| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/19/2012 12:01:45 PM · #601 |
Originally posted by escapetooz:
Originally posted by Spork99:
Originally posted by blindjustice:
Originally posted by Spork99:
Originally posted by escapetooz:
Originally posted by Spork99:
Originally posted by escapetooz:
Originally posted by PGerst:
How in the world did this thread get derailed to the discussion of a fighter plane? I tried to understand the posts below but this extrapolation is as far off the mark as driving a car into a group of people.
|
It was a spinoff of, guns are designed to kill. So someone said, planes were designed to kill.
The obvious flaw of this logic is that a gun can't get me to France, or even to the supermarket, so...
If we can't see there is a difference between reason for invention and sole purpose, then I don't see how this discussion can even go any further. It's just silly. By this logic if someone is against the space program they can never drink Tang... |
That a plane can get you to France isn't the point. The fact is that military need for an advantage in ways to kill drove much of the development of the technology used in the plane that flies you to France. Jet engines, pressurized cabins, composite materials...the list goes on. The fact that civilian uses arose for those technologies was secondary to the main impetus for developing them. It's not just planes, the Lunar space program was just a civilian application of ICBM technology. etc. |
What IS your point and what does that have to do with guns? There is no comparison. A guns sole function is to kill. A plane might have been developed for war but it has moved beyond that function. A gun never will. |
Guns can kill. They can also be used to put holes in paper as a measure of skill. They can serve as a deterrent to crime. They are tools. |
Not tools, weapons.
A dildo makes a great paperweight, etc.... |
Tools |
A hammer is a tool. A dildo is a sex toy. A gun is a weapon.
Shall I define it for you?
"A weapon consisting of a metal tube from which a projectile is fired at high velocity into a relatively flat trajectory." |
Tool n. anything used as a means of accomplishing a task or purpose |
|
|
|
12/19/2012 12:03:55 PM · #602 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
Originally posted by mike_311:
Originally posted by Spork99:
Tools |
so why is it that cops and security guards those expected to keep peace and control are forced to use tasers and the population is allow to carry deadlier weapons. |
Cops don't carry guns? Since when?
Until recently, Tasers were illegal here for civilians and stun guns still are. |
so whats wrong with using a taser to defend yourself? why does one need a gun? |
|
|
|
12/19/2012 12:10:02 PM · #603 |
Originally posted by mike_311:
Originally posted by Spork99:
Originally posted by mike_311:
Originally posted by Spork99:
Tools |
so why is it that cops and security guards those expected to keep peace and control are forced to use tasers and the population is allow to carry deadlier weapons. |
Cops don't carry guns? Since when?
Until recently, Tasers were illegal here for civilians and stun guns still are. |
so whats wrong with using a taser to defend yourself? why does one need a gun? |
There are so many more ways one can fail. There's only 1 shot, if you miss with that, you die. If the assailant is enraged or on drugs, the darts may make contact and not slow him down. If they are wearing a heavy coat, the darts may stick in that and have no effect. Plenty of times the police have used tasers and had them fail and had to resort to their firearms. Most importantly, when a police officer uses a taser, you can bet one or more officers have their guns on the assailant in case things go poorly. |
|
|
|
12/19/2012 12:13:48 PM · #604 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
Tool n. anything used as a means of accomplishing a task or purpose |
You know better than that. All weapons are tools, but not all tools are weapons. Arguably, any tool (or anything, for that matter, including words) can be used as a weapon, but for the purposes of this discussion, "guns" are tools of the specific subset that is designed to fire a projectile down a hollow tube at a high velocity. |
|
|
|
12/19/2012 12:14:04 PM · #605 |
Originally posted by mike_311:
we have the right to bear arms, does it even say anything about "guns"?
edit: nope
As passed by the Congress:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
As ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of State:
|
OK lets think about this...Militia....We have a right to form a militia. ok
mi·li·tia /məˈliSHə/
Noun
1.A military force of civilians to supplement a regular army in an emergency.
2.A military force that engages in rebel activities.
The rebel activity that it is talking about is the govmt over stepping their bounds and the people having to fight back. Now the definition of a militia is a civillian miliary force So militias would just have to throw rocks, right
|
|
|
|
12/19/2012 12:20:29 PM · #606 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
... "guns" are tools of the specific subset that is designed to fire a projectile down a hollow tube at a high velocity. |
Exactly. They aren't tools designed to kill. They fire a projectile. The intent of firing that projectile is dependent upon the person firing the gun. That intent may be to kill another person. It may be to kill an animal for food. It may be to put holes in a target for fun. The intent is NOT inherent in the tool, gun or otherwise, the intent is in the mind of person wielding it.
Message edited by author 2012-12-19 12:24:39. |
|
|
|
12/19/2012 12:22:21 PM · #607 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by Spork99:
Tool n. anything used as a means of accomplishing a task or purpose |
You know better than that. All weapons are tools, but not all tools are weapons. Arguably, any tool (or anything, for that matter, including words) can be used as a weapon, but for the purposes of this discussion, "guns" are tools of the specific subset that is designed to fire a projectile down a hollow tube at a high velocity. |
Yes, and the task or purpose of a gun is to kill or mame. Not put holes in paper. Not build a house. Not fly me to France.
A nuclear bomb might do a mighty good job of displacing land, but that doesn't make it a building tool any more than shooting at paper makes a gun a hole punch. It's a weapon. To deny that is lunacy.
Message edited by author 2012-12-19 12:22:54. |
|
|
|
12/19/2012 12:25:56 PM · #608 |
Originally posted by escapetooz:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by Spork99:
Tool n. anything used as a means of accomplishing a task or purpose |
You know better than that. All weapons are tools, but not all tools are weapons. Arguably, any tool (or anything, for that matter, including words) can be used as a weapon, but for the purposes of this discussion, "guns" are tools of the specific subset that is designed to fire a projectile down a hollow tube at a high velocity. |
Yes, and the task or purpose of a gun is to kill or mame. Not put holes in paper. Not build a house. Not fly me to France.
A nuclear bomb might do a mighty good job of displacing land, but that doesn't make it a building tool any more than shooting at paper makes a gun a hole punch. It's a weapon. To deny that is lunacy. |
No the purpose of the gun is to fire the projectile, the decision to kill or attempt to kill is not made by the tool, it's made by the person with their finger on the trigger.
Message edited by author 2012-12-19 12:28:09. |
|
|
|
12/19/2012 12:29:57 PM · #609 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
Originally posted by escapetooz:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by Spork99:
Tool n. anything used as a means of accomplishing a task or purpose |
You know better than that. All weapons are tools, but not all tools are weapons. Arguably, any tool (or anything, for that matter, including words) can be used as a weapon, but for the purposes of this discussion, "guns" are tools of the specific subset that is designed to fire a projectile down a hollow tube at a high velocity. |
Yes, and the task or purpose of a gun is to kill or mame. Not put holes in paper. Not build a house. Not fly me to France.
A nuclear bomb might do a mighty good job of displacing land, but that doesn't make it a building tool any more than shooting at paper makes a gun a hole punch. It's a weapon. To deny that is lunacy. |
No the purpose of the gun is to fire the projectile, the decision to kill or attempt to kill is not made by the tool, it's made by the person with their finger on the trigger. |
And a hammer doesn't decide to hammer a nail but that's it's purpose. You can use it as a paperweight but you can't claim it doesn't hammer nails.
Why are we talking in circles? What is your point? I really, truly do not understand what you are even trying to say. |
|
|
|
12/19/2012 12:30:56 PM · #610 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
Originally posted by escapetooz:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by Spork99:
Tool n. anything used as a means of accomplishing a task or purpose |
You know better than that. All weapons are tools, but not all tools are weapons. Arguably, any tool (or anything, for that matter, including words) can be used as a weapon, but for the purposes of this discussion, "guns" are tools of the specific subset that is designed to fire a projectile down a hollow tube at a high velocity. |
Yes, and the task or purpose of a gun is to kill or mame. Not put holes in paper. Not build a house. Not fly me to France.
A nuclear bomb might do a mighty good job of displacing land, but that doesn't make it a building tool any more than shooting at paper makes a gun a hole punch. It's a weapon. To deny that is lunacy. |
No the purpose of the gun is to fire the projectile, the decision to kill or attempt to kill is not made by the tool, it's made by the person with their finger on the trigger. |
You are grasping at straws. If you admit that guns are built to kill (no one can deny it) the discussion can go on. You can even say that sometimes killing people is useful, but please, guns are not simply tools. |
|
|
|
12/19/2012 12:30:59 PM · #611 |
| Spork, how is it that you fault airplanes for their tawdry background as a tool for transportation but maintain guns have a squeaky clean impetus? |
|
|
|
12/19/2012 12:35:55 PM · #612 |
im sorry ive got to stick my 2p in, when the gun was invented it was invented as a weapon of war to kill people, it wasnt intended to shoot at targets for fun its has evolved into that
as a uk citizen i cannot comprehend the american obsession with guns and the right to bare arms and all the death it brings, im a former gun club member, prize winning target shooter, ive got a few air rifles and parents have shotguns on their farm, i know a lot about weapons, my former brother in law is a firearms officer with the MET police but i fail to see the need for normal citizens to have 30 shot+ semi automatic or fully automic weapons.
does anyone actually hunt with an ar-15 and if so what they hunting i thought dinosaurs were extinct
we have very strict laws in teh uk, no more than 3 shots for shotguns and rifles, no hand guns at all since dunblain, yeah we have a few gun related killings every year but they are gang on gang criminals its is very rare to have a gun murder against a civilian
what i fail to understand is cant you appreciate that if he hadn;t had access to those weapons this wouldnt have happened. the knife attack in china 22 injured but no fatalities, guns make these attacks so much more devastating and quick,
|
|
|
|
12/19/2012 12:37:46 PM · #613 |
Originally posted by spiritualspatula:
Spork, how is it that you fault airplanes for their tawdry background as a tool for transportation but maintain guns have a squeaky clean impetus? |
I don't. The point is simply that a great many things that we have today arose from man's desire to vanquish their enemy through force. Guns, planes, computers, the internet... |
|
|
|
12/19/2012 12:45:03 PM · #614 |
Originally posted by Giles_uk:
im sorry ive got to stick my 2p in, when the gun was invented it was invented as a weapon of war to kill people, it wasnt intended to shoot at targets for fun its has evolved into that
as a uk citizen i cannot comprehend the american obsession with guns and the right to bare arms and all the death it brings, im a former gun club member, prize winning target shooter, ive got a few air rifles and parents have shotguns on their farm, i know a lot about weapons, my former brother in law is a firearms officer with the MET police but i fail to see the need for normal citizens to have 30 shot+ semi automatic or fully automic weapons.
does anyone actually hunt with an ar-15 and if so what they hunting i thought dinosaurs were extinct
we have very strict laws in teh uk, no more than 3 shots for shotguns and rifles, no hand guns at all since dunblain, yeah we have a few gun related killings every year but they are gang on gang criminals its is very rare to have a gun murder against a civilian
what i fail to understand is cant you appreciate that if he hadn;t had access to those weapons this wouldnt have happened. the knife attack in china 22 injured but no fatalities, guns make these attacks so much more devastating and quick, |
Everyone likes to tout the attack in China as an example of gun control law success. You do realize that the Chinese government has murdered somewhere between 40-70 million of its own people in purges, starvation campaigns, re-education camps and the like.
Yes, people hunt with AR-15's. Varmints and pests mostly.
Very, very few people in the US have fully automatic weapons. |
|
|
|
12/19/2012 12:47:02 PM · #615 |
Originally posted by Alexkc:
You are grasping at straws. If you admit that guns are built to kill (no one can deny it) the discussion can go on. You can even say that sometimes killing people is useful, but please, guns are not simply tools. |
But don't you see? We are a very imaginative bunch here on DPC. Cameras are bath toys, vegetables are clothes, and guns are hole punches.
Problem solved. Let's start selling these items in their appropriate isle! Guns in with the school supplies!
|
|
|
|
12/19/2012 12:47:56 PM · #616 |
Okay. I guess my next question then is if we are considering a gun to strictly be a tool, do you agree that tools which frequently kill their operators should be freely disseminated with no recourse and in fact with open acceptance that this is fact?
Why do we expect a company to recall a dangerous tool but accept the gun's well documented track record in this regard?
And, beyond this, if it is just a tool, it is fair to treat it as the single most deadly tool one can buy, both to operator and to others. This is why it is considered in a different frame of mind than a hammer, another tool, which like all other tools, has a lower incidence of fatality. Hell, I bet you could even count crab boats and oil rigs as safer tools, two of our more deadly occupations... |
|
|
|
12/19/2012 12:49:52 PM · #617 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
Everyone likes to tout the attack in China as an example of gun control law success. You do realize that the Chinese government has murdered somewhere between 40-70 million of its own people in purges, starvation campaigns, re-education camps and the like.
Yes, people hunt with AR-15's. Varmints and pests mostly.
Very, very few people in the US have fully automatic weapons. |
Non sequitur. It's not an example of gun control law success. It's an example of guns do more damage than knives.
The Chinese govt is irrelevant. |
|
|
|
12/19/2012 12:57:23 PM · #618 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
Very, very few people in the US have fully automatic weapons. |
and if they weren't banned many, many more would have them.
|
|
|
|
12/19/2012 01:15:22 PM · #619 |
The point is....an assault weapon looks scarier than another weapon...so people think they need to be banned. I for one am looing into buying an ar-15 before the 1st of the year.
|
|
|
|
12/19/2012 01:31:15 PM · #620 |
Proof that restricting firearm access does work.
For those who won't read the entire article.
In 2008, the U.S. had over 12 thousand firearm-related homicides. All of Japan experienced only 11, fewer than were killed at the Aurora shooting alone. And that was a big year: 2006 saw an astounding two, and when that number jumped to 22 in 2007, it became a national scandal. By comparison, also in 2008, 587 Americans were killed just by guns that had discharged accidentally. |
|
|
|
12/19/2012 01:31:27 PM · #621 |
Originally posted by cowboy221977:
The point is....an assault weapon looks scarier than another weapon...so people think they need to be banned. I for one am looing into buying an ar-15 before the 1st of the year. |
No one wants to ban them because they look scary. If that was the case we would be trying to ban Mike due to his new profile picture. I think it's safe to say that people are more concerned with the little metal bits that come out of the pointy end at a semi-automatic rate. |
|
|
|
12/19/2012 01:35:42 PM · #622 |
| I'm arriving late to this discussion, so forgive me if I'm repeating a question that has already been discussed. But I'd like to know from those who support gun rights why an automatic and semi-automatic weapons ban is objectionable. Can you not defend yourself, or target practice, or hunt with a gun/rifle that shoots only three or four bullets at a time? |
|
|
|
12/19/2012 01:41:03 PM · #623 |
Originally posted by Venser:
Proof that restricting firearm access does work.
For those who won't read the entire article.
In 2008, the U.S. had over 12 thousand firearm-related homicides. All of Japan experienced only 11, fewer than were killed at the Aurora shooting alone. And that was a big year: 2006 saw an astounding two, and when that number jumped to 22 in 2007, it became a national scandal. By comparison, also in 2008, 587 Americans were killed just by guns that had discharged accidentally. |
That is absolutely rediculous.... Small-caliber rifles have been illegal to buy, sell, or transfer since 1971. Anyone who owned a rifle before then is allowed to keep it, but their heirs are required to turn it over to the police once the owner dies.
All they have done is taken the peoples liberties.
|
|
|
|
12/19/2012 01:46:32 PM · #624 |
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
I'm arriving late to this discussion, so forgive me if I'm repeating a question that has already been discussed. But I'd like to know from those who support gun rights why an automatic and semi-automatic weapons ban is objectionable. Can you not defend yourself, or target practice, or hunt with a gun/rifle that shoots only three or four bullets at a time? |
Automatics are banned except for the select few that have big tim liscenses... Sometimes you need more than one shot...I would not dream of going hunting without a semi-automatic. I am a decent shot but sometimes I miss. Also if you have a home invasion where you have multiple people coming after you it pays to have a semi
|
|
|
|
12/19/2012 01:46:47 PM · #625 |
Originally posted by cowboy221977:
...All they have done is taken the peoples liberties. |
Yeah, their liberty to go on a killing rampage.
|
|
