Topic: In the gun debate who do you think is the most stupid? - page 8. (Read 15506 times)

Close. Lamps are used as a stand for a lightbulb. They're also a convenient place to put a switch. That they also offer a way to hold a lampshade is an added bonus, since it makes a lamp a much nicer thing to have in your room, rather than just a bare bulb.

Drills are indeed used to spin things. Often drillbits, but not always. I have a bit that makes the drill into a saw. I have another whole set that turn it into a screwdriver. I don't have, but you can buy, "bits" that turn a drill into pretty much any power tool. It is, after all, just a motor attached to a chuck.

A monitor is indeed designed to emit light. Light of specific colors, in specific patterns. The light from my laptop often lights my way across my bedroom in the dark. More often, of course, I use it to look at those patterns of light and derive information from them.

Don't you just hate it when your attempt at ridicule backfires?

Myrkul thinks drills are to spin a chuck. He thinks lamps are used as a stand for lampshades. He thinks monitors are used to emit light. He thinks his arguments deserve merit.

Like almost all items, guns are not monolithic.  There are many kinds of guns for many kinds of purposes.  99% of them are for killing (people or animals).  Of those 99% there are some that are dual purpose and some that are intended mostly to kill people.  While you can hunt deer with a handgun, it is a poor tool for the job. 

It is stupid to derail a conversation about guns by arguing what they are used for.  The purpose is obvious.   


It would be great if we could wave a magic wand and make all of these killings end with a law.  This can not happen.  The guns exist, will not go away and for the most part gun control laws will not prevent these killings.  NOTHING will totally stop these killings, they can only be reduced.

Upping security in schools will also do little or nothing.  The amount of money spent could be simply spent in upgraded auto safety and far more child lives would be saved. 

My choice:

Better mental health care.  More education on gun safety with an emphasis on keeping guns secured and only accessible by the rightful owner.  Letting people know there are hard facts that having an unsecured gun is more dangerous in most cases then not owning one at all but KEEPING IT ONES CHOICE as to what to do. 

If you dont like guns, dont buy one.  If you want to take guns away from people, and ban them... you come and get mine personally.  Debate over.

Yes, as a matter of fact.

There is a Marvel character who uses a bow for numerous special purposes, which killing is but one of. In one scene of the recent Avengers movie, he uses it to download a virus onto a computer by firing a specially designed arrow into a dataport. So you see, it is the intent of the user that determines the use of a weapon.

Guns are designed to fire projectiles. It is the intent of the person behind the gun that determines it's purpose.
Take, for instance, these:

Fired from a standard shotgun, these projectiles are designed not to kill.
If a gun is designed only to kill, why then, do these projectiles even exist?

In accordance with what reference?

The number of bullets fired by a firearm do not change the main purpose of the firearm design. Hence bullets were designed to increase the firearm killing power, even if was necessary to waste a hundred bullets in one single shot. Machine guns were extensively used (and designed) in the Second World War due its high killing power, not due its capacity to waste bullets.

Mauzer K98, Sten Gun, MP44, MG42, M1 Garand, Grease Gun, Walther P38, TT-31, DP-27, STV-40, etc. All designed to kill, whatever number of bullets were necessary.


Yes, firearms are designed to perform a task, 'only kill for their intended purpose'.

So, why you like to delude yourself by denying the primary design purpose of firearms (including bullets) is to kill since it have been invented?

Wait? Let me guess what will be your next argument? Bows were only designed to throw arrows?


I do not see any statics in your post.

You are implying that firearms were designed to hit targets eventually and because of that, killing power was not regarded by the designer. In accordance with your logic, hand grenades are not designed to kill, but only to disperse fragments able to penetrate human flesh in all directions. If the fragments fail to kill the target, this means the hand grenade was not designed to kill.

Fun fact: Over 5000 bullets were fired for each soldier killed in WWII. It took over 12000 to take down a plane.

Guns are designed to fire bullets. They do that every time they are used. They only kill when the user points the barrel at another human being and uses them for their intended purpose: to fire a bullet, and that bullet strikes the other human being in a lethal spot, as you can see, a statistically rare event, even in wartime.

http://www.google.co.uk/patents/US1512026?printsec=abstract


The decision of pull the trigger is not what determine the primary purpose of the weapon design, therefore your statement is fallacious (and stupid, as you like to be).


What statistics are you talking about? Did you not know that a vast number of people died in the Second Word War from firearm shots?

That guy could have easily killed even more people if he had taken a sword instead. People probably would have ran towards the screams instead of away from the gunshots. People living in cities have just been to busy sipping their lattes. They seem to forget a lot of people still enjoy hunting and sports. There is also no guarantee that a war inside are border will never happen. I would say it's inevitable, even if it doesn't happen in our life time. There are also a lot of situation where calling the police for help is not a solution. People are just becoming far to comfortable, and start to fear anything that could harm them while living their cozy lives.

One thing is certain, neither the gun dealers nor the government are worse off because of the stupidity of the debate.  The gun sales have never been higher than they have been over the past couple of weeks.  The taxes alone would be a perverse incentive for certain persons in government to stoke the anti-gun elements into saying stupid things, just to light a fire under the fear-of-a-ban sales.  It's working in that respect, as many people that I've talked to say that the gun shops are literally sold out of everything.

Nope, guns are designed to project lead (or paint or plastic) pellets where the barrel is pointed. The pointing of the barrel, and the decision of when (or if) to pull the trigger is what decides the use case of a gun. Statistically, it's almost never to actually kill something.

Knives are designed to slice things. Forks are designed to pierce (and typically, hold) things. Unless you eat with one of these?

First, he did not legally obtain them.  He succeded in defrauding the dealers into believing that he was not prohibited by law, which is itself an illegal act.  Point in case that laws do not compel moral behavior, and therefore cannot be depended upon to have the effects intended by their proponents.

Second, even if that were not so and he actually did purchase his weapons within the legal framework of the state he lived within, that would still not an argument make.  Such people are aberations, for there are at least 10K other law abiding gun owners for every nutter.  Such high profile cases do not make for sound laws.


The second amendment does not effect the government's ability to possess arms in any fashion.  There is no need for the 2nd if that were it's purpose.  Even the hardest anti-gun historian will not claim this.  If you are going to enter into a debate on a topic for which you do not understand, you would be well behoved to read up on the topic.

Isn't killing inherently just as ethically neutral as cutting things into useful shapes or eating? Antibiotics are designed specifically for killing.

Except guns are designed specifically for killing. Knives are designed to cut things into a more usable shape. Forks are designed specifically to eat.

One of these things just doesn't belong.

If guns are banned, swords should be too. Knives and forks, and later on leaving your house without a protective bomb proof bubble.

A sociopath managed to legally obtain assault weapons despite his documentation and opened fire on a theatre. That really is the only argument needed.

Second, the Amendment in question only allows a well-regulated militia the right to bear arms. Not people who will just shoot first and ask questions later (though I admit the militia in question does that as well). In fact, if you look closely, it doesn't even restrict the use of said arms for that militia, meaning it either allows for full military dictatorship, or legalizes vigilantism, both of which are among the worst concepts ever thought up.

See 10 USC 311 for the composition of the militia of the United States:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/311

I would not be surprised if its all a tactic to make some money  

I went thru a 50 mile radius of my house in search of guns, and all the stores are empty.

You know how much the government made from people being scared guns are going away?

Edit:
Id like to point out that even though the stores were all empty, before they opened it was like a black Friday buy one get one free. The lines were stupid crazy.

http://www.olegvolk.net/gallery/technology/arms/fetish_flogger_vz58_9804web.jpg.html?g2_imageViewsIndex=1

Hey Lethn, is this the kind of intelligent debate that you intended that a UK subject could interject?

Well, there are some things that can be done that shouldn't cost too much.  For example, I have a modern security system for my home that can detect the sound of glass breaking.  Sound sensors placed in most rooms and halls in a public school could be tuned to detect the sound of gunfire.  If you've ever heard real gunfire, it's more distinct than is shown in the movies.  It's got a sharp tone, and an abruptness that firecrackers cannot really approximate; so sound sensors should be able to identify most common firearm reports from 22's up to high powered rifles, although shotguns might be more difficult.  If a security system can rapidly identify gunfire, (or air sniffers can identify the presence of gunpowder, but that would trigger anytime a police officer entered the building) electronic fire doors could be closed and potentially locked in one direction.  I.E. fire doors can let you out of a building on fire, but not let you come back in.  Also, the ability of the automatic security system to call the police computers and inform the dispacter that a firearm has been discharged in the school would shave minutes off of the response time of the police.

The reality is that every gun rampage ends early only one way, with the use of a gun in another person's hands.  The debate really isn't whether or not such guns are necessary in as diverse a society as the United States, the debate is on who should be trusted with said firearms.  If you believe that only agents of the state should be trusted with firearms, then let me ask another question.  Do you also believe that a badge makes a man act morally, or is the badge a recognition (by the state) that the man acts in the state's own interests?