The design purpose of guns

[jaeger19]

My explanations have clearly been better than your reflexive “blame it on the liberals” bit that shows up as a knee-jerk reaction (talking point) from numerous NRA types every time a mass shooting is discussed. If you decide that you really want to be serious about finding a reason, then you need to move beyond that to posit some more realistic scenarios. At that point, I would be glad to engage you, but not if all that you have is such repetitions.

No. Your explanations have been completely wrong..BUT are based in tglhe very liberal media talking points aggrandizing the ar 15.

I don't think you get the intellectual disconnect you are making.

YOU are convinced that the ar 15 is a killing machine..that it's a weapon of war..designed to kill people..And so forth.
Did you get that idea from the "nra"?.
No..

Did you get that idea from firearm experts?.

No.obviously not because they..like me would point out the limitations.

You got the idea that the ar 15 was great for mass shooters because of antigun media. YOU CITED THAT MEDIA.
Again you CITED THAT MEDIA . as for why you think the ar 15 was the best weapon for mass shooters. You know..the perfect killing machine.

Now if the left wing media you've read makes YOU think the ar 15 is the choice for mass shooters...
Why wouldn't it also convince mass shooters ??.

 

[LostInSeattle]

Well..you would have to show me evidence that these mass shooters were motivated by the need " to have their man card".

I would put it differently, as Beau did in the video. It might be more of a shift in cultural ethos to resorting to violence as a way to resolve disputes.

Or that people are being violent because of advertising for ar 15.

Evidence I don't have. But certainly the advertising appears to promote a "use violence" mindset. Its effectiveness is another question.

Now while I personally am not very happy about this influx of " tacticool guys" sporting their plate carriers ..ballistic vests etc.. because I think it makes gun owners look bad..

I don't really see that it's contributing to overall murder rates or mass shooting.

Well, if the increase in violence isn't due to the quantity, availability and/or marketing of weapons, then what? If there isn't a change in the culture of guns, what is it?

 

[rahl]

Well, if the increase in violence isn't due to the quantity, availability and/or marketing of weapons, then what? If there isn't a change in the culture of guns, what is it?

there isn’t an increase in violence. In fact, violent crime is down across the board. Homicides are down 11% this year.

 

[jaeger19]

You must be reading a different media than I do. I have never seen those particular claims listed in any mainstream media source. You are apparently just making them up out of pure cloth. I think it was you who made a totally ridiculous claim early on that a rifleman on a bridge over an interstate shooting and hitting numerous cars was somehow not worthy of being breaking news. I have no idea why you would make such a claim, but it certainly undermined your credibility early on,



I’m not sure what you think the role of the media is. If a shooter kills 58 and injures over 500 by shooting assault style weapons out of a window in a Las Vegas hotel, are they not supposed to report that? And when a potential mass killer sees one story after another after another of a mass shooter using an AR-15 being able to kill lots of people in a very short time, then what weapon would we expect them to pick for their particular evil deed? Do you have any actual suggestions for stopping such slaughters, or is your only interest is in running to the gun forum to try to make excuses every time it happens?

Hmm
"The AR-15 rifle butchers the human body; so why is it legal?

The AR-15 rifle butchers the human body; so why is it legal, exactly?

A decade-long ban on military-style assault weapons and high-capacity magazines expired in 2004. It's time to renew it: Our view

www.usatoday.com

AR-15s Are Weapons of War. A Federal Judge Just Confirmed It.

The rifle that might have killed Donald Trump and was used to murder children in Uvalde has nothing to do with self-defense.

www.bloomberg.com

No one needs an AR-15 — or any gun tailor-made for mass shootings.
Washington post..

2. I've already addressed preventing mass killings by improving our mental health system
In great detail by the way.
As far as the media? They can report the news. Report what happened without glorifying the mass killing nor the firearm used.

 

[RF667799]

I would put it differently, as Beau did in the video. It might be more of a shift in cultural ethos to resorting to violence as a way to resolve disputes.

Evidence I don't have. But certainly the advertising appears to promote a "use violence" mindset. Its effectiveness is another question.


Well, if the increase in violence isn't due to the quantity, availability and/or marketing of weapons, then what? If there isn't a change in the culture of guns, what is it?

Tying violence to "the culture of guns" won't work. It seems like just another attempt to say that guns cause violence, when we have about half a billion examples of guns not causing violence.

Maybe there's just a culture of violence.

 

[jaeger19]

I would put it differently, as Beau did in the video. It might be more of a shift in cultural ethos to resorting to violence as a way to resolve disputes.

Evidence I don't have. But certainly the advertising appears to promote a "use violence" mindset. Its effectiveness is another question.


Well, if the increase in violence isn't due to the quantity, availability and/or marketing of weapons, then what? If there isn't a change in the culture of guns, what is it?

Yeah. Sorry there but you think " we've shifted to using violence to solve disputes? In today's society where you get charged with assault for telling a guy to stop harassing a girl or you " will kick his ass" .

Come now. Just a generation ago. My generation was expected to solve being bullied...or solve a girl being verbally harassed . Or even physically harassed..by
Using physical violence.

A generation ago..you insulted a man's wife and it was expected you get a punch to the face. And if the police showed up it was to tell you not to have such a big mouth and you won't get punched.

2. Well the data doesn't really show a consistent " increase in violence.

Violent crime went down after the assault ban was lifted..and black rifle sales went through the roof.

Disarming Realities: As Gun Sales Soar, Gun Crimes Plummet

Firearms sellers can thank the gun-control legislation lobbies for much of this business windfall.

www.forbes.com

 

[LostInSeattle]

there isn’t an increase in violence. In fact, violent crime is down across the board. Homicides are down 11% this year.

I'll rephrase. How about level of violence? I'm not talking about yearly variation in homicides, but the fact that we have the highest homicide rate among OECD countries. We also have had a steady increase in mass shootings over the last 50 years.

Yeah. Sorry there but you think " we've shifted to using violence to solve disputes? In today's society where you get charged with assault for telling a guy to stop harassing a girl or you " will kick his ass" .

How about 'deadly force" then? Shooting someone and punching someone in the face are not analogous.

Tying violence to "the culture of guns" won't work. It seems like just another attempt to say that guns cause violence, when we have about half a billion examples of guns not causing violence.

Not saying guns necessarily cause violence - though they might - but among the OECD nations we have the highest homicide rate, exponentially more firearms, and 74% of homicides involving firearms. Firearms are responsible for 5x more deaths in the US than in the next highest OECD nation.

The Health Costs of Gun Violence: How the U.S. Compares to Other Countries

This chartpack illustrates how gun violence affects Americans compared to people in 13 other high-income countries.

www.commonwealthfund.org

Those all could be unrelated, but does it make sense that they are? It is certainly safe to say that even if firearms don't "cause" the impulse to violence, they make violence more deadly, and deadly violence easier and therefore more prevalent. Or perhaps you have an alternative theory?

Maybe there's just a culture of violence.

Maybe. I don't know. But then I also don't get the desire to carry weapon in public, especially openly. What drives the culture of violence, and does it make sense to have such easy access to firearms if we have a culture of violence?

 

[rahl]

I'll rephrase. How about level of violence?

How about not? It’s down across the board.

I'm not talking about yearly variation in homicides, but the fact that we have the highest homicide rate among OECD countries.

Yes, if you exclude other countries with higher rates, it helps your argument. But reality doesn’t care.

We also have had a steady increase in mass shootings over the last 50 years.

Almost entirely gang related.

The facts remain. Guns have no correlation to homicide rates, let alone a causation.

 

[LostInSeattle]

How about not? It’s down across the board.

Yes, if you exclude other countries with higher rates, it helps your argument. But reality doesn’t care.

It does, actually. I am using analogous countries, ones with similar levels of education, economic development, political freedom, social organization and mobility. Comparing the US to, say, the Congo, or Afghanistan - weak states rife with social unrest, political instability, tribal and religious sectarianism - would be silly.

Almost entirely gang related.

That's definitely not true. Maybe look up some statistics instead of making them up. Most mass shootings are domestic.

The facts remain. Guns have no correlation to homicide rates, let alone a causation.

How have you established that?

 

[Rich2018]

Are the majority of firearms designed to kill ?
A poster on here says that no firearm has ever been designed to kill - merely to propel a projectile

Whereas another poster, while being non-committal on this, does state that all cars are designed to kill.

 

[jaeger19]

I'll rephrase. How about level of violence? I'm not talking about yearly variation in homicides, but the fact that we have the highest homicide rate among OECD countries. We also have had a steady increase in mass shootings over the last 50 years.

How about 'deadly force" then? Shooting someone and punching someone in the face are not analogous.

Not saying guns necessarily cause violence - though they might - but among the OECD nations we have the highest homicide rate, exponentially more firearms, and 74% of homicides involving firearms. Firearms are responsible for 5x more deaths in the US than in the next highest OECD nation.

The Health Costs of Gun Violence: How the U.S. Compares to Other Countries

This chartpack illustrates how gun violence affects Americans compared to people in 13 other high-income countries.

www.commonwealthfund.org

Those all could be unrelated, but does it make sense that they are? It is certainly safe to say that even if firearms don't "cause" the impulse to violence, they make violence more deadly, and deadly violence easier and therefore more prevalent. Or perhaps you have an alternative theory?

Maybe. I don't know. But then I also don't get the desire to carry weapon in public, especially openly. What drives the culture of violence, and does it make sense to have such easy access to firearms if we have a culture of violence?

Well. I don't think we again have more deadly violence.
I posted the facts that after the assault weapons ban came off and gun sales soared violent crim fell all through 2013.
And it's fallen and risen but more due to pandemic and civil untest than firearms.

And just to point out .

"Not saying guns necessarily cause violence - though they might - but among the OECD nations we have the highest homicide rate, exponentially more firearms, and 74% of homicides involving firearms."

We do. But places like sweden..Germany and New Zealand with far and away more guns than the uk..have lower homicide rates than the uk.

So it doesn't seem to be the guns.

But you know what correlates better? Universal healthcare..larger safety nets..access to education and lack of institutional racism.
That's the reason that the us has a higher murder rate. We lack universal healthcare..we lack access to education..we have institutional racism and quite a history of it.

 

[NWRatCon]

Are the majority of firearms designed to kill ?
A poster on here says that no firearm has ever been designed to kill - merely to propel a projectile

Whereas another poster, while being non-committal on this, does state that all cars are designed to kill.

Man, they're really inefficient at that!

 

[rahl]

It does, actually.

It absolutelydoesn’t.

I am using analogous countries, ones with similar levels of education, economic development, political freedom, social organization and mobility.

Yes. You are excluding some countries to try and make your premise work. I’m pointing that out and showing you reality.

Comparing the US to, say, the Congo, or Afghanistan - weak states rife with social unrest, political instability, tribal and religious sectarianism - would be silly.

Why? Are those people somehow, subhuman?

That's definitely not true.

It’s demonstrably true.

Maybe look up some statistics instead of making them up.

The data comes from the FBI.

Most mass shootings are domestic.

No they aren’t.

How have you established that?

Data. (FBI and CDC)

Since we began tracking that data, which was 1986, firearms have increased by over 270 million while the homicide rate fell 40%.

Hell, it fell 11% just this year.

 

[rahl]

Are the majority of firearms designed to kill ?

No

A poster on here says that no firearm has ever been designed to kill - merely to propel a projectile

You claim shotguns aren’t portable

Whereas another poster, while being non-committal on this, does state that all cars are designed to kill.

Why do you lie when it’s so easily proven you are lying?

 

[rahl]

Man, they're really inefficient at that!

How? They kill tens of thousands of people every year. They are the number 1 cause of death among children.

 

[RF667799]

Not saying guns necessarily cause violence - though they might - but among the OECD nations we have the highest homicide rate, exponentially more firearms, and 74% of homicides involving firearms. Firearms are responsible for 5x more deaths in the US than in the next highest OECD nation.

That's cherry picking. You're selecting comparisons on the basis of a single disparate factor.

The Health Costs of Gun Violence: How the U.S. Compares to Other Countries

This chartpack illustrates how gun violence affects Americans compared to people in 13 other high-income countries.

www.commonwealthfund.org

Those all could be unrelated, but does it make sense that they are? It is certainly safe to say that even if firearms don't "cause" the impulse to violence, they make violence more deadly, and deadly violence easier and therefore more prevalent. Or perhaps you have an alternative theory?

I agree firearms have the potential to make violence more deadly. But they're nowhere near alone in that.

Maybe. I don't know. But then I also don't get the desire to carry weapon in public, especially openly. What drives the culture of violence, and does it make sense to have such easy access to firearms if we have a culture of violence?

If we have a culture of violence, it certainly isn't uniform across the country. But if it exists, it certainly doesn't suggest the remedy is to disarm peaceful people.

 

[StarvedForChange]

With the amount of gas being produced, the ATF or FERC might have an interest.

It just goes to show how people who advocate unlimited access to any type of gun have a limited understanding of reality.

 

[LostInSeattle]

That's cherry picking. You're selecting comparisons on the basis of a single disparate factor.

? Cherry picking how? What single factor? I listed several in my post.

I agree firearms have the potential to make violence more deadly. But they're nowhere near alone in that.

True. But firearms are simply much better at it.

If we have a culture of violence, it certainly isn't uniform across the country. But if it exists, it certainly doesn't suggest the remedy is to disarm peaceful people.

Every non-peaceful firearm owner was peaceful until they weren't. But I wasn't suggesting that as a remedy necessarily.

 

[RF667799]

? Cherry picking how? What single factor? I listed several in my post.

Your comparison selects on the basis of being an OECD country.

True. But firearms are simply much better at it.

Nobody has ever denied that firearms can't be used to deadly effect. That's one of their benefits.

Every non-peaceful firearm owner was peaceful until they weren't.

My esteem for you just dropped. Not even worth addressing.

But I wasn't suggesting that as a remedy necessarily.

Not necessarily? Do you suggest it as remedy or not?

 

[LostInSeattle]

Your comparison selects on the basis of being an OECD country.

And I explained why. What did you find lacking in my rationale?

Nobody has ever denied that firearms can't be used to deadly effect. That's one of their benefits.

Their principle design purpose. But we don't need to rehash that.

My esteem for you just dropped. Not even worth addressing.

Not necessarily? Do you suggest it as remedy or not?

I have expressed my admittedly incomplete policy approach to reducing gun violence in other threads. I'm for keeping guns out of the hands of criminals - even if that makes owning a firearm more expensive and onerous for law-abiding citizens - and for making certain weapons less deadly (e.g., bumpstocks, large magazines, etc.).

 

[DebateChallenge]

The design purpose of handguns is for self defense by wounding or killing an attacker and, unfortunately, they are also used quite broadly in murder and other crimes.

Handguns are also used for hunting, and target shooting.

The design purpose of rifles is to kill animals, sometimes for food, but way too often for supposed “sport”.

Yes rifles are widely used for hunting, but they can also be used for self defense, and target shooting.

The design purpose of assault style weapons such as the AR-15 is to kill as many people as possible in the shortest amount of time due to very lethal bullets, large magazines, and quite rapid fire. Again, unfortunately, the purpose of the design has indeed been proven very effective by way too many mass murderers.

No that would be full automatics you're talking about, the AR-15 is a semi automatic but in the military they use full automatics. And the AR-15 can be used in self defense against mass murderers.

 

[DebateChallenge]

What is the design purpose of the projectile?

To fly through the air at high speeds.

 

[Loulit01]

To fly through the air at high speeds.

What is the purpose of a projectile flying through the air at high speeds?

 

[hecatmoggie]

The design purpose of handguns is for self defense by wounding or killing an attacker and, unfortunately, they are also used quite broadly in murder and other crimes.
The design purpose of rifles is to kill animals, sometimes for food, but way too often for supposed “sport”.
The design purpose of assault style weapons such as the AR-15 is to kill as many people as possible in the shortest amount of time due to very lethal bullets, large magazines, and quite rapid fire. Again, unfortunately, the purpose of the design has indeed been proven very effective by way too many mass murderers.

no

the design purpose of a gun is to fire when the trigger is pulled



the way that is used is all up to the person holding the gun

 

[hecatmoggie]

What is the purpose of a projectile flying through the air at high speeds?

whatever the intended purpose is of the person who pulled the trigger most often however, that's totally irrelevant to the design of the gun, which is simply to function and fire