School Shooting in Connecticut

  On 12/18/2012 at 6:58 PM, sweepstakes said:

  On 12/18/2012 at 5:59 PM, compson said:

Could argue that guns were designed for eating animals... or at least making it easier... just as a knife makes it easier to eat animals...

What in the actual fuck, how is ANYONE taking this analogy seriously? Try eating your next meal with a spoon and a gun and let us know how that works out.

A knife allows you to more effectively break up animal flesh so that you can eat...

A gun allows you to kill an animal more effectively so that you can eat...

Just as factories and industry allows us to eat animals more effectively/cheaper. Yet industry also leads to human rights violations... so yeah its not the actual devices or systems but the people who wield them that are the problem. Do guns serve less of a function in modern society, definitely. But does that mean they didn't have some purpose in our history other than killing humans... ? So when people say guns only exist for killing other people, they are simply generalizing the reason why people have guns. Some people do like to hunt their own food as its cheaper and in some ways more humane than supporting food industry of cattle.

  On 12/18/2012 at 7:04 PM, The Overlook said:

Correct, and unlike the musketry you're entitled to fetishize under the 2nd Amendment, most modern firearms are not intended to do anything but kill human beings.

If you're some psychopath in the military, yes. Advances in technology should not infringe upon my right or attribute to any part of the 2nd amendment becoming obsolete though.

  On 12/18/2012 at 6:59 PM, RandySicko said:

  On 12/18/2012 at 6:51 PM, vamos scorcho said:

anyone that can't admit to some level of empathy or sympathy for the shooter is part of the problem.

 

 

Any time following one of these events, a focus on guns/government always seems to imply a lack of compassion for the people that were hurt ...but empathy or sympathy for the shooter? I am torn with that because on one hand, I think that is quite absurd - as I don't believe guns, psych conditions or medicine are to blame. On the other hand, I believe pure evil was working through that individual and I do feel bad for him in that respect.

Evil isn't real dude. We can look at morality but in the end it all comes down to nature/nurture.

The worst possible condemnation anyone can give him is that his genetic makeup predisposed him to this. We can only soften the condemnation from there, saying, "he had a bad upbringing," or "he was bullied," which also take the responsibility off of him. To say his genetic makeup was flawed isn't even to blame him.

To say he is "evil" is not only stupid, but dangerous, as stupidity perpetuates violence. To say he is "evil" is to disregard any of the real things going on in the case.

  On 12/18/2012 at 6:59 PM, RandySicko said:

  On 12/18/2012 at 6:51 PM, vamos scorcho said:

anyone that can't admit to some level of empathy or sympathy for the shooter is part of the problem.

Any time following one of these events, a focus on guns/government always seems to imply a lack of compassion for the people that were hurt ...but empathy or sympathy for the shooter? I am torn with that because on one hand, I think that is quite absurd - as I don't believe guns, psych conditions or medicine are to blame. On the other hand, I believe pure evil was working through that individual and I do feel bad for him in that respect.

Are you serious right now man? Where do you think this "pure evil" came from? Do you think the devil planted a black seed in his heart, and let's leave it at that? Whether you believe that behavior is a result of nature or nature, it's a mental health issue. When you use words like "evil" you draw an artificial boundary around it that thwarts attempts to solve the real problem.

RandySicko is an odd duck. This thread is becoming a series of tiresome digressions, but arguing with RandySicko is like arguing with a creationist. You can't argue with crazy.

No one is keeping you here.

  Iain C said:

  RandySicko said:

 

 

 

Just as anyone who is for abortion is against life ...

 

 

I'm not against all life - just the lives of the unborn and my ideological enemies (like you)

 

 

 

funny thing is, this is completely COMMON. oh but look out for those evil gun owners! maybe some of you guys are projecting a bit? kind of like the guys earlier in the thread who said they would feel the urge to shoot people if they held a gun?

  On 12/18/2012 at 7:05 PM, compson said:

  On 12/18/2012 at 6:58 PM, sweepstakes said:

  On 12/18/2012 at 5:59 PM, compson said:

Could argue that guns were designed for eating animals... or at least making it easier... just as a knife makes it easier to eat animals...

What in the actual fuck, how is ANYONE taking this analogy seriously? Try eating your next meal with a spoon and a gun and let us know how that works out.

 

A knife allows you to more effectively break up animal flesh so that you can eat...

 

A gun allows you to kill an animal more effectively so that you can eat...

 

Just as factories and industry allows us to eat animals more effectively/cheaper. Yet industry also leads to human rights violations... so yeah its not the actual devices or systems but the people who wield them that are the problem. Do guns serve less of a function in modern society, definitely. But does that mean they didn't have some purpose in our history other than killing humans... ? So when people say guns only exist for killing other people, they are simply generalizing the reason why people have guns. Some people do like to hunt their own food as its cheaper and in some ways more humane than supporting food industry of cattle.

Most knives are designed for culinary use and are used only that way - not for killing but for preparing harvested food. Not necessarily meat but also vegetables, bread, cheese, etc.

Rifles are designed for hunting, a.k.a. killing animals. I don't have the statistics handy but I would guess they are primarily used that way, which is taking the life of an animal but for purposes of sustenance with which most people don't have an ethical problem.

These are two different things - preparing food and hunting animals. And handguns and assault rifles are intended for a different thing altogether.

Rifles and other guns are somewhat comparable. Guns in general and knives, not so much. Not only are these tools suited for different purposes, they have different meanings based on our vast cultural library of violent stories:

- How many violent blockbuster movies significantly involving handguns and assault rifles have there been in the last 30 years?

- How many significantly involving hunting rifles?

- How many significantly involving knives?

  On 12/18/2012 at 7:20 PM, sweepstakes said:

  On 12/18/2012 at 7:05 PM, compson said:

  On 12/18/2012 at 6:58 PM, sweepstakes said:

  On 12/18/2012 at 5:59 PM, compson said:

Could argue that guns were designed for eating animals... or at least making it easier... just as a knife makes it easier to eat animals...

What in the actual fuck, how is ANYONE taking this analogy seriously? Try eating your next meal with a spoon and a gun and let us know how that works out.

 

A knife allows you to more effectively break up animal flesh so that you can eat...

 

A gun allows you to kill an animal more effectively so that you can eat...

 

Just as factories and industry allows us to eat animals more effectively/cheaper. Yet industry also leads to human rights violations... so yeah its not the actual devices or systems but the people who wield them that are the problem. Do guns serve less of a function in modern society, definitely. But does that mean they didn't have some purpose in our history other than killing humans... ? So when people say guns only exist for killing other people, they are simply generalizing the reason why people have guns. Some people do like to hunt their own food as its cheaper and in some ways more humane than supporting food industry of cattle.

Most knives are designed for culinary use and are used only that way - not for killing but for preparing harvested food. Not necessarily meat but also vegetables, bread, cheese, etc.

 

Rifles are designed for hunting, a.k.a. killing animals. I don't have the statistics handy but I would guess they are primarily used that way, which is taking the life of an animal but for purposes of sustenance with which most people don't have an ethical problem.

 

These are two different things - preparing food and hunting animals. And handguns and assault rifles are intended for a different thing altogether.

 

Rifles and other guns are somewhat comparable. Guns in general and knives, not so much. Not only are these tools suited for different purposes, they have different meanings based on our vast cultural library of violent stories:

- How many violent blockbuster movies significantly involving handguns and assault rifles have there been in the last 30 years?

- How many significantly involving hunting rifles?

- How many significantly involving knives?

Good points, but I was only talking about origin and I honestly didn't think about being specific because the post I was responding to was generalizing ALL guns.

  On 12/18/2012 at 7:20 PM, MisterE said:

Just as anyone who is for abortion is against life ... I'm not against all life - just the lives of the unborn and my ideological enemies (like you) beautiful. observe the tolerant liberal. tolerant of all, except anyone who disagrees with him/her. those who disagree should die.funny thing is, this is completely COMMON. oh but look out for those evil gun owners! maybe some of you guys are projecting a bit? kind of like the guys earlier in the thread who said they would feel the urge to shoot people if they held a gun?

Lol, when did I say I was a liberal? Or that I was tolerant of all?

  On 12/18/2012 at 7:24 PM, compson said:

  On 12/18/2012 at 7:20 PM, sweepstakes said:

  On 12/18/2012 at 7:05 PM, compson said:

  On 12/18/2012 at 6:58 PM, sweepstakes said:

  On 12/18/2012 at 5:59 PM, compson said:

Could argue that guns were designed for eating animals... or at least making it easier... just as a knife makes it easier to eat animals...

What in the actual fuck, how is ANYONE taking this analogy seriously? Try eating your next meal with a spoon and a gun and let us know how that works out.

 

A knife allows you to more effectively break up animal flesh so that you can eat...

 

A gun allows you to kill an animal more effectively so that you can eat...

 

Just as factories and industry allows us to eat animals more effectively/cheaper. Yet industry also leads to human rights violations... so yeah its not the actual devices or systems but the people who wield them that are the problem. Do guns serve less of a function in modern society, definitely. But does that mean they didn't have some purpose in our history other than killing humans... ? So when people say guns only exist for killing other people, they are simply generalizing the reason why people have guns. Some people do like to hunt their own food as its cheaper and in some ways more humane than supporting food industry of cattle.

Most knives are designed for culinary use and are used only that way - not for killing but for preparing harvested food. Not necessarily meat but also vegetables, bread, cheese, etc.

 

Rifles are designed for hunting, a.k.a. killing animals. I don't have the statistics handy but I would guess they are primarily used that way, which is taking the life of an animal but for purposes of sustenance with which most people don't have an ethical problem.

 

These are two different things - preparing food and hunting animals. And handguns and assault rifles are intended for a different thing altogether.

 

Rifles and other guns are somewhat comparable. Guns in general and knives, not so much. Not only are these tools suited for different purposes, they have different meanings based on our vast cultural library of violent stories:

- How many violent blockbuster movies significantly involving handguns and assault rifles have there been in the last 30 years?

- How many significantly involving hunting rifles?

- How many significantly involving knives?

 

Good points, but I was only talking about origin and I honestly didn't think about being specific because the post I was responding to was generalizing ALL guns.

I think that's OK because in general use, "gun" means handgun and "knife" means culinary knife. I would bet that there are far more handgun owners than rifle owners, and definitely more culinary knife owners than combat knife owners.

This might be an urban/suburban vs. rural cultural difference. It really all depends on context. But I think "knife" means culinary knife in the vast majority of places in the world, except maybe in the jungle where it would make sense for it to mean machete.

  On 12/18/2012 at 7:33 PM, sweepstakes said:

  On 12/18/2012 at 7:24 PM, compson said:

  On 12/18/2012 at 7:20 PM, sweepstakes said:

  On 12/18/2012 at 7:05 PM, compson said:

  On 12/18/2012 at 6:58 PM, sweepstakes said:

  On 12/18/2012 at 5:59 PM, compson said:

Could argue that guns were designed for eating animals... or at least making it easier... just as a knife makes it easier to eat animals...

What in the actual fuck, how is ANYONE taking this analogy seriously? Try eating your next meal with a spoon and a gun and let us know how that works out.

 

A knife allows you to more effectively break up animal flesh so that you can eat...

 

A gun allows you to kill an animal more effectively so that you can eat...

 

Just as factories and industry allows us to eat animals more effectively/cheaper. Yet industry also leads to human rights violations... so yeah its not the actual devices or systems but the people who wield them that are the problem. Do guns serve less of a function in modern society, definitely. But does that mean they didn't have some purpose in our history other than killing humans... ? So when people say guns only exist for killing other people, they are simply generalizing the reason why people have guns. Some people do like to hunt their own food as its cheaper and in some ways more humane than supporting food industry of cattle.

Most knives are designed for culinary use and are used only that way - not for killing but for preparing harvested food. Not necessarily meat but also vegetables, bread, cheese, etc.

 

Rifles are designed for hunting, a.k.a. killing animals. I don't have the statistics handy but I would guess they are primarily used that way, which is taking the life of an animal but for purposes of sustenance with which most people don't have an ethical problem.

 

These are two different things - preparing food and hunting animals. And handguns and assault rifles are intended for a different thing altogether.

 

Rifles and other guns are somewhat comparable. Guns in general and knives, not so much. Not only are these tools suited for different purposes, they have different meanings based on our vast cultural library of violent stories:

- How many violent blockbuster movies significantly involving handguns and assault rifles have there been in the last 30 years?

- How many significantly involving hunting rifles?

- How many significantly involving knives?

 

Good points, but I was only talking about origin and I honestly didn't think about being specific because the post I was responding to was generalizing ALL guns.

I think that's OK because in general use, "gun" means handgun and "knife" means culinary knife. I would bet that there are far more handgun owners than rifle owners, and definitely more culinary knife owners than combat knife owners.

 

This might be an urban/suburban vs. rural cultural difference. It really all depends on context. But I think "knife" means culinary knife in the vast majority of places in the world, except maybe in the jungle where it would make sense for it to mean machete.

Well by that measure there are far more guns which don't cause harm to humans than guns that do... and like I said I was talking about historically... when people had to grow or hunt their own food more, guns served more purpose then. Therefore suggesting the only purpose to create guns is to kill people is generalizing, when it could have been invented for the sole purpose of allowing people living off the grid to provide food for themselves.

  On 12/18/2012 at 7:05 PM, compson said:

  On 12/18/2012 at 6:58 PM, sweepstakes said:

  On 12/18/2012 at 5:59 PM, compson said:

Could argue that guns were designed for eating animals... or at least making it easier... just as a knife makes it easier to eat animals...

What in the actual fuck, how is ANYONE taking this analogy seriously? Try eating your next meal with a spoon and a gun and let us know how that works out.

 

A knife allows you to more effectively break up animal flesh so that you can eat...

 

A gun allows you to kill an animal more effectively so that you can eat...

Are you intentionally being obtuse? We didn't invent guns so we can hunt animals! We're talking about the purpose here. You could bundle a bunch of popsicle stick together and beat a lion to death given enough time and patience, but they weren't invented to kill a fucking lion! Sure guns made it easier to hunt animals but by the time we got to the point where we weren't reliant on hunting guns weren't needed for the job. I can't believe I'm having to say this.

  On 12/18/2012 at 7:20 PM, MisterE said:

  Iain C said:

  RandySicko said:

 

 

 

Just as anyone who is for abortion is against life ...

 

I'm not against all life - just the lives of the unborn and my ideological enemies (like you)

 

 

beautiful. observe the tolerant liberal. tolerant of all, except anyone who disagrees with him/her. those who disagree should die.

 

funny thing is, this is completely COMMON. oh but look out for those evil gun owners! maybe some of you guys are projecting a bit? kind of like the guys earlier in the thread who said they would feel the urge to shoot people if they held a gun?

It's astonishing how you're able to take utterly anything at face value. As if people just openly admitted they'd murder someone without a trace of irony. Good show.

Your back will bruise itself soon if you don't stop slapping it.

  On 12/18/2012 at 7:35 PM, compson said:

  On 12/18/2012 at 7:33 PM, sweepstakes said:

  On 12/18/2012 at 7:24 PM, compson said:

  On 12/18/2012 at 7:20 PM, sweepstakes said:

  On 12/18/2012 at 7:05 PM, compson said:

  On 12/18/2012 at 6:58 PM, sweepstakes said:

  On 12/18/2012 at 5:59 PM, compson said:

Could argue that guns were designed for eating animals... or at least making it easier... just as a knife makes it easier to eat animals...

What in the actual fuck, how is ANYONE taking this analogy seriously? Try eating your next meal with a spoon and a gun and let us know how that works out.

 

A knife allows you to more effectively break up animal flesh so that you can eat...

 

A gun allows you to kill an animal more effectively so that you can eat...

 

Just as factories and industry allows us to eat animals more effectively/cheaper. Yet industry also leads to human rights violations... so yeah its not the actual devices or systems but the people who wield them that are the problem. Do guns serve less of a function in modern society, definitely. But does that mean they didn't have some purpose in our history other than killing humans... ? So when people say guns only exist for killing other people, they are simply generalizing the reason why people have guns. Some people do like to hunt their own food as its cheaper and in some ways more humane than supporting food industry of cattle.

Most knives are designed for culinary use and are used only that way - not for killing but for preparing harvested food. Not necessarily meat but also vegetables, bread, cheese, etc.

 

Rifles are designed for hunting, a.k.a. killing animals. I don't have the statistics handy but I would guess they are primarily used that way, which is taking the life of an animal but for purposes of sustenance with which most people don't have an ethical problem.

 

These are two different things - preparing food and hunting animals. And handguns and assault rifles are intended for a different thing altogether.

 

Rifles and other guns are somewhat comparable. Guns in general and knives, not so much. Not only are these tools suited for different purposes, they have different meanings based on our vast cultural library of violent stories:

- How many violent blockbuster movies significantly involving handguns and assault rifles have there been in the last 30 years?

- How many significantly involving hunting rifles?

- How many significantly involving knives?

 

Good points, but I was only talking about origin and I honestly didn't think about being specific because the post I was responding to was generalizing ALL guns.

I think that's OK because in general use, "gun" means handgun and "knife" means culinary knife. I would bet that there are far more handgun owners than rifle owners, and definitely more culinary knife owners than combat knife owners.

 

This might be an urban/suburban vs. rural cultural difference. It really all depends on context. But I think "knife" means culinary knife in the vast majority of places in the world, except maybe in the jungle where it would make sense for it to mean machete.

 

Well by that measure there are far more guns which don't cause harm to humans than guns that do...

Alright, you're just trolling, I get it. Fool me once...

Nah Compson just struggles with discussion when he's got nothing to copy and paste from elsewhere.

Remember folks, anyone who does not agree with you is a troll

Here, since almost all these have been proffered by now.

  On 12/18/2012 at 7:36 PM, Obel said:

  On 12/18/2012 at 7:05 PM, compson said:

  On 12/18/2012 at 6:58 PM, sweepstakes said:

  On 12/18/2012 at 5:59 PM, compson said:

Could argue that guns were designed for eating animals... or at least making it easier... just as a knife makes it easier to eat animals...

What in the actual fuck, how is ANYONE taking this analogy seriously? Try eating your next meal with a spoon and a gun and let us know how that works out.

 

A knife allows you to more effectively break up animal flesh so that you can eat...

 

A gun allows you to kill an animal more effectively so that you can eat...

 

Are you intentionally being obtuse? We didn't invent guns so we can hunt animals! We're talking about the purpose here. You could bundle a bunch of popsicle stick together and beat a lion to death given enough time and patience, but they weren't invented to kill a fucking lion! Sure guns made it easier to hunt animals but by the time we got to the point where we weren't reliant on hunting guns weren't needed for the job. I can't believe I'm having to say this.

I'm just saying generalizing guns purchases as some kind of intent to kill people is really misguided, so is the notion that guns wouldn't have been invented if people didn't want to hurt/kill other people. I think you guys are crazy for taking my pretty straightforward evaluation of the purpose of a tool that kills effectively including animals and arguing that that is absurd and guns only exist for killing people.

Also we do live in the most peaceful time in human history... are there less guns around therefore? We have more deadly weapons than ever... nukes etc... yet less violence/death...

Also I am sick and tired of the same people attacking my points by calling me a fascist racist, troll, or an idiot. And I find that kind of attitude disheartening, for this is only a discussion. But I get it, people here want to feel superior so they can't let their arguments stand for themselves and instead have to try and discredit those who have different outlooks.

encey...

  On 12/18/2012 at 7:36 PM, Obel said:

You could bundle a bunch of popsicle stick together and beat a lion to death given enough time and patience, but they weren't invented to kill a fucking lion!

  On 12/18/2012 at 7:36 PM, Obel said:

Your back will bruise itself soon if you don't stop slapping it.

FLOL

  On 12/18/2012 at 7:39 PM, RandySicko said:

Remember folks, anyone who does not agree with you responds to your posts as if you just said the exact opposite of what you actually said is a troll

fixt

  On 12/18/2012 at 7:44 PM, sweepstakes said:

  On 12/18/2012 at 7:39 PM, RandySicko said:

Remember folks, anyone who does not agree with you responds to your posts as if you just said the exact opposite of what you actually said is a troll

fixt

Compson has made more well rounded points in less paragraphs than you have made in pages.

And how about target shooting... anyone? Some people like to put a ball through a hoop. Others like to put a bullet through a bullseye. IMO, it is a lot more fun to be outside in nature competing with with like-minded individuals instead of sitting inside rotting over an xbox360

Yeah, good point. Well made.

As soon as a guy attacks a school with a basketball by aggressively lobbing it at the kids heads and killing them I'll be sure to join the anti-basketball brigade too.

  On 12/18/2012 at 7:46 PM, RandySicko said:

  On 12/18/2012 at 7:44 PM, sweepstakes said:

  On 12/18/2012 at 7:39 PM, RandySicko said:

Remember folks, anyone who does not agree with you responds to your posts as if you just said the exact opposite of what you actually said is a troll

fixt

 

Compson has made more well rounded points in less paragraphs than you have made in pages.

I totally understand you saying that because you agree with him, hypocrite. And I also understand you completely blowing off my points because that's the primary tactic people with your political views use in arguments. Keep it up champ!

  On 12/18/2012 at 7:49 PM, RandySicko said:

And how about target shooting... anyone? Some people like to put a ball through a hoop. Others like to put a bullet through a bullseye. IMO, it is a lot more fun to be outside in nature competing with with like-minded individuals instead of sitting inside rotting over an xbox360

Agreed.

A bow and arrow could kill someone, yet I bet no one would be weirded out if someone was into archery.