,

slippery slope
You said that if we allow A to happen, then Z will eventually happen too, therefore A should not happen.

The problem with this reasoning is that it avoids engaging with the issue at hand, and instead shifts attention to extreme hypotheticals. Because no proof is presented to show that such extreme hypotheticals will in fact occur, this fallacy has the form of an appeal to emotion fallacy by leveraging fear. In effect the argument at hand is unfairly tainted by unsubstantiated conjecture.

Example: Colin Closet asserts that if we allow same-sex couples to marry, then the next thing we know we'll be allowing people to marry their parents, their cars and even monkeys.

Question #2:
What the hell has a slippery slope fallacy got to do with proving your statement. It makes absolutely no sense to say that asking for proof is any type of a fallacy. I think you are just blowing wind because, like every other time you have been asked to prove something you have no answer.

But if you think that I am guilty of this type of faulty reasoning, please show me where.

I presume you're talking about your own confusion. — Sapientia

Yes definitely, that is what I am talking about.

You have been going on for so long saying that guns were designed to kill people and that their purpose is to kill people that I find it hard to believe that so many people have bought so many guns with the intention of kill people, even though only in an emergency, and then just have them sitting there for years and years.
Do you really think that all of those people bought those guns to kill people with?

Because, if you say that guns are made for killing, that is the only reason that they have bought them for. That is a serious thing to say, that means that there are maybe 300 million killers loose in the USA just waiting for something to happen so that they can kill someone.

How about pens? Why, they were simply designed to spread ink, rather than to be used for writing. — Sapientia

That is exactly what a pen does, dispense ink. What the person holding it does with the ink is of no concern to the pen. And pens get used for drawing, tracing, marking and sometimes for cleaning ears Just like the gun, they have many uses.

as well as having quoted a few actual gun designers themselves — Sapientia

I created a machine gun- Mikhail Kalashnikov

What did he say? That he created a machine that fires a lot of bullets, that was the weapons purpose, the reason he invented it.

It occurred to me that if I could invent a machine - a gun - which could by its rapidity of fire - Richard Gatling

What did he say? That he created a machine that fires a lot of bullets, that was the weapons purpose, the reason he invented it.

Rapid firing of bullets was the reason they invented the machines, what the would be used for is something totally different.

If you really want to stretch things, I guess that you could say that they were both actually try to save lives by inventing them. One by saving his countrymen the other by ending wars.

Now please don't start telling me how pathetic my way of thinking is and that you are the only one that is right, because that is bull. Your opinion on anything or your interpretation of what something means is just as valid as mine, unless as you keep on insisting there is absolute proof of something. "Enough analogies" are not proof of anything.

So lets get something straight right now, if you are not prepared to answer or have no sensible answer to Question #1 do not even bother answering Question #2 or even replying to this post. Because I do not want to read anything else unless you answer them.

Put up or shut up.

You don't seem to have understood. — Michael

Oh but I do understand, I just think that it is wrong.

The primary purpose of a fire extinguisher is to put out fires even if the vast majority of fire extinguishers are never actually used. — Michael

Actually the primary purpose of a fire extinguisher is to make the environment non supportive to the fire thereby extinguishing the fire. That is why there are so many types of them so that they work in the different types of fires.

The primary purpose of a gun is to kill and/or hurt people even if the vast majority of guns are never actually used. — Michael

So you believe as well that all of those people actually bought the guns to kill people with? That is sad.
Read what I said to Sappy about that.

And, of course, to say that the purpose of a gun is to shoot bullets and not to kill and/or hurt people is as wrong as to say that the purpose of a fire extinguisher is to spray water or fire or powder and not to put out fires. — Michael

Your half right, just not the half you think. Why are you so sure that you are right?

Welcome to the charade. :party: — Sapientia

So take your games home with you and let us have a serious discussion.
The door is over there on the left, close it on your way out if you please.