I primarily work with people who have an issue with killing other people.
That, and that it is non-trivial without a gun, or more powerful weapon, to kill someone.
Which is why, in a lot of places it's extremely difficult to own or have a gun. And sane people consider very carefully a guns use. Most refuse to own or even consider even holding one never mind using one.
The AI discussed here is similar to me. It shouldn't be available or in use, ever. It even strips away the benefit a gun has of the user contemplating the end result.
I am agreeing that guns enable killing and make it more easy and more available. I also agree that most everyone I know have an issue will killing.
You claimed the vast majority of people you know are physically unable to kill. I think that is laughably naive.
If you mean that it is harder than you'd imagine to kill someone bareheaded, I also agree. But humans are tool makers and users. A big stick or rock to the back of the head was a common way to die in our distant past. And if you want to not allow any mechanical leverage in the killing, most people are _physically_ capable of pushing someone. That could be off a cliff, down the stairs, or on level ground where someone trips and hits their head.
This isn't a question of morality: it is a matter of physics.
It does nothing to those barriers. They are still absolutely the same. Unless you're trying to argue that somehow guns magically imbue in people the intent to kill.
I assure you, they do not. In point of fact, the hobby can get rather onerous to upkeep due to maintenance costs and the burden of magical thinking individuals like yourself employ, necessitating constant vigilance and correction.
People kill people.
AI, gun, explosive, makes no difference. Long as there are two blokes atound with irreconcilable opinions/worldviews, somebody's gonna want someone else dead. And that is the problem. The tools do not move until the mind employs them.
we agree that guns are equalizers - it allows a small woman to fend off a large man. That is the point. They make it physically easier to kill. Like, that is their entire point outside of sport.
for being more mentally available, I was just reading about some asshole that shot at a car that pulled into his driveway. Yes, he is mentally unhinged. I don't feel it is a stretch to say that owning a gun enabled him to feel safe and shoot the people from a distance and had he needed to get into a physical altercation, it very likely would not have ended with dead kids in the driveway.
I'm a gun rights supporter. I own guns. I take my kids shooting. People need to be held responsible. People can kill without guns, of course. But there is no way to argue that guns don't make killing more accessible.
That, and that it is non-trivial without a gun, or more powerful weapon, to kill someone.
Which is why, in a lot of places it's extremely difficult to own or have a gun. And sane people consider very carefully a guns use. Most refuse to own or even consider even holding one never mind using one.
The AI discussed here is similar to me. It shouldn't be available or in use, ever. It even strips away the benefit a gun has of the user contemplating the end result.