So Obama...

Status
Not open for further replies.
Further confirmation that people from Finland are fucking crazy.

In a good way.
 
A Tool can many times be used as a weapon. A weapon can never be argued to be tool.

Sneaky edit: A person who argue that a weapon is a tool, misses the point of the weapon and makes himself look like a tool. *I made a clever joke, see?*
Of course it can. A car is a tool used to transport people and material from one place to another. A screwdriver is a tool used to drive a screw. A gun is a tool used to fire a bullet. That bullet can punch a hole in paper or a tin can, for fun. It can be used to punch a hole in an animal, for sport or for food. And it can be used to punch a hole in another human being, either for defense or for offense. I've heard this diatribe over and over again used to dismiss counter-debate. To make the other person's case look foolish... yes, reeeeeeally clever, that joke.

What it comes down to is, it doesn't matter what a tool was made to do, just what the tool user does with it. A person is just as dead if killed by car, screwdriver or gun. A gun is still an inanimate object. But okay. You want to ascribe "violence" to an inanimate object. Fine. Is not the engine in your vehicle also "violent"? After all, combustion is a violent event. Is not a screwdriver violent? After all, it "assaults" the screw, "drives" it into wood/metal/whatever. Isn't a gun's inherent "violence" just the nature of every mechanical object ever made? Isn't forcing nature to take the form we wish in all the things we have ever created as human beings not been an act of supreme violence, in and of itself?

It all comes down to the simple fact: Dead is dead, and the tool used is never at fault. The car is not responsible for the death it causes when it's driver drinks and drives. A screwdriver is not responsible for stabbing Jonny's mother-in-law to death. And the gun is not responsible when a gang-banger pulls the trigger.

All those who use the words "gun violence"... all those who think a gun isn't a tool... just want to blame violence on something else other than themselves. Take responsibility for your own actions. Don't "pass the buck".
 
Of course it can. A car is a tool used to transport people and material from one place to another. A screwdriver is a tool used to drive a screw. A gun is a tool used to fire a bullet. That bullet can punch a hole in paper or a tin can, for fun. It can be used to punch a hole in an animal, for sport or for food. And it can be used to punch a hole in another human being, either for defense or for offense. I've heard this diatribe over and over again used to dismiss counter-debate. To make the other person's case look foolish... yes, reeeeeeally clever, that joke.

What it comes down to is, it doesn't matter what a tool was made to do, just what the tool user does with it. A person is just as dead if killed by car, screwdriver or gun. A gun is still an inanimate object. But okay. You want to ascribe "violence" to an inanimate object. Fine. Is not the engine in your vehicle also "violent"? After all, combustion is a violent event. Is not a screwdriver violent? After all, it "assaults" the screw, "drives" it into wood/metal/whatever. Is a gun's inherent "violence" just the nature of every mechanical object ever made? Isn't forcing nature to take the form we wish in all the things we have ever created as human beings not been an act of supreme violence, in and of itself?

It all comes down to the simple fact: Dead is dead, and the tool used is never at fault. The car is not responsible for the death it causes when it's driver drinks and drives. A screwdriver is not responsible for stabbing Jonny's mother-in-law to death. And the gun is not responsible when a gang-banger pulls the trigger.

All those who use the words "gun violence"... all those who think a gun isn't a tool... just want to blame violence on something else other than themselves. Take responsibility for your own actions. Don't "pass the buck".

You really miss the point on do many levels. A weapon was never intended for anything but harm or the prevention of others doing harm to you. The latter by deterring or preemptive, defensive violence. You are trying and failing to redefine a intricate design and the purpose and intent of design ro fit a "everything is just a tool." Narrative. A common enough argument, as is the car. Points for mentioning the inherited violence of common day objects. In the end It is a fundamentally flawed stance however. A gun is not a 'tool to expel a bullet.' The two are vital to each other's purpose. It's purpose is violently cause harm of some kind.

Note I never once said anything about the user's of guns. You did I your rush to defend guns in any way you can. I merely call a weapon a weapon. Not a tool. There is a thing called "intent in design" you'll find no better example then automatically rifle
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mid
Again, I choose to disagree. Intent of design isn't relative to the CRIMINAL MISUSE of a device. And yes, you never said anything about the user... that was exactly my point. A gun without a user is just a harmless chunk of metal/wood/plastic. Totally useless, as is any device... weapon or not... without a user. A user determines USE or CRIMINAL MISUSE. And is therefore quite relevant to the discussion of violence. Relative to guns or anything else. The very fact you left the user out tells me all I need to know about your views on the matter. You want to blame the object, not the person. Human beings have been murdering each other long before firearms ever existed. If you wan't to deal with "gun violence", then you must deal with human nature. Not with some created artifact.

That truth cannot be denied.
 
Just stumbled across this. Here's a list of all the guns that will effectively be banned in the proposed "Assault Weapons Ban" that's going through congress right now, if I'm reading all that right.

Congress Bill 4269

“(H) All of the following rifles, copies, duplicates, variants, or altered facsimiles with the capability of any such weapon thereof:mce-anchor
“(i) All AK types, including the following:mce-anchor
“(I) AK, AK47, AK47S, AK–74, AKM, AKS, ARM, MAK90, MISR, NHM90, NHM91, Rock River Arms LAR–47, SA85, SA93, Vector Arms AK–47, VEPR, WASR–10, and WUM.
“(II) IZHMASH Saiga AK.
“(III) MAADI AK47 and ARM.
“(IV) Norinco 56S, 56S2, 84S, and 86S.
“(V) Poly Technologies AK47 and AKS.
“(ii) All AR types, including the following:mce-anchor
“(I) AR–10.
“(II) AR–15.
“(III) Armalite M15 22LR Carbine.
“(IV) Armalite M15–T.
“(V) Barrett REC7.
“(VI) Beretta AR–70.
“(VII) Bushmaster ACR.
“(VIII) Bushmaster Carbon 15.
“(IX) Bushmaster MOE series.
“(X) Bushmaster XM15.
“(XI) Colt Match Target Rifles.
“(XII) DoubleStar AR rifles.
“(XIII) DPMS Tactical Rifles.
“(XIV) Heckler & Koch MR556.
“(XV) Olympic Arms.
“(XVI) Remington R–15 rifles.
“(XVII) Rock River Arms LAR–15.
“(XVIII) Sig Sauer SIG516 rifles.
“(XIX) Smith & Wesson M&P15 Rifles.
“(XX) Stag Arms AR rifles.
“(XXI) Sturm, Ruger & Co. SR556 rifles.
“(iii) Barrett M107A1.
“(iv) Barrett M82A1.
“(v) Beretta CX4 Storm.
“(vi) Calico Liberty Series.
“(vii) CETME Sporter.
“(viii) Daewoo K–1, K–2, Max 1, Max 2, AR 100, and AR 110C.
“(ix) Fabrique Nationale/FN Herstal FAL, LAR, 22 FNC, 308 Match, L1A1 Sporter, PS90, SCAR, and FS2000.
“(x) Feather Industries AT–9.
“(xi) Galil Model AR and Model ARM.
“(xii) Hi-Point Carbine.
“(xiii) HK–91, HK–93, HK–94, HK–PSG–1, and HK USC.
“(xiv) Kel-Tec Sub-2000, SU–16, and RFB.
“(xv) SIG AMT, SIG PE–57, Sig Sauer SG 550, and Sig Sauer SG 551.
“(xvi) Springfield Armory SAR–48.
“(xvii) Steyr AUG.
“(xviii) Sturm, Ruger Mini-14 Tactical Rife M–14/20CF.
“(xix) All Thompson rifles, including the following:mce-anchor
“(I) Thompson M1SB.
“(II) Thompson T1100D.
“(III) Thompson T150D.
“(IV) Thompson T1B.
“(V) Thompson T1B100D.
“(VI) Thompson T1B50D.
“(VII) Thompson T1BSB.
“(VIII) Thompson T1–C.
“(IX) Thompson T1D.
“(X) Thompson T1SB.
“(XI) Thompson T5.
“(XII) Thompson T5100D.
“(XIII) Thompson TM1.
“(XIV) Thompson TM1C.
“(xx) UMAREX UZI Rifle.
“(xxi) UZI Mini Carbine, UZI Model A Carbine, and UZI Model B Carbine.
“(xxii) Valmet M62S, M71S, and M78.
“(xxiii) Vector Arms UZI Type.
“(xxiv) Weaver Arms Nighthawk.
“(xxv) Wilkinson Arms Linda Carbine.
“(I) All of the following pistols, copies, duplicates, variants, or altered facsimiles with the capability of any such weapon thereof:mce-anchor
“(i) All AK–47 types, including the following:mce-anchor
“(I) Centurion 39 AK pistol.
“(II) Draco AK–47 pistol.
“(III) HCR AK–47 pistol.
“(IV) IO Inc. Hellpup AK–47 pistol.
“(V) Krinkov pistol.
“(VI) Mini Draco AK–47 pistol.
“(VII) Yugo Krebs Krink pistol.
“(ii) All AR–15 types, including the following:mce-anchor
“(I) American Spirit AR–15 pistol.
“(II) Bushmaster Carbon 15 pistol.
“(III) DoubleStar Corporation AR pistol.
“(IV) DPMS AR–15 pistol.
“(V) Olympic Arms AR–15 pistol.
“(VI) Rock River Arms LAR 15 pistol.
“(iii) Calico Liberty pistols.
“(iv) DSA SA58 PKP FAL pistol.
“(v) Encom MP–9 and MP–45.
“(vi) Heckler & Koch model SP–89 pistol.
“(vii) Intratec AB–10, TEC–22 Scorpion, TEC–9, and TEC–DC9.
“(viii) Kel-Tec PLR 16 pistol.
“(ix) The following MAC types:mce-anchor
“(I) MAC–10.
“(II) MAC–11.
“(III) Masterpiece Arms MPA A930 Mini Pistol, MPA460 Pistol, MPA Tactical Pistol, and MPA Mini Tactical Pistol.
“(IV) Military Armament Corp. Ingram M–11.
“(V) Velocity Arms VMAC.
“(x) Sig Sauer P556 pistol.
“(xi) Sites Spectre.
“(xii) All Thompson types, including the following:mce-anchor
“(I) Thompson TA510D.
“(II) Thompson TA5.
“(xiii) All UZI types, including Micro-UZI.
“(J) All of the following shotguns, copies, duplicates, variants, or altered facsimiles with the capability of any such weapon thereof:mce-anchor
“(i) Franchi LAW–12 and SPAS 12.
“(ii) All IZHMASH Saiga 12 types, including the following:mce-anchor
“(I) IZHMASH Saiga 12.
“(II) IZHMASH Saiga 12S.
“(III) IZHMASH Saiga 12S EXP–01.
“(IV) IZHMASH Saiga 12K.
“(V) IZHMASH Saiga 12K–030.
“(VI) IZHMASH Saiga 12K–040 Taktika.
“(iii) Streetsweeper.
“(iv) Striker 12.
“(K) All belt-fed semiautomatic firearms, including TNW M2HB.
“(L) Any combination of parts from which a firearm described in subparagraphs (A) through (K) can be assembled.

I'm not okay with banning guns based on flimsy legislation. All of those, for the most part, are just semi-automatic military style rifles that function identically to a semi-automatic hunting rifle or shotgun. We've had shit get banned up in Canada, but not to that extent, and the last time the RCMP tried banning firearms (2013, the CZ 858 series and the SIG Classic Green series), it was repealed by the government.

Most of the features that landed those guns on that list are purely cosmetic, and that's a load of shit. Restrict magazine sizes if you must (ten rounds honestly isn't unreasonable, and that's what the Bill proposes), but don't take away firearms people already own. My big issue with that is it's people's property they invested a lot of money in; they shouldn't be made criminals because they wanted to collected a certain kind of firearm.
 
  • Useful
Reactions: Mid
I have the intention of owning gun's myself. Do not for a second think you know anything about me. I was talking about the tool argument which is flawed. I suspect this is why you abandoned it and try to get personal and dismissive with me instead.

The reason I did not mention users. Was because then we get into the argument of human nature, industry, gun lobby, cultural and geopolitical factors, poverty, criminals, state law, mental illness. You name it. And from there either of us can throw any and all scape goat to blame. This is why these conversions blow up.

Instead I was focused and technical. I provided you with a truth you did your hardest to ignore. A gun is a weapon. Weapons are meant for violence. And hate to break it to you. A gang-banger would be using a gun for its intended purpose speking from a design and technical standpoint.

Again. I will be a gun owner in likely a year. I am just not blind to the reality of what I am so on to own.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mid
Meh. It's all rhetoric and hyperbole. No-one gives a fuck about what he (they) wants to do. We want to know how and/or when; not that I'm American. I do like Obama as a person, though. He seems pretty chill.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mid
That truth cannot be denied.
tumblr_nwtebfcxPr1ue779no1_500.gif


Anyway, seriously: What @Hellis & @Roose Hurro are talking about is purely ideological. There's no credible physical evidence to back either and neither is a particularly incorrect position as it's merely an interpretation of an object's intended purpose. One defines it universally, the other defines it individually. Collectivism vs individualism, "everything has a purpose" versus "a purpose is self-defined", et cetera. So feel free to brush over that and move onto the laws themselves.

It doesn't matter what the ideological purpose of the article is, it only matters how effective the laws surrounding its distribution and control mechanisms are when speaking of a physical problem. Compare and contrast data points where possible, attempt to derive best possible response, move forward. Preferably not one built on ideological position, and more on reasonable data and backtracking the problem until the source is found. Which, well, it has been: Drug War, Poverty, Gangs. :ferret:
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mid and Windsong
I have the intention of owning gun's myself. Do not for a second think you know anything about me. I was talking about the tool argument which is flawed. I suspect this is why you abandoned it and try to get personal and dismissive with me instead.

The reason I did not mention users. Was because then we get into the argument of human nature, industry, gun lobby, cultural and geopolitical factors, poverty, criminals, state law, mental illness. You name it. And from there either of us can throw any and all scape goat to blame. This is why these conversions blow up.

Instead I was focused and technical. I provided you with a truth you did your hardest to ignore. A gun is a weapon. Weapons are meant for violence. And hate to break it to you. A gang-banger would be using a gun for its intended purpose speking from a design and technical standpoint.

Again. I will be a gun owner in likely a year. I am just not blind to the reality of what I am so on to own.
First I'll deal with the bolded parts, then second, with the bits in the middle. I am 53 years old. I started with a BB gun when I was 8, and moved on to "real" firearms when I was legally old enough to do so. Meaning I have owned, used and dealt with the issues of firearms and their use for the last 45 years. Yes, read the magazines, learned all I could, like I have for all my interests. So, my eyes are wide open.

Scape goats. Ahhh. Got it. Putting the blame, the responsibility for violence, on the user is scapegoating.

Yes, you were focused and technical. But violence is a social, not a technical issue. Weapons are weapons. Weapons are also tools. And even tools not meant to be weapons can be used as weapons. There is a logic here you seem to miss. Because I am also being very focused. Because "gun violence" is not a technical issue. It is a social issue. Again, that fact cannot... oh, wait, you did deny it, did you not?

To get technical, yes, we can all acknowledge weapons are made to kill. They wouldn't be weapons if their intent was to coddle in warmth and love. To patch our "booboos" rather than cut us open from nave to chops. Still, everything has a purpose, a use, a function. If that use is violence, technically speaking, then so be it. Doesn't change the "tool" nature of firearms. Because "intent", like "violence", is a human thing. An act of consciousness. I understand human nature. I know humans like to ascribe human qualities to inanimate objects... in fact, many humans are quite willing to bow down to their idols, to worship inanimate things, because it seems to be in our nature to do so.

You appear to be a clear case of this nature. So, unless you aren't human, I think, from the words you have written, I can know you quite well. Not fully, no, with this short exposure, but enough. At least on this subject.

Are you willing to acknowledge my points? You don't have to agree. But it would be nice if you could admit those with differing views are not just tools.


Edit: Thank you, Brovo.
 
First I'll deal with the bolded parts, then second, with the bits in the middle. I am 53 years old. I started with a BB gun when I was 8, and moved on to "real" firearms when I was legally old enough to do so. Meaning I have owned, used and dealt with the issues of firearms and their use for the last 45 years. Yes, read the magazines, learned all I could, like I have for all my interests. So, my eyes are wide open.
Well, if you don't mind my asking then, since you're obviously highly invested in the topic: How do you feel about the idea of firearms licencing, mandatory background checks, and mandatory safety courses? Not firearm bans, but emphasis on the control measure, mainly to ensure people know what they're doing with their new toys.
 
I strongly object. I was not talking from a ideological standpoint. I was talking on technical and design derived points. For once ideology doesn't play into my view. It's strange to me an rather bothersome you are deciding to try and utterly dismiss me and telling others to do so to.

Further. How is poverty and gangs the cause off mass shootings? Surely. There is more to it. One could per example argue that the ease of which one aquire a gun can play in to it. Problems like these are large and multilayered.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.