5 ms·
And spoons make you fat
by vyrotek 14y ago
And spoons make you fat
- mattvanhorn 14y agoSpoons would actually make you skinny, if they were all you had to eat with. It's hard to cut a steak with a spoon. By the same token, it's harder to kill a dozen people with a knife, if that's all you have to work with.
- lostlogin 14y agoExactly right. But did you using your spoon make 27 fat who didn't want to be?
- vyrotek 14y agoSure, the analogy is silly. The point really is that [Noun] Control is impossible. What about crossbows, knives and rocks? Things aren't the problem. People are the problem.
- chill1 14y agoIt is very easy to kill someone with a gun.. It is also very easy to imagine how impersonal an experience it can be doing so. If you have to use a knife to kill someone, you are going to have to get very close to them to do it. You're going to have to be very aware of what you're doing. With a gun.. not so much.
- hyperbovine 14y agoWhy hypothesize?: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-20723910 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-20723910. _At least _ two seriously wounded. "Guns don't kill people..."
- snogglethorpe 14y agoIt's also much easier to defend oneself against a knife attack in many cases. E.g. pick up chair, hold in between you and knifey guy; not exactly a great situation, but he's going to have to spend significant time and effort on each and every victim he goes after, and slowing things down greatly will dramatically reduce the body count. Knives are simply much slower and less efficient for the task, especially against forewarned opponents (e.g. most of the potential victims in many mass-killing situations, and potential defenders), and it's vastly more likely the attacker will be stopped quickly even if he manages to kill a few people.
- recoiledsnake 14y agoLets not muddy the waters here. You mean the gunman could've used a number of crossbows, knives and rocks to take down so many people in such a short span of time?
- zenta 14y agoReductio ad absurdum: I would like to own my own [nuclear weapon], please.
- hyperbovine 14y agoI'd settle for a [drone].
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- baddox 14y agoThe analogy would place blame on the manufacturer/seller of spoons, right? In which case, they would be blamed for everyone getting fat.
- hackinthebochs 14y agoGuns themselves don't kill people, but they make it highly efficient. Guns are tools, they create or enhance capabilities and as such they can be judged based on the probable outcomes of their usage.
- marknutter 14y ago[Spoons] themselves don't [make people fat], but they make it highly efficient. [Spoons] are tools, they create or enhance capabilities and as such they can be judged based on the outcomes of their usage.
- hackinthebochs 14y agoI see you saw my comment before my "probable" edit :). The purpose of spoons are to feed. The probability of getting fat as a consequence of using a spoon is small. The purpose of guns is to make killing efficient.
- marknutter 14y agoPeople don't buy guns to "kill people", they buy guns to defend themselves. Most people who own guns would prefer to never have to use them.
- davidcuddeback 14y ago> they buy guns to defend themselves Or to hunt. Or for sport.
- hackinthebochs 14y agoThe majority of countries that own nuclear weapons have them for "defense". Would you say that absolves the technology from moral condemnation?
- IgorPartola 14y agoSo perhaps you'd like your neighbor to acquire a nuke or smallpox-based vaccine. Sure, he's a great guy and will never use these things, and besides, nukes have plenty of other purposes in a household. Their primary reason is totally not for killing people, so this is all good, right?