[Midnight_Marauder]

Originally Posted by moomin

Except of course there's a problem. The darn things are just so destructive that no possible justification could be made to allow them into private use. At least not this side of Dr Strangelove. The same can be said for most every other piece of hardware built specifically for the battlefield, down to field artillery, mines and mortars. Guns are _just_ this side of that border, given that they actually have other uses than to kill people in job lots, although they are obviously great for that as well. But that does not mean that their general usage is free of problems.

I'm not saying general usage is free of problems... The choice of targets by users is what presents problems.

I mean, assume I was REALLY interested in building my own Orion space craft (the nuclear boom engine deal), and stockpiled a load of nuclear warheads in my Chateau. Them's just tools, no?

You would be guilty of extremely poor engineering. If you were REALLY interested in building such a craft, you would eschew nuclear power and go for fusion, primarily learning to harness and control, Deuterium.

I get the distinction you're making. I just don't think it's all that important.

Ahh but it is important. Truth always is. And perhaps, if we would teach the young as I was, that firearms are tools to be used with discretion - instead of teaching they are weapons for killing? Maybe we don't have such a problem with target choices by users?

[moomin]

Originally Posted by Midnight Marauder

Ahh but it is important. Truth always is. And perhaps, if we would teach the young as I was, that firearms are tools to be used with discretion - instead of teaching they are weapons for killing? Maybe we don't have such a problem with target choices by users?

I can see where you're going. And I somewhat agree. But by the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth standard you'll have to admit that guns are actually weapons for killing. Too. Amongst other things. And furthermore, designed to excel for that purpose. In denying that, I think you are guilty of much the same selective blindness as the liberal who stridently insists that scary guns are for killing children and kittens, and only that.

I think that what mostly decides if a piece of hardware can be permitted into the hands of the unwashed are the consequences of bad use. Which is why we can't have private nukes, because given any random population of any size, the chances of someone taking a bad decision are 1.0. And the fall out, if you pardon the pun, would be horrifying. Guns are at the very border - the consequences are bad, to be sure, and we know that that 1.0 happens with some regularity. But the consequences are still limited, so it can be argued that their other - correct - usage (which can include killing!) and the fact that it is too late now to do something about it in America tips the scale in the continued favour of widespread US gun ownership and usage. In other parts of the world, like here, where gun crime is extremely rare still, that balance tips over in the other direction and fairly draconian gun control makes a lot of sense.

There are other considerations too, of course. Who wants to take your existing guns and why. What the Holy Secular Writ of the Land says or does not say about it. The impact of your ethnic mix and its changing demographics, and so on.

But I do think "guns are not just for killing, you liberul dullards" is way too simplistic, even if it is perfectly true in itself.

[Midnight_Marauder]

Originally Posted by moomin

I can see where you're going. And I somewhat agree. But by the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth standard you'll have to admit that guns are actually weapons for killing. Too. Amongst other things. And furthermore, designed to excel for that purpose. In denying that, I think you are guilty of much the same selective blindness as the liberal who stridently insists that scary guns are for killing children and kittens, and only that.

I think that what mostly decides if a piece of hardware can be permitted into the hands of the unwashed are the consequences of bad use. Which is why we can't have private nukes, because given any random population of any size, the chances of someone taking a bad decision are 1.0. And the fall out, if you pardon the pun, would be horrifying. Guns are at the very border - the consequences are bad, to be sure, and we know that that 1.0 happens with some regularity. But the consequences are still limited, so it can be argued that their other - correct - usage (which can include killing!) and the fact that it is too late now to do something about it in America tips the scale in the continued favour of widespread US gun ownership and usage. In other parts of the world, like here, where gun crime is extremely rare still, that balance tips over in the other direction and fairly draconian gun control makes a lot of sense.

There are other considerations too, of course. Who wants to take your existing guns and why. What the Holy Secular Writ of the Land says or does not say about it. The impact of your ethnic mix and its changing demographics, and so on.

But I do think "guns are not just for killing, you liberul dullards" is way too simplistic, even if it is perfectly true in itself.

It is true, firearms and swords and such, are formally defined as weapons. But when you look up the definition of weapon, you see it's only INTENT.

A weapon, arm, or armament is a tool, device, equipment or instrument used in order to inflict damage or harm to enemies or other living beings, structures, or systems.

"used in order to" means, INTENT. And clearly, it's not a weapon until USED as such.

[Thanatos144]

Originally Posted by Midnight Marauder

If you believe guns are made specifically for killing, you should be banned from owning any. And you should be locked in a rubber room and carefully monitored 24/7/365.

Guns are intended for putting a piece of lead on a target. Doesn't matter what the target is. The target is chosen by the shooter, therefore so is the intent. See?

A local fella was killed with a roofing hammer the other day, he broke into a house and the homeowner plunged it into his chest.

A hammer is also made to hit a target. The target was defined by the person wielding the hammer, in the example above.

According to the gubmint, 40 children annually die from drowning in 5 gallon plastic buckets. Where's the outrage over that? Where's the bans, the regulation? This is not about protecting kids, it's about USING child victims to pass more gun laws!

Feinstein's current "assault weapons" ban proposal doesn't cover the rifle used at Sandy Hook, and the "assault weapons" ban which expired in 2004 didn't either. And Not a single one of Obama's 23 proposals/executive actions would have prevented the Sandy Hook tragedy or saved one life. It's just an excuse to harass law abiding citizens and chip away at our rights. "Never let a crisis go to waste."

The piling on by the political left, their cohorts in the media, and clueless dolts everywhere to use the massacre of little children to advance a pre-existing political agenda that would not have saved or in any way helped those children, disgusts me.

Here's a hunting rifle, a Marlin 22 cal. long, that is just as dangerous in the wrong hands as the .223 AR used at Sandy Hook:



Like the AR, it fires as fast as you can pull the trigger. Also like the AR, it can be modified to fire full auto and can have added magazine ammo above the 18 it already allows. Doing either is already violation of existing gun laws.

You can also buy the Marlin model that uses clips instead of the mag tube to store the ammo. The differences are purely and only, cosmetic.

I can shoot far more accurately at distance with the Marlin 22 than I ever could the AR... I regularly shoot dimes at 200 yards with my Marlin. No way could I do that with the short barreled AR.

Someone armed with a long rifle wouldn't need to enter a school or even be that close to it, if intent was to shoot children.. He/she could just rapidly pick them off in the playground, or otherwise, in the yard after calling in a bomb threat or something... using the innocent looking Marlin instead of the AR, from a good distance. And probably get away clean.

Guns and rifles can be USED to kill - just like the hammer I referenced above. But they are not intended for killing. They are intended and designed to put a piece of lead on a target. The intent, the target, is defined ONLY by the person doing the shooting.

And that's the memo.

it is a weapon. It is designed to cause harm. Whether I use it that way or not doesn't change the purpose of the weapon. Is it a bad thing? NO cause it is my protection.

[Midnight_Marauder]

Originally Posted by Thanatos144

it is a weapon. It is designed to cause harm. Whether I use it that way or not doesn't change the purpose of the weapon. Is it a bad thing? NO cause it is my protection.

But then, you look up the definition of "weapon" and find out "used in order to" means, INTENT. And clearly, it's not a weapon until USED as such.

A weapon, arm, or armament is a tool, device, equipment or instrument used in order to inflict damage or harm to enemies or other living beings, structures, or systems.

[Thanatos144]

Originally Posted by Midnight Marauder

But then, you look up the definition of "weapon" and find out "used in order to" means, INTENT. And clearly, it's not a weapon until USED as such.

A screw driver is made to turn screws....Thats a tool....It can be used for other things but it was designed to turn screws. Guns are designed to shoot bullets at things and cause damage....Because I might use it for other reasons doesn't change what it was designed for. I am a gun loving patriot but lets face it there is no need to spin what a gun is for. is it made to kill humans? Yep as well as dogs, cats, deer, bears, and everything else you can hit ....I guess it just depends on what you are aiming at and how good a shot you are,.

[Midnight_Marauder]

Originally Posted by Thanatos144

A screw driver is made to turn screws....Thats a tool....It can be used for other things but it was designed to turn screws. Guns are designed to shoot bullets at things and cause damage

Wrong. Firearms are designed to put a piece of lead on a target. Doesn't matter what the target is. The target is chosen by the shooter, therefore so is the intent. See? "Damage" is also part of the intent.

I am a gun loving patriot but lets face it there is no need to spin what a gun is for. is it made to kill humans? Yep

There is no "spin" here. Firearms are NOT intended necessarily, to use to kill. They are intended to put a piece of lead on a target. The choice of the target and the intent of the shooting is strictly the user.

[Thanatos144]

Originally Posted by Midnight Marauder

Wrong. Firearms are designed to put a piece of lead on a target. Doesn't matter what the target is. The target is chosen by the shooter, therefore so is the intent. See? "Damage" is also part of the intent.There is no "spin" here. Firearms are NOT intended necessarily, to use to kill. They are intended to put a piece of lead on a target. The choice of the target and the intent of the shooting is strictly the user.

Cause everyone wants that piece of lead traveling at 300+ feet per second going towards them right????? I mean as long as the intent is not to harm it shouldn't hurt right?

[Midnight_Marauder]

Originally Posted by Thanatos144

Cause everyone wants that piece of lead traveling at 300+ feet per second going towards them right????? I mean as long as the intent is not to harm it shouldn't hurt right?

If someone aims a firearm at a person and fires, his intent is clear - to harm. The firearm itself has no intent.

The far left guy on facebook says, (I mean, really did say and not just on facebook, it's becoming a far-left mantra) "The rifle used at sandy hook served its intended purpose, killing children" and you say?

[Thanatos144]

Originally Posted by Midnight Marauder

If someone aims a firearm at a person and fires, his intent is clear - to harm. The firearm itself has no intent.

The far left guy on facebook says, (I mean, really did say and not just on facebook, it's becoming a far-left mantra) "The rifle used at sandy hook served its intended purpose, killing children" and you say?

Your trying to rewrite the purpose of the tool. It sure wasnt made to dig a trench or turn a screw or plain a board or wash a window.....Just cause it might have multiple uses does not change the purpose of the tool.