Morality of an object based on its original purpose

[EMC]

So the conversation typically goes something like this. "Cars and alcohol kill more people every day than guns, why don't we ban those?" and then the retort is always "But cars and alcohol weren't designed to kill people!".

My question is how the inherent morality of a given object is defined by its original design purpose rather than its usage?

[Kyle Reese]

So the conversation typically goes something like this. "Cars and alcohol kill more people every day than guns, why don't we ban those?" and then the retort is always "But cars and alcohol weren't designed to kill people!".

My question is how the inherent morality of a given object is defined by its original design purpose rather than its usage?

We tried banning alcohol with the Volstead Act, and it was a smashing success, in every way. Not a drop of alcohol was to be found in the United States until it's repeal. A prohibition on ______ type of firearm or ______ will be equally successful.

Trying to argue with morons is about as productive as trying to teach a pig to play the piano. It wastes your time, and upsets the pig.

[jetfire]

I generally try to avoid talking to people who believe that inanimate objects possess any independent morality or motivations. My Lego bricks aren't evil just because they hurt when you step on them.

[BaiHu]

We tried banning alcohol with the Volstead Act, and it was a smashing success, in every way. Not a drop of alcohol was to be found in the United States until it's repeal. A prohibition on ______ type of firearm or ______ will be equally successful.

Trying to argue with morons is about as productive as trying to teach a pig to play the piano. It wastes your time, and upsets the pig.

You are definitely right about the pigs, FredM, however, you, my friend, play the keyboard brilliantly ;)

[Kyle Reese]

You are definitely right about the pigs, FredM, however, you, my friend, play the keyboard brilliantly ;)

Thank you, kind sir. :cool:

[RoyGBiv]

We tried banning alcohol with the Volstead Act, and it was a smashing success, in every way. Not a drop of alcohol was to be found in the United States until it's repeal. A prohibition on ______ type of firearm or ______ will be equally successful.
Off topic.... Would you make the same (sarcastic, obviously) argument in support of legalizing drugs?

More on topic.... how about other things that exist in nature....?
It's easy to be on the side that's in favor of wiping out The Plague, MRSA or Necrotizing fasciitis, but what about Sharks, Lions, Cougars (the furry 4-legged version), or other similar things found in nature that tend to be a danger to humans.? Pit Bulls? Britney Spears music? ;)

Pit Bulls may be a very good example.... A dog with a tarnished history that may/not be deserved. When handled properly, they provide protection and enjoyment. When handled irresponsibly or employed aggressively, they can kill.

[JConn]

Off topic.... Would you make the same (sarcastic, obviously) argument in support of legalizing drugs?

More on topic.... how about other things that exist in nature....?
It's easy to be on the side that's in favor of wiping out The Plague, MRSA or Necrotizing fasciitis, but what about Sharks, Lions, Cougars (the furry 4-legged version), or other similar things found in nature that tend to be a danger to humans.? Pit Bulls? Britney Spears music? ;)

Pit Bulls may be a very good example.... A dog with a tarnished history that may/not be deserved. When handled properly, they provide protection and enjoyment. When handled irresponsibly or employed aggressively, they can kill.

I think moving out of the realm of inanimate objects changes the argument. A pit bull is a relatively intelligent creature. Sure it can be trained poorly but it is just reverting to wild instinct in that case. Things like guns, alcohol, marijuana and so forth are completely harmless until used irresponsibly by humans.

Sent from my ADR6300 using Tapatalk 2

[BaiHu]

Off topic.........Cougars (the furry 4-legged version),....

Is there a difference? :D

[ToddG]

So the conversation typically goes something like this. "Cars and alcohol kill more people every day than guns, why don't we ban those?" and then the retort is always "But cars and alcohol weren't designed to kill people!".

The talking heads on CNN, NBC, etc. have cars and drink alcohol. They don't want those things taken away. When people do bad things with/due to automobiles and alcohol, the person is blamed.

Few of the talking heads on CNN, NBC, etc. have guns. Thus, they don't care if guns get taken away from the rest of us. When people do bad things with guns, the guns are blamed.

If the Founding Fathers appeared from heaven today and saw modern society, which do you think is more likely: they'd repeal/modify the Second Amendment as being far out of touch with its original intent, or they'd repeal/modify the First Amendment? Because the power of the media has grown many orders of magnitude compared to the power of small arms.

[Kyle Reese]

Off topic.... Would you make the same (sarcastic, obviously) argument in support of legalizing drugs?

More on topic.... how about other things that exist in nature....?
It's easy to be on the side that's in favor of wiping out The Plague, MRSA or Necrotizing fasciitis, but what about Sharks, Lions, Cougars (the furry 4-legged version), or other similar things found in nature that tend to be a danger to humans.? Pit Bulls? Britney Spears music? ;)

Pit Bulls may be a very good example.... A dog with a tarnished history that may/not be deserved. When handled properly, they provide protection and enjoyment. When handled irresponsibly or employed aggressively, they can kill.

Protecting the use/sale/distribution/manufacture of narcotics or similar substances isn't enumerated in the Bill of Rights. :cool:

I get your point. :)

[BaiHu]

....
Few of the talking heads on CNN, NBC, etc. have guns. Thus, they don't care if guns get taken away from the rest of us. When people do bad things with guns, the guns are blamed......

The problem is they have 'others' carrying the guns for them as they are escorted to and fro throughout their life. They don't need a gun, b/c they can afford a bodyguard where us plebes can only afford a gun :p

[Saur]

So the conversation typically goes something like this. "Cars and alcohol kill more people every day than guns, why don't we ban those?" and then the retort is always "But cars and alcohol weren't designed to kill people!".

My question is how the inherent morality of a given object is defined by its original design purpose rather than its usage?

I think they see it something like this: Objects designed to benefit others are seen as GOOD. Objects that can harm yourself, but don't directly harm other people aren't seen as BAD. But objects designed to CAUSE HARM to another human being are seen as BAD.

They don't like 'usage' as the primary indicator because the idea of twisting what is inherently a BAD object (designed to cause harm to others than self) for GOOD use (DGU) is morally inferior to simply getting rid of them altogether. Its considered a mistake that panders to what savage, primitive people we can be instead of working toward a more civilized society.

You'll hear a lot of them talking about 'solutions' to the mass murder problem, and usually they aren't open to the idea that there are no solutions to that problem - only trade-offs. But they will readily admit that its a hard problem to solve so they'll instead suggest taking steps to work toward the noble goal of stopping mass murder which is usually gun grabbing x.x; (which ironically enough can lead to loads of mass murder)

[Sheep Have Wool]

The talking heads on CNN, NBC, etc. have cars and drink alcohol. They don't want those things taken away. When people do bad things with/due to automobiles and alcohol, the person is blamed.

Few of the talking heads on CNN, NBC, etc. have guns. Thus, they don't care if guns get taken away from the rest of us. When people do bad things with guns, the guns are blamed.

This.

I think it's more an issue of cognitive bias, rather than something conscious, and it's difficult to overcome. When someone does something bad with a car or under the influence of alcohol, it's easy to conclude that it was the person at fault, because, "Hey, I've got a car, and I drink, and I've never done anything like that." When someone does something bad with a gun, it's equally easy to attribute the action to the presence of one for the non-gun owner, because "Look! I don't have a gun, and I'd never do anything like that! Bad gun!"

This isn't something that is exclusively the domain of the mainstream media, and we can all work on avoiding fundamental attribution error (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_attribution_error) when we're offering our commentary on a topic, particularly something that we're passionate about.

[jstyer]

I think it's more an issue of cognitive bias, rather than something conscious, and it's difficult to overcome. When someone does something bad with a car or under the influence of alcohol, it's easy to conclude that it was the person at fault, because, "Hey, I've got a car, and I drink, and I've never done anything like that." When someone does something bad with a gun, it's equally easy to attribute the action to the presence of one for the non-gun owner, because "Look! I don't have a gun, and I'd never do anything like that! Bad gun!"

This isn't something that is exclusively the domain of the mainstream media, and we can all work on avoiding fundamental attribution error (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_attribution_error) when we're offering our commentary on a topic, particularly something that we're passionate about.

Perhaps the best summation of the problem that I've ever read.

[EMC]

This.

I think it's more an issue of cognitive bias, rather than something conscious, and it's difficult to overcome. When someone does something bad with a car or under the influence of alcohol, it's easy to conclude that it was the person at fault, because, "Hey, I've got a car, and I drink, and I've never done anything like that." When someone does something bad with a gun, it's equally easy to attribute the action to the presence of one for the non-gun owner, because "Look! I don't have a gun, and I'd never do anything like that! Bad gun!"

This isn't something that is exclusively the domain of the mainstream media, and we can all work on avoiding fundamental attribution error (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_attribution_error) when we're offering our commentary on a topic, particularly something that we're passionate about.

Excellent!

[YVK]

When someone does something bad with a car or under the influence of alcohol, it's easy to conclude that it was the person at fault, because, "Hey, I've got a car, and I drink, and I've never done anything like that." When someone does something bad with a gun, it's equally easy to attribute the action to the presence of one for the non-gun owner, because "Look! I don't have a gun, and I'd never do anything like that! Bad gun!"
.

I don't know if I can fully agree with this, I think is is a bit dichotomous. I think that vast majority of gun opponents, at least those with half-brain, allocate the blame to the criminal. Their usual line is not to blame the gun in the crime, but blame the gun in effectiveness and lethality of the attack. The assault weapons and normal-cap magazine bans are good examples of "morality allocation" based on specific effectiveness of those. Sad part is that this often times is seen with various ranks of gun owners. Jim Zumbo is one example. A few years I read an opinion (maybe editorial) in a local paper that revolvers are all what's needed for a personal defense, written by a gun, or better said, revolver-owner.

I am with Caleb on this one; once somebody starts to assign moral values to inanimate objects, there is usually no conversation to be had. Although I wonder if this held just as true if we found an object all and every possible use of which would be considered unanimously amoral.

[Default.mp3]

I am with Caleb on this one; once somebody starts to assign moral values to inanimate objects, there is usually no conversation to be had. Although I wonder if this held just as true if we found an object all and every possible use of which would be considered unanimously amoral.

What about child pornography? As far as I know, it is illegal basically anywhere in the First World, which, if we take this argument to its logical conclusion, doesn't make much sense, given that they are generally just videos and images, and by themselves aren't hurting anybody. Now, the creation of child pornography is certainly very damaging and easy to condemn, but what about the pornography itself? Does it make any sense to outlaw its creation, but allow ownership of existing child pornography, using the argument based on the claim that inanimate objects are, in themselves, devoid of moral value (both positive and negative)? After all, as disgusting as a person masturbating to child pornography is, and indicative of possible psychological issues, that in itself isn't really harming anyone, particularly if they were using simulated child pornography.

[fixer]

So the conversation typically goes something like this. "Cars and alcohol kill more people every day than guns, why don't we ban those?" and then the retort is always "But cars and alcohol weren't designed to kill people!".

My question is how the inherent morality of a given object is defined by its original design purpose rather than its usage?

I think guns are designed to shoot bullets. I think cars are designed for moving people and objects from one point to another. I think cell phones are designed to enable voice communication between one or more parties. Alcohol isn't designed...it is always there as a natural substance.

What one does with this design is subective. People do bad things with technology.

We do bad things with parts of our body. Are we to be cutting off hands, sex organs, arms, legs when someone is harmed by them?

Someone can pack a truck full of explosives, communicating with his conspirators on a cell phone, or any phone, and do unthinkable damage...but in between news reports we watch a new HTC commercial and a Cadillac commercial.

shooting bullets can be as poetically justified as anything else based on intent.

Besides...someone (talking heads on major cable television news) is gonna tell me that guns, despite being around and widely available for over a hundred years, are the root cause of the recent spate of mass shootings?

BS. plain and simple.

[YVK]

What about child pornography? As far as I know, it is illegal basically anywhere in the First World, which, if we take this argument to its logical conclusion, doesn't make much sense, given that they are generally just videos and images, and by themselves aren't hurting anybody. Now, the creation of child pornography is certainly very damaging and easy to condemn, but what about the pornography itself? Does it make any sense to outlaw its creation, but allow ownership of existing child pornography, using the argument based on the claim that inanimate objects are, in themselves, devoid of moral value (both positive and negative)? After all, as disgusting as a person masturbating to child pornography is, and indicative of possible psychological issues, that in itself isn't really harming anyone, particularly if they were using simulated child pornography.

The difference here is that when one is looking at the sample of a kiddie porn, one realizes that an act that is universally considered amoral has to have happened (or simulated) in order for that sample/photo/video to exist. The child porn itself is impossible without the act of its creation which is amoral. While the photo itself is inanimate, the information contained in it is amoral.
Gun has no information contained in it. Nothing amoral has happened in order to build it, nor any crime, past or future, is implied by gun's existence, unlike the child porn.

[ToddG]

What about child pornography?

http://cf.chucklesnetwork.agj.co/items/1/4/5/4/5/not-sure-if-serious-nope-still-not-sure.jpg

Child pornography is the product of de facto exploitation of children. As such not only does it lack any redeeming value whatsoever but it necessarily, indisputably, and without exception places the holder in the stream of commerce for a product that requires the abuse of children to create.

Equating that to firearms, which are Constitutionally protected and used by thousands of Americans every year to protect themselves from unjustified violence, by thousands more to hunt for food, and by thousands more for recognized and societally acceptable recreation is just... well... seriously?

[Default.mp3]

The difference here is that when one is looking at the sample of a kiddie porn, one realizes that an act that is universally considered amoral has to have happened (or simulated) in order for that sample/photo/video to exist. The child porn itself is impossible without the act of its creation which is amoral. While the photo itself is inanimate, the information contained in it is amoral.
Gun has no information contained in it. Nothing amoral has happened in order to build it, nor any crime, past or future, is implied by gun's existence, unlike the child porn.


Child pornography is the product of de facto exploitation of children. As such not only does it lack any redeeming value whatsoever but it necessarily, indisputably, and without exception places the holder in the stream of commerce for a product that requires the abuse of children to create.

Well, if harm induced during production of an item is part of the moral calculus, then, again, how does something like simulated child pornography fit in? Photoshopping or CG creations don't hurt anyone, yet, as I understand it, many jurisdictions still ban it under the blanket term. Should simulated child pornography then be held to a different standard than non-simulated CP, given that the former is arguably just very grotesque art (I use the term very loosely here) that harmed no children in its creation? As for the argument about how the information came about was done in an immoral and repugnant way, then I ask, does this line of reasoning also apply to the information gathered from unethical human experimentation, such as the German and Japanese experiments on civilians and POWs during the Second World War? As I understand it, the data gathered from it was very valuable from a scientific POV, to the extent that much of it is still used today. Should we be destroying such information and data, given their highly immoral origin? One might argue that it's being used for a good cause these days, but then that reverts to the idea that how people use an inanimate objects plays a part in the moral value calculation of an object, something which most here seem to reject.


Equating that to firearms, which are Constitutionally protected and used by thousands of Americans every year to protect themselves from unjustified violence, by thousands more to hunt for food, and by thousands more for recognized and societally acceptable recreation is just... well... seriously?

Well, as caleb said:


I generally try to avoid talking to people who believe that inanimate objects possess any independent morality or motivations.

Child pornography is an inanimate object, no? Now, from a legal status, yes, firearms, recreational drugs, and child pornography are all each worlds apart, but from a strictly moral framework POV, many here seem to gravitate to the idea of inanimate objects being bereft of any moral value by itself. I'm just curious as to how far y'all would be willing to ride that train of thought; I find it interesting to see exactly where the consistency in the intellectual moral framework breaks down and we revert to more "instinctive" morality system. It's essentially a more extreme version of RoyGBiv's argument with the legalization of drugs.

[RoyGBiv]

"Child porn" is an argument at the fringes of the original post. It seems the OP asked an interesting question and we've devolved into the merits of whether this one hot-button item fits in as a valid example, whether it should be included in this thread.

This, in a nutshell, is the problem with politics today. I can find a fringe example in support or in opposition to just about any point. I'm hoping we don't get stuck on kiddie porn here. Would be a waste of an interesting question.

Carry on.

[BaiHu]

"Child porn" is an argument at the fringes of the original post. It seems the OP asked an interesting question and we've devolved into the merits of whether this one hot-button item fits in as a valid example, whether it should be included in this thread.

This, in a nutshell, is the problem with politics today. I can find a fringe example in support or in opposition to just about any point. I'm hoping we don't get stuck on kiddie porn here. Would be a waste of an interesting question.

Carry on.

+100

I agree and I also don't care to sully the conversation (I couldn't recall the topic until I looked at the title again) with entertaining a subject such as this--at some point, even in RR, we have to have some standards.

[Sheep Have Wool]

I don't know if I can fully agree with this, I think is is a bit dichotomous. I think that vast majority of gun opponents, at least those with half-brain, allocate the blame to the criminal. Their usual line is not to blame the gun in the crime, but blame the gun in effectiveness and lethality of the attack. The assault weapons and normal-cap magazine bans are good examples of "morality allocation" based on specific effectiveness of those. Sad part is that this often times is seen with various ranks of gun owners. Jim Zumbo is one example. A few years I read an opinion (maybe editorial) in a local paper that revolvers are all what's needed for a personal defense, written by a gun, or better said, revolver-owner.

Certainly people do allocate blame to the criminal. I'm pretty sure that the vast majority of gun-control advocates realize that guns don't walk around and kill people all by themselves. If asked, I'm sure most would agree that <insert crazy person here> would have found some way of doing <insert bad thing here>, even without a gun. That said, we often rail against the coverage of incidents like this because there seems to be an inordinate amount of focus on the specific tool the bad person used to do bad things.

My point was this: it's to be expected. People are wired to look at differences between themselves and others and attribute actions to those differences. It might not be conscious, but it absolutely plays a role in how people think.

As to the original question in the OP, if my only experience with guns is hearing about bad people doing bad things with them, I'm going to assume that guns are bad. If I'm familiar with them, and I have had positive experiences associated with them, I'm going to think they're just dandy. It's like eating bugs. You might think it's disgusting, but how much experience do you have with it? Lots of people like them, and they're actually pretty good for you. This is one of the reasons firearms education is so important.

tl;dr - Teach people about firearms and do your best to avoid cognitive bias by educating yourself about the other side of arguments. Then eat a bug.

[jetfire]

Well, as caleb said: (quote by me taken out of context)

I was talking about stuff like hammers and cars. I didn't think I'd have to qualify it by stating "excluding things like child porn", because I figured we were all smarter than that. I would really prefer to not have my quotes taken out of context to support ridiculous arguments.

[Default.mp3]

If I'm taking this thread too far off course, then I apologize; LMK, and I'll stop posting along this train of thought.


I was talking about stuff like hammers and cars. I didn't think I'd have to qualify it by stating "excluding things like child porn", because I figured we were all smarter than that. I would really prefer to not have my quotes taken out of context to support ridiculous arguments.

Well, herein lies the problem: hammers and cars are tools in which the ultimate/designed purpose is not to injure or kill. The firearm is, and for some people, the primary end purpose of injuring and killing is morally repugnant, regardless of reasoning behind why one might need to kill someone. So, regarding EMC's original question, does this mean that the anti-gunners are somehow validated in a fashion with their beliefs that there are indeed different standards to which we can apply moral costs to inanimate objects, costs which are influenced by how people use them and what their designed usage is? You might say that you didn't have to qualify your statement to exclude obvious evils like CP or crystal meth, but then, as Sheep Have Wool noted, people have different standards of morality, depending on their background; many of the American liberal bent would view firearms as being obvious evils, too, right up there with hard drugs, nuclear weapons, CP, coal plants, religion, etc. How many of those are arguably reasonable, and how many aren't, regardless of whether or not you agree with their point?

Really, all I'm saying here is that I think that to assign a moral cost to an inanimate object makes sense in a lot of cases, and that claiming otherwise reveals a lot of inconsistencies, for stuff like recreational drugs, CP, heavy weapons, etc. Of course, how to objectively assign these moral costs ends up being a exercise in futility, and a source of great conflict in our partisan political environment.

[Archimagirus]

The purpose of a firearm is to discharge a projectile, the purpose of a hammer is to drive a nail. Both can be used to kill, yet without the required input by a user, who has made a decision how to use those items, they won't kill someone. By attempting to place a morally relativistic value on those objects, you are abdicating the user from making a moral choice in how those objects are employed. People have morals, objects don't.

[JAD]

for some people, the primary end purpose of injuring and killing is morally repugnant, .
That is most of the problem right there.

"The purpose of the rifle is to kill shit so I can eat it or step on it." What day isn't improved with a Clint quote?

Some people don't accept that there are valid reasons for killing people. Those people are wrong.

Some people think that the power to kill people can only be entrusted to the State. Those people are wrong.

Some people believe that the individual can't be trusted to decide when a person needs killing. That's because those people themselves lack that moral compass; and those people are wrong.

[jetfire]

The firearm is {designed to kill}

My ass it is. You're telling me that a $3,000 USPSA open gun is designed to kill people? Or that a purpose built .22 LR rifle for biathletes is designed to kill people?

All race cars are also cars. All race cars are designed to go fast. Not all cars are designed to go fast.

[LHS]

My ass it is. You're telling me that a $3,000 USPSA open gun is designed to kill people? Or that a purpose built .22 LR rifle for biathletes is designed to kill people?

All race cars are also cars. All race cars are designed to go fast. Not all cars are designed to go fast.

Guns are designed to punch holes in targets. Some are designed with specific targets in mind.

But I think the core of the argument has been made: some guns are in fact designed to kill people, and there are folks who see that as an inherently bad thing, rather than something that is unpleasant but necessary at times.

[Saur]

I think they see it something like this: Objects designed to benefit others are seen as GOOD. Objects that can harm yourself, but don't directly harm other people aren't seen as BAD. But objects designed to CAUSE HARM to another human being are seen as BAD.

They don't like 'usage' as the primary indicator because the idea of twisting what is inherently a BAD object (designed to cause harm to others than self) for GOOD use (DGU) is morally inferior to simply getting rid of them altogether. Its considered a mistake that panders to what savage, primitive people we can be instead of working toward a more civilized society.

You'll hear a lot of them talking about 'solutions' to the mass murder problem, and usually they aren't open to the idea that there are no solutions to that problem - only trade-offs. But they will readily admit that its a hard problem to solve so they'll instead suggest taking steps to work toward the noble goal of stopping mass murder which is usually gun grabbing x.x; (which ironically enough can lead to loads of mass murder)

Cracked has an article that reveals the kind of mindset I mentioned in my earlier post.

The 4 Most Meaningless Arguments Against Gun Control (http://www.cracked.com/blog/the-4-most-meaningless-arguments-against-gun-control/)

#3 and #4 seem to be in line with the typical outlook of the 'other side' that the OP addressed.

For #4 you get a couple lines like these:"Human nature is deeply intertwined with violence and killing, and we as a species need to evolve past that in order to move forward into the vast playground of the Universe." And "Since the beginning, guns were invented by the people, for the people, to kill the people. They puncture your flesh until you die. That's what they're for."

They're judging the inherent morality of that given object by its original design purpose and don't really care how its used -- the article even tries to undermine DGU's in point #2 'guns saves lives'.

From #3: "Tools are misused to kill people, it's true. But tools are meant for something else entirely. Tools build and fix and aid and improve. Firearms do not. If used correctly, a firearm is meant to, in an instant, kill or destroy something. If a gun is used incorrectly, it would actually mean that something doesn't get shot."

Really, they just don't see guns as any better than, say, iron maidens or similar devices.

/facepalm

[BLR]

The 4 Most Meaningless Arguments Against Gun Control (http://www.cracked.com/blog/the-4-most-meaningless-arguments-against-gun-control/)


That is singularly the dumbest thing I've read today.

Apparently, since I left college, logic, critical reading, and writing have not been taught.

The problem with liberals is actually quite simple: they refuse to learn from history. Let's say all the guns in the world disappeared tomorrow. And wealth was equally distributed to everyone. They really, truly believe that would remove all the jealousy, avarice, and violence that was bred into our consciousness since we had well developed canine teeth.

[peterb]

The problem with liberals is actually quite simple: they refuse to learn from history.

To be fair, some conservatives refuse to learn from the present. To them the way things were is always the best way to do things now.

[LHS]

Cracked has an article that reveals the kind of mindset I mentioned in my earlier post.

The 4 Most Meaningless Arguments Against Gun Control (http://www.cracked.com/blog/the-4-most-meaningless-arguments-against-gun-control/)

#3 and #4 seem to be in line with the typical outlook of the 'other side' that the OP addressed.

For #4 you get a couple lines like these:"Human nature is deeply intertwined with violence and killing, and we as a species need to evolve past that in order to move forward into the vast playground of the Universe." And "Since the beginning, guns were invented by the people, for the people, to kill the people. They puncture your flesh until you die. That's what they're for."

They're judging the inherent morality of that given object by its original design purpose and don't really care how its used -- the article even tries to undermine DGU's in point #2 'guns saves lives'.

From #3: "Tools are misused to kill people, it's true. But tools are meant for something else entirely. Tools build and fix and aid and improve. Firearms do not. If used correctly, a firearm is meant to, in an instant, kill or destroy something. If a gun is used incorrectly, it would actually mean that something doesn't get shot."

Really, they just don't see guns as any better than, say, iron maidens or similar devices.

/facepalm

This once again illustrates the fundamental difference of opinion between pro-gunners and anti-gunners: the notion that killing is or is not always bad. The author of this article obviously believes that killing is never justified. His piece about 'defense vs. offense' makes that very clear. Meanwhile, most of us here believe that killing in self-defense is a justifiable act. That, in a nutshell, is the real difference.

[NETim]

This once again illustrates the fundamental difference of opinion between pro-gunners and anti-gunners: the notion that killing is or is not always bad. The author of this article obviously believes that killing is never justified. His piece about 'defense vs. offense' makes that very clear. Meanwhile, most of us here believe that killing in self-defense is a justifiable act. That, in a nutshell, is the real difference.

Those who feel this way are quite screwed in the head. My life is not on a par with someone who intends me bodily harm.

[NETim]

The "intent" of gun control laws is to make society safer. That's how they're sold anyway. The actual results appear to be totally inconsequential to the advocates of gun control.

Why should they now be allowed to use "intent" as part of their argument?

[Chuck Haggard]

I often have to point out that the same people who want to ban guns are often the ones who want to legalize drugs, and the argument is very often drugs should be legalized because prohibition doesn't work.

The double standard is almost never seen by these folks.

I also like to point out that I can build a functional gun from scratch in my garage, but I can't make cocaine. That guns are eaiser to get than many drugs is also a lost lesson.

[LHS]

I often have to point out that the same people who want to ban guns are often the ones who want to legalize drugs, and the argument is very often drugs should be legalized because prohibition doesn't work.

The double standard is almost never seen by these folks.

I also like to point out that I can build a functional gun from scratch in my garage, but I can't make cocaine. That guns are eaiser to get than many drugs is also a lost lesson.

Eh, you can make meth or other synthetics at home (lots of scumbags do it every day, causing much consternation and loss of property values). You could also make an open-bolt tube SMG like a STEN with a basic machine shop. Kalashnikov made an SMG in a trainyard machine shop in his home town while on convalescent leave. How many machine guns did John Browning cook up in his shop in Ogden? Prohibition doesn't seem to be doing much in any case.

I seem to recall a news article from Australia about how the local crime syndicate was busted with a clandestine factory making integrally-suppressed Owen SMGs a few years back. I need to find that, it was always a great counterpoint to the 'reduce availability' crowd.

edit: Found it! http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/07/22/1090464799535.html

[NETim]

http://amodestpublication.wordpress.com/2009/05/08/loyalist-paramilitary-improvised-machine-guns/#comments

[LHS]

http://amodestpublication.wordpress.com/2009/05/08/loyalist-paramilitary-improvised-machine-guns/#comments

I hadn't seen that one before. Yet another good example of home-made, crude, yet effective weaponry.

[Chuck Haggard]

Eh, you can make meth or other synthetics at home ]

I have run in to dozens of meth cooks, I get that part.

My point being that cocaine has to come from places like Columbia, through basically a factory infrastructure, and we can't keep it from being imported by the metricshitton.

I can build a sub machine gun in my garage from locally available parts. Look at what the Afghans have been doing for centuries as far as small arms making.

I also note that if the full weight of the Nazi army and SS couldn't keep guns out of the Warsaw ghetto, how are regular cops working within the constraints of the Constitution going to keep guns out of CONUS?

[Kyle Reese]

I have run in to dozens of meth cooks, I get that part.

My point being that cocaine has to come from places like Columbia, through basically a factory infrastructure, and we can't keep it from being imported by the metricshitton.

I can build a sub machine gun in my garage from locally available parts. Look at what the Afghans have been doing for centuries as far as small arms making.

I also note that if the full weight of the Nazi army and SS couldn't keep guns out of the Warsaw ghetto, how are regular cops working within the constraints of the Constitution going to keep guns out of CONUS?

Logic and critical thinking have no place in contemporary politics, where 4 second sound bites are king, and unchecked, bed wetting sensationalism rules the day.

928

[LOKNLOD]

I also note that if the full weight of the Nazi army and SS couldn't keep guns out of the Warsaw ghetto, how are regular cops working within the constraints of the Constitution going to keep guns out of CONUS?

Hmm, let me put on my progressive hat for a minute:

Well that's easy, we'll just remove a few of those those obsolete constraints from that outdated Constitution. They sounded good in the late 1700s, but the founders couldn't have predicted what we'd be up against now. It's supposed to living document anyway, right? Besides, if you're not doing anything wrong, it won't affect you...

Hat off. Goldamned thing hurts my head.

[Chuck Haggard]

Hat off. Goldamned thing hurts my head.

Good, because "stupid should hurt", no?

[BWT]

Ironic, that I was a guy joking about a gun having soul. (More realistically, they reflect the personality of their designer) We make stuff.

We make tools, we make guns. They are as threatening as one thing is or as another. I don't think truly any inanimate object is truthfully, immoral. People are immoral. A bomb is an assembly of components. A gun is. A Car is. A house is. A radiation machine to cure cancer is. A plane is. Etc.

People fear inanimate objects because they're told to. Reality is, it doesn't make sense. Do you fear something as Simple as a Box Cutter?

Well. Some guys pulled this off with them.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UVhhu5OjMf8

Maybe it'd do this country well for us to remember that this country has been at war for the longest it's ever been at war because of the attrocities that incited us invading a country, with box cutters.

Food for thought.

Maybe, some day, people with be smart enough to realize they're being manipulated. As far as a gun? Even a particularly even looking gun, with particularly evil features... didn't contain the capacity for savagery that launched us into that war.

But, I'll tell you this. Terrible things have been done to people once they've lost their right to own firearms. Our Founding Fathers understood that, even back then. Think it's not relevant? What About China? Russia? North Korea? Nazi Germany?

I'm a Christian, and in China, for openly expressing your faith, you could be imprisoned indefinitely, or executed for doing that. They're unarmed, so... they can do nothing about the destruction of their freedoms, being told how many kids they can have, etc.

What I'd say is... I heard it once said of a gun advocate, and I wish I could remember who. But look at how a Politician views gun owners, truly look at it, because it gives you a perspective, about what they will trust the nameless faceless American with. What their true view of your freedoms and how much of a threat you are to them.

I can't say I don't see the logic in that statement.

So. Bring out a Box Cutter to the next liberal that talks to you about the terror that was reaked with an "Assault Rifle" And you remind them what evil truly looks like, and you remind them that it doesn't take a gun, or a bomb, but that truthfully. There are just some bad people out there. All of the mass shootings we've seen to date don't have the body count that, that one day did.

That realization came to me earlier this week. But... people forget, I forgot.

I'd say that shocking realization, shows you how much of an agenda there is against taking guns away from people. Because... I guarantee most of you never looked at a Box Cutter and thought "That's a tool to start a war".

We make things war-like, not the other way around and what you have to very quickly conclude is that, the only commonality in any of these situations is a sentience, box cutter, planes, guns, whatever the case may be.

ETA: I mean it gets back to this, and I don't care how much one wants to analyze it.

You see guns as having an "intent" because you have emotions. That object doesn't, I think it also taps into the agenda of the liberals to blame the circumstances. Of course the same people that would blame gang land violence on the environment and say it needs to be pardoned etc so they can progress, would blame the gun. Because that's popular. Because that feels good. Because part of you can empathize with that. Do everything you can except make someone take responsibility. The same people pushing an agenda to give everyone free crap, they want no accountability, they don't want to earn anything.

Funny... those same people, same thought process, the guy who shot up Aurora, CO. Liberal. He might be declared insane and say that he wasn't cognizant of what he did, therefore, he should be maybe declared insane. I'll be honest... This is controversial and off-topic.

But I assess someone on a threat basis. I have a step-brother who has a mental disability, who does funny things and acts strange. But truthfully, if he murdered someone, I don't think he should be let off because he didn't know what he did. He's still a killer, he may have remorse, but sure, we all have remorse. When you're a threat against society like that... I don't care what your intentions are... you've proven that whether you have good days or bad days, you're capable of that, and you did it, and you need to be held accountable to it. (ETA 2: And by accountable. I think even mentally handicapped people should be put to death if they murder someone like they did in this case. It doesn't matter if they knew or not, they did it, and they're capable of doing it again. Who's to say they can't slip into the same mental condition an end more lives? How many have to die before someone is considered a threat? That's it.)

I think that's the much bigger issue here... People blame objects so they don't have to be accountable. They will do everything in their power to just not accept responsibility for their actions it's disgusting.

That's the problem, and that's the only common factor. Behind every atrocity, there is a human being.

I think as society gets away from holding people accountable, it will continue to deteriorate.