Gun Control III

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
421

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
No. He has committed murder using a gun as the tool or means to commit said murder. He most certainly misused his firearm. The steak knives in my kitchen are used to cut things (Their purpose is to cut food) so if I cut my neighbors throat have I not misused my steak knife? The answer, of course, is yes I misused my steak knife.

Guns were designed for either hunting or defense not murder. That is their purpose 99.99999999% of the time. An inanimate object has only the purpose we bestow upon it and the purpose of a firearm the vast majority of the time is defense. [/quote]

Firearms were originally created for military purposes, as far as I know.[/quote]

And their military function is defense, in most cases. [/quote]

Walls, body armor, and shields are primarily defensive. Firearms, bows, and canons are primarily offensive. A shield can certainly be used for offense, and a firearm can certainly be used defensively. However, a shield’s primary purpose is to prevent its bearer from being touched, while a firearms primary purpose is to allow its bearer to reach out and touch another. Firearms are primarily used defensively, but their primary purpose is to injure/kill.

*Perhaps offense and defense can’t be purposes. The primary purpose of a football team’s offense is not “offense,” but to score points. The primary purpose of a football team’s defense is not “defense,” but to prevent the offense from scoring points.

422

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:
Yes, I responded to the right post.

Of course the primary purpose of a firearm is to kill. DUH… Why else have one? If someone is going to attack you or attempt to rob you, a person has a natural right to defend themselves and their property with deadly force. A gun accommodates this nicely. What is the problem with that?

The point I was illustrating is that when I was in my law breaking days, I AVOIDED people who were likely to try and kill me while I was robbing them. A “toy gun” would not have cut the mustard, buddy.

So, why are you engaging in this crazy twisting of words? I don’t think anyone is silly enough to argue that guns aren’t for killing people. A far better line of argument is whether or not we have the right to defend ourselves with deadly force. I, and the majority of people with any modicum of intelligence, would argue that we do.[/quote]

USMC was arguing that the primary purpose is not to kill, but to defend. You’re making the same argument as I, and that’s why I asked if you were sure that you had responded to the correct post. [/quote]

LOL that’s what I get for not reading the whole thread. My bad.

423

[quote] NickViar wrote:
Walls, body armor, and shields are primarily defensive. Firearms, bows, and canons are primarily offensive. A shield can certainly be used for offense, and a firearm can certainly be used defensively. However, a shield’s primary purpose is to prevent its bearer from being touched… [/quote]

Shields don’t shield people. People shield people.

424

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote] NickViar wrote:
Walls, body armor, and shields are primarily defensive. Firearms, bows, and canons are primarily offensive. A shield can certainly be used for offense, and a firearm can certainly be used defensively. However, a shield’s primary purpose is to prevent its bearer from being touched… [/quote]

Shields don’t shield people. People shield people.[/quote]

Can’t tell if this is a play on words, or if I have a seriously flawed understanding of the use of shields…

425

.

426

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote] NickViar wrote:
Walls, body armor, and shields are primarily defensive. Firearms, bows, and canons are primarily offensive. A shield can certainly be used for offense, and a firearm can certainly be used defensively. However, a shield’s primary purpose is to prevent its bearer from being touched… [/quote]

Shields don’t shield people. People shield people.[/quote]

Can’t tell if this is a play on words, or if I have a seriously flawed understanding of the use of shields…[/quote]

A play on words. I was just satirising the “guns don’t kill people. People kill people” line.

427

[quote]angry chicken wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:
Yes, I responded to the right post.

Of course the primary purpose of a firearm is to kill. DUH… Why else have one? If someone is going to attack you or attempt to rob you, a person has a natural right to defend themselves and their property with deadly force. A gun accommodates this nicely. What is the problem with that?

The point I was illustrating is that when I was in my law breaking days, I AVOIDED people who were likely to try and kill me while I was robbing them. A “toy gun” would not have cut the mustard, buddy.

So, why are you engaging in this crazy twisting of words? I don’t think anyone is silly enough to argue that guns aren’t for killing people. A far better line of argument is whether or not we have the right to defend ourselves with deadly force. I, and the majority of people with any modicum of intelligence, would argue that we do.[/quote]

USMC was arguing that the primary purpose is not to kill, but to defend. You’re making the same argument as I, and that’s why I asked if you were sure that you had responded to the correct post. [/quote]

LOL that’s what I get for not reading the whole thread. My bad.[/quote]

If the primary purpose of firearms was simply to kill then ownership of firearms would not be protected in the constitution. Their primary purpose is to defend against; tyranny, aggression, injury, etc… or to provide sustenance.

The outcome of fulling that purpose is often injury or death without question, but that doesn’t mean it is their purpose.

428

[quote]NickViar wrote:
However, a shield’s primary function is to prevent its bearer from being touched, while a firearms primary function is to allow its bearer to reach out and touch another. [/quote]

I’ve changed what I disagree with.

429

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:
However, a shield’s primary function is to prevent its bearer from being touched, while a firearms primary function is to allow its bearer to reach out and touch another. [/quote]

I’ve changed what I disagree with.
[/quote]

Like I said, I’m pretty sure that an inanimate object can’t actually have a purpose, so the whole premise of our debate is likely flawed.

*Edit: I thought I had already made a post stating that it’s probably not actually true that a firearm can have any purpose at all, but I can’t find it now…so my “Like I said” may make no sense.

430

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:
However, a shield’s primary function is to prevent its bearer from being touched, while a firearms primary function is to allow its bearer to reach out and touch another. [/quote]

I’ve changed what I disagree with.
[/quote]

Like I said, I’m pretty sure that an inanimate object can’t actually have a purpose, so the whole premise of our debate is likely flawed.[/quote]

Ya, it’s really just semantics.

431

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Ya, it’s really just semantics. [/quote]

I still believe that the gun/fire extinguisher comparison is flawed, probably to the point that it could potentially serve to undermine the intent of its creator. No thinking person could possibly desire firearms regulations, so the illustration is obviously intended for the non-thinking. I think it’s more likely that the non-thinker can be turned into a thinker via honest representation of the issue than via an illustration that can be twisted to make its creator seem less than honest.

432

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Ya, it’s really just semantics. [/quote]

I still believe that the gun/fire extinguisher comparison is flawed, probably to the point that it could potentially serve to undermine the intent of its creator. No thinking person could possibly desire firearms regulations, so the illustration is obviously intended for the non-thinking. I think it’s more likely that the non-thinker can be turned into a thinker via honest representation of the issue than via an illustration that can be twisted to make its creator seem less than honest. [/quote]

I think you and I just see the purpose of the illustration differently. The image wasn’t comparing fire extinguishers to guns. The image was comparing one emergency to another.

I immediately saw the picture as, “Hey firefighters can’t help you in an emergency as quickly as a fire extinguisher can. The same can be said for police officers and guns.” It’s basically a play on, “When seconds count the police are only minutes away.”

It’s about immediacy. That’s all. At least that’s how I took it.

433

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
I think you and I just see the purpose of the illustration differently. The image wasn’t comparing fire extinguishers to guns. The image was comparing one emergency to another.

I immediately saw the picture as, “Hey firefighters can’t help you in an emergency as quickly as a fire extinguisher can. The same can be said for police officers and guns.” It’s basically a play on, “When seconds count the police are only minutes away.”

It’s about immediacy. That’s all. At least that’s how I took it.
[/quote]

I agree, but the potential use of a firearm is very possibly the thing from which the use of a firearm may protect you. The use of a fire extinguisher is not(in any likely scenario…) protecting you from the use of a fire extinguisher. I can just see the illustration being twisted into a lie, or allowing gun control advocates to say, “We can’t eliminate fires with laws, but we can eliminate guns by law.”

434

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
I think you and I just see the purpose of the illustration differently. The image wasn’t comparing fire extinguishers to guns. The image was comparing one emergency to another.

I immediately saw the picture as, “Hey firefighters can’t help you in an emergency as quickly as a fire extinguisher can. The same can be said for police officers and guns.” It’s basically a play on, “When seconds count the police are only minutes away.”

It’s about immediacy. That’s all. At least that’s how I took it.
[/quote]

I agree, but the potential use of a firearm is very possibly the thing from which the use of a firearm may protect you. The use of a fire extinguisher is not(in any likely scenario…) protecting you from the use of a fire extinguisher. I can just see the illustration being twisted into a lie, or allowing gun control advocates to say, “We can’t eliminate fires with laws, but we can eliminate guns by law.” [/quote]

I suppose. I just see firearms as the best available tool for self defense. People can twist just about anything.

435

Correct me if I am wrong, but aren’t assault weapons illegal in France?

436

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Ya, it’s really just semantics. [/quote]

I still believe that the gun/fire extinguisher comparison is flawed, probably to the point that it could potentially serve to undermine the intent of its creator. No thinking person could possibly desire firearms regulations, so the illustration is obviously intended for the non-thinking. I think it’s more likely that the non-thinker can be turned into a thinker via honest representation of the issue than via an illustration that can be twisted to make its creator seem less than honest. [/quote]

You underestimate the STUPIDITY of the majority of people. They don’t want to think, they want to be TOLD what to think. They are incapable of critical thought. People are stupid. They can only be trusted to do what’s popular, not what is logical.

437

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/01/24/firearms-enthusiasts-crash-gun-buyback-to-hunt-bargains/

438

[quote]twojarslave wrote:
Only in the Marines is every soldier a rifleman!
[/quote]

Bite your tongue! There are no “soldiers” in the Marines!

439

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
If the primary purpose of firearms was simply to kill then ownership of firearms would not be protected in the constitution. Their primary purpose is to defend against; tyranny, aggression, injury, etc… or to provide sustenance.

The outcome of fulling that purpose is often injury or death without question, but that doesn’t mean it is their purpose. [/quote]

You are misunderstanding what the Second Amendment says. Allow me to paraphrase.

"Because a well-armed, well-trained militia [that is, a military force composed of all of able-bodied citizens, with their own privately-owned weapons] is needed to ensure the security of a free state, the right of citizens to privately own weapons will not be diminished in any way."

Although the “security” of a free state can certainly be defended, it is the militia that is doing the defending or the securing. In order to defend or secure, they will use a variety of weapons, in both the attack and the defence.

The Second Amendment not only protects your right to carry a sword, or a musket with a fixed spike bayonet, or a select-fire M4 carbine, but also protects the right of your local citizen’s militia organisation to field an M60 machine gun or light antitank weapon*. All of these are “arms”, and none of these are conceptually defensive weapons.

A handgun or a land mine are defensive weapons. You pull your pistol when you are attacked suddenly without warning, to defend yourself. A land mine goes off when the invading attackers cross your perimeter. Defensive weapon.

Swords, rifles, machine guns, and anti-tank weapons are not defensive in nature. They are for attacking the enemy. If one’s attack is successful, and the enemy is destroyed, or gives up, then it can be said that the security of the free state has been accomplished, and that Mom, Apple Pie and Baseball have been successfully defended. But the weapons with which they have been defended were offensive weapons, used to attack.

*Yes, really. The arms the 2nd Amendment protects the keeping and bearing of are, “light infantry weapons which can be carried and used, together with ammunition, by a single militiaman, functionally equivalent to those commonly used by infantrymen in land warfare.” That certainly includes modern rifles and handguns, full-auto machine guns and shotguns, grenade and grenade launchers, flares, smoke, tear gas, incendiary rounds, and anti-tank weapons, but not heavy artillery, rockets, or bombs, or lethal chemical, biological or nuclear weapons.

440

[quote]NickViar wrote:

Firearms, bows, and canons are primarily offensive.[/quote]

Certainly the Western Canon is considered offensive to those who would like to dismantle Western Civilisation.

And I’ve always found Pachibel’s Canon to be a bit offensive.