Originally Posted by Uncle Billy
Using the tenets of critical thinking, that is, reasoning without including emotion (sorrow and rage at the deaths of children; passion for guns that transcends compromise and resists regulation or denial of access to them in disregard for the risks they bring in unqualified hands) leads to these conclusions:
There is no legitimate civilian activity beyond recreational activities that requires weapons with the specific collected attributes of combat military small arms.
The lethal potential of such weapons in the hands of people who have access to them without having to pass through the military's filters of discipline, mental stability, a sense of responsibility and situation-determined use of such weapons limited only to armed combat or training for such combat, is and has been well demonstrated by the intended wanton murder of innocents.
The conclusion is that such weapons in such inappropriate hands in non-combat situations present an unnecessary risk to the public at large, substantiated by the numbers of deaths such inappropriate situations have resulted in.
Just because you say you're using the "tenets of critical thinking" and "reasoning without including emotion", doesn't make it so.
What you have there, is a predetermined conclusion worked backwards to a starting point that makes it seem logical.
You make numerous assumptions with no specified factual basis. None of the "logic" behind your conclusions is spelled out.
There is no logic in that sequence.
I'm not aware of a single mass murder in American history that was perpetrated with "combat military small arms". Newton certainly wasn't.
Claiming logic is not the same as using it.