5 ms·

I downvoted you due to the doublethink of providing an out for good pharma companies to exist, while calling all firearms companies evil. I can see having a pro

I downvoted you due to the doublethink of providing an out for good pharma companies to exist, while calling all firearms companies evil. I can see having a problem with IMI or other state funded companies that are a part of a Nation's greater military industrial complex, but on what grounds do you consider Glock or Remington evil?

paulcole 9y ago
> but on what grounds do you consider Glock or Remington evil I just don't like 'em.
- urda 9y ago
  > > but on what grounds do you consider Glock or Remington evil > I just don't like 'em. That's what is called "poor critical thinking" in most circles. Please push your agenda elsewhere.
  - paulcole 9y ago
    To be fair I think all gun companies are evil by the nature of the products they make. They're nothing special about Glock or Remington.
    - urda 9y ago
      You may think that, but that doesn't make it true at all. In fact the majority of firearms are used for sport and recreation. Others are used to protect yourself and those that you care for from physical harm from would-be attackers. Both of these realities can easily be demonstrated that they are far from evil indeed. Once again, poor critical reasoning. You're entitled to think that, but you're also entitled to be wrong. I won't be engaging this topic any further with you though, as you have already demonstrated that you have no intention of expanding your worldview.
      - braderhart 9y ago
        Actually, you are the one who is concerned with what you think their world view should be. I am sure they are happy to not talk to someone who really enjoys death tools, that you claim are for recreation, but are designed primarily to kill things. You have a thousand other things you can do for fun or with your time, but you choose a weapon that again was designed to kill living creatures, and now you cling to these things like you have a fascist government that you should be worried about that you need protection from.
      - ClassyJacket 9y ago
        Ah yes, expanding my world view that we should encourage school shootings. I would love to wake up tomorrow and be happy to see more kids murdered, but damn I guess I'm just not open minded enough. If only we were all so enlightened as Americans, that our children cower in fear that they might die at school.
        urda 9y ago
        > Ah yes, expanding my world view that we should encourage school shootings. ... If only we were all so enlightened as Americans That's not what I said at all (I even offered non-evil usages that occur daily, globally). Twisting words will get you nowhere here on HN (and in fact earns you a flag). Not to mention a dash of xenophobia to go with it doesn't do you any favors. I won't engage with someone who twists words and groups entire populations together under false pretenses. I'll simply tell you what other users have here: "Try to expand your views a bit."
    - eitland 9y ago
      Have you considered this: 1. Cars kill a lot more people than guns. Every year. And while cars can be useful a lot of the driving is more ir less meaningless. 2. While guns might be used for evil they are also used for good: there is no doubt in my mind that our big neighbour to the east (I'm Norwegian) would have invaded a number of European countries during the 50-ies, 60-ies and 70-ies if those countries hadn't been prepared to defend themselves.
      - dllthomas 9y ago
        > Cars kill a lot more people than guns. Every year. Globally, that may well still be the case. In the US, it recently ceased to be thanks to improvements in car safety.
        eitland 9y ago
        Not to detract from what you say (it was interesting, I originally thought cars were much more dangerous in USA as well and I was very wrong) but from what I can see in 2017 cars were back on top.
    - jenscow 9y ago
      Surely it's the people who use the guns with evil intentions who are the evil ones?
wpietri 9y ago
A pretty obvious distinction is that pharma companies make tools for saving lives, while consumer gun companies make tools for taking lives. (And yes, I'm aware of the theory that consumer guns are for taking lives in self defense. But in 2012, there were 33,563 gun deaths in the US, only 259 of which were justifiable homicides, so it's at least reasonable to think think that whatever the intent of gun companies, it's not working out like one might hope.)
- drak0n1c 9y ago
  The main reason for the second amendment is deterring authoritarianism. It works, regardless of force proportion. Occupying Afghanistan was a pain that was ultimately not worthwhile for anyone who tried it. Regarding self-defense, there is also a benefit in deterrence - look at relative crime rates in the most heavily armed per-capita states.
  - mschuster91 9y ago
    > The main reason for the second amendment is deterring authoritarianism. It works, regardless of force proportion. No. It's delusion. In doubt, feds will fuck you over and shoot your corpse when they're done. There is no such thing as stopping the police, short of welding yourself shut in a tank, but you're bound to run out of gas, air or food/water. Or being blown up with an RPG, if you do enough damage. The only thing that works as a deterrence to authoritarianism is masses - but you really need MASSES, as in hundreds of thousands of people, not a couple hundred neckbeards with guns. Hell, G20 Hamburg was in the upper 5-digit range of protesters with a decent amount of experienced and willing rioters and it got royally screwed. I don't nearly see any protest coming near that range of numbers soon... except, maybe and hopefully, if Trump decides to be a totally ignorant idiot and fires Mueller.
    - wanderer2323 9y ago
      The case for deterring authoritarianism is not G20 protests, it's (a) groups like Deacons for Defence (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deacons_for_Defense_and_Justice https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deacons_for_Defense_and_Justic...) where the presence of weapons serves as a deterrence, or if you want to turn to more grim times, (b) events like Warsaw Ghetto Uprising (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warsaw_Ghetto_Uprising https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warsaw_Ghetto_Uprising) where the concentration of weapons counts for forcing an oppressor to suffer casualties instead of just rolling over the unarmed opposition. That is what the quote you are responding to alludes to. Finally, weapons also serve as deterrent for the out-of-control forces, e.g. (c) 1992 Los Angeles Riots (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_Los_Angeles_riots https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_Los_Angeles_riots) when the government is not acting directly or indirectly against a group but is simply not acting at all during critical time All of these has happened before, and all of these will happen again, during our lifetime.
ClassyJacket 9y ago
They manufacture weapons. It's pretty much the most black and white fit for an evil company that can exist. That seems incredibly obvious to the point that I sincerely doubt you had to ask.
- hueving 9y ago
  You seem to assume there is no legitimate use for a gun. Try to expand your views a bit.

paulcole 9y ago

> but on what grounds do you consider Glock or Remington evil I just don't like 'em.

urda 9y ago
> > but on what grounds do you consider Glock or Remington evil > I just don't like 'em. That's what is called "poor critical thinking" in most circles. Please push your agenda elsewhere.
- paulcole 9y ago
  To be fair I think all gun companies are evil by the nature of the products they make. They're nothing special about Glock or Remington.
  - urda 9y ago
    You may think that, but that doesn't make it true at all. In fact the majority of firearms are used for sport and recreation. Others are used to protect yourself and those that you care for from physical harm from would-be attackers. Both of these realities can easily be demonstrated that they are far from evil indeed. Once again, poor critical reasoning. You're entitled to think that, but you're also entitled to be wrong. I won't be engaging this topic any further with you though, as you have already demonstrated that you have no intention of expanding your worldview.
    - braderhart 9y ago
      Actually, you are the one who is concerned with what you think their world view should be. I am sure they are happy to not talk to someone who really enjoys death tools, that you claim are for recreation, but are designed primarily to kill things. You have a thousand other things you can do for fun or with your time, but you choose a weapon that again was designed to kill living creatures, and now you cling to these things like you have a fascist government that you should be worried about that you need protection from.
    - ClassyJacket 9y ago
      Ah yes, expanding my world view that we should encourage school shootings. I would love to wake up tomorrow and be happy to see more kids murdered, but damn I guess I'm just not open minded enough. If only we were all so enlightened as Americans, that our children cower in fear that they might die at school.
      - urda 9y ago
        > Ah yes, expanding my world view that we should encourage school shootings. ... If only we were all so enlightened as Americans That's not what I said at all (I even offered non-evil usages that occur daily, globally). Twisting words will get you nowhere here on HN (and in fact earns you a flag). Not to mention a dash of xenophobia to go with it doesn't do you any favors. I won't engage with someone who twists words and groups entire populations together under false pretenses. I'll simply tell you what other users have here: "Try to expand your views a bit."
  - eitland 9y ago
    Have you considered this: 1. Cars kill a lot more people than guns. Every year. And while cars can be useful a lot of the driving is more ir less meaningless. 2. While guns might be used for evil they are also used for good: there is no doubt in my mind that our big neighbour to the east (I'm Norwegian) would have invaded a number of European countries during the 50-ies, 60-ies and 70-ies if those countries hadn't been prepared to defend themselves.
    - dllthomas 9y ago
      > Cars kill a lot more people than guns. Every year. Globally, that may well still be the case. In the US, it recently ceased to be thanks to improvements in car safety.
      - eitland 9y ago
        Not to detract from what you say (it was interesting, I originally thought cars were much more dangerous in USA as well and I was very wrong) but from what I can see in 2017 cars were back on top.
  - jenscow 9y ago
    Surely it's the people who use the guns with evil intentions who are the evil ones?

wpietri 9y ago

A pretty obvious distinction is that pharma companies make tools for saving lives, while consumer gun companies make tools for taking lives. (And yes, I'm aware of the theory that consumer guns are for taking lives in self defense. But in 2012, there were 33,563 gun deaths in the US, only 259 of which were justifiable homicides, so it's at least reasonable to think think that whatever the intent of gun companies, it's not working out like one might hope.)

drak0n1c 9y ago
The main reason for the second amendment is deterring authoritarianism. It works, regardless of force proportion. Occupying Afghanistan was a pain that was ultimately not worthwhile for anyone who tried it. Regarding self-defense, there is also a benefit in deterrence - look at relative crime rates in the most heavily armed per-capita states.
- mschuster91 9y ago
  > The main reason for the second amendment is deterring authoritarianism. It works, regardless of force proportion. No. It's delusion. In doubt, feds will fuck you over and shoot your corpse when they're done. There is no such thing as stopping the police, short of welding yourself shut in a tank, but you're bound to run out of gas, air or food/water. Or being blown up with an RPG, if you do enough damage. The only thing that works as a deterrence to authoritarianism is masses - but you really need MASSES, as in hundreds of thousands of people, not a couple hundred neckbeards with guns. Hell, G20 Hamburg was in the upper 5-digit range of protesters with a decent amount of experienced and willing rioters and it got royally screwed. I don't nearly see any protest coming near that range of numbers soon... except, maybe and hopefully, if Trump decides to be a totally ignorant idiot and fires Mueller.
  - wanderer2323 9y ago
    The case for deterring authoritarianism is not G20 protests, it's (a) groups like Deacons for Defence (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deacons_for_Defense_and_Justice https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deacons_for_Defense_and_Justic...) where the presence of weapons serves as a deterrence, or if you want to turn to more grim times, (b) events like Warsaw Ghetto Uprising (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warsaw_Ghetto_Uprising https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warsaw_Ghetto_Uprising) where the concentration of weapons counts for forcing an oppressor to suffer casualties instead of just rolling over the unarmed opposition. That is what the quote you are responding to alludes to. Finally, weapons also serve as deterrent for the out-of-control forces, e.g. (c) 1992 Los Angeles Riots (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_Los_Angeles_riots https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_Los_Angeles_riots) when the government is not acting directly or indirectly against a group but is simply not acting at all during critical time All of these has happened before, and all of these will happen again, during our lifetime.

ClassyJacket 9y ago

They manufacture weapons. It's pretty much the most black and white fit for an evil company that can exist. That seems incredibly obvious to the point that I sincerely doubt you had to ask.

hueving 9y ago
You seem to assume there is no legitimate use for a gun. Try to expand your views a bit.