5 ms·

I agree with your main point that this is a no brainer. I also think that the "wielder" is part of the problem. However, I don't understand your point about "

by splawn 13y ago

I agree with your main point that this is a no brainer. I also think that the "wielder" is part of the problem. However, I don't understand your point about "wielder vs tool". This is something i have heard a lot of pro-gun people say over and over again. However, that point only makes sense if guns are a general purpose tool (such as a 3d printer or a computer), but they are not. Guns are tools only used for killing. IMO, when it comes to civilian use, they are at best used to fulfill an antiquated hobby and at worst used to kill people. Edit: back on main topic, if only mpaa and riaa would admit the same thing about their struggle against the bits.

mindcrime 13y ago
Guns are tools only used for killing. Not true. Sport-shooting of various sorts is a very popular past-time. You have things like skeet shooting[1], ISSF shooting competitions[2], IPSC Practical Shooting competition[3], etc. And some of the contexts in which they are "used to kill" are hardly negative: hunting for food (very commonplace in many areas) and self-defense come to mind. No, a gun may not be "general purpose" in the same way a 3D printer is, but it certainly has no inherently malevolent intent. [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skeet_shooting http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skeet_shooting [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISSF_shooting_events http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISSF_shooting_events [3]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Practical_Shooting_Confederation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Practical_Shootin...
- splawn 13y ago
  dang it, sry for my use of the word "only". However, what you mention here is one of the things i had in mind when i said "antiquated hobby".
  - mindcrime 13y ago
    Fair enough. Being something of a firearms enthusiast myself, I don't exactly agree, but I can see where you're coming from.
hga 13y ago
Guns are general purpose self-defense tools. Do you believe that self-defense is legitimate? If so, why not with guns? In the US at least, guns are used about 2.25 million times a year in self-defense. Rather obviously, only a very tiny fraction of these incidents result in death, in fact, the vast majority don't even involve a gun being fired, e.g. the display of one with the obviously willingness to use it if pressed is sufficient. And legally, we and the police are not allowed to kill per se, only to stop (killing is reserved to the judicial system). You've also left out the middle uses of rural areas, where guns are necessary tools to keep various wildlife, generally in the class of "varmints", in check, in part because we've killed off or driven off many predators in favor of keeping our children etc. safer. They're also used in a much more managed way to keep e.g. deer populations in check, that's win-win-win for all concerned (government has the private sector do it and pay for the privilege, the private individuals benefit, and the public e.g. has fewer deer to crash into, they are the most deadly animal in the US...).
- splawn 13y ago
  Valid points, but even with the added value you mention its still debatable on if its worth the cost... I just don't buy into the whole "guns don't kill people" slogan because i don't see very many mass-stabbings...if we were all ninja, I might agree with it. However, this issue is complex. Way too many factors and not enough datapoints to know what direction to really go in,imo. We could take either side and cherry-pick facts and go round and round all day. I just hope violence overall continues its decline.
  - hga 13y ago
    I'd fork the discussion at this point, there's the utilitarian debate on costs vs. benefits (although it's even more complicated that you may realize, you have to go all the way to figuring in the quarter billion disarmed people killed by their own governments in the previous century), then there's the "the 2nd Amendment acknowledges the natural right of self-defense" and the minor detail of degenerate case that the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is an enumerated Constitutional right and if you want to change any of this, you have to amend said Constitution first.
pressurefree 13y ago
there you people go again... no brainer... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oLL215nCdaI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oLL215nCdaI
bifrost 13y ago
> Guns are tools only used for killing. That is over simplistic and incorrect. They are used for many more things, but if thats your first conclusion I suspect you are unlikely to listen to any reasonable argument to the contrary. To use your example, this is like saying "BitTorrent is only used for piracy" when its clearly not the case.

by splawn 13y ago

mindcrime 13y ago

Guns are tools only used for killing. Not true. Sport-shooting of various sorts is a very popular past-time. You have things like skeet shooting[1], ISSF shooting competitions[2], IPSC Practical Shooting competition[3], etc. And some of the contexts in which they are "used to kill" are hardly negative: hunting for food (very commonplace in many areas) and self-defense come to mind. No, a gun may not be "general purpose" in the same way a 3D printer is, but it certainly has no inherently malevolent intent. [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skeet_shooting http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skeet_shooting [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISSF_shooting_events http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISSF_shooting_events [3]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Practical_Shooting_Confederation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Practical_Shootin...

splawn 13y ago
dang it, sry for my use of the word "only". However, what you mention here is one of the things i had in mind when i said "antiquated hobby".
- mindcrime 13y ago
  Fair enough. Being something of a firearms enthusiast myself, I don't exactly agree, but I can see where you're coming from.

hga 13y ago

Guns are general purpose self-defense tools. Do you believe that self-defense is legitimate? If so, why not with guns? In the US at least, guns are used about 2.25 million times a year in self-defense. Rather obviously, only a very tiny fraction of these incidents result in death, in fact, the vast majority don't even involve a gun being fired, e.g. the display of one with the obviously willingness to use it if pressed is sufficient. And legally, we and the police are not allowed to kill per se, only to stop (killing is reserved to the judicial system). You've also left out the middle uses of rural areas, where guns are necessary tools to keep various wildlife, generally in the class of "varmints", in check, in part because we've killed off or driven off many predators in favor of keeping our children etc. safer. They're also used in a much more managed way to keep e.g. deer populations in check, that's win-win-win for all concerned (government has the private sector do it and pay for the privilege, the private individuals benefit, and the public e.g. has fewer deer to crash into, they are the most deadly animal in the US...).

splawn 13y ago
Valid points, but even with the added value you mention its still debatable on if its worth the cost... I just don't buy into the whole "guns don't kill people" slogan because i don't see very many mass-stabbings...if we were all ninja, I might agree with it. However, this issue is complex. Way too many factors and not enough datapoints to know what direction to really go in,imo. We could take either side and cherry-pick facts and go round and round all day. I just hope violence overall continues its decline.
- hga 13y ago
  I'd fork the discussion at this point, there's the utilitarian debate on costs vs. benefits (although it's even more complicated that you may realize, you have to go all the way to figuring in the quarter billion disarmed people killed by their own governments in the previous century), then there's the "the 2nd Amendment acknowledges the natural right of self-defense" and the minor detail of degenerate case that the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is an enumerated Constitutional right and if you want to change any of this, you have to amend said Constitution first.

pressurefree 13y ago

there you people go again... no brainer... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oLL215nCdaI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oLL215nCdaI

bifrost 13y ago

> Guns are tools only used for killing. That is over simplistic and incorrect. They are used for many more things, but if thats your first conclusion I suspect you are unlikely to listen to any reasonable argument to the contrary. To use your example, this is like saying "BitTorrent is only used for piracy" when its clearly not the case.