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.

(NPR)   Old and busted: Fetuses have a right to life. New hotness: guns have a right to life (or the inanimate object equivalent)   (npr.org) divider line 224
    More: Stupid, NRA, abandoned property, cashier's checks, fetus, guns  
•       •       •

1248 clicks; posted to Politics » on 09 Jan 2013 at 11:56 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-01-09 10:52:38 AM  
If you look up the phrase "you're not helping", you'll find the NRA's logo next to it.
 
2013-01-09 10:52:52 AM  
How about the inanimate carbon rod?
 
2013-01-09 10:56:28 AM  
Rathner says the NRA will ask for an accounting of every weapon turned in and then go to court to stop the firearms from being destroyed. If that doesn't work, Rathner says they'll change the law.

"We just go back and we tweak it and tune it up, and we work with our friends in the Legislature and fix it so they can't do it," Rathner adds.


 Seriously, go fark yourself.
 
2013-01-09 11:05:13 AM  

UberDave: How about the inanimate carbon rod?


in Rod we trust
 
2013-01-09 11:12:44 AM  
So if guns are people, is this a tacit admission that guns do, in fact, kill people?
 
2013-01-09 11:26:43 AM  
In attempts to rationalize my own moral code, I've basically come up with a similar concept.  Things can easily be ascribed with a potential value, whether they're living things or inanimate things.  Their moral standing is a function of that potential value, and the morality of a given action is a function of the affect that action has in the potential.  Things that increase the potential, or work towards achieving the potential are good, whereas things that limit potential or work against achieving the potential are bad.
"Potential" is a pretty subjective term, so it might as well be considered "potential benefit to me".

So, it's immoral to kill a human because humans have relatively high potential to do things I'll appreciate.  Can you break a rock?  Sure, I wasn't using that rock for anything, so what do I care?  Killing a cow for food?  Moral.  What good is it to me if I can't eat it?  That's the height of the cow's potential (caveat: lactose intolerant).

So, I can see some merit to giving guns--or any tool--a limited "right to life" or similar.  A destroyed gun loses its potential to defend good people (who indirectly benefit my interests) against bad people (who directly or indirectly work against my interests), so destroying the gun would be immoral.  Depending on what they do with it.  Melt it down and recycle the metal into something more useful (like maybe a better gun) and we can talk.
 
2013-01-09 11:28:36 AM  

gilgigamesh: So if guns are people, is this a tacit admission that guns do, in fact, kill people?


Not necessarily, but if a gun did kill a person, it would also be true that a person killed a person.
 
2013-01-09 11:29:34 AM  
Bullets are gun babies.  WHY WON'T YOU HUG MY GUN BABIES!?
 
2013-01-09 11:32:52 AM  
Guns have a right to life!  The people who are shot with the guns, not so much.
 
2013-01-09 11:57:35 AM  
Much like stem cell therapies and test tube babies reloading is an abomination that interferes with God's plan
 
2013-01-09 11:57:44 AM  
The NRA sucks at picking it's battles (and spokespersons)
 
2013-01-09 12:00:11 PM  

Citrate1007: The NRA sucks at picking it's battles (and spokespersons)


The NRA isn't picking this battle, and individual board member of the NRA is.

There is a difference.
 
2013-01-09 12:00:30 PM  
FTA: "At the gun buyback, gun-rights advocates held signs reading "Cash For Guns" and "Pay Double for Your Guns." As cars pulled into the parking lot, they asked drivers if they wanted to sell their guns privately rather than turn them in. There were few takers."

So people had the opportunity to sell their guns to a registered firearms dealer for more money, decided they didn't want to - they wanted the guns destroyed, and now the NRA wants to force the police to sell them to them anyway.

There is no way that doesn't come off as a douchebag move.
 
2013-01-09 12:01:27 PM  

dittybopper: Citrate1007: The NRA sucks at picking it's battles (and spokespersons)

The NRA isn't picking this battle, and individual board member of the NRA is.

There is a difference.


Board members dictate NRA policy, not NRA members.  It's pretty much the same thing.
 
2013-01-09 12:01:33 PM  
If a gun is a person, what is its trigger and do you really want to put your finger in there?

Also, I don't want to sight through a hairy bunghole.

And will that bunghole be camo bleached? This is important.
 
2013-01-09 12:02:04 PM  

serial_crusher: So, I can see some merit to giving guns--or any tool--a limited "right to life" or similar. A destroyed gun loses its potential to defend good people (who indirectly benefit my interests) against bad people (who directly or indirectly work against my interests), so destroying the gun would be immoral. Depending on what they do with it. Melt it down and recycle the metal into something more useful (like maybe a better gun) and we can talk.


Alternatively, they are decreasing the amount of guns flowing around (legal or illegal), which would make it harder for someone who shouldn't acquire one (felon or mentally unstable) access to one.

Also, other people would assign different intrinsic values to the object, I would think.
 
2013-01-09 12:02:10 PM  
These people's love of guns is out of control and very irrational.
 
2013-01-09 12:02:35 PM  
$50 gift card? Pffft at a buyback here a few weeks ago the police were giving $200 to $300 cash.

Nra is farking evil.
 
2013-01-09 12:03:19 PM  
Wait, don't their financial backers want old guns destroyed?
 
2013-01-09 12:03:42 PM  

serial_crusher: In attempts to rationalize my own moral code, I've basically come up with a similar concept.  Things can easily be ascribed with a potential value, whether they're living things or inanimate things.  Their moral standing is a function of that potential value, and the morality of a given action is a function of the affect that action has in the potential.  Things that increase the potential, or work towards achieving the potential are good, whereas things that limit potential or work against achieving the potential are bad.
"Potential" is a pretty subjective term, so it might as well be considered "potential benefit to me".

So, it's immoral to kill a human because humans have relatively high potential to do things I'll appreciate.  Can you break a rock?  Sure, I wasn't using that rock for anything, so what do I care?  Killing a cow for food?  Moral.  What good is it to me if I can't eat it?  That's the height of the cow's potential (caveat: lactose intolerant).

So, I can see some merit to giving guns--or any tool--a limited "right to life" or similar.  A destroyed gun loses its potential to defend good people (who indirectly benefit my interests) against bad people (who directly or indirectly work against my interests), so destroying the gun would be immoral.  Depending on what they do with it.  Melt it down and recycle the metal into something more useful (like maybe a better gun) and we can talk.


Why does it have to be a better gun? I'd say using the metal for railroad lines, playground equipment, or disaster-proof building materials would be a far better use of the ex-gun.
 
2013-01-09 12:03:54 PM  

NuttierThanEver: Much like stem cell therapies and test tube babies reloading is an abomination that interferes with God's plan


petri dish
 
2013-01-09 12:04:30 PM  
The NRA should support destroying guns.

Because then people will have to buy new guns from the manufacturers (you know, the people they represent).
 
2013-01-09 12:05:44 PM  
Are there any sane people heading the NRA?
 
2013-01-09 12:05:49 PM  

tricycleracer: Wait, don't their financial backers want old guns destroyed?


Yeah, have they thought this through? That old barely working gun, trading around between gang members for 50 bucks, is preventing the sale of a new gun. They need to get those turned in and start making more sales.
 
2013-01-09 12:06:37 PM  
I'll admit, I thought the headline was suggesting that gun control equated to destroying guns, hence the NRA opposition. But no...there it is...they are against actual destruction of weapons people no longer want.

so very weird...
 
2013-01-09 12:13:57 PM  

Counter_Intelligent: These people's love of guns is out of control and very irrational.


I have 30+ years proof that I am a responsible gun owner. I have taken a gun safety course and 2 hunter safety courses. There are a couple of calibers that I do not have, but are on my wish list. If you are just going to destroy them, give them to me. I would be very grateful and you would know they went to a responsible owner.
 
2013-01-09 12:14:24 PM  
People
 
2013-01-09 12:15:08 PM  
I'm just curious, at what level of derp will we finally see NRA membership significantly decline?
 
2013-01-09 12:16:07 PM  
At the gun buyback, gun-rights advocates held signs reading "Cash For Guns" and "Pay Double for Your Guns." As cars pulled into the parking lot, they asked drivers if they wanted to sell their guns privately rather than turn them in. There were few takers.

Doug Deahn couldn't understand it: "Can't figure they'd rather line up and give them away. Can't figure that out."


Of course you can't. It just does not compute in your head that someone would place a value on the destruction of a gun above and beyond a dollar amount. And that's part of why we're having the debate we're having.
 
2013-01-09 12:16:23 PM  
Unless the people turning these guns in to the police are idiots, the sell value of each gun is probably less than $50, meaning the consignment resale value is south of $100. No real loss if they're destroyed. I would still want to pick the haul over and spare guns of historical value or ones that are particularly rare. But of course, they would be worth more than $50. We've all been surprised by the things people have thrown away in their ignorance.
 
2013-01-09 12:16:42 PM  
This is the sort of thing that puts the word "nut" in the phrase "gun nut".
 
2013-01-09 12:18:15 PM  
Another responsible gun owner heard from.
 
2013-01-09 12:19:02 PM  
The fact that some people don't like their hobby seems to infuriate them.
 
2013-01-09 12:21:13 PM  

pxsteel: If you are just going to destroy them, give them to me. I would be very grateful and you would know they went to a responsible owner.


Because of the extensive background check required to get on Fark.
 
2013-01-09 12:24:02 PM  
Every time you see a gun related story on NPR, remember that they took $300,000 from The Joyce Foundation, which is the largest source of private gun control money in the US.
 
2013-01-09 12:24:54 PM  

pxsteel: I have 30+ years proof that I am a responsible gun owner. I have taken a gun safety course and 2 hunter safety courses. There are a couple of calibers that I do not have, but are on my wish list. If you are just going to destroy them, give them to me. I would be very grateful and you would know they went to a responsible owner.


Would you try to get a law passed that would forbid me from turning in my guns to be destroyed if I wished?
 
2013-01-09 12:24:56 PM  

oldass31: Unless the people turning these guns in to the police are idiots, the sell value of each gun is probably less than $50, meaning the consignment resale value is south of $100. No real loss if they're destroyed. I would still want to pick the haul over and spare guns of historical value or ones that are particularly rare. But of course, they would be worth more than $50. We've all been surprised by the things people have thrown away in their ignorance.


If you're turning it in in a buyback, you don't give a shiat what kind of gun it is. It takes bullets, it goes boom, you don't want it in the house, you don't want it to hurt people, you don't want it to hurt you, that's the end of it. There is no 'oh, but that's a rare antique 1869 six-shooter hand-crafted by Samuel Colt himself!' It's rare? Good. They want to make it even rarer then. Some people do not fetishize guns. Could be a Glock, could be a Bushmaster, could be a shotgun or a bazooka or an RPG or a blunderbuss. Doesn't matter. To some people, a gun is a gun is a gun is a gun and if they want it destroyed by the cops, they want it destroyed by the cops.
 
2013-01-09 12:24:57 PM  

oldass31: Unless the people turning these guns in to the police are idiots, the sell value of each gun is probably less than $50, meaning the consignment resale value is south of $100. No real loss if they're destroyed. I would still want to pick the haul over and spare guns of historical value or ones that are particularly rare. But of course, they would be worth more than $50. We've all been surprised by the things people have thrown away in their ignorance.


If you're turning it in in a buyback, you don't give a shiat what kind of gun it is. It takes bullets, it goes boom, you don't want it in the house, you don't want it to hurt people, you don't want it to hurt you, that's the end of it. There is no 'oh, but that's a rare antique 1861 six-shooter hand-crafted by Samuel Colt himself!' It's rare? Good. They want to make it even rarer then. Some people do not fetishize guns. Could be a Glock, could be a Bushmaster, could be a shotgun or a bazooka or an RPG or a blunderbuss. Doesn't matter. To some people, a gun is a gun is a gun is a gun and if they want it destroyed by the cops, they want it destroyed by the cops. They don't want it with 'another owner'. They don't want there to BE an owner.
 
2013-01-09 12:25:34 PM  
Now how the hell did I do that?
 
2013-01-09 12:25:58 PM  

lennavan: I'm just curious, at what level of derp will we finally see NRA membership significantly decline?


New PPP poll out today:

The NRA now has a negative favorability rating, with 42% of voters seeing it positively while 45% have an unfavorable view. That represents a 10 point net decline in the NRA's favorability from the week before the press conference when a national poll we did found it at 48/41. Its image has taken a hit with both Democrats (from 29/59 to 22/67) and Republicans (71/19 to 66/18). Link

At what point this translates into a declining membership I do not know.
 
2013-01-09 12:27:26 PM  

dittybopper: Every time you see a gun related story on NPR, remember that they took $300,000 from The Joyce Foundation, which is the largest source of private gun control money in the US.


This is an important fact.  Thank you so much.
 
2013-01-09 12:28:34 PM  

pxsteel: Counter_Intelligent: These people's love of guns is out of control and very irrational.

I have 30+ years proof that I am a responsible gun owner. I have taken a gun safety course and 2 hunter safety courses. There are a couple of calibers that I do not have, but are on my wish list. If you are just going to destroy them, give them to me. I would be very grateful and you would know they went to a responsible owner.


Ah, you're Adam Lanza's mother?
 
2013-01-09 12:31:56 PM  

Gosling: Now how the hell did I do that?


Didn't clean the cosmoline off your firing pin...
 
2013-01-09 12:32:46 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: lennavan: I'm just curious, at what level of derp will we finally see NRA membership significantly decline?

New PPP poll out today:

The NRA now has a negative favorability rating, with 42% of voters seeing it positively while 45% have an unfavorable view. That represents a 10 point net decline in the NRA's favorability from the week before the press conference when a national poll we did found it at 48/41. Its image has taken a hit with both Democrats (from 29/59 to 22/67) and Republicans (71/19 to 66/18). Link

At what point this translates into a declining membership I do not know.


I doubt it will. In fact, it will likely have a "Circle the wagons!" effect, and they'll get the fence-sitters, people generally aligned with them ideologically, to join.
 
2013-01-09 12:33:57 PM  

dittybopper: Every time you see a gun related story on NPR, remember that they took $300,000 from The Joyce Foundation, which is the largest source of private gun control money in the US.


Hopefully gun owners will stop committing massacres for them to report on.
 
2013-01-09 12:34:35 PM  
Arizona has a law that provides guidence to the police with what to do with abandond guns and or guns that were taken from felons; which is to sell it and give the money to the State's general fund, or trade it for ammuniction and police weapons.

The police aren't doing that. They are destroying personal property. Yes,I know in this case it's are evil scary guns, but regardless, the law doens't allow it.
 
2013-01-09 12:34:39 PM  
I really don't give a shiat about a Kel Tec .380 or some similar POS going to the shredder, but I hate to think that some collectibles will get destroyed.
 
2013-01-09 12:34:40 PM  
Dear NRA,

Please, please, please, pretty please bring your suit in Tucson so a judge and jury hear the case here.
State or federal, we don't care. Hell, make it both.

Fark you so very, very much,
A. Tucsonan
 
2013-01-09 12:35:34 PM  
So don't destroy them. Toss them down an old mine shaft and fill it with concrete.
 
2013-01-09 12:38:56 PM  

Danger Mouse: Arizona has a law that provides guidence to the police with what to do with abandond[SIC] guns and or guns that were taken from felons;


Neither applies here, maroon: The City of Tucson was buying them.
 
Displayed 50 of 224 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | 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