Oh ****, here we go!
None of which refutes anything I wrote. Handguns we're generally discussing as related to gun control, were designed to kill humans efficiently. So were most rifles that we're discussing.
They aren't just "dangerous objects. Many objects are "dangerous". They were specifically designed to kill humans with the squeeze of a trigger. That some are better than others due to design constraints like "portability", is 100% irrelevant.
So absurd it hurts. You think it's easier to get a plane and crash it into a building, than it is to shoot people...or blow them up using explosives? What on earth are you doing?
Regardless of the absurdity of your new tangent, you prove my point. As a result of 9/11, *even more* limitations and safety measures were placed on air travel, and more spent on tracking potential terrorist cells, etc.
Exactly what gun control advocates want, more limitations and safety on firearms.
No one is arguing the relatively important of what something is designed for. Read the original reply. He said guns are dangerous objects...I'm saying he didn't go far enough. Guns are purposefully designed to kill humans AND as a result are dangerous objects.
I love that you're completely open to gun control similar to airline industry though...that's quite a heavily regulated industry and there are statistically *VERY FEW* deaths resulting in the U.S. from aircraft. We just need to get everyone else on board with your great idea.
Yes, guns are dangerous. That's the entire point.
Caetano v Massachusetts, 2016, a 9-0 SCOTUS decision:
As to “dangerous,” the court below held that a weapon is “dangerous per se” if it is “ ‘designed and constructed to produce death or great bodily harm’ and ‘for the purpose of bodily assault or defense.’ ” 470 Mass., at 779, 26 N. E. 3d, at 692 (quoting Commonwealth v. Appleby, 380 Mass. 296, 303, 402 N. E. 2d 1051, 1056 (1980)). That test may be appropriate for applying statutes criminalizing assault with a dangerous weapon. See ibid., 402 N. E. 2d, at 1056. But it cannot be used to identify arms that fall outside the Second Amendment. First, the relative dangerousness of a weapon is irrelevant when the weapon belongs to a class of arms commonly used for lawful purposes. See Heller, supra, at 627 (contrasting “ ‘dangerous and unusual weapons’ ” that may be banned with protected “weapons . . . ‘in common use at the time’ ”). Second, even in cases where dangerousness might be relevant, the Supreme Judicial Court’s test sweeps far too broadly. Heller defined the “Arms” covered by the Second Amendment to include “ ‘any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another.’ ” 554 U. S., at 581. Under the decision below, however, virtually every covered arm would qualify as “dangerous.”
Were there any doubt on this point, one need only look at the court’s first example of “dangerous per se” weapons: “firearms.” 470 Mass., at 779, 26 N. E. 3d, at 692. If Heller tells us anything, it is that firearms cannot be categorically prohibited just because they are dangerous. 554 U. S., at 636. A fortiori, stun guns that the Commonwealth’s own witness described as “non-lethal force,” Tr. 27, cannot be banned on that basis.
