re: Quit using the "guns don't kill" argument

quote:

---

I might need to kill (or even just want to kill)

---

That's psycho.

quote:

---

Force them to defend why it shouldn't be justifiable to kill someone who's attempting to harm you

---

I've heard a lot of really bad arguments from the left in favor of gun control but I'm not sure I've ever heard someone argue against the notion of justifiable homicide, especially within the realm of the gun control debate.

I have multiple guns that have never killed anyone. Should I sue glock and Colt for selling me defective guns ?

quote:

---

I have multiple fire extinguishers that have never extinguished a fire. That's not to say they're incapable of extinguishing a fire, after all, they're still fire extinguishers

---

If a fireman rushes into a burning home, grabs a fire extinguisher, puts out the fire thus saving seven toddlers, do we give the medal to the fireman or fire extinguisher?

quote:

---

If a fireman rushes into a burning home, grabs a fire extinguisher, puts out the fire thus saving seven toddlers, do we give the medal to the fireman or fire extinguisher?

---

That's easy, the fire extinguisher.

By the same token, if I tell my son, "Quick, go get the fire extinguisher!" and he says, "Do you mean the fire extinguishing apparatus? Because, technically, Dad, you'd be the one extinguishing the fire." I'd swat the little shite to the side and go grab the goddamned fire extinguisher.

It's a game of semantics I'm not willing to let distract me from the issue at hand.

quote:

---

Acknowledging that we punish and reward human behavior and not simply the tools they use is hardly semantics. It's the substantive root of the issue.

---

In your example the fireman was acting as the actual fire extinguisher employing a fire extinguishing apparatus to extinguish the fire. Therefore the fire extinguisher gets the medal.

That IS semantics.

It doesn't matter if guns kill people or people kill people if they're trying to restrict our right to bear arms. What matters is that the Constitution protects my right to bear arms - so far. If they want to restrict my right based on the fact that guns kill, I'm not going to defend my right by simply arguing that I'm the one doing all the killing, not the gun.

quote:

---

Why not? It's a logical argument

---

It's not a logical argument, it's besides the point. It's IRRELEVENT whether you say the gun kills or I kill, what's important is that I have the right to have a gun.

The 'logical' response to "guns don't kill, people kill" is, "Good, then you don't need a gun, use a baseball bat, or a frying pan, or a fire extinguisher." (You had to see that coming, right?)

We're not trying to protect our right to kill, we are trying too protect our right to bear arms.

The government can restrict what arms we are legally able to bear. THAT'S where the focus should be. We should be vigilant, and not succumb to the semantics of their argument, ie. "assault weapons", or "high-capacity clips", we should focus on the functionality and what we believe we require to preserve our right.

If they say, "We will ban all assault weapons!!1!", if we say, "Good, there's no such thing. And, by the way, it's a high-capacity detachable box magazine, not a 'clip'" and just sit there complacently, we lose.

quote:

---

prohibiting certain weapons doesn't address the underlying criminal act - which, supposedly, is what people want rectified.

---

Well, first, it's already been done. Addressing the Constitutionality of restricting functionality due to lethality has already been legally established. The discussion now is not if functionality can be restricted, but what functionality can be restricted. When they say, "Assault weapons are too lethal", I don't think a valid response is, "Well, not more so than a fire extinguisher."

But you're right, it is multi-layered, and the aspect of who do we allow to bear arms brings out another set of questions of liberty. Given no restrictions on functionality of arms, how do we restrict individual rights to possess them? One thing I DON'T think we should do is "take the guns first, go through due process second."

But we should address our problems with mental health, and how we deal, and more importantly, don't deal with them, separately from our 2A rights.

It's always a pleasure discussing topics with you, Tony, you generally stay rational, and avoid the emotional assumptions.

quote:

---

Addressing the Constitutionality of restricting functionality due to lethality has already been legally established

---

In what fashion? Miller? That decision only covered the application of whether or not a sawed-off shotgun could be considered useful as "suitable for militia purposes". Nothing about lethality.

quote:

---

The discussion now is not if functionality can be restricted, but what functionality can be restricted.

---

That's not the discussion at all, at least not to those of us that actually have a decent education on this topic. If you think an AR-15 isn't covered as a protected type of firearm under the Miller, Heller, and Caetano decisions then I'd like to see your argument supporting such a notion. You'll have to establish that the AR-15 isn't suitable for militia muster, not suitable as "ordinary military equipment", not commonly held, and not used for lawful purposes that include armed self-defense.

Good luck....