“Guns are not needed to commit murders and never have been” is a weird point to make in response to “guns make it easier to murder people” because it completely ignores my point.
You know this.
It’s a ridiclous comparison. The motives of the opposing forces in war are absolutely nothing like those of a murderer.
So, guns make it easier for soldiers to kill other humans, because they have motive X.
But guns do not make it easier for murderers to kill other humans, because they have motive Y?
That is hilarious.
Is both of their motives not to kill the other human?
Even if your point may be technically correct, forcing a murderer to work harder or to put more thought into it, does not prevent the murder. History tells us that is absolutely true. No matter what you do, murderers will continue to murder. Even more certainly, if you submit to your emotions and ban AR style guns like Australia and NZ have, (a type of gun that is rarely used to commit murders) the effect on the number of murders will be negligible. “Feel good” laws such as AR bans, do nothing except to make you feel like you have done something to adddress the issue, even though you really haven’t.
1 Like
Yes. That’s why killing in war is not considered murder.
You may be surprised I tend to agree with you! I am skeptical when it comes to the efficacy of gun restrictions/bans. I agree that, in cases of mass murder, murderers will find ways to kill people.
But I have also been around guns and appreciate the fact that they make it so, so, so, so easy to kill people. They make killing virtually effortless. And for that reason, I am absolutely amazed when people reject the simple, undeniable premise that guns make it easier to kill people. They do. Period. Including mass murderers.
Now, the effect that gun laws would have on gun deaths is debatable.
I’m confused why you think this distinction matters to the efficacy of guns?
Why does a gun in the hands of a solider make it easier to kill, but a gun in the hands of a murderer does not?
Is it - “because the murderer will always find another way to kill instead, and be successful” - because that must be your point in order for it to be valid.
Motive always matters in legal issues. If individual soldiers were held legally responsible for anyone they killed, it would require that they all be tried for murder after the war was over. Surely that does not confuse you, does it?
1 Like
Legal issues? What legal issue are we debating?
Of course it doesn’t confuse me. But the efficacy of guns (which is what we are debating) is not a legal issue. Does that make sense?
It came into the conversation when you equated guns in war with guns in crime.
Why does a gun in the hands of a solider make it easier to kill, but a gun in the hands of a murderer does not?
Is it - “because the murderer will always find another way to kill instead, and be successful” - because that must be your point in order for it to be valid.
I repeat … most death is wars is not by a bullet. If guns were the most effective way to kill people in wars, they would only use guns. Side arms and rifles are primarily a defensive weapon in war and they are very frequently used as defensive weapons in civilian life as well. Banning guns … any guns … only serves to inhibit the ability of law abiding people to defend themselves. It does virtually nothing to inhibit the intent of those who use guns to commit crimes.
I’m getting tired of having to repeat myself. Have you got something new?
Soldiers use guns because it makes it easier to kill people. Murderers use guns because it makes it easier to kill people.
No … soldiers use guns because they are easier to carry than cannons.
Knives are easier to carry than guns. Why don’t they just carry those?
Because the other guys have guns. You know the adage I presume.
You are taking us waaay off topic.
No, I finally got us where we need to be. Thanks.
Off topic?
That’s not how it is supposed to work around here regardless of the numerous examples for you to follow. 
What about them?
Wrong question by the way.
Huh. Are people getting shot and killed in Australia?
What are the percentages of getting shot and killed if only one of the two parties is armed?
Do your government cops carry guns?
