Did we used to conduct war in a way that was safe for civilians?
No.
I’m not aware of that history. The war in Gaza looks like war to me.
The Israelis say they are prosecuting a war against Hamas.
How many members of Hamas have been killed? How many remain?
I will preface this by saying that there are risks to being openly involved.
There are people work to avoid taking actions that may benefit Israel:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boycott,_Divestment_and_Sanctions
We've been flying things without pilots onboard as far back as WW2.
Dueling pistols were known for being ornate.
The only purpose for the BULLETHOSE BABYKILLER 2000 is mass murder, and is an extreme threat to public safety, and please ignore the contract to put one in every police car in the country
"To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purposes of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and serious public inconvenience and loss. It would form an annual deduction from the productive labor of the country… to an amount which, calculating upon the present numbers of the people, would not fall far short of the whole expense of the civil establishments of all the States. To attempt a thing which would abridge the mass of labor and industry to so considerable an extent, would be unwise, and the experiment, if made, could not succeed, because it would not long be endured. Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year."
Guns were strictly utilitarian, people had one literally for putting food on the table and an immediate need of defense in an expanding country where there was literally no help for miles if you were lucky in some places.
Guns were not strictly utilitarian: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duelling_pistol
If you read my edit, it’s already in there. Just like the judge said, modern firearms fall well outside the scope of weapons available to, and used by, the public at large.
Nowhere in the article does the judge use the phrases or words "modern firearms" "public" "scope" "available." That is your interpretation of what the judge said. I asked for you to elaborate so I would be on the same page as you. I think I have a different viewpoint than you. I don't expect that my interpretation of what the article says will align 100% with how you interpret it.
I also find it interesting that “accuracy” became the substance of your criticism rather than the argument as a whole.
Would you care to elaborate on this?
Jacking Up a Car Is Dangerous. Here's Why Mechanics Are Doing So Anyway