George "Macacawitz" Allen on Guns

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by glatt

On the surface, that's a great analogy. But for it to be fully accurate, those things you listed would also have to sometimes cause fires as well as protect against them.

All analogies have non-congruent features, or they wouldn't be analogies. But I will point out that there are many more things in the world that spontaneously cause fires (hypergolics, highly-reactive metals, strong oxidizers) than there are weapons that spontaneously cause violence. Weapons don't cause violence...and that's the flaw in *your* implcit analogy.

If you're intent on demonizing tools that can be used for defense as well as to commit crime, rather than holding responsible the people who actually commit the crime (because it causes less cognitive dissonance to your no-fault sense of relativistic humanism, perhaps?) then I'm afraid that there's not much that can repair your logic.

[glatt]

Originally Posted by MaggieL

If you're intent on demonizing tools that can be used for defense as well as to commit crime, rather than holding responsible the people who actually commit the crime (because it causes less cognitive dissonance to your no-fault sense of relativistic humanism, perhaps?) then I'm afraid that there's not much that can repair your logic.

"If" indeed. You're saying my logic is flawed, that I think nobody is responsible for their actions, and that it all confuses me. Fuck you. You're reading an awful lot into my post.

Yes. I've stated in the past that weapons are tools. We've covered this before. Your analogy above says that weapons are tools only for preventing crime. I'm pointing out that weapons are also tools for committing crime. Pretty simple really.

Maybe I should have typed "be used to cause" instead of "cause," but I forgot that I was dealing with the queen of semantics. Sloppy of me.

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by glatt

Maybe I should have typed "be used to cause" instead of "cause," but I forgot that I was dealing with the queen of semantics. Sloppy of me.

I could quite easily use a smoke alarm to start a fire if that was my intent. It's the people and their intent that matter, not the tools.

Words matter too. "Semantics" is the science of meanings, not a reason to dismiss an argument.

Notice how quickly the choir chimed in with the "guns are evil" chant right behind you.

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by Shawnee123

Not the queen of spelling:
I love that age old argument "guns don't kill people, people kill people"
Yeah, with guns. It's much harder to kill someone with rocks and sticks.

And easier yet to do it wholesale with a car or truck. The argument is age-old because the animism that gives rise to demonizing weapons seems perpetual. That an argument is old doesn't speak to its validity; if you would surrender the irrational belief that guns cause violence it wouldn't be necessary to repeat it.

Sorry if you had a problem with my spelling; it looks correct to me. Please bear in mind that in the sentence you quoted, "intent" is not a noun.

[Shawnee123]

Originally Posted by MaggieL

Sorry if you had a problem with my spelling; it looks correct to me. Please bear in mind that in the sentence you quoted, "intent" is not a noun.

Yepper, you were right, I was wrong on that!

Anyhoo, I do agree that people kill people. I don't anthropomorphize weaponry any more than I do cars or trucks, or this chair my big butt is currently plopped in.

I just think it's harder to kill people if you are armed only with sticks and rocks. I bet those Columbine boys would have had a much lower "success" rate without semi-autos.

Anyway, I can't say anything that you won't refute, or that hasn't been said over and over in this Cellar. So, I'm going to keep the big butt seated and the big mouth shut and go find a funny thread.

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by Shawnee123

I just think it's harder to kill people if you are armed only with sticks and rocks.

It's harder to live if you have only sticks and rocks. That's why we've made better tools.

[wolf]

Originally Posted by Shawnee123

I just think it's harder to kill people if you are armed only with sticks and rocks. I bet those Columbine boys would have had a much lower "success" rate without semi-autos.

They could have used modern revolvers or black powder pistols with the same level of effect, possibly higher level. A "semi-auto" is not a machine gun.

Columbine would have been far worse if the improvised munitions had gone off as intended.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by MaggieL

And easier yet to do it wholesale with a car or truck.

Cars and trucks are pretty expensive.

Originally Posted by Chris Rock

“Gun control? We need bullet control! I think every bullet should cost 5,000 dollars. Because if a bullet cost five thousand dollar, we wouldn't have any innocent bystander .”

Hey, that might just work!

[Shawnee123]

I love that Chris Rock bit:

''Man, l would blow your fucking head off,
if l could afford it. l'm gonna get me another job,
l'm gonna start saving some money...and you're a dead man. You better hope
l can't get no bullets on layaway."