How lovely. You seem to be evading my point. While guns can be put to a myriad of uses, their primary function, the reason for their construction, is to enable the user to kill humans. You can shoot game with a gun, but they were invented to slay humans more easily and everything about the evolution of their design since their invention has been about enhancing that capability. Cars, on the other hand, were invented to get people more rapidly from A to B. You can run people over with cars but that is not what they were invented for and the evolution of their design has been all about how to better their ability to transport people from A to B, not run people over. Guns are devices meant to kill people that you can put to a few other, minor uses. I’ll say it again, you just don’t need to be able to fire at a rate of 300 rounds or more per minute hunt game. That’s for killing people.
"Some" guns. Not all guns. And some humans need killing. No, no every evolutionary design has been about killing humans more easily. Extremely large calibers in hunting rifles weren't developed to kill humans easier. Bull barrels for rifles weren't designed to enable someone to kill humans easier. Calibers invented to shoot long distances more accurately/precisely weren't invented to make killing humans easier. Yet all of the design features for cars still results in 40k people killed completely by accident in the US each year, and doesn't prevent a single homicide with one if someone decides to run someone over. Interesting then, that those "minor uses" account for 99.9%+ of the uses guns are put to every year. You use the words "few" and "minor". I don't think you know what they actually mean. Or for competition, target shooting or just plain plinking.. We have tens of millions of firearms capable of firing at an effective rate of 100+ rounds per minutes, including millions that could fire at 300+ rounds per minute for several minutes. We don't have millions of firearm homicides each year, so obviously there are other, non-homicidal uses for those types of weapons. In fact, the first mass shooting with an AR-15 by a civilian happened in 2012, 48 years after the first of millions were sold to civilians. In the last ten years, fewer people have been killed in a mass murder by a shooter using an AR-15 than have died from lightning strikes over that same time period.
So what? Not one was used by me to kill another person. I owned my first gun at 8 and was well trained by that age, better trained then as you are now I suspect. And, it’s obvious you are regurgitating liberal talking points, knowing nothing about the history of gun design. BTW, many hunt with .22 cal guns,,many with large capacity mags (my first one, built in 1956, had a capacity of 25 rds), how many of those were designed with the specific purpose of killing people? Of the guns I owned, 7 were made by me, and most of the rest were guns that were used for specific rolls... for instance, I didn’t use my Win 300mag for rabbit and I didn’t use my .22cals for harvesting venison, nor did I carry a .38 j-Frame in AK for bear protection when fishing on streams with bear about. I do carry daily a gun/ammo combination that fills a role that can kill a person efficiently and effectively as possible given the carry roll; wouldn’t be much point in selecting a combo that doesn’t.
The obvious question of "So what?" must be asked with regard to the above. The human species has been constructing weapons from the inception of its creation, for the express purpose of killing one another as effectively as possible. This is a fact, and it is not going to change. Do not delude yourself into believing that either the desire, or the motivation, to kill one another has only come about recently to coincide with the practicality of firearms. Do not delude yourself into believing that this desire will be impacted by efforts at restricting firearms. No matter what is proposed by yourself or others, it will not address the underlying issue, the true core of the illness. Until such time that such is actually done, there is no point in discussing the matter further. Once again, the obvious question of "so what?" must be asked with regard to the above. Irrelevant. Motor vehicles are far more capable of killing people than firearms. Thus demonstrating an ignorance of just what legal and legitimate hunting entails. The above statement on the part of yourself indicates a complete lack of knowledge regarding nuisance species, such as feral hogs and prairie dogs, which can legally be culled into extinction because they have no redeeming qualities that justify their continued existence.
Or for defending innocent life. Self-defense and the defense of innocent people is a legitimate purpose for these firearms, and yes, there are situations where such weapons are the most effective - and desirable - tools you can utilize for that purpose.
If the A.M.A. whines about 33,000 deaths out of a current population of:... 324,459,463 citizens, in 2017, 2018 is not complete yet. I really question their motives, when they stay silent on 480,000 deaths a year Related to Tobacco use. And scream about 33,000 deaths, when 2/3 are suicides. Tobacco deaths are preventable.
Maybe like many teenagers he's not a skilled debater? Even many experts in their field and politicians aren't very good at debating.
Teenagers are not that great at not getting pregnant, do raging hormones aid in critical thinking skills ?
You contradict yourself. Either this desire to murder other people is built in and can't BE addressed or it can and should be. You are essentially telling me that you refuse to discuss this matter because we haven;t talked about changing something that can't be changed. If its human nature to construct tools to murder their fellow humans, and that nature can't be changed then literally the ONLY solutions it to keep those tools out of their hands. How am I wrong? Hard no. They aren't. Straight up NO. You can argue this and come up with all the examples you like. When it comes to intentionally murdering people, guns have it all over literally everything else that you could reasonably expect to acquire. What part of "you still don't need to be able to fire at a rate of 300 rounds per minute' did you not understand? Culling nuisance animals is best done with a single shooting long range rifle with a scope. This one use doesn't justify the existence of semi-automatic firing functionality. You don't need the ability to fire as fast as you can pull the trigger to kill animals. That's for killing people.[/quote][/quote]
yeah, **** NO. Some humans need to be brought to justice not executed vigilante style. Its seriously ****ing creepy how ready some people on this board are to solve problems by dealing out death, not just in a home defense situation but across many topics. Great so the existence of hunting rifles is what you're resting on? Brilliant. Theres countless types of guns in the world. The overwhelming majority of them are for killing people, but guns arent for killing people cuz hunting rifles exist. Flawless logic. Killed completely by accident is utterly irrelevant. We are talking about the intent of the respective inventions. You can use virtually anything to kill anyone. Your attempt to desperately dodge my point has failed miserably. If they account for 99.9% of gun uses, its only because the overwhelming majority of gun owners don't use their guns for anything and just have them for the eventuality that they may have to use them for their intended, designed purpose of killing humans some day. The purpose of guns is to kill humans. Nothing you have said or ever could say will change that. Your weasel logic won't work. Which means **** all, frankly. Lightning strikes can't be controlled. Guns can be.
That's why I thought it would be fair to Hogg & even incumbent upon him to debate classmate & fellow teenager, Kyle Kashuv. I realize that Hogg is an inexperienced, emotional & poorly informed teenager who is controlled by the same, old Gun Ban lobbies that have worked to eviscerate our 2nd Amendment for several decades. Additionally, since a debater is more likely to succeed when his position is a valid one and Hogg's position is unable to withstand even the mildest of scrutiny, I suspect that he has been instructed to remain a vacuous cheerleader sent to rally only other poorly informed, emotional teenagers.
Why do you jump to "executed vigilante style"? I do refer to self-defense. Someone trying to kill or seriously injure me or my family needs stopping, and the best way available to me or any other American is a firearm. We aren't talking about the rest of the world. We're talking about the USA. According to Congress (Gun Control Act 196 "The Congress hereby declares that the purpose of this title is to provide support to Federal, State, and local law enforcement officials in their fight against crime and violence, and it is not the purpose of this title to place any undue or unnecessary Federal restrictions or burdens on law-abiding citizens with respect to the acquisition, possession, or use of firearms appropriate to the purpose of hunting, trapshooting, target shooting, personal protection, or any other lawful activity". The intent of the inventions is what is irrelevant. Are the families of those who died in car wrecks less inconsolable because their loved ones died in a car accident rather than by gun shot? You're going to need to provide some proof for this claim. If, as some claim that the number of gun owners is declining and the number of guns they own is increasing, then your claim gets even more specious, that more guns are being purchased solely for self-defense and never used for any other purpose at all. The reasons people and and use guns is manifold. The intent of the owner is much more important than the reason "guns" were invented centuries ago. If the only purpose or even the majority purpose of guns today in the US was to kill people, with 300 million plus guns we'd see a lot more death. I was pointing out the relative risk of lightning to the risk of mass shootings with "assault weapons". Yes, guns can be controlled, as long as those controls are Constitutional, effective, enforceable and necessary. People, however, can't be as easily controlled. Prison is one such method.
I don't really agree with Hogg but some teenagers aren't good at debating while others are. I don't think it is fair to expect teenagers who want to talk about a political cause to have to debate people. Maybe when they get a little older and experienced we can or if they run for public office.
How you're wrong is mainly in being too simplistic. Throughout history there have been evil people who willingly prey upon the innocent, there have been people who have stood upon the battlements, willing to give their lives to protect the innocent, and there have been those who shrink in fear at the thought of ever having to stand up for themselves. At no point in history has this reality ever changed. Col. Dave Grossman boiled that down to the metaphor that there are three types of people in the world: the sheep, who exist only to exist, the wolves who prey upon the sheep... and the sheepdogs, who protect the sheep, only to be distrusted by the sheep because they have the same teeth and claws as the wolf. Disarming the sheepdogs to protect the sheep from the wolves is the very definition of fallacy. Guns also have it all over literally anything else that you could reasonably expect to acquire when it comes to the defense of innocent life. Actually, the standard tactic for culling nuisance wild pigs is with semi-auto rifles, trying to terminate groups of them before they can make it to cover in the brush, so that's at least one culling use you overlooked. And again, semi-auto is the most efficient tool for personal defense as well. Self-defense is not limited to the home, and using deadly force to protect yourself from an unprovoked, homicidal assault is not trying to see your attacker "executed vigilante style"; it's about stopping that assault in the fastest, most efficient way possible, so you can survive to make it home to your family... or to protect your family from anyone who would harm them.
Repeating a statement you know you cannot prove to be true does not prove the statement true. As your entire argument rests on a false premise, it necessarily fails.
I agree that some people are better at debating than others & that some people can present factually flawed ideas in an appealing manner. However, it is not fair that only Hogg et al should have exclusive & unchallenged rights to MSM's spotlight & microphone. Among the disservices that have been done to the "school shooter generation" has been to give them the expectation that life is fair thereby leaving them unprepared for the reality that life is not fair. Therefore, when confronted with the reality that life is not fair, they are ill equipped to deal with life's adversities and fall apart or act out in a homicidal rage. If Hogg is to be regarded as any more than a pampered & puerile demagogue intent on eviscerating America's 2nd Amendment, he must engage his peers who hold differing views. Thanks
Then the position being established by yourself is that the use of deadly force for the purpose of self defense, is nothing more than an act of vigilante justice? The intended victim should take no course of action whatsoever, that may result in the death of the aggressor, so said aggressor may be tried in a court of law? Is such what is ultimately being established by yourself. What ultimate, meaningful difference does the supposed intent of the design make? By your own admission, anything can be used to kill a person, so what difference is made? According to the united state supreme court, such does not matter in the least. Firearms are protected for ownership and use by the united states constitution, and cannot be restricted from legal ownership just because they can be used to kill. The nation of Mexico is proof to the contrary.
Explain the supposed contradiction being referred to by yourself. Incorrect. What is being stated is that firearm-related restrictions will not be given serious discussion regarding the proposed merits of such, because such proposal ignore the actual problem, and delude the public into not paying attention to the actual problem. By believing that efforts at restricting the available tools, specifically the legal use of available tools, will do anything to address the ill intentions of those that are determined to murder others. It will not. Treating the symptoms does not address the disease, which in this case is human nature itself. Explain why such is believed. Explain why it is believed by yourself that motor vehicles are not superior to firearms when it comes to killing others. It is these same qualities that render firearms so successful for legitimate self defense purposes. Anything that can be used for a negative, can be used for a positive as well. And since the government cannot protect member of the public on a completely individual level from harm and acts of violence, nor is even tasked with doing such, it ultimately falls to the members of the public to protect themselves, meaning firearm-related restrictions are unjustified. More evidence that there is no experience pertaining to the subject of hunting possessed by yourself. Then explain precisely why semi-automatic hunting rifles and shotguns have been marketed to the united states public since the start of the twentieth century. In case it was not known to yourself, there are magazines for the AR-15 that make them perfectly legal for hunting in any jurisdiction. It is not the semi-automatic technology that is prohibited, only magazine capacity, which is easily adjusted and thus renders the entire objection factually moot.
Seems this discussion has happened before and not answered by antis; the threshold for determining what is acceptable vs unacceptable is arbitrary, more based in emotion of the ignorant than logic. What is the threshold for magazine capacity, rate of fire, cartridge size, etc. and even extends topics like requiring manditory training where no GCA in this forum has managed to define what that would entail. GCA’s aren’t looking to define logical definitions of limits, dangereous thresholds, etc. but are either mindlessly regurgitating emotion based GCA talking points, or simply looking to leverage to the GCA clack ‘s ignorance in their emotion based arguements... not much different than arguing how many angels should be allowed to populate the head of a pin.
