If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(MSNBC)   Virginia frees its citizens from the tyranny of being limited to purchasing a mere 12 handguns a year   (usnews.msnbc.msn.com) divider line 260
    More: Asinine, Brady Campaign, Gun politics, helicopter crashed, Virginians, Stockton, Bob McDonnell, Virginia Law, NBC News  
•       •       •

672 clicks; posted to Politics » on 29 Feb 2012 at 12:11 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



260 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-02-29 02:10:19 PM  

sprawl15: qorkfiend: If you wish to argue semantics, guns are manufactured for the singular purpose of aiding humans in the killing of things.

You still haven't come up with a point for this argument, even if we assume it were true.


It's to draw the contrast between the intended purposes of things like guns and cars. Here's how it went down.

indylaw said that he doesn't understand car collectors, but wouldn't try to pass a law limiting the number of cars they could own.
whizbangthedirtfarmer responded that cars have other uses (notably transportation), while guns have only one: to kill things.
devildog123 said that out of all the guns in his house, only two have ever been used to kill things.
I pointed out (in an admittedly roundabout fashion) that, despite only two of the guns being used in that fashion, they were all manufactured for the same purpose: to kill things.
Some other people made comments about the necessity of a human operator, so I revised my definition to avoid semantic attacks.
 
2012-02-29 02:11:56 PM  

sprawl15: qorkfiend: sprawl15: The manufacturer could have expressly made them for any purpose whatsoever

No. A gun is a weapon, and is designed and manufactured for one specific thing: to be a weapon.

I can tell you this is a stupid argument for a third time, but if you haven't gotten it by now, you're never going to get it.


What things are guns used for, other than weapons? Target shooting is a simulation of using it as a weapon. A deterrent requires you to be willing to make good on the threat to use it as a weapon. What else is there?
 
2012-02-29 02:13:19 PM  

sprawl15: qorkfiend: sprawl15: The manufacturer could have expressly made them for any purpose whatsoever

No. A gun is a weapon, and is designed and manufactured for one specific thing: to be a weapon.

I can tell you this is a stupid argument for a third time, but if you haven't gotten it by now, you're never going to get it.


I could tell you your argument is stupid for the first time but given how dug in, you're never going to get it.

A stick of dynamite can be used as a baton in a relay race, therefore its purpose is not to blow stuff up.

An atomic bomb can double as a chair if you decide to sit on it, therefore its definitely not meant to blow things up.

How you decide to use these things is up to you. They're just built for people to use however they want, like guns!
 
2012-02-29 02:14:12 PM  

indylaw: To the contrary, I think that most people who own a gun hope never to have to kill anyone. Your purpose (in other words, your ultimate motive) in obtaining a firearm may very well be (and often is) to defend yourself or your family from deadly harm.


The actual mechanism of that defense is threatening to use the gun in its prescribed fashion: as a weapon to kill someone or something.
 
2012-02-29 02:18:55 PM  

lennavan: sprawl15: qorkfiend: sprawl15: The manufacturer could have expressly made them for any purpose whatsoever

No. A gun is a weapon, and is designed and manufactured for one specific thing: to be a weapon.

I can tell you this is a stupid argument for a third time, but if you haven't gotten it by now, you're never going to get it.

I could tell you your argument is stupid for the first time but given how dug in, you're never going to get it.

A stick of dynamite can be used as a baton in a relay race, therefore its purpose is not to blow stuff up.

An atomic bomb can double as a chair if you decide to sit on it, therefore its definitely not meant to blow things up.

How you decide to use these things is up to you. They're just built for people to use however they want, like guns!


Oh FFS. Buy however many guns you want legally, but stop making this stupid purposefully disingenuous argument. Anything can be repurposed to do something else. He's arguing about about the purpose of design. You weaken your whole case by willfully ignoring his point and arguing something tangential that no one is really debating. Become a better arguer.
 
2012-02-29 02:19:11 PM  

indylaw: Your purpose (in other words, your ultimate motive) in obtaining a firearm may very well be (and often is) to defend yourself or your family from deadly harm.


Right, your purpose is yadda yadda. But the gun's purpose is to shoot and maim/kill stuff.
 
2012-02-29 02:21:17 PM  

indylaw: Guns have the power to kill. That's indisputable. So do baseball bats, kitchen knives, household cleaners and automobiles. Some people use those objects to kill. But that doesn't mean that their purpose is to kill things.


Baseball bats are manufactured to be, well, baseball bats, but could be used to kill.
Kitchen knives are manufactured to cut food, but could be used to kill.
Household cleaners are manufactured to clean and disinfect, but could be used to kill.
Automobiles are manufactured for transportation, but could be used to kill.
Guns are manufactured to kill, but could be used for other purposes.

See the difference?
 
2012-02-29 02:21:18 PM  

stainedglassdoll: Oh FFS. Buy however many guns you want legally, but stop making this stupid purposefully disingenuous argument. Anything can be repurposed to do something else. He's arguing about about the purpose of design. You weaken your whole case by willfully ignoring his point and arguing something tangential that no one is really debating. Become a better arguer.


I don't get it, are you arguing with or against me?

Either way, you weakened your whole case by willfully ignoring my point. But the irony of you suggesting I ignored his post made your post funny.

Become a better troll.
 
2012-02-29 02:22:12 PM  

stainedglassdoll: lennavan: sprawl15: qorkfiend: sprawl15: The manufacturer could have expressly made them for any purpose whatsoever

No. A gun is a weapon, and is designed and manufactured for one specific thing: to be a weapon.

I can tell you this is a stupid argument for a third time, but if you haven't gotten it by now, you're never going to get it.

I could tell you your argument is stupid for the first time but given how dug in, you're never going to get it.

A stick of dynamite can be used as a baton in a relay race, therefore its purpose is not to blow stuff up.

An atomic bomb can double as a chair if you decide to sit on it, therefore its definitely not meant to blow things up.

How you decide to use these things is up to you. They're just built for people to use however they want, like guns!

Oh FFS. Buy however many guns you want legally, but stop making this stupid purposefully disingenuous argument. Anything can be repurposed to do something else. He's arguing about about the purpose of design. You weaken your whole case by willfully ignoring his point and arguing something tangential that no one is really debating. Become a better arguer.


Sorry, my sarcasm-meter was broken. My bad. :(
 
2012-02-29 02:23:50 PM  

lennavan: stainedglassdoll: Oh FFS. Buy however many guns you want legally, but stop making this stupid purposefully disingenuous argument. Anything can be repurposed to do something else. He's arguing about about the purpose of design. You weaken your whole case by willfully ignoring his point and arguing something tangential that no one is really debating. Become a better arguer.

I don't get it, are you arguing with or against me?

Either way, you weakened your whole case by willfully ignoring my point. But the irony of you suggesting I ignored his post made your post funny.

Become a better troll.


Again, after rereading I realized I am a doofus. Poe's Law and all that, I've heard similar arguments in earnest before and took yours for genuine. Apologies!
 
2012-02-29 02:24:38 PM  

qorkfiend: indylaw: To the contrary, I think that most people who own a gun hope never to have to kill anyone. Your purpose (in other words, your ultimate motive) in obtaining a firearm may very well be (and often is) to defend yourself or your family from deadly harm.

The actual mechanism of that defense is threatening to use the gun in its prescribed fashion: as a weapon to kill someone or something.


OK, let's allow you your hypotheseis for a second. A gun is a tool meant solely to kill things (a full-auto RPK = a Benelli Legacy 12ga = a .22lr Thompson Center Contender = a Ruger LCR = a Browning M2HB). Congratulations. You've convinced everybody of that.

What's your point?
 
2012-02-29 02:25:41 PM  

stainedglassdoll: stainedglassdoll: lennavan: sprawl15: qorkfiend: sprawl15: The manufacturer could have expressly made them for any purpose whatsoever

No. A gun is a weapon, and is designed and manufactured for one specific thing: to be a weapon.

I can tell you this is a stupid argument for a third time, but if you haven't gotten it by now, you're never going to get it.

I could tell you your argument is stupid for the first time but given how dug in, you're never going to get it.

A stick of dynamite can be used as a baton in a relay race, therefore its purpose is not to blow stuff up.

An atomic bomb can double as a chair if you decide to sit on it, therefore its definitely not meant to blow things up.

How you decide to use these things is up to you. They're just built for people to use however they want, like guns!

Oh FFS. Buy however many guns you want legally, but stop making this stupid purposefully disingenuous argument. Anything can be repurposed to do something else. He's arguing about about the purpose of design. You weaken your whole case by willfully ignoring his point and arguing something tangential that no one is really debating. Become a better arguer.

Sorry, my sarcasm-meter was broken. My bad. :(


Ah, no biggie. I had hoped the atomic-bomb thing was pretty over the top to give it away. =]
 
2012-02-29 02:26:18 PM  

Mearen: cptjeff: jbuist: Magorn: Bbut I'm having a very hard time understanding why someone would have any legitimate need to buy more than twelve handguns a year.

I've never bought 12 in a year but I've bought multiple in a month. Hell, the first two I ever bought were on the same weekend.

It was a stupid law that annoyed people. The ATF already gets notified if you buy multiple handguns at one time from the same dealer. If you walk into Bob's Guns & Fishin' Stuff to buy 20 pistols they're going to hear about it.

It's not a stupid law. Virginia used to be a major hub of gun trafficing- the bulk of guns involved in crimes on the east coast could be tracked back to Virginia. They passed this law, and that ended immediatly.

It was a damned effective law, and only a minor inconveinence to a vey small subset of legitimate gun buyers.

It IS a stupid law that does nothing to stop the gun trafficking problem you describe. NY still claims all of their "illegal" guns come from Virginia. Oh and SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.


As i pointed out upthread if the you'd take a little time away from your capslock key to persue a little bit of Bill of Rights caselaw you would know that phrase is not one of absolute license. Can you falsely shout "Fire" in a crowded theater?
 
2012-02-29 02:27:44 PM  

lennavan: ...
Sorry, my sarcasm-meter was broken. My bad. :(

Ah, no biggie. I had hoped the atomic-bomb thing was pretty over the top to give it away. =]


I tried to picture it in my head. I came up with some weird images.
 
2012-02-29 02:28:46 PM  

qorkfiend: scarmig: qorkfiend:

Very well. If you wish to argue semantics, guns are manufactured for the singular purpose of aiding humans in the killing of things. You use a gun to kill something, and target shooting to practice towards that end, even if an individual operator does not use it in that fashion. There are no other purposes. Would you claim that cars are not used for transportation because you bought one, and left it in your garage?


No. The manufacturer's purpose in making the gun is to *SELL* the gun. The owner's purpose of the gun may be to collect it. It may be to disassemble it. It may be to shoot in competition. It may be to kill people in war. It may be for defense and deterrent. But it is always the operator that determines the purpose.

The purpose of a hammer is to hit things really hard. I can purpose that hammer towards nails or skulls. The manufacturer doesn't make that decision. The hammer doesn't make that decision. The operator makes that decision.

Accidents are accidents. Regardless of my intended purpose for the hammer, I might hit my thumb by accident. That doesn't alter the purpose I decided on for the hammer.

I have specifically purchased firearms *not* for self-defense, but because I wanted to shoot them for fun, and no other purpose. I have other tools, some firearms, some not, for defense.
 
2012-02-29 02:28:51 PM  

Contents Under Pressure: I'm a great big greeny eco-weenie libtard and have no problem with this. Apparently, they were limited to one purchase a month, which translates to 12 a year. What if a person had a set of twins and wanted to get them hunting rifles for Christmas? They'd have to buy one in November and another in December. Seems arbitrary to me.

Plus, if you want to be all hyperbolic about shooting from a clock tower, a nutter only needs one gun. It's not like the law delayed that.


except that the law resticted HANDgun purchases
 
2012-02-29 02:29:51 PM  

cptjeff: It's not a stupid law. Virginia used to be a major hub of gun trafficing- the bulk of guns involved in crimes on the east coast could be tracked back to Virginia. They passed this law, and that ended immediatly.

It was a damned effective law, and only a minor inconveinence to a vey small subset of legitimate gun buyers.



So the goal of the law was to make criminals get their guns from somewhere else? Funny, I would have imagined for it to be "damned effective," you'd be telling me about how the number of east coast gun crimes went down. You know, since that was your whole reasoning in passing it in the first place.

We have very different definitions of "damned effective" I guess.
 
2012-02-29 02:31:44 PM  

stainedglassdoll: lennavan: ...
Sorry, my sarcasm-meter was broken. My bad. :(

Ah, no biggie. I had hoped the atomic-bomb thing was pretty over the top to give it away. =]

I tried to picture it in my head. I came up with some weird images.


Mine was of someone riding it like a bull rider rides a bull, one arm in the air shouting yeehaw and all.
 
2012-02-29 02:31:56 PM  

qorkfiend: sprawl15: qorkfiend: sprawl15: The manufacturer could have expressly made them for any purpose whatsoever

No. A gun is a weapon, and is designed and manufactured for one specific thing: to be a weapon.

I can tell you this is a stupid argument for a third time, but if you haven't gotten it by now, you're never going to get it.

What things are guns used for, other than weapons? Target shooting is a simulation of using it as a weapon. A deterrent requires you to be willing to make good on the threat to use it as a weapon. What else is there?


When I tell you your argument is dumb three times in a row, you aren't going to convince me otherwise by repeating the same dumb argument a fourth time.

Maybe you should stop for a second and figure out why I'm calling your argumet dumb. If you need a hint, scroll up and reread my posts.
 
2012-02-29 02:31:57 PM  

FightDirector: qorkfiend: indylaw: To the contrary, I think that most people who own a gun hope never to have to kill anyone. Your purpose (in other words, your ultimate motive) in obtaining a firearm may very well be (and often is) to defend yourself or your family from deadly harm.

The actual mechanism of that defense is threatening to use the gun in its prescribed fashion: as a weapon to kill someone or something.

OK, let's allow you your hypotheseis for a second. A gun is a tool meant solely to kill things (a full-auto RPK = a Benelli Legacy 12ga = a .22lr Thompson Center Contender = a Ruger LCR = a Browning M2HB). Congratulations. You've convinced everybody of that.

What's your point?


The debate began with an analogy between gun collectors and car collectors, saying that laws limiting the number of cars someone could purchase would be silly and guns should logically be treated the same way. The analogy is false because, while a car can be used to kill someone, the purpose of its design and manufacture is transportation. By contrast, a gun is not designed and manufactured for a different purpose but can also be used to kill; it is designed and manufactured to be used to kill.
 
2012-02-29 02:33:10 PM  

Magorn: Contents Under Pressure: I'm a great big greeny eco-weenie libtard and have no problem with this. Apparently, they were limited to one purchase a month, which translates to 12 a year. What if a person had a set of twins and wanted to get them hunting rifles for Christmas? They'd have to buy one in November and another in December. Seems arbitrary to me.

Plus, if you want to be all hyperbolic about shooting from a clock tower, a nutter only needs one gun. It's not like the law delayed that.

except that the law resticted HANDgun purchases


You completely ignored both of his points to make your pedantic post.

You definitely belong here.
 
2012-02-29 02:33:18 PM  

sprawl15: qorkfiend: sprawl15: qorkfiend: sprawl15: The manufacturer could have expressly made them for any purpose whatsoever

No. A gun is a weapon, and is designed and manufactured for one specific thing: to be a weapon.

I can tell you this is a stupid argument for a third time, but if you haven't gotten it by now, you're never going to get it.

What things are guns used for, other than weapons? Target shooting is a simulation of using it as a weapon. A deterrent requires you to be willing to make good on the threat to use it as a weapon. What else is there?

When I tell you your argument is dumb three times in a row, you aren't going to convince me otherwise by repeating the same dumb argument a fourth time.

Maybe you should stop for a second and figure out why I'm calling your argumet dumb. If you need a hint, scroll up and reread my posts.


I've read all your posts. Maybe you should stop for a second and figure out why your argument is not convincing. Answering the question "What else is there?" would go a long ways towards making it more convincing.
 
2012-02-29 02:34:22 PM  

lennavan: stainedglassdoll: lennavan: ...
Sorry, my sarcasm-meter was broken. My bad. :(

Ah, no biggie. I had hoped the atomic-bomb thing was pretty over the top to give it away. =]

I tried to picture it in my head. I came up with some weird images.

Mine was of someone riding it like a bull rider rides a bull, one arm in the air shouting yeehaw and all.


"How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Derp"
 
2012-02-29 02:35:12 PM  
The now-repealed restriction reminds me of the laws against prostitution. There is a willing seller and a willing buyer, but the government objects. Unfortunately for the anti-gun nuts, our Constitution protects the right to bear arms (unlike the right to get laid, although you could argue that it's covered under "pursuit of happiness").
 
2012-02-29 02:35:32 PM  

sprawl15: Maybe you should stop for a second and figure out why I'm calling your argumet dumb. If you need a hint, scroll up and reread my posts.


I reread your posts and found them to be dumb. Wait... I figured it out! It's because you yourself are dumb, isn't it!

What did I win?
 
2012-02-29 02:37:08 PM  

qorkfiend: indylaw: Guns have the power to kill. That's indisputable. So do baseball bats, kitchen knives, household cleaners and automobiles. Some people use those objects to kill. But that doesn't mean that their purpose is to kill things.

Baseball bats are manufactured to be, well, baseball bats, but could be used to kill.
Kitchen knives are manufactured to cut food, but could be used to kill.
Household cleaners are manufactured to clean and disinfect, but could be used to kill.
Automobiles are manufactured for transportation, but could be used to kill.
Guns are manufactured to kill, but could be used for other purposes.

See the difference?


Here's the difference: if someone comes at me with a household cleaner with the intent to kill, or a baseball bat, or a knife, I have an excellent chance of defending myself against this attack, EVEN IF I am unarmed. Will they injure me? Probably. But I will be able to defend myself to the point where I can basically guarantee my own safety. Additionally, these thing have uses that are well outside the purview of killing people. No one designed a baseball bat with the sole purpose of killing people, and then someone else came along and said, "hey! this would be a great device for hitting baseballs, too!" Ridiculous.

But if someone comes after me with a firearm and I, myself, am unarmed, then I have next to zero chance of defending myself. The answer is not to allow me to have a firearm on the off chance I will have a gun waved in my face, it is to prevent the gun from being waved in my face to begin with.
 
2012-02-29 02:39:06 PM  

mike0023: our Constitution protects the right to bear arms (unlike the right to get laid, although you could argue that it's covered under "pursuit of happiness").


Uhhhh.......that phrase? Yeah....it doesn't appear in the Constitution.
 
2012-02-29 02:39:32 PM  

qorkfiend: sprawl15: qorkfiend: sprawl15: qorkfiend: sprawl15: The manufacturer could have expressly made them for any purpose whatsoever

No. A gun is a weapon, and is designed and manufactured for one specific thing: to be a weapon.

I can tell you this is a stupid argument for a third time, but if you haven't gotten it by now, you're never going to get it.

What things are guns used for, other than weapons? Target shooting is a simulation of using it as a weapon. A deterrent requires you to be willing to make good on the threat to use it as a weapon. What else is there?

When I tell you your argument is dumb three times in a row, you aren't going to convince me otherwise by repeating the same dumb argument a fourth time.

Maybe you should stop for a second and figure out why I'm calling your argumet dumb. If you need a hint, scroll up and reread my posts.

I've read all your posts. Maybe you should stop for a second and figure out why your argument is not convincing. Answering the question "What else is there?" would go a long ways towards making it more convincing.


What the fark are you babbling about? Seriously, "what else is there" of what?
 
2012-02-29 02:39:51 PM  

Magorn: I'm having a very hard time understanding why someone would have any legitimate need to buy more than twelve handguns a year.


My constitutional rights are not conditioned on you understanding why I want to exercise them.

/farking freedom-hating liberals...
 
2012-02-29 02:39:54 PM  

scarmig: qorkfiend: scarmig: qorkfiend:

Very well. If you wish to argue semantics, guns are manufactured for the singular purpose of aiding humans in the killing of things. You use a gun to kill something, and target shooting to practice towards that end, even if an individual operator does not use it in that fashion. There are no other purposes. Would you claim that cars are not used for transportation because you bought one, and left it in your garage?

No. The manufacturer's purpose in making the gun is to *SELL* the gun. The owner's purpose of the gun may be to collect it. It may be to disassemble it. It may be to shoot in competition. It may be to kill people in war. It may be for defense and deterrent. But it is always the operator that determines the purpose.

The purpose of a hammer is to hit things really hard. I can purpose that hammer towards nails or skulls. The manufacturer doesn't make that decision. The hammer doesn't make that decision. The operator makes that decision.

Accidents are accidents. Regardless of my intended purpose for the hammer, I might hit my thumb by accident. That doesn't alter the purpose I decided on for the hammer.

I have specifically purchased firearms *not* for self-defense, but because I wanted to shoot them for fun, and no other purpose. I have other tools, some firearms, some not, for defense.


And the manufacturer is able to sell it precisely because of its intended purpose.

You are correct, in that the purpose of a hammer is to hit things hard, but the hammer manufacturer deliberately designs and manufactures that hammer to be effective at that purpose.

It is wonderful that you have purchased firearms for reasons other than self-defense. That does not change the fact that those firearms were designed and manufactured for a different purpose.

I have specifically purchased a car *not* for transportation. Does that mean that transportation is no longer the reason that car was manufactured? No.
 
2012-02-29 02:41:02 PM  

whizbangthedirtfarmer: But if someone comes after me with a firearm and I, myself, am unarmed, then I have next to zero chance of defending myself. The answer is not to allow me to have a firearm on the off chance I will have a gun waved in my face, it is to prevent the gun from being waved in my face to begin with.


Depends on how you think society should be built. Your way is restricted, the alternative is more free. I'm not some freedom nut who thinks we should be free at all stupid costs. But what you're asking for is to prevent everyone from having guns. People use guns for all sorts of fine reasons like hunting and shooting targets. That some people use them for shiatty reasons ruins it for the rest of us?

People drive drunk. The solution is not to ban alcohol or ban driving.

/I don't actually own any guns myself
 
2012-02-29 02:41:30 PM  

sprawl15: What the fark are you babbling about? Seriously, "what else is there" of what?


It's funny that you tell me to read your posts, but apparently can't be bothered to read mine.

What things are guns used for, other than weapons? Target shooting is a simulation of using it as a weapon. A deterrent requires you to be willing to make good on the threat to use it as a weapon. What else is there?
 
2012-02-29 02:41:37 PM  

qorkfiend: FightDirector: qorkfiend: indylaw: To the contrary, I think that most people who own a gun hope never to have to kill anyone. Your purpose (in other words, your ultimate motive) in obtaining a firearm may very well be (and often is) to defend yourself or your family from deadly harm.

The actual mechanism of that defense is threatening to use the gun in its prescribed fashion: as a weapon to kill someone or something.

OK, let's allow you your hypotheseis for a second. A gun is a tool meant solely to kill things (a full-auto RPK = a Benelli Legacy 12ga = a .22lr Thompson Center Contender = a Ruger LCR = a Browning M2HB). Congratulations. You've convinced everybody of that.

What's your point?

The debate began with an analogy between gun collectors and car collectors, saying that laws limiting the number of cars someone could purchase would be silly and guns should logically be treated the same way. The analogy is false because, while a car can be used to kill someone, the purpose of its design and manufacture is transportation. By contrast, a gun is not designed and manufactured for a different purpose but can also be used to kill; it is designed and manufactured to be used to kill.


Incorrect. There are a whole slew of guns that were designed and manufactured solely for target shooting. And no, target shooting is not a "simulation of using it as a weapon" any more than NASCAR racing is a "simulation of using a car to travel somewhere".
 
2012-02-29 02:41:48 PM  

lennavan: indylaw: Your purpose (in other words, your ultimate motive) in obtaining a firearm may very well be (and often is) to defend yourself or your family from deadly harm.

Right, your purpose is yadda yadda. But the gun's purpose is to shoot and maim/kill stuff.


Did I miss the moment when guns attained sentience? Do they hunger for souls like a Sword of the Damned?
 
2012-02-29 02:43:24 PM  

qorkfiend: What things are guns used for, other than weapons?


Guess you've never heard the term "ceremonial weapon."

Those rifles used in 21 gun salutes? Probably never used as an actual weapon.
 
2012-02-29 02:45:30 PM  

qorkfiend: sprawl15: What the fark are you babbling about? Seriously, "what else is there" of what?

It's funny that you tell me to read your posts, but apparently can't be bothered to read mine.

What things are guns used for, other than weapons? Target shooting is a simulation of using it as a weapon. A deterrent requires you to be willing to make good on the threat to use it as a weapon. What else is there?


Wow, you managed to follow up your irrelevant argument with a completely nonsensical post.

I'll hold your hand: what is the problem that you want to solve via gun laws?
 
2012-02-29 02:46:34 PM  

Teufelaffe: And no, target shooting is not a "simulation of using it as a weapon" any more than NASCAR racing is a "simulation of using a car to travel somewhere".


That's exactly what NASCAR is, and the participants are scored on how fast they traveled there.
 
2012-02-29 02:50:35 PM  

indylaw: lennavan: indylaw: Your purpose (in other words, your ultimate motive) in obtaining a firearm may very well be (and often is) to defend yourself or your family from deadly harm.

Right, your purpose is yadda yadda. But the gun's purpose is to shoot and maim/kill stuff.

Did I miss the moment when guns attained sentience? Do they hunger for souls like a Sword of the Damned?


No, you missed the moment where things have a purpose, where things are made for a reason. Knives are for cutting, shovels are for digging, and cows are for slicing up into delicious cuts of meat and eating, usually after a bit of searing the outside.

Just because you can use a knife as a dance partner, a shovel as a pillow and a cow as a wife doesn't mean they have no actual purpose.

Out of curiosity, does nothing have a purpose? Do you think there is a single thing in the entire world that has a purpose? I'm curious to know.
 
2012-02-29 02:52:23 PM  

qorkfiend:

And the manufacturer is able to sell it precisely because of its intended purpose.



Which is to fire projectiles where the operator wants them to go.


You are correct, in that the purpose of a hammer is to hit things hard, but the hammer manufacturer deliberately designs and manufactures that hammer to be effective at that purpose.


And the *target* of the hammer is designated by whom? The manufacturer? Or the operator?


It is wonderful that you have purchased firearms for reasons other than self-defense. That does not change the fact that those firearms were designed and manufactured for a different purpose.


Actually *hitting the target with the projectile* is the purpose. Whether or not that target is something that will die when struck is a different issue.


I have specifically purchased a car *not* for transportation. Does that mean that transportation is no longer the reason that car was manufactured? No.


The car was manufactured to move from place to place. Does that mean it's *singular* purpose is to race at 160 miles per hour down the boardwalk? I mean, it has 160 on the speedometer, so obviously it was intended to do that. It's purpose must be to achieve 160 mph, because that's what it could be used for.
 
2012-02-29 02:52:29 PM  

sprawl15: qorkfiend: sprawl15: What the fark are you babbling about? Seriously, "what else is there" of what?

It's funny that you tell me to read your posts, but apparently can't be bothered to read mine.

What things are guns used for, other than weapons? Target shooting is a simulation of using it as a weapon. A deterrent requires you to be willing to make good on the threat to use it as a weapon. What else is there?

Wow, you managed to follow up your irrelevant argument with a completely nonsensical post.

I'll hold your hand: what is the problem that you want to solve via gun laws?


This is your sprawl15's way of apologizing and changing the argument into arguing against this gun law. It's as close of an apology as you're going to get, qorkfiend because I'm sure he's sorry he posted his really stupid original argument so he'd rather try again.
 
2012-02-29 02:54:06 PM  

lennavan: whizbangthedirtfarmer: But if someone comes after me with a firearm and I, myself, am unarmed, then I have next to zero chance of defending myself. The answer is not to allow me to have a firearm on the off chance I will have a gun waved in my face, it is to prevent the gun from being waved in my face to begin with.

Depends on how you think society should be built. Your way is restricted, the alternative is more free. I'm not some freedom nut who thinks we should be free at all stupid costs. But what you're asking for is to prevent everyone from having guns. People use guns for all sorts of fine reasons like hunting and shooting targets. That some people use them for shiatty reasons ruins it for the rest of us?

People drive drunk. The solution is not to ban alcohol or ban driving.

/I don't actually own any guns myself


If someone is waving a gun in my face, having a gun in a shoulder holster or in my pants will not help. THE OTHER PERSON'S GUN WILL ALREADY BE IN MY FACE. Most criminals don't give fair warning..."hey, I'd like to hold you up now, so let's count and show each other our pistols, okay?" This basically is every situation in which a criminal has a gun: they have already gone bonkers are deployed the weapon while everyone who is concealed carry is caught flatfooted.

There are restrictions in England even on hunting and shooting practice. People can still use them, but you have to clear it with the local police first. What in the hell is wrong with that?
 
2012-02-29 02:56:05 PM  

Magorn: EWreckedSean: If somebody else had been armed on the Viriginia Tech campus, a lot of lives could have been saved. Gun laws only affect legal, responsible gun owners.

Explain how you'd get around the "blue on blue" problem in a situation like that?

how do you disntguish the virtously armed students and the madman with a gun?


He's the one walking into the room opening fire on everybody?
 
2012-02-29 02:58:05 PM  

sprawl15: qorkfiend: sprawl15: What the fark are you babbling about? Seriously, "what else is there" of what?

It's funny that you tell me to read your posts, but apparently can't be bothered to read mine.

What things are guns used for, other than weapons? Target shooting is a simulation of using it as a weapon. A deterrent requires you to be willing to make good on the threat to use it as a weapon. What else is there?

Wow, you managed to follow up your irrelevant argument with a completely nonsensical post.

I'll hold your hand: what is the problem that you want to solve via gun laws?


You really can't parse this? You were the one who asked "what else is there to what?", so I copied the appropriate question from my post. I strongly suggest reading the thread if you are confused.

This argument isn't over the problems I want to solve via gun laws. This argument is over the gun collector/car collector analogy and why I think that analogy is flawed, mostly because the primary purposes of those items are different. In more general terms, it's over why there are different regulations for guns than there are for other things that can be used to kill people like cars.

In any case, the State of Virginia clearly thought that straw purchasers were a problem in the early 1990s. They wrote and passed this law to solve that problem. Most indications seem to be that the number of straw purchases dropped dramatically after the law was passed.
 
2012-02-29 02:58:37 PM  

whizbangthedirtfarmer: If someone is waving a gun in my face, having a gun in a shoulder holster or in my pants will not help. THE OTHER PERSON'S GUN WILL ALREADY BE IN MY FACE. Most criminals don't give fair warning...


Out of curiosity, how well do you think a ban on guns will work? I imagine it will work out just as well as the ban on drugs did, which completely eliminated all illegal drug use, right?

Most criminals don't follow the law. You know, by definition of being criminals and all.

whizbangthedirtfarmer: There are restrictions in England even on hunting and shooting practice. People can still use them, but you have to clear it with the local police first. What in the hell is wrong with that?


Good point. We just need to make criminals check in with the cops first.
 
2012-02-29 03:02:27 PM  

EWreckedSean: Magorn: EWreckedSean: If somebody else had been armed on the Viriginia Tech campus, a lot of lives could have been saved. Gun laws only affect legal, responsible gun owners.

Explain how you'd get around the "blue on blue" problem in a situation like that?

how do you disntguish the virtously armed students and the madman with a gun?

He's the one walking into the room opening fire on everybody?


You're out somewhere when you suddenly hear gunfire. You pull your weapon, head for the commotion, and find two people with guns, shooting at each other. Now, which one is the psycho killer, and which one is the brave armed citizen?
 
2012-02-29 03:05:48 PM  

qorkfiend: This argument isn't over the problems I want to solve via gun laws.


I'm showing you how your argument is facile. I'll walk you through it and you can figure out on your own why your arguments about manufacturer's intent are completely irrelevant.

qorkfiend: This argument is over the gun collector/car collector analogy and why I think that analogy is flawed, mostly because the primary purposes of those items are different.


That you're still repeating this as if it had any bearing on anything is just mind boggling to me.
 
2012-02-29 03:06:25 PM  

scarmig: qorkfiend:

And the manufacturer is able to sell it precisely because of its intended purpose.



Which is to fire projectiles where the operator wants them to go.


You are correct, in that the purpose of a hammer is to hit things hard, but the hammer manufacturer deliberately designs and manufactures that hammer to be effective at that purpose.


And the *target* of the hammer is designated by whom? The manufacturer? Or the operator?


It is wonderful that you have purchased firearms for reasons other than self-defense. That does not change the fact that those firearms were designed and manufactured for a different purpose.


Actually *hitting the target with the projectile* is the purpose. Whether or not that target is something that will die when struck is a different issue.


I have specifically purchased a car *not* for transportation. Does that mean that transportation is no longer the reason that car was manufactured? No.

The car was manufactured to move from place to place. Does that mean it's *singular* purpose is to race at 160 miles per hour down the boardwalk? I mean, it has 160 on the speedometer, so obviously it was intended to do that. It's purpose must be to achieve 160 mph, because that's what it could be used for.


The target is immaterial.

The purpose of a hammer is striking in general, not striking one specific thing. You could use it as a doorstop, but it's still designed to be a hammer.
The purpose of the car is transportation in general, not "transportation at a specific speed down a specified road." I also don't see how making it capable of going 160 mph changes its purpose to something other than transportation.
The purpose of a gun is destruction in general, not specifically "shooting someone in the arm from 100 meters."
 
2012-02-29 03:06:30 PM  

lennavan: indylaw: lennavan: indylaw: Your purpose (in other words, your ultimate motive) in obtaining a firearm may very well be (and often is) to defend yourself or your family from deadly harm.

Right, your purpose is yadda yadda. But the gun's purpose is to shoot and maim/kill stuff.

Did I miss the moment when guns attained sentience? Do they hunger for souls like a Sword of the Damned?

No, you missed the moment where things have a purpose, where things are made for a reason. Knives are for cutting, shovels are for digging, and cows are for slicing up into delicious cuts of meat and eating, usually after a bit of searing the outside.

Just because you can use a knife as a dance partner, a shovel as a pillow and a cow as a wife doesn't mean they have no actual purpose.

Out of curiosity, does nothing have a purpose? Do you think there is a single thing in the entire world that has a purpose? I'm curious to know.


A gun has the power to kill things. That does not mean that that's the "purpose" of the manufacturer in building the gun. It certainly doesn't mean that killing is a gun's "singular [sic] purpose."

We still haven't arrive at "so what?" Guns can be used to kill people. Of course they can. No one disputes this. Why does that fact justify a law limiting you to one gun purchase a month? Do guns not kill people when you can only buy one during each 28-31 day period?

Saying that guns' "singular purpose is to kill" is an emotional appeal often made by people who want total gun control, and it seems to ascribe some sort of malevolent sentience to the guns themselves.
 
2012-02-29 03:06:32 PM  

EWreckedSean: Magorn: EWreckedSean: If somebody else had been armed on the Viriginia Tech campus, a lot of lives could have been saved. Gun laws only affect legal, responsible gun owners.

Explain how you'd get around the "blue on blue" problem in a situation like that?

how do you disntguish the virtously armed students and the madman with a gun?

He's the one walking into the room opening fire on everybody?


Cool. So you see this guy spraying a room with bullets and you pull your 9mm and blow him away, just as another armed student turns the corner and not having seen the inital mayhem concludes YOU are the campus shooter and guns you down, just in time for a cop to arrive on the scene and.....


Or to put it in real world, actually happened terms. A man carrying concealed hears shots ring out from the local supermarket so he decides to be a soldie citizen draw his weapon and see what he can do to help. He walks into a scene of utter choas, several people have been shot, blood is everywhere and a man holding a gun is standing over a bloodied unarmed man shouting "you son of a biatch I'm going to kill you!"

if you are that man what do you do?

Fortunately for the man actually in that situation, the answer was "nothing", which was the right answer, because the man on the ground was Gerald Lee Loughner, and the man standing over him had just wrestled his gun away.
 
2012-02-29 03:08:09 PM  

sprawl15: qorkfiend: This argument isn't over the problems I want to solve via gun laws.

I'm showing you how your argument is facile. I'll walk you through it and you can figure out on your own why your arguments about manufacturer's intent are completely irrelevant.

qorkfiend: This argument is over the gun collector/car collector analogy and why I think that analogy is flawed, mostly because the primary purposes of those items are different.

That you're still repeating this as if it had any bearing on anything is just mind boggling to me.


Sign says don't walk.
 
Displayed 50 of 260 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report