Guns

[Zenith]

I didn't see Famine addressing that, I saw that he'd answered the argument that "guns put bullets into people", and quite rightly so. That would be a fallacious argument.

In other words, depriving them of their right to live.

I'm interested in you seeming to feel that you might be the reason that guns exist? I'd say that you have guns because they exist. Why do they exist in the first place?

Do not confuse an object's origin for its sole purpose of each example's existence.

I've owned firearms that had never been (and would never be) used at all, that doesn't alter the reason for the existence of firearms.

So why do you think they exist?

Guns exist because there is a demand for them. I and many others are willing to pay for firearms, so somebody makes them. The reason I and many others demand firearms is because they are a hobby.

You still haven't answered my question.

 

[TenEightyOne]

In other words, depriving them of their right to live.

No, that isn't what "putting a bullet into someone" means. I agree that guns don't exist for that reason. I still maintain that they only exist to restrict life or liberty.

Do not confuse an object's origin for its sole purpose of each example's existence.

Thank you, I shan't.

Guns exist because there is a demand for them. I and many others are willing to pay for firearms, so somebody makes them. The reason I and many others demand firearms is because they are a hobby.

...but...

Do not confuse an object's origin for its sole purpose of each example's existence.

The base intention of a gun (regardless of whether they now hold additional interest as props, sporting tools, winkle-multiplicators or other 'social' uses) is to terminate life or to restrict liberty by threat thereof.

 

[Zenith]

No, that isn't what "putting a bullet into someone" means. I agree that guns don't exist for that reason. I still maintain that they only exist to restrict life or liberty.

Then how do my guns restrict life or liberty? You still have not answered my question.

The base intention of a gun is to terminate life or to restrict liberty by threat thereof.

And we've come full circle. Go back to Famine's post.

Alternatively, answer my question: How have my guns done that?

 

[TenEightyOne]

Then how do my guns restrict life or liberty? You still have not answered my question.

I don't believe that they do. However, as you just said yourself;

Do not confuse an object's origin for its sole purpose of each example's existence.

And we've come full circle. Go back to Famine's post.

Yes, yes we have.

Famine's post (it seemed to me) addressed the argument that "guns put bullets into people". That's partly true as a literal statement but Famine was addressing the statement as a response to the wider "what are guns for?" question. I agree completely with the points he made there.

I hold that guns, in concept and origin, exist only to remove life or restrict liberty. You haven't said why you think that isn't so, you simply keep quoting Famine when he answered a narrower point than mine.

"Guns exist to remove life or liberty" <> "Guns put bullets into people". The two statements are not the same thing at all, please consider their meaning in fuller detail.

 

[Zenith]

I don't believe that they do. However, as you just said yourself;

So if my guns do not deprive somebody of their right to life or liberty, either I am misusing them or you are wrong.

Famine's post (it seemed to me) addressed the argument that "guns put bullets into people". That's partly true as a literal statement but Famine was addressing the statement as a response to the wider "what are guns for?" question. I agree completely with the points he made there.

I hold that guns, in concept and origin, exist only to remove life or restrict liberty.

Except you didn't say that.

You haven't said why you think that isn't so, you simply keep quoting Famine when he answered a narrower point than mine.

Most of my guns exist for the reason I already posted. They are a hobby. For millions of people they are a hobby.

"Guns exist to remove life or liberty" <> "Guns put bullets into people". The two statements are not the same thing at all, please consider their meaning in fuller detail.

Famine was addressing one point, it disproves yours just as well. Read it and apply it to your point.

 

[Slash]

I don't believe that they do. However, as you just said yourself;





Yes, yes we have.

Famine's post (it seemed to me) addressed the argument that "guns put bullets into people". That's partly true as a literal statement but Famine was addressing the statement as a response to the wider "what are guns for?" question. I agree completely with the points he made there.

I hold that guns, in concept and origin, exist only to remove life or restrict liberty. You haven't said why you think that isn't so, you simply keep quoting Famine when he answered a narrower point than mine.

"Guns exist to remove life or liberty" <> "Guns put bullets into people". The two statements are not the same thing at all, please consider their meaning in fuller detail.

You have got to be the most liberal person I have ever seen on this forum. Your mind is so narrow that you don't even know what you are saying.

 

[TenEightyOne]

So if my guns do not deprive somebody of their right to life or liberty, either I am misusing them or you are wrong.

You're still confusing your guns with guns. Which is, I thought, what you warned me not to do?

I can say a gun is a tool that converts a radial to a linear force. I can say an electrical chair is a resistor in a circuit. But that's just being naive. That surely is not the intention they are made for. Can I use either responsibly without their intended use? You bet I can, but it doesn't change the purpose of the device.

@Famine's reply, as you said, was

To suggest that a gun's purpose is to shoot someone is to suggest that anyone who's ever used a gun to shoot a target or an animal - or never shoot at all - has misused the gun.

The intention of a gun is as a remote force multiplier tool. It's a hammer that acts "over there". The force it generates is so great that it can be used against a person - but so can a hammer - if required and multiple law enforcement agencies have determined it's the most convenient tool for that job. It's also so precise that multiple international law enforcement agencies have determined it's the most convenient tool for that job too, despite much bigger force multipliers being available.

The purpose of a gun is not to put a bullet into a person.

It de-purpled, sorry Famine.

Famine adressed ThirdReign's point which was a much narrower statement than mine. I don't disagree with Famine's answer, as I've told you.

I hold that the purpose of guns (not your actual guns strapped to your body while you order nacho-cheese-dogs) but just guns is to restrict life or liberty.

It's a gun, something that only exists to remove life or liberty

Okay, I said removed. I think that considering you said you had to use "other words" to make Famine's answer into a reply to my point you demonstrated that using real English definitions might not be our lot this evening

You have got to be the most liberal person I have ever seen on this forum. Your mind is so narrow that you don't even know what you are saying.

Thank you, I'll take that mostly as a compliment. Apart from the narrow mind, I'll take that as you misunderstanding "liberal". There is a position that supports rule of law, humanist democracy and legal rights. It also supports free speech, open debate, and a special lane on the A34 for 2-seater cars.

I know exactly what I'm saying

 

[FoolKiller]

So inform me, what other uses are there?

Sport shooting, collecting, home defense as a threat deterrent, hunting (or does killing animals for food make it evil too?).

Were the first guns designed to kill humans in war? Yes. Is that their only reason for existing today? No. Hell, some guns are specifically designed without lethal intent. Police use them all the time.

That seems equally hysterical a reaction.

So, why should I allow hysterical idiots have easy access to take my guns?

Sarcasm understood, but does that mean you think liberty means you can carry a gun... or does the bullet's recipent's loss of liberty outweigh that?

It means I have the right to defend myself. Are you assuming a lost life was one who still deserved their liberty if they are killed in self defense by a gun owner?

It also means I should be secure in my person and property.

Ouch, really the starting action was the systematic annihilation of the indigenous people, but I think you're talking about the Civil War... weren't you already a nation by then?

Wow, both a Native American jab (even though by your rationale they had no rights because the law said so, so no wrongdoing), and a show of not knowing the US formed after a war with England. It's called the American Revolution. Had you read this thread, you would know I even posted an article about how the war started when British soldiers marched into Boston and tried to confiscate the guns.

Pedantry aside, I don't recall the Bill of Rights being used before a court to support argument in defense of gun ownership until the 1930s but I may well be wrong, I'll have a better look tomorrow.

So? What's your point? Our government didn't become jackasses until 1930?

I support your right to carry a gun because it is supported by law.

And if the law changes? Law does not equal right. Law can be just as corrupt and evil as anyone, sometimes to extremes. What if the law takes my guns, then changes to do something that violates your moral convictions? How would you expect me to fight back? Would you sit there and say you believe in democratic rule of law and I have to live with something you don't morally support?

I honestly get the feeling you think what government says is always right or good or just something we have to live with. I trust governments less than I trust Jenny McCarthy's views on autism.

I think that the world has changed and that countries like Russia and America where the citizens genuinely fear the armed power of their government are lagging behind in really working towards a world social ideal.

Sorry I believe the individual is the greatest concept. "I" is the most important word in the English language. "The greater good" is the largest threat to individual liberty ever seen. Not because it is a bad idea, but it can't be implemented without oppression.

I know, you'd shoot me if you were sure I'd drop across the state line

The only gun I own is a BB gun, but one built before rules made toy guns get orange, plastic pieces. From more than ten feet away it is indistinguishable from a .22 rifle to the untrained eye. It's enough to be a deterrent in the dark, and a highly effective bludgeoning weapon, with its solid wood and metal bits, if it came to that.

I'm not shooting anyone. I might get a bit bludgeony and stabby though.

 

[Zenith]

You're still confusing your guns with guns. Which is, I thought, what you warned me not to do?

My guns are a subset of guns. Are you joking?

Famine adressed ThirdReign's point which was a much narrower statement than mine. I don't disagree with Famine's answer, as I've told you.

His answer directly contradicts yours.

I hold that the purpose of guns (not your actual guns strapped to your body while you order nacho-cheese-dogs) but just guns is to restrict life or liberty.

And once again, guns owned by people are a subset of guns. If you say that the existence of guns is to restrict rights, then you say that guns owned by people, including me, exist to restrict rights.

Okay, I said removed. I think that considering you said you had to use "other words" to make Famine's answer into a reply to my point you demonstrated that using real English definitions might not be our lot this evening

Hm, no.

 

[BobK]

@Zenith, I think that @TenEightyOne is saying that your guns are not guns. After all, guns only exist to remove life or liberty. Your guns do not do either. Therefore your guns are not guns.

 

[Zenith]

@Zenith, I think that @TenEightyOne is saying that your guns are not guns. After all, guns only exist to remove life or liberty. Your guns do not do either. Therefore your guns are not guns.

Ah I see. Since my guns are not part of guns, then guns exist only to remove life or liberty because there are no guns that exist for any other purpose.

Beautiful reasoning. Like a circle.

 

[Roger the Horse]

My grandfather recently got rid of his guns. He's not getting any younger and the trouble of keeping them licensed while looking after my grandmother (who has Alzheimer's) was getting too much for him. Everyone in the family is feeling rather relieved, to be honest.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Ah I see. Since my guns are not part of guns, then guns exist only to remove life or liberty because there are no guns that exist for any other purpose.

Beautiful reasoning. Like a circle.

The reason that guns as a collective noun exist is to remove life or liberty, you still haven't answered that.

If you or I own a gun for sport that doesn't change the primary reason for the invention- or existence-of guns in general. And our guns wouldn't be guns in general.

I made a poor job of explaining it on the first attempt, I know you'll still disagree with what I'm saying but I hope I at least said it more clearly

 

[Exorcet]

The reason that guns as a collective noun exist is to remove life or liberty, you still haven't answered that.

If you or I own a gun for sport that doesn't change the primary reason for the invention- or existence-of guns in general. And our guns wouldn't be guns in general.

I made a poor job of explaining it on the first attempt, I know you'll still disagree with what I'm saying but I hope I at least said it more clearly

Strictly speaking though, the above isn't true. You can't even really apply the conception of guns in general to an individual modern gun or even modern guns in general, they are too far removed. If the first gun was invented to kill, or do whatever, that has no impact on the intent behind the second gun. You would be right that the technology to build guns came about because of a desire to kill, but that would be a trivial and unimportant fact to the whole discussion.

If you wanted to refer to the purpose of the majority of guns, I still can't agree. Their purpose it to shoot bullets. Go a step further and ask if the majority of guns were designed with the intent to kill, now I think you might be able to make a case, but it's not relevant to this thread at all.



Going back to where this phrase popped up:

It's a gun, something that only exists to remove life or liberty, which is covered in the Bill of Rights. The right to bear arms is offset by the duty of ratified states to ensure domestic tranquility and a common defense.

Why shouldn't they take your guns? Or know where to get them? America is a civilized society, no?

This appears to be pointed at the specific gun taken away, which isn't guns in general. This means that the purpose of the first gun, whatever it was, is completely unrelated.


As for the last sentence, they shouldn't take away guns [without cause] because America is a civilized society. The Bill of Rights is an attempt to write rights into law. No matter what the BoR says, it is to be overwritten by rights.

 

[TenEightyOne]

As for the last sentence, they shouldn't take away guns [without cause] because America is a civilized society. The Bill of Rights is an attempt to write rights into law. No matter what the BoR says, it is to be overwritten by rights.

That seems to contradict itself? Where do the other rights come from, if not the BoR? That's exactly where the rights stem from - isn't it?

 

[Exorcet]

No, because law is not rights. The BoR should come from rights ideally. Don't get hung up over wording. The BoR is a document that can be changed or legally nullified.

 

[TenEightyOne]

No, because law is not rights. The BoR should come from rights ideally. Don't get hung up over wording. The BoR is a document that can be changed or legally nullified.

Including the 2nd Amendment?

I don't want to get into rights as an argument, but could you answer simply; do you think people have the right to have a gun without needing a law to say that they have that right?

That's not a trick/argumentative question, and like I said I'm not trying to get into rights, I just want to be clear on that?

 

[Exorcet]

Gun ownership is a right for anyone respecting the rights of others regardless of law. I'm trying not to drag things into a rights debate as asked, but it might not be possible to give a simpler (yes/no) answer because having rights depends on the recognition of rights.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

Gun ownership is a right for anyone respecting the rights of others regardless of law. I'm trying not to drag things into a rights debate as asked, but it might not be possible to give a simpler (yes/no) answer because having rights depends on the recognition of rights.

Also people from nation to nation are going to differ on this...

Also I'm still not understanding how some people don't get that a gun is a tool that launches a projectile that is lethal or non-lethal, thus it is built to for that alone.

 

[Zenith]

The reason that guns as a collective noun exist is to remove life or liberty, you still haven't answered that.

I most certainly did. Read through my posts. Guns, all guns, From ones built on contract for armed forces to ones purchased by collectors to sit in safes exist to satisfy demand. They are a product.

Those demands range from anything to "I want to kill somebody" to "I think it looks nice" to "I like shooting paper targets."

Your assertion that they are built for the sole purpose of removing life or liberty is laughable considering the great number of guns that don't remove life or liberty. Except apparently those don't count because reasons...

If you or I own a gun for sport that doesn't change the primary reason for the invention- or existence-of guns in general. And our guns wouldn't be guns in general.

Oh we're doing that thing where we go back to making points I addressed earlier? Okay.

Purpose of invention does not equal sole reason for each example's existence. You are on the internet.

Guns in general include my guns. They include collector's guns, they include sportsmen's guns.

I made a poor job of explaining it on the first attempt, I know you'll still disagree with what I'm saying but I hope I at least said it more clearly

I will, the point is just as ignorant and inconsistent as before. You have provided no reasoning, you just keep saying your statement and deem all of the refuting evidence as irrelevant. I have asked you to provide a morsel of evidence to support your point but you haven't. Either my guns (a subset of guns in general) violate rights to life and liberty or you are wrong.

Your flat out stating that you believe carrying a gun is right simply because it is legal is also extremely worrying. That's 1984 levels of submission to authority, but Foolkiller seems to have written a good post on this part of your posts...

 

[TenEightyOne]

I will, the point is just as ignorant and inconsistent as before. You have provided no reasoning, you just keep saying your statement and deem all of the refuting evidence as irrelevant. I have asked you to provide a morsel of evidence to support your point but you haven't. Either my guns (a subset of guns in general) violate rights to life and liberty or you are wrong.

The reason that guns exist is to remove life or liberty. I already got a warning for implying that somebody who couldn't understand what those words mean might be "stupid" so I'll tread carefully although I'm not sure how else to put it, its a valid sentence in all three main types of English usage! If you can show me how that's ignorant or inconsistent I'd be fascinated to see.

Certainly @FoolKiller struggled and merely answered with a quote from @Famine that said "guns do not exist to put bullets into people, and then seemed to be confused about the fact that "life and liberty" is in the preamble to the Amendments, that I agreed wholeheartedly with Famine and that his reply didn't mean the same thing. @FoolKiller said he had to put it into "other words", which unfortunately were the wrong ones.

I already explained that so I'm not sure what I can add?

Clearly there is a market nowadays for sport'n'show, but that doesn't change the base reason for the existence of guns; to remove life or liberty.

That doesn't mean that @FoolKiller really is a killer if he owns a gun, because his guns aren't representative of the overall concept. The separation of the two is, to my mind, very clear.

 

[Danoff]

The reason that guns exist is to remove life or liberty.

or preserve life and liberty, or as artwork, or as insurance, or for entertainment. That applies to any individual gun. If you're referring to guns as a whole - the technology - then I'm not sure why that's relevant to any gun today. But even if you are, your definition is incomplete.

 

[Famine]

In fact if you want to distill it to a single reason, the reason they exist is because people want them.

Whether that's to end life or liberty, preserve it, collect them or whatever else. Suggesting that only one of their functions - and it should be said that it's probably their most useful original function - is the only reason they continue to exist is an unsound position.

The reason they exist is because people want them.

 

[BobK]

That seems to contradict itself? Where do the other rights come from, if not the BoR? That's exactly where the rights stem from - isn't it?

Rights exist independently of the Bill of Rights, in fact they existed long before anyone even thought of writing a Bill of Rights.

I don't want to get into rights as an argument, but could you answer simply; do you think people have the right to have a gun without needing a law to say that they have that right?

Absolutely.

The reason that guns exist is to remove life or liberty.

Actually that is incorrect. The reason they exist, or the reason for which they were first created anyway, is to batter down walls.

@Famine is correct as to why they still exist today.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Actually that is incorrect. The reason they exist, or the reason for which they were first created anyway, is to batter down walls.

Finally!!!

And why were the walls being battered down...?

 

[Dotini]

Finally!!!

And why were the walls being battered down...?

Castle siege warfare. For every medieval field battle fought in melee, it's said there were a hundred sieges without significant loss of life.

If the walls were breached, the garrison would likely surrender and the castle change hands.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Castle siege warfare. For every medieval field battle fought in melee, it's said there were a hundred sieges without loss of life.

If the walls were breached, the garrison would likely surrrender and the castle change hands.

Surrender? As in surrender liberty?

 

[Dotini]

Surrender? As in surrender liberty?

Surrender the castle. If a high born was among the garrison, he may become hostage. The archers, cooks and stewards may merely change allegiance. Actually fairly civilized.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Surrender the castle. If a high born was among the garrison, he may become hostage. The archers, cooks and stewards may merely change allegiance. Actually fairly civilized.

Well, civilisation is an extension of the concept of liberty values, and as you so those "in service" may have changed their allegiance. That would have been to maintain liberty.

An armed siege of the type you describe is a military action and therefore an extension of a threat to remove life - that's what military actions do, remove life in order to control assets. Or control assets in order to restrict liberty.

 

[Dotini]

Well, civilisation is an extension of the concept of liberty values, and as you so those "in service" may have changed their allegiance. That would have been to maintain liberty.

An armed siege of the type you describe is a military action and therefore an extension of a threat to remove life - that's what military actions do, remove life in order to control assets. Or control assets in order to restrict liberty.

It would be fascinating to step into the mind of a medieval person. Today, it's a vanished world. I'm not even sure the concept of liberty existed to them as we know it today. Archers, cooks and stewards were essentially trained peasants locked in service to the feudal order. They would have been a profitless burden to confine as prisoners. Removing life and controlling liberty would have been anathema to the medieval mind, I think. The peasantry were a valuable and scarce resource. But the removal of life and liberty is very, even over-familiar to the modern mind.