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  
•       •       •

670 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 03:08:43 PM

Teufelaffe: 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?


Good question, I'll field it. On the internet, I'm a sissy, so I choose to wait it out.

The psycho killer is the one who looks for someone else to kill after shooting the brave armed citizen. The brave armed citizen is the one who doesn't. Alternatively, when the two are finished shooting each other because one is dead, the brave armed citizen is the one who puts their gun down when you shout at him to do so. The psycho killer doesn't.

You can't save the brave armed citizen. You can save the victim that would surely follow if the psycho killer wins.

Now I could pretend I'm an internet tough guy and shout at both of them to put down their guns, the psycho killer is the one who doesn't. But I'm sure I'm not that tough IRL.
 
2012-02-29 03:10:34 PM

qorkfiend: The purpose of a gun is destruction in general propel a projectile at high speeds, not specifically "shooting someone in the arm from 100 meters." to cause harm or destruction


I'm keeping my fingers crossed that you just might get it this time. Won't hold my breath though...I don't feel like passing out waiting.
 
2012-02-29 03:11:16 PM

indylaw: 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.


You didn't answer my question. Can you name a single thing in existence that has a purpose?

Why on earth should I answer your questions if you won't answer mine? Is this a discussion or you winning internet points? You answer mine, I'll answer yours. Promise.
 
2012-02-29 03:11:18 PM

Teufelaffe:
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?


Knowing your basic rules of firearm safety, and being unable to positively ID your target, you hold your farking fire until you are able to positively ID the target. In this case, if one guy survives and holsters his weapon, he's probably not the bad guy. If one guy survives and starts shooting at you or other people, return or open fire as appropriate.

This is not a difficult issue. You simply have to move past the assumption that everyone who carries and/or handles a firearm isn't a complete babbling dolt.
 
2012-02-29 03:12:43 PM

Teufelaffe: qorkfiend: The purpose of a gun is destruction in general propel a projectile at high speeds, not specifically "shooting someone in the arm from 100 meters." to cause harm or destruction

I'm keeping my fingers crossed that you just might get it this time. Won't hold my breath though...I don't feel like passing out waiting.


The "purpose" of a gun is irrelevant. Fark.
 
2012-02-29 03:13:08 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.


Leaving aside the fact that you haven't made any effort to show anything (preferring instead to call opposing arguments "dumb") you seem pretty confused as to what the debate is about.
 
2012-02-29 03:13:13 PM

Teufelaffe: qorkfiend: The purpose of a gun is destruction in general propel a projectile at high speeds, not specifically "shooting someone in the arm from 100 meters." to cause harm or destruction

I'm keeping my fingers crossed that you just might get it this time. Won't hold my breath though...I don't feel like passing out waiting.


Hehe yeah, that's why the chinese invented guns. They wanted to propel projectiles at high speeds. Not shoot people! Why doesn't he just get that, it's so crazy!
 
2012-02-29 03:17:45 PM

lennavan: Teufelaffe: qorkfiend: The purpose of a gun is destruction in general propel a projectile at high speeds, not specifically "shooting someone in the arm from 100 meters." to cause harm or destruction

I'm keeping my fingers crossed that you just might get it this time. Won't hold my breath though...I don't feel like passing out waiting.

Hehe yeah, that's why the chinese invented guns. They wanted to propel projectiles at high speeds. Not shoot people! Why doesn't he just get that, it's so crazy!


Ugh, this is the argument my original post was trying to get at. It's a disingenuous argument that people use when they can't think of a better argument to support their opinion.
 
2012-02-29 03:17:48 PM

Teufelaffe: qorkfiend: The purpose of a gun is destruction in general propel a projectile at high speeds, not specifically "shooting someone in the arm from 100 meters." to cause harm or destruction

I'm keeping my fingers crossed that you just might get it this time. Won't hold my breath though...I don't feel like passing out waiting.


To propel a projectile at high speeds for the express purpose of causing harm and destruction. Unless you're asserting that guns were invented for sport, and no other reason, prior to being used as weapons.
 
2012-02-29 03:19:39 PM

qorkfiend: Teufelaffe: qorkfiend: The purpose of a gun is destruction in general propel a projectile at high speeds, not specifically "shooting someone in the arm from 100 meters." to cause harm or destruction

I'm keeping my fingers crossed that you just might get it this time. Won't hold my breath though...I don't feel like passing out waiting.

To propel a projectile at high speeds for the express purpose of causing harm and destruction. Unless you're asserting that guns were invented for sport, and no other reason, prior to being used as weapons.


He is.
 
2012-02-29 03:20:41 PM

lennavan: Teufelaffe: qorkfiend: The purpose of a gun is destruction in general propel a projectile at high speeds, not specifically "shooting someone in the arm from 100 meters." to cause harm or destruction

I'm keeping my fingers crossed that you just might get it this time. Won't hold my breath though...I don't feel like passing out waiting.

Hehe yeah, that's why the chinese invented guns. They wanted to propel projectiles at high speeds. Not shoot people! Why doesn't he just get that, it's so crazy!



It is the valid point.

The *next* step is not to attack the gun, as though that is the evil. But rather whether or not *propelling projectiles at high speeds* is intended solely to kill. There is potential for argument there. Bows and arrows. Spears. Slingshots. The very act of picking up a rock and propelling it probably came from trying to bash some thing before it got too close.

Ergo, is "propelling projectiles" singularly intended to harm? If so, then should the anti-gunners not be focusing on that activity, regardless of the tools used to actually propel projectiles?

In other words, anti-gunners, you look the fool for attacking the tool.
 
2012-02-29 03:20:48 PM

qorkfiend: To propel a projectile at high speeds for the express purpose of causing harm and destruction.


When creating a ceremonial rifle for honor guards, there is no express purpose of causing harm and destruction.
 
2012-02-29 03:22:00 PM

lennavan: You didn't answer my question. Can you name a single thing in existence that has a purpose?

Why on earth should I answer your questions if you won't answer mine? Is this a discussion or you winning internet points? You answer mine, I'll answer yours. Promise.


A human being has purposes. He or she regularly sets out intentionally to eat, sleep, fark, kill, experience pleasure and acquire power. Animals also have purposes, in similar ways. Those are things in existence, so there you go.

Things without a brain or sentient agency do not have purposes. They have uses. A car does not have a purpose to drive. It couldn't care less if it is never operated, because it's a lifeless construction of metal and glass. A gun doesn't have a purpose to kill. That is a use of the gun, but the gun doesn't care if it kills anyone, nor does its manufacturer. The manufacturer's purpose is to earn a profit. The owner's purpose may be to protect himself, to kill enemies in war, or to rob a bank. The gun's purpose sounds a little like this:

". . ."
 
2012-02-29 03:22:24 PM

qorkfiend: Leaving aside the fact that you haven't made any effort to show anything you seem pretty confused as to what the debate is about.


To 'show anything'? I've already explained to you why manufacturer's intent (or "purpose of a gun") is irrelevant. You simply didn't read it or didn't care. You are completely wrapped around the axle with the topic, and I'm telling you to take a step back and realize that the purpose of a gun - or the intent of the manufacturer - has no bearing on our moral imperative to regulate guns. That it's the intent of the purchaser/user that needs to be controlled rather than third parties. Or, reposted so you can read it a first time:

sprawl15: The intent of the manufacturer is completely irrelevant to the intent of the purchaser, which is the issue here.


qorkfiend: (preferring instead to call opposing arguments "dumb")


I played nice and called it facile the first time. Then I called it irrelevant. Then I called it pointless. If you're seriously mad about me eventually calling it what it is by the fourth time you repeat the same argument - without making any attempt to understand what it is that's irrelevant about it - then I would suggest you engage in conversation instead of just shouting the same thing over and over.
 
2012-02-29 03:23:22 PM

lennavan: qorkfiend: Teufelaffe: qorkfiend: The purpose of a gun is destruction in general propel a projectile at high speeds, not specifically "shooting someone in the arm from 100 meters." to cause harm or destruction

I'm keeping my fingers crossed that you just might get it this time. Won't hold my breath though...I don't feel like passing out waiting.

To propel a projectile at high speeds for the express purpose of causing harm and destruction. Unless you're asserting that guns were invented for sport, and no other reason, prior to being used as weapons.

He is.


No, I'm not, and qorkfiend wasn't making the argument that guns were originally invented for causing harm and destruction. They were trying to make the argument that ALL guns that currently exist were designed and created specifically and explicitly for hurting/killing/maiming/destruction. This is not true, and they should feel bad for making the argument.
 
2012-02-29 03:24:20 PM

sprawl15: Teufelaffe: qorkfiend: The purpose of a gun is destruction in general propel a projectile at high speeds, not specifically "shooting someone in the arm from 100 meters." to cause harm or destruction

I'm keeping my fingers crossed that you just might get it this time. Won't hold my breath though...I don't feel like passing out waiting.

The "purpose" of a gun is irrelevant. Fark.


Since many gun control people use "the purpose of a gun is to kill" as justification for wanting more gun control, then the purpose of a gun is relevant to the discussion.
 
2012-02-29 03:25:38 PM

Teufelaffe: Since many gun control people use "the purpose of a gun is to kill" as justification for wanting more gun control, then the purpose of a gun is relevant to the discussion.


That argument is dumb, and lending it credulity by arguing against it on its 'merits' rather than pointing out its fundamental flaws is even dumber.
 
2012-02-29 03:27:11 PM

Teufelaffe: 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?


If I'm not clear, I don't shoot. But if there is an armed guy plucking away at an unarmed crowd, it's not that difficult. How many of this shooting happen do you think people are looking around wondering who is doing the shooting?
 
2012-02-29 03:30:10 PM

Magorn: 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.


The killers don't tend to stand there and yell at victim's they have on the ground...
 
2012-02-29 03:39:05 PM

EWreckedSean: Magorn: 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.

The killers don't tend to stand there and yell at victim's they have on the ground...


Seen a lot of killers in your time?

Me neither. So I wouldn't know what to assume about how they act or what they're likely to do. Which brings me back to the point that the argument that "one armed citizen could have stopped X, Y, Or Z" is patently false. Even IF you can correctly assess a violent situation, there is the matter of controlling your own adrenaline, making right choices under enormous stress, and then having/making the shot.

Cops and soldiers train for this all the time and even they don't do so well during the real thing. How well do you think the average "armed citizen" is going to do?
 
2012-02-29 03:39:51 PM

sprawl15: qorkfiend: Leaving aside the fact that you haven't made any effort to show anything you seem pretty confused as to what the debate is about.

To 'show anything'? I've already explained to you why manufacturer's intent (or "purpose of a gun") is irrelevant. You simply didn't read it or didn't care. You are completely wrapped around the axle with the topic, and I'm telling you to take a step back and realize that the purpose of a gun - or the intent of the manufacturer - has no bearing on our moral imperative to regulate guns. That it's the intent of the purchaser/user that needs to be controlled rather than third parties. Or, reposted so you can read it a first time:
sprawl15: The intent of the manufacturer is completely irrelevant to the intent of the purchaser, which is the issue here.
qorkfiend: (preferring instead to call opposing arguments "dumb")

I played nice and called it facile the first time. Then I called it irrelevant. Then I called it pointless. If you're seriously mad about me eventually calling it what it is by the fourth time you repeat the same argument - without making any attempt to understand what it is that's irrelevant about it - then I would suggest you engage in conversation instead of just shouting the same thing over and over.


You haven't explained anything; you simply repeated your "this argument is dumb" line over with different synonyms, bringing no new arguments to the table. I would be happy to engage in a conversation if everyone else stopped shouting the same "guns don't kill people, people kill people" argument over and over.
 
2012-02-29 03:42:17 PM

qorkfiend: You haven't explained anything; you simply repeated your "this argument is dumb" line over with different synonyms, bringing no new arguments to the table.


I just quoted one. Are you missing it a second time? Here, I'll repost it a third time:

sprawl15: The intent of the manufacturer is completely irrelevant to the intent of the purchaser, which is the issue here.


qorkfiend: I would be happy to engage in a conversation


OK. What is the problem that needs to be solved via gun laws?
 
2012-02-29 03:44:27 PM

indylaw: Things without a brain or sentient agency do not have purposes.


pur·pose
[pur-puhs] Show IPA noun, verb, -posed, -pos·ing.
noun
1. the reason for which something exists or is done, made, used, etc.
2. an intended or desired result; end; aim; goal.

So you wouldn't say "the purpose of a road is for travel." That would be dishonest and stupid according to you?

I guess our argument boils down to an English lesson. The word purpose has a meaning. The meaning is posted above. Now that you learned what the word purpose means, I accept your apology.

Hug it out?
 
2012-02-29 03:50:31 PM

Magorn: EWreckedSean: Magorn: 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.

The killers don't tend to stand there and yell at victim's they have on the ground...

Seen a lot of killers in your time?

Me neither. So I wouldn't know what to assume about how they act or what they're likely to do. Which brings me back to the point that the argument that "one armed citizen could have stopped X, Y, Or Z" is patently false. Even IF you can correctly assess a violent situation, there is the matter of controlling your own adrenaline, making right choices under enormous stress, and then having/making the shot.

Cops and soldiers train for this all the time and even ...


No, but we get a good account every time one of these things happen, and it is never that the shooter knocked somebody to the ground and stood there and yelled at him. If somebody is standing there not shooting, I'd have to say I'd be much less inclined to shoot at them.

So the Virginia Tech killer shot 60 people, even though he wasn't a cop or a soldier, but it is impossible to think in the several hour period one of those 60 people, armed, could have managed to defend themselves. Got it.
 
2012-02-29 03:50:49 PM

Teufelaffe: sprawl15: Teufelaffe: qorkfiend: The purpose of a gun is destruction in general propel a projectile at high speeds, not specifically "shooting someone in the arm from 100 meters." to cause harm or destruction

I'm keeping my fingers crossed that you just might get it this time. Won't hold my breath though...I don't feel like passing out waiting.

The "purpose" of a gun is irrelevant. Fark.

Since many gun control people use "the purpose of a gun is to kill" as justification for wanting more gun control, then the purpose of a gun is relevant to the discussion.


Actually, you not recognizing its intended purpose is justification for wanting more gun control.

I'm all for letting you have your matches. But if you don't accept that they are intended to cause a fire, that leads me to believe you will be irresponsible with it.

I got no beef with you smoking a cigarette. But if you don't accept second hand smoke causes cancer, that leads me to believe you will be irresponsible with it.

I can absolutely recommend to you various types of alcohol. But if you don't accept alcohol has affects on your ability to function, that leads me to believe you will be irresponsible with it.

By all means, own a gun. But if you don't accept its purpose is to kill or maim, that leads me to believe you will be irresponsible with it.
 
2012-02-29 03:54:33 PM

lennavan: So you wouldn't say "the purpose of a road is for travel." That would be dishonest and stupid according to you?

I guess our argument boils down to an English lesson. The word purpose has a meaning. The meaning is posted above. Now that you learned what the word purpose means, I accept your apology.

Hug it out?


In part it's a semantic argument (Are you anti-semantic?) But I also dispute that killing is the singular "reason for which [a gun] exists or is made, used, etc."

I'm not much for hugs. Beer?
 
2012-02-29 03:55:07 PM
Purpose /= potential.
 
2012-02-29 03:56:51 PM

sprawl15: qorkfiend: You haven't explained anything; you simply repeated your "this argument is dumb" line over with different synonyms, bringing no new arguments to the table.

I just quoted one. Are you missing it a second time? Here, I'll repost it a third time:
sprawl15: The intent of the manufacturer is completely irrelevant to the intent of the purchaser, which is the issue here.
qorkfiend: I would be happy to engage in a conversation

OK. What is the problem that needs to be solved via gun laws?


The state of Virginia clearly felt that there was a problem in the early 1990s with straw purchases and implemented measures to combat it, using a method that was cheap, quick, and by most accounts, effective. To me, limiting the number of purchases within a given time period seems a reasonable solution to the problem of people buying lots of guns at a time.
 
2012-02-29 04:00:11 PM

indylaw: lennavan: So you wouldn't say "the purpose of a road is for travel." That would be dishonest and stupid according to you?

I guess our argument boils down to an English lesson. The word purpose has a meaning. The meaning is posted above. Now that you learned what the word purpose means, I accept your apology.

Hug it out?

In part it's a semantic argument (Are you anti-semantic?) But I also dispute that killing is the singular "reason for which [a gun] exists or is made, used, etc."

I'm not much for hugs. Beer?


You'll note, nowhere in the definition is the word "singular" used. Your goalposts, I do not agree with their location.

pur·pose
[pur-puhs] Show IPA noun, verb, -posed, -pos·ing.
noun
1. the reason for which something exists or is done, made, used, etc.
2. an intended or desired result; end; aim; goal.
 
2012-02-29 04:02:08 PM

lennavan: indylaw: lennavan: So you wouldn't say "the purpose of a road is for travel." That would be dishonest and stupid according to you?

I guess our argument boils down to an English lesson. The word purpose has a meaning. The meaning is posted above. Now that you learned what the word purpose means, I accept your apology.

Hug it out?

In part it's a semantic argument (Are you anti-semantic?) But I also dispute that killing is the singular "reason for which [a gun] exists or is made, used, etc."

I'm not much for hugs. Beer?

You'll note, nowhere in the definition is the word "singular" used. Your goalposts, I do not agree with their location.

pur·pose
[pur-puhs] Show IPA noun, verb, -posed, -pos·ing.
noun
1. the reason for which something exists or is done, made, used, etc.
2. an intended or desired result; end; aim; goal.


Qorkfiend or someone similar, to whom I originally responded, claimed that a gun's "singular purpose" was to kill. I'm not moving any goalposts.
 
2012-02-29 04:03:13 PM

indylaw: lennavan: indylaw: lennavan: So you wouldn't say "the purpose of a road is for travel." That would be dishonest and stupid according to you?

I guess our argument boils down to an English lesson. The word purpose has a meaning. The meaning is posted above. Now that you learned what the word purpose means, I accept your apology.

Hug it out?

In part it's a semantic argument (Are you anti-semantic?) But I also dispute that killing is the singular "reason for which [a gun] exists or is made, used, etc."

I'm not much for hugs. Beer?

You'll note, nowhere in the definition is the word "singular" used. Your goalposts, I do not agree with their location.

pur·pose
[pur-puhs] Show IPA noun, verb, -posed, -pos·ing.
noun
1. the reason for which something exists or is done, made, used, etc.
2. an intended or desired result; end; aim; goal.

Qorkfiend or someone similar, to whom I originally responded, claimed that a gun's "singular purpose" was to kill. I'm not moving any goalposts.


It probably was me, though I suppose I could argue that "the reason" implies a single purpose...
 
2012-02-29 04:03:36 PM

scarmig: Ergo, is "propelling projectiles" singularly intended to harm?


No. No one is arguing that. So why are you pretending?
 
2012-02-29 04:03:42 PM

lennavan: Teufelaffe: sprawl15: Teufelaffe: qorkfiend: The purpose of a gun is destruction in general propel a projectile at high speeds, not specifically "shooting someone in the arm from 100 meters." to cause harm or destruction

I'm keeping my fingers crossed that you just might get it this time. Won't hold my breath though...I don't feel like passing out waiting.

The "purpose" of a gun is irrelevant. Fark.

Since many gun control people use "the purpose of a gun is to kill" as justification for wanting more gun control, then the purpose of a gun is relevant to the discussion.

Actually, you not recognizing its intended purpose is justification for wanting more gun control.

I'm all for letting you have your matches. But if you don't accept that they are intended to cause a fire, that leads me to believe you will be irresponsible with it.

I got no beef with you smoking a cigarette. But if you don't accept second hand smoke causes cancer, that leads me to believe you will be irresponsible with it.

I can absolutely recommend to you various types of alcohol. But if you don't accept alcohol has affects on your ability to function, that leads me to believe you will be irresponsible with it.

By all means, own a gun. But if you don't accept its purpose is to kill or maim, that leads me to believe you will be irresponsible with it.


Welcome to J.G. ANSCHÜTZ GmbH & Co. KG (new window)

Not a single one of the biathalon rifles that company makes were designed or manufactured to be used to kill or maim. The entire purpose of those rifles is to shoot at non-living targets in a specific type of sporting event. Now, that same company also makes hunting rifles, which have been designed and manufactured specifically for causing harm. Recognizing that there are guns that exist solely for sport is not somehow a bad thing.

Hell, Graham crackers were originally invented to reduce the sex drive. That does not mean that all Graham crackers made today are created to reduce the sex drive. That does not make someone irresponsible if they're buying them because they want to have a tasty snack and not because they want to fight their masturbatory urges.
 
2012-02-29 04:05:04 PM

indylaw: lennavan: indylaw: lennavan: So you wouldn't say "the purpose of a road is for travel." That would be dishonest and stupid according to you?

I guess our argument boils down to an English lesson. The word purpose has a meaning. The meaning is posted above. Now that you learned what the word purpose means, I accept your apology.

Hug it out?

In part it's a semantic argument (Are you anti-semantic?) But I also dispute that killing is the singular "reason for which [a gun] exists or is made, used, etc."

I'm not much for hugs. Beer?

You'll note, nowhere in the definition is the word "singular" used. Your goalposts, I do not agree with their location.

pur·pose
[pur-puhs] Show IPA noun, verb, -posed, -pos·ing.
noun
1. the reason for which something exists or is done, made, used, etc.
2. an intended or desired result; end; aim; goal.

Qorkfiend or someone similar, to whom I originally responded, claimed that a gun's "singular purpose" was to kill. I'm not moving any goalposts.


Quite the contrary, I want to move them. Saying "singular purpose" is wrong, there's no way I can or want to argue that one, so I'll never hit the posts. Gotta shift it to remove the word singular.
 
2012-02-29 04:05:04 PM

qorkfiend: The state of Virginia clearly felt that there was a problem in the early 1990s with straw purchases and implemented measures to combat it, using a method that was cheap, quick, and by most accounts, effective. To me, limiting the number of purchases within a given time period seems a reasonable solution to the problem of people buying lots of guns at a time.


'Gun laws' is a general term. I'm not asking about this specific Virginia law. The answer to the question "What is the problem that needs to be solved via traffic laws?" is not "Well, this one state has toll roads". A possible answer would be "To prevent people from driving like dicks."
 
2012-02-29 04:10:38 PM

Teufelaffe: Welcome to J.G. ANSCHÜTZ GmbH & Co. KG (new window)

Not a single one of the biathalon rifles that company makes were designed or manufactured to be used to kill or maim. The entire purpose of those rifles is to shoot at non-living targets in a specific type of sporting event. Now, that same company also makes hunting rifles, which have been designed and manufactured specifically for causing harm. Recognizing that there are guns that exist solely for sport is not somehow a bad thing.

Hell, Graham crackers were originally invented to reduce the sex drive. That does not mean that all Graham crackers made today are created to reduce the sex drive. That does not make someone irresponsible if they're buying them because they want to have a tasty snack and not because they want to fight their masturbatory urges.



If I may paraphrase:

Teufelaffe: I can name an exception.


So? I mean, when I say "guns are intended to kill/maim" that's with the understanding you're not going to be a douche about it. I fully admit, waterguns are not intended to kill. Next apparently you'll require a very strict definition of the word gun to include the object it propels (water vs. air vs. bullet), the size of the object it propels (beebee gun) and so on. I mean holy shiat, can't we just say the word gun and pretend like it's the common use of the word gun and not some stupid exception you can totally think of?

Alternatively, if you would like to argue water guns are non-lethal therefore you conclude "guns are not intended to kill," well, you'll need to find someone else.
 
2012-02-29 04:11:51 PM

qorkfiend: sprawl15: qorkfiend: You haven't explained anything; you simply repeated your "this argument is dumb" line over with different synonyms, bringing no new arguments to the table.

I just quoted one. Are you missing it a second time? Here, I'll repost it a third time:
sprawl15: The intent of the manufacturer is completely irrelevant to the intent of the purchaser, which is the issue here.
qorkfiend: I would be happy to engage in a conversation

OK. What is the problem that needs to be solved via gun laws?

The state of Virginia clearly felt that there was a problem in the early 1990s with straw purchases and implemented measures to combat it, using a method that was cheap, quick, and by most accounts, effective. To me, limiting the number of purchases within a given time period seems a reasonable solution to the problem of people buying lots of guns at a time.


DC has a problem with crime and it would be cheap, quick and effective to just not require them to get search warrants anymore.

Jeez, if a guy is buying lots of guns and moving them illegally across state lines and illegally selling them to prohibited people, hey, here's a thought. Why not catch him illegally moving guns across state lines and illegally selling them to prohibited people? Because, and here's something that a lot of prosecutors miss, that means he also lied on his 4473. And that's 10 years in the federal pen for EACH 4473 violation, plus 10 years for each gun sold plus a bunch of other stuff (selling without a FFL, etc.). So if a guy bought 5 guns in VA and moved them and sold them, why not have the cops do their job, catch him, and put him away for 50 plus years (effectively life)?

Oh, wait. That would be hard. Better to just restrict everybody's right.

Prosecutors never seem to bother to nail guys like that for federal firearms violations for some reason. A gangbanger caught with an illegal gun should be doing 10 years federal time minimum just for that, but they never seem to.
 
2012-02-29 04:14:57 PM

lennavan: scarmig: Ergo, is "propelling projectiles" singularly intended to harm?

No. No one is arguing that. So why are you pretending?


Because that leads us right back to "intent and purpose is determined by the operator, not the tool, or even the action."

Posit: Slinging projectiles is not singularly intended to harm.
Extrapolate: Slinging projectiles *with a tool* is not singularly intended to harm.
Conclude: Gun are not singularly intended to harm and qorkfiend is a dufas.
 
2012-02-29 04:16:03 PM

scarmig: lennavan: scarmig: Ergo, is "propelling projectiles" singularly intended to harm?

No. No one is arguing that. So why are you pretending?

Because


That was a trick question. Stop pretending people are arguing that. It's stupid and wrong and you should feel bad about yourself for doing it.
 
2012-02-29 04:17:25 PM

scarmig: Posit: Slinging projectiles is not singularly intended to harm.


Proof: Tom Brady slings footballs without the intention to harm. Wow, you really shot down that strawman. Congrats!
 
2012-02-29 04:21:53 PM

Spade: Jeez, if a guy is buying lots of guns and moving them illegally across state lines and illegally selling them to prohibited people, hey, here's a thought. Why not catch him illegally moving guns across state lines and illegally selling them to prohibited people? Because, and here's something that a lot of prosecutors miss, that means he also lied on his 4473. And that's 10 years in the federal pen for EACH 4473 violation, plus 10 years for each gun sold plus a bunch of other stuff (selling without a FFL, etc.). So if a guy bought 5 guns in VA and moved them and sold them, why not have the cops do their job, catch him, and put him away for 50 plus years (effectively life)?


How do you propose to "catch" this person? Are you searching every car that leaves Virginia? No? Which ones do you search, then? Are you constantly monitoring all people who purchase firearms and all people who are prohibited, just to make sure that they don't engage in an illegal transaction? Are you constantly monitoring everyone who files a 4473 to see if they're in compliance? These measures would infringe upon all sorts of rights; why is the second amendment paramount?
 
2012-02-29 04:42:33 PM

qorkfiend:
Maybe there's an assumption that anyone who wants that many handguns is either planning on reselling or giving them to people who wouldn't otherwise be allowed to purchase one.


Yes I think that was the justification for passing the law. However I think there is a some kind of problem witn assuming soemone is going to break the law without any evidence.

Old Joke:
A man and wife go to their cabin on the lake for a weekend. The husband gets up at the crack of dawn and goes fishing. At noon having caught his limit the husband comes home for nap. The wife looking out at the placid lake takes his boat out to read her book while releaxing on the lake. Shortly after dropping anchor the game warden pulls up and asks her for her fishing license. She explains that her husband is the fisherman she just took the boat out for a ride. The warden then tells her he has to write her a ticket for fishing without a license. He says I see in your boat a pole, tackle and bait you have all the equpiment could start fishing any time. So she resoonds well Im going to have to file a sexual harrasment charge against you. The wardem splutters that he has said nothing at all seuxal to her. To which she says well you have all the equpiment and could start any time. After which the warden says have a nice day ma'me and quickly drives off.
 
2012-02-29 04:45:34 PM

lennavan: So? I mean, when I say "guns are intended to kill/maim" that's with the understanding you're not going to be a douche about it. I fully admit, waterguns are not intended to kill. Next apparently you'll require a very strict definition of the word gun to include the object it propels (water vs. air vs. bullet), the size of the object it propels (beebee gun) and so on. I mean holy shiat, can't we just say the word gun and pretend like it's the common use of the word gun and not some stupid exception you can totally think of?

Alternatively, if you would like to argue water guns are non-lethal therefore you conclude "guns are not intended to kill," well, you'll need to find someone else


Let it go, because man, it's gone.
 
2012-02-29 04:45:49 PM

lennavan: 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.


Who said anything about banning guns? I just think they need to be more severely restricted. And yes, in England, which has strict gun control laws, the number of gun fatalities is way lower than that of the U.S. Wonder if they're doing something right?
 
2012-02-29 05:00:53 PM

Spade: Why not catch him illegally moving guns across state lines and illegally selling them to prohibited people?


You think they don't try to do that too? But a lot of these gun runners only get caught after the gun gets traced back to them after it is used to kill somebody. So preventing these guns from getting into the wrong hands in the first place is also a priority.
 
2012-02-29 07:47:54 PM

whizbangthedirtfarmer: lennavan: 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.

Who said anything about banning guns? I just think they need to be more severely restricted. And yes, in England, which has strict gun control laws, the number of gun fatalities is way lower than that of the U.S. Wonder if they're doing something right?


England has exactly how many, "They'll get my gun when they pry my cold dead fingers from around it!" screeching rednecks? There are cultural factors which make some things that work in England more likely not to work here.
 
2012-02-29 08:12:38 PM

qorkfiend: How do you propose to "catch" this person? Are you searching every car that leaves Virginia? No? Which ones do you search, then? Are you constantly monitoring all people who purchase firearms and all people who are prohibited, just to make sure that they don't engage in an illegal transaction? Are you constantly monitoring everyone who files a 4473 to see if they're in compliance? These measures would infringe upon all sorts of rights; why is the second amendment paramount?


You actually apply the law and use that to roll up a criminal network. Like cops do. Let the first gangbanger you catch with an illegal gun know he's doing 20 plus minimum federal (one 10 year for the gun and one 10 year for the ammo) or he can testify and do a bit less. When you get to the guy who actually bought the guns hit him for every gun and full time. Like I said, you illegally move 5 guns you do 50 years minimum. Put away some guys for essentially life and you'll see people reevaluating cost/benefit on that. Of course, you wouldn't have room for college kids getting caught with some weed, but so it goes.

And then, for the gang members who's testimony you don't need, hit them with the full federal sentences. If you get caught with an illegal gun and don't do twenty then it's a disgrace.

Of course, federal prosecutors don't seem that interested in this. Hell, even in Fast and Furious the federal prosecutors didn't seem to care too much about prosecuting the straw purchasers at all.

Like I said, the reason gun owners say "enforce the federal laws we have" is because, currently, we don't. Unless you're some guy who's never been arrested for anything and the ATF can tag you for a minor technical violation. Then they're really really motivated.
 
2012-02-29 08:52:23 PM

lennavan: scarmig: lennavan: scarmig: Ergo, is "propelling projectiles" singularly intended to harm?

No. No one is arguing that. So why are you pretending?

Because

That was a trick question. Stop pretending people are arguing that. It's stupid and wrong and you should feel bad about yourself for doing it.


It is what people are arguing. They argue that, magically, projectiles slung by a chemical reaction instead of leverage, gas compression, or spring action is somehow inherently purposed to be evilly lethal. You think the first guy to pick up a rock and throw it was trying to score a touchdown and not bash in the head of a snake or a rabbit?

Do firearms make killing more effective, efficient, and easier? Yes. So do many other things. In fact, a great portion of our technological history is the continued advancement of better ways to kill each other. *YET*. We are rational people. We have the capability to understand that just because tool *can* kill, that doesn't mean it must. This is evident by the fact that objects *not* designed to kill can be re-purposed to do so. Baseball bats were never designed to kill, but they are quite effective at it when re-purposed by the operator. The bat and it's designer and builders have no input into it's actual usage. Only the operator does that. The guy with his hands on it makes the final, and I mean final, decision on how to use a thing. And that is where the responsibility lies.
 
2012-02-29 09:01:36 PM

whizbangthedirtfarmer: And yes, in England, which has strict gun control laws, the number of gun fatalities is way lower than that of the U.S. Wonder if they're doing something right?


You will also find that England has a higher rate of assaults and rapes than the US.

I would actually link to some charts for that, but since the site that has them is slow, Fark keeps stripping them as "unfetchable". So, here's the URLs:

http://www.nationmaster.com/red/graph/cri_ass_vic-crime-assault-victi m s&b_map=1
http://www.nationmaster.com/red/graph/cri_rap_vic-crime-rape-victims& b _map=1
 
2012-02-29 09:24:40 PM
I don't complain about how many abortions people get in a year...I wish people wouldn't complain about how many guns I buy in a year.
 
Displayed 50 of 260 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report