Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
Bucket

Here baby, have a gun

Recommended Posts

OK, Bucket, guns do kill people. You WIN. Whenever someone needs definitive proof of that, from now on, all that he'll need to do is link to this here thread and automatically WIN, for the arguments presented, clarity of exposition and complete lack of ambiguity and possibility for multiple intrepretations make it a valuable debating tool for generations to come, and will fill the rectums of any "guns don't kill people" advocates with tons and tons of coarse, abrasive concrete for the eons to come. Amen.

Spoiler

Also known as an Ibis Redibis.

Share this post


Link to post

No, you didn't say ban all guns or anything on gun control really. But your extremely unnuanced black and white arguments and loaded questions in replies to comments leads people to interpret you as someone having a strong bias against guns in any form. Which is why when you seemingly turn on a coin by saying you are a pro gun guy and want one in your home etc. It doesn't really go well together with what you've previously stated you think about guns and their purpose. Which is why troll comes to mind. But I suppose you just might be stupid or a person who is pro killing people, which is what one could gather from the information you've given here. Seeing as you consider guns being made for one thing only, killing shit. And you want one in your home, ergo. One could gather by this that you by this suggest that you are looking to kill you some shit.

Or a more likely scenario, you just haven't thought to hard about these things before. (alternatively, you just can't communicate your ideas in a way that doesn't complicate the interpretation of your perspective)

Share this post


Link to post

Maybe he's a self-hating pro-gun advocate? Like there are e.g. self-hating Jews, that reason "Hmm....if people hate Jews, there MUST be something wrong with us, after all...I gotta find what it is and renounce it only for what regards me".

Similarly "I like guns, but many people don't, and ostracize those who do...but WHY? There MUST be something wrong with us, after all....wait, I got it! This 'guns don't kill people' argument is pure bullshit! Of course they do, that's why I like them! Uhm...hey, wait a minute..."

Share this post


Link to post

Or maybe I'm just concerned with idiots making inconsistent arguments that don't help, because it always results in inconsistent legislation.

Gun laws should respect the Constitution and the intentions of our founders. We can't have people pretending to make practical arguments that guns aren't "meant" to kill, only to turn around and claim they're "meant" to defend freedom.

Share this post


Link to post

The whole argument is pretty stupid though. You can twist it around until you become blue in the face and not get anywhere. From a extreme final cause you could say that the bullet is what is killing people (or severe hemmoraging), it's not the gun that is built to kill. It's just built to fire the bullet with precision towards the target. The bullet is then built to inflict the damage. Both of them are agents of causation though. But without someone or something intitiating it, by building the gun, loading it with the ammo etc. There is not going to be any death from that gun at least.

The argument is stupid because it's too simplistic and looks at the wrong end of the barrel. The argument is basically about passing the blame around for people dying from gun violence instead of looking at the real issue.

Share this post


Link to post

You can't say the nature of an object changes if some component is missing. You can if you want to put on a robe and idly ponder, but not if you want to effect legislation. A car without tires is still built to transport people. A stereo without speakers is still built to transmit sound.

The argument is stupid because it's too simplistic and looks at the wrong end of the barrel. The argument is basically about passing the blame around for people dying from gun violence instead of looking at the real issue.

Which is..?

Share this post


Link to post
Bucket said:

You can't say the nature of an object changes if some component is missing. You can if you want to put on a robe and idly ponder, but not if you want to effect legislation. A car without tires is still built to transport people. A stereo without speakers is still built to transmit sound.

A farmer I used to know had used an old truck as base to build a sawmill (basically it was cut in half and he used the engine to power the blade). Was that sawmill in fact a transportation device known as a truck?

Bucket said:

Which is..?

To keep it simple so you understand, the issue is that people die in USA from gun violence every day, way above the average of the rest of the developed world has to deal with. A part of the issue is the attitude to guns in the US, it's empowered by being a part of the constitution to have the right to bare arms. Problem is that the constitution was written in a very different time. They didn't have even remotely the same kind of firepower available to them back then, or the social structure. The problem is propagated by vocal interest groups like the NRA who instead of engaging in an honest discussion send out maniacs like LaPierre who do nothing but distract and shift the blame around.

Share this post


Link to post
kristus said:

A farmer I used to know had used an old truck as base to build a sawmill (basically it was cut in half and he used the engine to power the blade). Was that sawmill in fact a transportation device known as a truck?

No, because an otherwise intact object that is missing a component is not the same as one that has been disassembled and assimilated into something else.

To keep it simple so you understand, the issue is that people die in USA from gun violence every day, way above the average of the rest of the developed world has to deal with... The problem is propagated by vocal interest groups like the NRA who instead of engaging in an honest discussion send out maniacs like LaPierre who do nothing but distract and shift the blame around.

I agree with everything you say, except that other countries still have problems with violent crime on par with our own. I agree that the dialogue is not as focused as it should be, and I have a special disdain for people who describe guns as "innocent".

Share this post


Link to post
Bucket said:

No, because an otherwise intact object that is missing a component is not the same as one that has been disassembled and assimilated into something else.
I agree with everything you say, except that other countries still have problems with violent crime on par with our own. I agree that the dialogue is not as focused as it should be, and I have a special disdain for people who describe guns as "innocent".



I don't ever remember Canada being on-par with the United States on gun violence, perhaps my memory is very out-dated with statistics.

Share this post


Link to post

A car without wheels is just as disassembled as that truck was. Many times have I as a child played in cars that won't run for whatever reason, they're no longer vehicles, they are from the perspective of my childhood self, a toy as long as I am using it to play.

Guns can't be innocent or guilty. Thinking of them in either way is to mislead yourself. And statistically speaking. Other countries don't have the problems America has got. America is a first world nation, but it got the gun violence rates compare to that of countries like Mexico and South Africa.

Here's a couple of graphs that demonstrates these relations based on data gathered from Wikipedia (granted these lists are incomplete, but for the case of US compared to other countries of it's ilk, it should suffice as a adequate resource): http://tewksburylab.org/blog/2012/12/gun-violence-and-gun-ownership-lets-look-at-the-data/ What you can see in the second graph is a linear correlation between number of guns and number of gun related deaths per capita. Granted this is a simple overview of countries that are comparable to the US in HDI (Human development index)

Radon said:

I don't ever remember Canada being on-par with the United States on gun violence, perhaps my memory is very out-dated with statistics.

Thay aren't. Canada got about 1/5th of the gun violence per capita that USA does (according to the figures represented from 2009 for US and 2011 for Canada).

Share this post


Link to post
kristus said:

A farmer I used to know had used an old truck as base to build a sawmill (basically it was cut in half and he used the engine to power the blade). Was that sawmill in fact a transportation device known as a truck?

That things might be re-purposed doesn't erase the fact they were made with their initial purpose. When the truck rolled out of its assembly line, none of the workers in the factory thought "this is going to be cut in half and used to build a sawmill".

Share this post


Link to post
Platinum Shell said:

It's threads like these that distance the community a bit each time it pops up.


Its impossible to spend so much time with game code involving infighting monsters without being succumbed by it. As above, so below, with doom monsters as a microcosm of the doom community. Even ID software could not resist and started infighting. Ultimately its a healthy behavior and makes the games more fun, whether IRL or not.
"He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster. And when you gaze long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you."

Also, even bullets do not kill because physics says no 2 objects technically even touch unless going near light speed or something; they merely repel eachother's electric fields at a very close distance. The baby is innocent, it just pulls a trigger. The gun is innocent, it just moves a bullet. The bullet is innocent, it just get close enough to tamper with electric fields of what it hits. So really its the electrons that should be banned.

Share this post


Link to post

This is definitely not a black and white matter, because of one thing.

Responsibility.

Go scratch anything from that, it always leads to this when it is about owning and using a gun.

Share this post


Link to post

Canada got mentioned in an argument about the US. Thread automatically won.

Share this post


Link to post
Maes said:

Canada got mentioned in an argument about the US. Thread automatically won.


Sorry, but Canucks are socialist hippies with beavers and moose and French people -- everything that true-blooded American patriots reject. They aren't even a real country: where is the President of Canada? Huh? They don't have one! Instead they have the Queen of England as their President! It's crazy. You just can't take them seriously. Not when discussing about real-world stuff that actually matters (that is to say, the you-ess-ay).

Share this post


Link to post

To the eyes of a Euro Pinko, Canada look like everything the USA wished they were. There's definitively something right aboot it, eh.

Share this post


Link to post
Gez said:

That things might be re-purposed doesn't erase the fact they were made with their initial purpose. When the truck rolled out of its assembly line, none of the workers in the factory thought "this is going to be cut in half and used to build a sawmill".

Yes, but the point is that things intended purpose in many ways isn't really relevant.

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×