DISCUSSION: The Ridiculous Stereotypes Leveled at Guns and Gun Owners & Where They Come From...

reply to post by mymymy


And I said that blaming the tool instead of the user is wrong. It doesn't matter if people blame the tool or not, it's still that person's fault in the end. I guess I don't see your point, or I do, and it's not a very good one.

Originally posted by dave_welch
reply to post by mymymy

 

And I said that blaming the tool instead of the user is wrong. It doesn't matter if people blame the tool or not, it's still that person's fault in the end. I guess I don't see your point, or I do, and it's not a very good one.

Tool? What tool? A gun? A gun is not a tool. A gun is a weapon designed to end life. A hammer is not a tool designed to end life, so when someone uses a hammer to kill people, it isn't correct to blame an improperly used tool. When someone uses a car to kill someone, it isn't correct to blame an improperly used tool.

When the tool is designed to end life, it is correct to blame the correctly used tool.

reply to post by mymymy


Thank you for your reply. And while I get your point, I must refer you to the truest slogan of them all....

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Nothing about, which arms. Nothing about ,how many bullets a magazine can hold. Nothing about how many bullets can be released in a given segment of time. Nothing about the potential lethality of ANY of our "Arms".

But, a simple, clear and concise amendment, that due to it's sheer simplicity, states that it isn't even up for discussion! The right is final! Period! It is a necessary, and required endowment, to the continuance of an unencumbered populace!

It appears to me, that the writers and architects of our Constitution chose these amendments based on their importance. For without the 1st, the others could not be defended. And without the second, none of them could be, and so forth!

Now, where this amendment has been eroded, is obvious!

We no longer have Militias, in the sense of those that were prevalent in those days. We have conceded our right to maintain self-government. We have allowed the State and Federal govt, to take on the task of our security, as well as most of the rest of the power that was once held by the people.

But, nonetheless, the 2nd, still stands. And. has recently been strengthened by our Supreme Court!

SO, one must ask, why the recent attack, directly focused on this one amendment? Why not the 3rd, or 4th? Why not the 7th? It's simple. This is the LAST amendment left, that they can't completely maneuver around.
Every other one, could be bypassed with the right argument and the right lawyer, using the right precedent.

This is the last and only Amendment, standing in the way of a total and complete, hostile take-over!

Think about it....

reply to post by DoYouEvenLift


Your definition is not correct and I reject it. There are rubber bullets breaching bullets and so forth in which case it is not designed to end life. Your argument falls flat.

Originally posted by DoYouEvenLift

Originally posted by dave_welch
reply to post by mymymy

 

And I said that blaming the tool instead of the user is wrong. It doesn't matter if people blame the tool or not, it's still that person's fault in the end. I guess I don't see your point, or I do, and it's not a very good one.

Tool? What tool? A gun? A gun is not a tool. A gun is a weapon designed to end life. A hammer is not a tool designed to end life, so when someone uses a hammer to kill people, it isn't correct to blame an improperly used tool. When someone uses a car to kill someone, it isn't correct to blame an improperly used tool.

When the tool is designed to end life, it is correct to blame the correctly used tool.

Uhhhh....WHAT????

At NO point is an inanimate object, responsible for an action in which it is used!!!


RE·SPON·SI·BIL·I·TY

1: the quality or state of being responsible: as

a: moral, legal, or mental accountability

A tool, regardless of being used correctly, in a manner in which it was intended, or incorrectly, in a manner inconsistent with its intended purpose, DOES NOT FEEL, FEAR or THINK!

How on Earth could one hold an inert, inanimate, benign, thoughtless, emotionless, indifferent, material possession accountable, for the actions of something beyond it's control??? ...Really?

reply to post by GoOfYFoOt


IED's, landmines, dumb bombs,chemical weapons,nuclear weapons are all things the military and governments want banned? Why? Because some one used them wrong? Because they do mass killings?

Originally posted by JBA2848
reply to post by GoOfYFoOt

 

IED's, landmines, dumb bombs,chemical weapons,nuclear weapons are all things the military and governments want banned? Why? Because some one used them wrong? Because they do mass killings?

IEDs are already against Geneva Convention. Dumb bombs???? Can you please provide something to back that statement up?

reply to post by DoYouEvenLift


It is a tool made to send projectiles at a target of your choice, be it a coffee can, skeet, an animal, even another human.

I sent 500 bullets flying today in my backyard shooting range, none of those bullets did no harm to anyone, because I did not intend them to.

This tool can be used to put down predators that come after my livestock, wolves and coyotes that become brazen enough to try and take a chicken or goat today, might very likely go for a neighbor's kid tomorrow.

This tool can be used against another person that comes onto my property, with malice intent, well within my rights.

Several billions of bullets are fired every year, with only a few thousand being misused. Several million guns are fired every year, with only a tiny fraction of them being misused. Often these misused tools are not legal to begin with, being stolen in burglaries and such.

Originally posted by TKDRL
reply to post by DoYouEvenLift

 

It is a tool made to send projectiles at a target of your choice, be it a coffee can, skeet, an animal, even another human.

I sent 500 bullets flying today in my backyard shooting range, none of those bullets did no harm to anyone, because I did not intend them to.

This tool can be used to put down predators that come after my livestock, wolves and coyotes that become brazen enough to try and take a chicken or goat today, might very likely go for a neighbor's kid tomorrow.

This tool can be used against another person that comes onto my property, with malice intent, well within my rights.

Several billions of bullets are fired every year, with only a few thousand being misused. Several million guns are fired every year, with only a tiny fraction of them being misused. Often these misused tools are not legal to begin with, being stolen in burglaries and such.

edit on Wed, 26 Dec 2012 21:16:06 -0600 by TKDRL because: (no reason given)

You are practicing to use your weapon for what it was intended to be used for. To end lives. To claim otherwise is to claim that a sword is more than a sword, and that argument was as stale now as it was in Shakespeare's time.

Legally owned and operated registered firearms are the most common firearms to be involved in a discharge resulting in an injury or death. Only a fraction, about 12%, are being discharged while in self-defense. These are the NRA's own numbers!

Originally posted by Grimpachi
reply to post by DoYouEvenLift

 

Your definition is not correct and I reject it. There are rubber bullets breaching bullets and so forth in which case it is not designed to end life. Your argument falls flat.

These are modifications made to a gun to modify it from its originally intended purpose. To kill. This is like putting in ear plugs while standing next to your stereo with the volume turned up and trying to tell me it is off.

Originally posted by GoOfYFoOt

Originally posted by DoYouEvenLift

Originally posted by dave_welch
reply to post by mymymy

 

And I said that blaming the tool instead of the user is wrong. It doesn't matter if people blame the tool or not, it's still that person's fault in the end. I guess I don't see your point, or I do, and it's not a very good one.

Tool? What tool? A gun? A gun is not a tool. A gun is a weapon designed to end life. A hammer is not a tool designed to end life, so when someone uses a hammer to kill people, it isn't correct to blame an improperly used tool. When someone uses a car to kill someone, it isn't correct to blame an improperly used tool.

When the tool is designed to end life, it is correct to blame the correctly used tool.

Uhhhh....WHAT????

At NO point is an inanimate object, responsible for an action in which it is used!!!


RE·SPON·SI·BIL·I·TY

1: the quality or state of being responsible: as

a: moral, legal, or mental accountability

A tool, regardless of being used correctly, in a manner in which it was intended, or incorrectly, in a manner inconsistent with its intended purpose, DOES NOT FEEL, FEAR or THINK!

How on Earth could one hold an inert, inanimate, benign, thoughtless, emotionless, indifferent, material possession accountable, for the actions of something beyond it's control??? ...Really?

Holding something accountable is not the same as being responsible. I'm not going to play the dictionary game, because I do not believe you even understand the difference between connotation and denotation.

If a gun isn't more than just an regular old tool NOT designed to kill people, then why can't gun manufacturers be sued when a gun is used to kill? Killing humans is not the gun's intended purpose and it should clearly fall under product liability. And yet.. not legal to sue gun manufacturers on product liability grounds.. because killing is their intended purpose.

reply to post by DoYouEvenLift


A knife is made to cut. If you cut yourself, or something else that you did not intend to cut, who do you blame? Yourself, or the knife?

Did the knife not carry out it's intended purpose?

reply to post by dave_welch


Did you cut yourself due to incompetence or faulty design? One is covered under product liability, one is not.

reply to post by DoYouEvenLift


Only when suicide is lumped in there. Yeah people usually use their own weapons for that.
It is a tool made to fire projectiles, where it ends up is up to the user. That is all. 99.9% of gun owners do not use them in harmful ways to others. Suggesting that we should give ours up, because .1% have misused the tools is retarded. Assuming that people that might want to get a gun are going to be part of that .1%, until proven otherwise is retarded. Assuming if less people have guns, that somehow renders that .1% unable to harm others is retarded. I can think of hundreds of way to hurt and kill many people in a short time without the use of a gun.

reply to post by DoYouEvenLift


The same reason ford isn't able to be sued everytime someone is killed in a car wreck. The same reason ginsu cannot be sued by those kids in china. The same reason tiger woods cannot be sued if I beat someone's head in using his line of golf clubs. The same reason bic can't be sued when people are killed in an arson. The same reason exxon cannot be sued if someone tosses a molotov.

Originally posted by TKDRL
reply to post by DoYouEvenLift

 

The same reason ford isn't able to be sued everytime someone is killed in a car wreck. The same reason ginsu cannot be sued by those kids in china. The same reason tiger woods cannot be sued if I beat someone's head in using his line of golf clubs. The same reason bic can't be sued when people are killed in an arson. The same reason exxon cannot be sued if someone tosses a molotov.

edit on Thu, 27 Dec 2012 00:06:00 -0600 by TKDRL because: (no reason given)

Really, same reason, eh?

Well this law here, Protection in Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, is the reason why gun makers are exempt from prosecution. I don't see anything discussing Ford or Tiger Woods.

Product Liability isn't something I made up. Ford IS sued when it's cars are involved in accidents where the car is deemed to be at fault. The rest are unintended uses for consumer products that void Product Liability in all cases.

Originally posted by TKDRL
reply to post by DoYouEvenLift

 

Only when suicide is lumped in there. Yeah people usually use their own weapons for that.
It is a tool made to fire projectiles, where it ends up is up to the user. That is all. 99.9% of gun owners do not use them in harmful ways to others. Suggesting that we should give ours up, because .1% have misused the tools is retarded. Assuming that people that might want to get a gun are going to be part of that .1%, until proven otherwise is retarded. Assuming if less people have guns, that somehow renders that .1% unable to harm others is retarded. I can think of hundreds of way to hurt and kill many people in a short time without the use of a gun.

Suicide is not a legal action, and as such, it is NOT included in the numbers I have offered. These are firearms discharges that did not result in any criminal charges or activity be registered on the books. These are the NRA's numbers, not mine.

I agree, violent people are violent. Let's take one of the weapons out of their hands, eh? Readily available guns designed to kill people.

Originally posted by DoYouEvenLift

Originally posted by Grimpachi
reply to post by DoYouEvenLift

 

Your definition is not correct and I reject it. There are rubber bullets breaching bullets and so forth in which case it is not designed to end life. Your argument falls flat.

These are modifications made to a gun to modify it from its originally intended purpose. To kill. This is like putting in ear plugs while standing next to your stereo with the volume turned up and trying to tell me it is off.

Is a hammer still a hammer even though you can use it on different types of nails? Of course it is.

And like a gun it is also a tool that can also kill.

Sorry there are no modifications needed to fire different types of ammo. Who told you that nonsense?

Your opinion is noted and dismissed based on incorrect info and your lack of understanding.

FYI there are rubber bullets, Pepper rounds, rock salt rounds, and bean bag rounds.

reply to post by DoYouEvenLift


You are making zero sense....... You are comparing apples to oranges.

A gun is made to fire a projectile, be it bullet or rubber pellets, whatever. Why would it be a manfucturer's fault if it was used improperly? Why would a manufacturer be responsible for said projectile killing a person? It didn't load itself, cock itself, aim itself, and pull it's own trigger.....

Ford can be sued if they put out a car with faulty brakes or whatnot, that is their fault. Ford cannot be sued if someone misuses the car, by breaking speed limits and smashes into a tree, or if someone misuses the car and plows through a crowd.

reply to post by DoYouEvenLift


The only way to do that is to take them out of all hands, so no. Until every soldier, every LEO gives theirs up, neither will I.

There is no crystal ball out there, this isn't minority report, this is real life. Saying no one can have guns because a very tiny minority use them for bad things is irrational. I am sorry, but it is irrational. No one logical would stand for that reasoning to ban anything else, so why should we make an exception for guns?

I am not going to give up an important tool because of other idiots. People should not be denied access to a tool, because of a tiny minority of idiots. It does not fly.