Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[Rukentuts]

Viagra was designed to be a drug that helps heart attack patients survive a heart attack. It was DESIGNED to do something. You're confusing intended design with actual purpose. They are not the same thing, and while guns were originally intended to be weapons for war, designed intentionally to fire projectiles to achieve that end, in our society, they've become part of hobbyist and sportsman culture.

The term 'purpose' indicates the reason why something is done. Adding the word 'primary' to it does not do anything except confuse reality.

Purpose is the reason why something is designed: what is its intended use. The only one confusing reality right now is you.

[Aeluron Lightsong]

With enough time and enough monkies, they too could eventually program WoW.

Easy to Learn. Hard to Master.

[Eroginous]

Purpose is the reason why something is designed: what is its intended use. The only one confusing reality right now is you.

No, the part you're confusing is the difference between intended design and actual use. If I jump into a car and plow through a crowd of people, I can safely say that it's purpose was to plow through a crowd of people.

You can say it's intended design was to transport people, but that's different from it's actual use.

[Rukentuts]

No, the part you're confusing is the difference between intended design and actual use. If I jump into a car and plow through a crowd of people, I can safely say that it's purpose was to plow through a crowd of people.

You can say it's intended design was to transport people, but that's different from it's actual use.

No, it's purpose is to drive on a road, and even certain specifications of road: it's why dirt roads shorten life.

Now you're confusing the purpose of the system and intent of the actor: both of which are abstracted during the requirements stage. Just stop now.

[Cthulhu 2020]

1. Thank you for proving my point.

Thank you for proving mine. You've played the party line so hard that people have stopped taking you seriously. The only arguments you make are on faulty premises. You hold your line even at the expense of being wrong or making false claims.

You can say it's intended design was to transport people, but that's different from it's actual use.

See, right here, you're still confusing intended design purpose, mechanism by which it achieves that purpose, and what it's actually used for.

A nail gun is a gun whose design purpose is to push nails into wood. If you want to talk about target practice, we can look at some paintball guns if you'd like. "Guns" (handguns, rifles, etc.) have a very clear design purpose by those who make them.

Continue to conflate design purpose, mechanism, and actual use though. It's only further proving my point.

[NYC17]

You must be confused. I never once said things were manufactured aimlessly. I stated that things don't have a primary purpose. Let's say you build a space shuttle. Now, let's assume for a minute you don't have a crew to pilot it. That shuttle will sit in a hangar unused, unable to fulfill the purpose you want to give it. You can sit here arguing it has a primary purpose all you want, but that doesn't make it true.

Objects don't have a purpose until they are used to fulfill the purpose you give them. If that space shuttle sits in a hangar until it's commissioned as a museum piece, never once fulfilling that 'primary purpose' you claim it has, how can you sit here and say it still has a primary purpose? .

The flaw in your thinking is that you believe you need to have said something in order for your bullshit to be in association with it. Your caught up in this "primary purpose" ridiculousness because your rather flimsy argument relies on it. Weapons aren't designed for sitting in a museum. They're designed with the purpose of expending projectiles. It's rather mind boggling that you believe because something ends up in a museum it changes it's original(or as you like to say "primary") purpose.

You'd do well for yourself if you'd just admit that this "primary purpose" idea that you've decided to latch onto is a joke without a particularly good punchline.

- - - Updated - - -

No, the part you're confusing is the difference between intended design and actual use. If I jump into a car and plow through a crowd of people, I can safely say that it's purpose was to plow through a crowd of people.

You can say it's intended design was to transport people, but that's different from it's actual use.

You can't say that at all. Well I mean you can, but it's pretty comical for you to do so. I'd advise against it.

The only thing you can say is that it was YOUR purpose, not the vehicle's.

[Rooflesstoofless]

Eroginous...dude...its a weapon...its ok.

You may use it as a high speed hole punch or to cut down trees but the police, government, general public, and BATF regard firearms as a weapon and have special laws in their transport and use because of that. I think the intent of the individual behind the weapon is key and individual responsibility is paramount, but you don't buy a home defense shotgun to use the barrel as a rolling pin.

[Kellhound]

Eroginous...dude...its a weapon...its ok.

You may use it as a high speed hole punch or to cut down trees but the police, government, general public, and BATF regard firearms as a weapon and have special laws in their transport and use because of that. I think the intent of the individual behind the weapon is key and individual responsibility is paramount, but you don't buy a home defense shotgun to use the barrel as a rolling pin.

I have purchased a few as works of art though.

[Deleted]

I have purchased a few as works of art though.

We're at that stage huh?

- - - Updated - - -

Classy... Did you hang them next to the reproduction of the "David" on top of a fake 1970's marble fireplace?

[Kellhound]

We're at that stage huh?

What stage would that be? Art is in the eye of the beholder. I bought a few firearms for no other purpose to display them.

[Deleted]

What stage would that be? Art is in the eye of the beholder. I bought a few firearms for no other purpose to display them.

*pat*

To each his own kellhound. To each his own.

[Kellhound]

*pat*

To each his own kellhound. To each his own.

I also have a brass steam locomotive for display, along with other works of mechanical art. Better than a Picasso copy any day. I enjoy craftsmanship.

[Eroginous]

Eroginous...dude...its a weapon...its ok.

Only if it's used as a weapon. A gun is a tool, and most people who own one will never pick it up as a weapon.

[Mayhem]

Are you going to post a rebuttal?

- - - Updated - - -



Again, you seem to have a disconnect between "designed" and "can be used to."

An item only becomes a weapon when it's intrinsic properties are used to cause bodily harm.

you have a hard time between the definitions "is a weapon" and "used as a weapon", right?

again, firearms are weapons, end, it´s the definition of the word, it even has arms (!!!) in it, you can´t just ignore it away, it is the definition of the word because of the things it´s designed to do

Only if it's used as a weapon. A gun is a tool, and most people who own one will never pick it up as a weapon.

see above...

[Wildtree]

Only if it's used as a weapon. A gun is a tool, and most people who own one will never pick it up as a weapon.

No, no, no, just simply NO...
You can only make this statement if you ignore history. History of mankind, and history of the ages.....
Firearms have not been created as a tool. Not even a hunting tool. They were counter productive as that.
They have been invented and created for one reason only. As a weapon of superior power to conquer and secure the defeat of the defending enemy. That is a fact known to mankind for a long time. We acknowledge that in our history books.

- - - Updated - - -

What stage would that be? Art is in the eye of the beholder. I bought a few firearms for no other purpose to display them.

Art is not in the eye of the beholder... Beauty is in the eye of the beholder...
Art as such is determined by experts familiar with the matter. The average person is not influenced by art, rather by beauty.
I do however not disagree with the action to purchase a weapon (including a firearm) for the sake of display. Yet, due to it's destructive nature, it should be on display in non functional condition. You can remove certain parts that have no visual impact at all.

[Eroginous]

No, no, no, just simply NO...
You can only make this statement if you ignore history. History of mankind, and history of the ages.....
Firearms have not been created as a tool. Not even a hunting tool. They were counter productive as that.
They have been invented and created for one reason only. As a weapon of superior power to conquer and secure the defeat of the defending enemy. That is a fact known to mankind for a long time. We acknowledge that in our history books.

Just because there's a long history of guns being used as weapons, doesn't mean they are always weapons.

[Mayhem]

Just because there's a long history of guns being used as weapons, doesn't mean they are always weapons.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weapon

they are by definition always weapons!

[Deleted]

Posted this shit in a different thread about that movie shooting, dunno if its relevant to the current debate (saw it was about the neutrality of guns, but this thread is fucking retarded so its hard to keep up)

Incidents like this are shocking not because of thier frequency, but thier infrequency and severity (much like the school shootings). These are tragedys in the sense that the could be prevented. The problem with the pro gun lobby is they are black and white (especially the NRA). They believe bad things happen because of bad people and we shouldnt keep the guns out of the hands of good guys. They believe the gun is neutral. Infact we need to worry about guns no matter who has them.

Let's look at gun homicides : http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr...eapon_2012.xls

I direct your attention to 'other than felony'. Arguments. Thats over 1800 people killed with a gun out of a second of rage. The single most prolific type of homocide in america.

Perhaps we should look at this too : http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr...egion_2012.xls

Any argument may end up being violent but if you add a gun to that the chances of someone dying are far greater.

The shooter in this case, an ex-cop (good guy) had a moment of rage (that made him a bad guy). If he hadn't of had a gun perhaps he would have reached for a weapon. But there is only so much you can do with a bucket of popcorn.

[Eroginous]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weapon

they are by definition always weapons!

Except when they aren't used as weapons.

[Rukentuts]

Except when they aren't used as weapons.

Your continued deliberate ignorance is astonishing. Apparently you need to acquaint yourself with the engineering process before posting more; lest you continue undermining yourself.