Guns Don't Kill People, People Kill People

Those who want to limit/control/restrict/prohibit guns want to ignore the true problem: crazy, mean, lawless, and criminal people. It is because they have no easy, simple answer for the real cause of the violence problem. The fact may be that the liberal culture that they love might be what spawns the murderers.

(By the way, anytime that a gun is involved in any crime, such as robbery, domestic violence, etc., it is classified as gun violence and is included in the gun violence statistics.)

PrintSmith wrote:

PrintSmith wrote: . . . which makes the phrase meaningless outside of the echo chamber it was cultivated in.

I acknowledged it had meaning to you Z, and why. But don't think for even a second that echo chamber nonsense is going to be allowed to stand unchallenged anytime it is used.

Learned my lesson when those seeking to infringe on the liberty of others cultivated terms like "assault weapon" and "high capacity magazine" to similarly attempt to vilify those who took exception to having their liberties infringed. Those phrases made it into popular vernacular essentially unchallenged by those who knew the phrases were just a load of hooey. Now this same group of control fanatics is at it again, trying to foment the impression that it isn't a matter of if that gun will cause harm, only when it will cause harm.

Inventing terms to control the tenor of the debate isn't a tactic that will remain unchallenged anymore - the phrase will be challenged whenever it is used to expose it for the empty, meaningless nonsense that it is.

The thing is, P, it doesn't matter whether you acknowledge my life experience has meaning or not. And I say that with all due respect, especially given the discussions you and I have engaged in in the past. My life experiences simply aren't relevant to this discussion. And, to be clear, I really don't "need" your acknowledgement to know that what happened did, in fact, happen.

The topic of this thread is based in a logical fallacy - that guns don't kill people, people kill people. I merely pointed out the fact if that is true, then guns, by that very same virtue, cannot save people either. Taking it beyond that is something you and others in this thread have been trying to do. Evidently the "phrase" you are referencing isn't the same one I am referencing.

Arlen wrote: Those who want to limit/control/restrict/prohibit guns want to ignore the true problem: crazy, mean, lawless, and criminal people. It is because they have no easy, simple answer for the real cause of the violence problem. The fact may be that the liberal culture that they love might be what spawns the murderers.

(By the way, anytime that a gun is involved in any crime, such as robbery, domestic violence, etc., it is classified as gun violence and is included in the gun violence statistics.)

I would ask, then, what is your easy, simple answer for the real cause of the violence problem? Trying to turn it into a "liberal" cultural thing doesn't wash.

ZHawke wrote:

Arlen wrote: Those who want to limit/control/restrict/prohibit guns want to ignore the true problem: crazy, mean, lawless, and criminal people. It is because they have no easy, simple answer for the real cause of the violence problem. The fact may be that the liberal culture that they love might be what spawns the murderers.

(By the way, anytime that a gun is involved in any crime, such as robbery, domestic violence, etc., it is classified as gun violence and is included in the gun violence statistics.)

I would ask, then, what is your easy, simple answer for the real cause of the violence problem? Trying to turn it into a "liberal" cultural thing doesn't wash.

Liberals want the easy, simple answer. I have never suggested that an easy, simple answer exists. What I do suggest is that blaming the firearm does not exonerate the murderer.

If a person uses a chair to slam someone over the head, causing death, should we ban all chairs in this nation and deny everyone the use and comfort of a chair?
Idiotic argument? It is the argument of the anti-gun crowd.

Arlen wrote: Liberals want the easy, simple answer. I have never suggested that an easy, simple answer exists. What I do suggest is that blaming the firearm does not exonerate the murderer.

If a person uses a chair to slam someone over the head, causing death, should we ban all chairs in this nation and deny everyone the use and comfort of a chair?
Idiotic argument? It is the argument of the anti-gun crowd.

Arlen, that, quite simply, is disingenuous to state "Liberals want the easy answer". I consider myself a "Liberal". In fact, I do so proudly. I've also stated unequivocally in many different threads both here in MMT and on other social media there are no easy answers.

I could also state those of a more conservative bent are the ones who seem to want the easy answers. Answers like eliminating gun free zones as if that is some kind of panacea. Or, how about rolling back existing gun laws/restrictions as if that is some kind of panacea.

I know very few "Liberals" who "blame the gun". As has been stated over and over and over and over and over and over again, the gun is a tool. It is inanimate. It cannot, by itself, kill anyone. Nor can it, by itself, save anyone. So, when you use the "chair" as an example to compare the use of guns, it boils down to being a logical fallacy because (and this is something that's already been discussed previously, as well), a chair is designed for different purposes than is a gun. A gun's sole design purpose, when you come right down to it, is to kill something. Whether that design comes into play in self-defense, hunting, or criminal activity of some kind, that simply cannot be in dispute. Even a knife is designed with multiple purposes. I don't believe a knife, though, is designed for it to be used to kill something even though it can be used to do so. The "intent" is what matters, both in the design purpose and in the usage itself, in my opinion.

Intent. Liberals are also mind readers.
Let us boil it down to the most primitive "tools" used by man: stones. Were these "invented" to only kill other men? Or maybe, also, to provide food, and to assure defense.? It will not take much argument to propose that the killing has many grades in the intent of the use of these tools. Not all killing is equal.

One step up in the improvement of throwing stones to kill was the slingshot, then came the arrow and spear, which is only an improved delivery system for using stones to kill.

The next step is the firearm to deliver the stone.

With the last development, did all other uses of the delivery system of stones become obsolete? invalid?

I think not. I believe that you are looking at the delivery system of stones through biased filters.

And, by the way, intent is associated with the user, not the tool.

Also, "eliminating gun free zones" is not proposed as a solution in the least. It is suggested as a means to defend ourselves until the liberals decide to control the crazies who commit mass murder. (You may be the one who is being disingenuous here.)

The final words on gun control

Arlen wrote: Intent. Liberals are also mind readers.
Let us boil it down to the most primitive "tools" used by man: stones. Were these "invented" to only kill other men? Or maybe, also, to provide food, and to assure defense.? It will not take much argument to propose that the killing has many grades in the intent of the use of these tools. Not all killing is equal.

One step up in the improvement of throwing stones to kill was the slingshot, then came the arrow and spear, which is only an improved delivery system for using stones to kill.

The next step is the firearm to deliver the stone.

With the last development, did all other uses of the delivery system of stones become obsolete? invalid?

I think not. I believe that you are looking at the delivery system of stones through biased filters.

And, by the way, intent is associated with the user, not the tool.

Also, "eliminating gun free zones" is not proposed as a solution in the least. It is suggested as a means to defend ourselves until the liberals decide to control the crazies who commit mass murder. (You may be the one who is being disingenuous here.)

Let us boil it down to "intent". My comment was "intended" to point out that "intent" is the factor here....not the "tool". Obviously, you missed that when you responded.

Second, delivery is still the same. A bullet discharged from a gun is still intended to kill something. Multiple uses for those other "tools" you mentioned once again makes your assertion a logical fallacy, ergo being disingenuous. For example, what is the purpose of a stop sign? Does a stop sign have any other function other than to stand there at an intersection? Of course it does. It is "intended" to let people know if they choose not to stop, there may be consequences for not doing so. Will it physically prevent anyone from stopping? Not unless they drive their vehicle into the pole on which it sits, and even then it is doubtful it will actually "stop" a vehicle. False equivalencies are rampant on both sides in this issue, Arlen.

In your last paragraph you appear to have placed the responsibility for controlling mass murderers on the shoulders of liberals. If that is true, why should it solely be a responsibility of liberals to do so? If that wasn't your intent, what, then, are you suggesting?

I disagree that eliminating "gun free zones" isn't proposed as a "solution" by those advocating a pro-gun stance. In fact, that's been at the forefront of so many discussions/debates I've lost count.

intheaspens wrote: The final words on gun control

Really? That's it? That's all you have?

Exactly what I posted: the intent of the use of the stone was multiple; food, protection, etc. There are multiple intents by the user. The only tool of which we are speaking is a stone in various forms: natural (as picked up off of the ground and thrown or slung with no further refinement); napped flint; or melted and remolded lead.

The intent of the use of the propelled stone (firearm) is multiple, not singular as you stated. Some stones propelled by a firearm are intended to penetrate a paper target, clay pigeon, bean can, or gel. I do not know if a paper target, bean can, or gel is killed.

Sometimes the defensive intended use of firearm by the user is to scare or injure an attacker; not to kill. Let us be aware that "intent" of a defender is not the same as the "perception" of the aggressor being defended against. So we cannot let the perception of the aggressor define intent whenever he has absolutely no control over the intent of the defender.

The intent of some firearms is art. It is sometimes amazing how much time, care, and fortune are invested in the ornamentation of some firearms. And these guns sometimes have never been fired. Many rifles are hand made by artisans and will never be fired as long as they exist. The creator of these firearms was never to "kill" something, but, rather, to create a functional work of art.

I do place the responsibility of the murderous crazies on the heads of liberals.

You choose to think that "eliminating gun-free zones" is the answer given by conservatives. This is because you simply choose to think this. No conservative thinks that "eliminating gun-free zones" will stop the production of crazies by the current liberal culture.

Crazies are the problem, not guns. As soon as you realize this, you might begin to consider the problem logically.