Rolling Stone Article - I guess according to them all guns are dangerous...

[gunnerbob]

This is irrelevant. When people talk about whether or not guns are dangerous, they are not talking about the possibility of it becoming sentient and trying to take over a gun shop to set its brothers free... they are always talking about a gun in the hands of a person. A child walking around with a loaded gun is a more dangerous situation than a child walking around with a banana that he or she may choke on, right?

Man Teaches Gun Safety By Shooting Himself In The Head (VIDEO) | The Libertarian Republic

Okay... so here is a great example of mishandling. Dude's been drinking? Check. Dude's a moron. Check. But it's the nature of the gun that made it dangerous. Had he wanted to show his girlfriend that a squirtgun had no water in it, the result would have been different, even though he was wrong.

I know you're going to want to say his stupidity was the thing that got him killed, but it's not really one or the other, it's both together. I'm not saying that guns are bad. I am saying that because of what they are capable of, they require proper respect and care. And before you say that guns are not capable of shooting without human interaction, humans are also not capable of shooting without something that shoots.

Everything you said reenforces the premise that humans are the deciding factor in making objects dangerous... objects alone have no danger associated with them, just people.

We are not going to agree here, I empathize with your argument I just don't agree with it. Shall we just call it quits or keep going back and forth? I've got thousands more examples I could use... none of which would change your mind.

 

[aacx22]

Here's another good one: Michelle Obama Says Soldier Was Caught In A ‘Fire Fart’

I guess that's another weapon we could use. :alcoholic:

Michelle Obama Says Soldier Was Caught In A 'Fire Fart'

lol

 

[aacx22]

Everything you said reenforces the premise that humans are the deciding factor in making objects dangerous... objects alone have no danger associated with them, just people.

We are not going to agree here, I empathize with your argument I just don't agree with it. Shall we just call it quits or keep going back and forth? I've got thousands more examples I could use... none of which would change your mind.

Like I already said, no one is ever going to be talking about a object alone being dangerous. Somewhere out in space is a radioactive rock. Who cares? Somewhere on earth is a child with a loaded gun. People start caring. You are arguing against a point I am not making.

 

[BluesStringer]

Like I already said, no one is ever going to be talking about a object alone being dangerous. Somewhere out in space is a radioactive rock. Who cares? Somewhere on earth is a child with a loaded gun. People start caring. You are arguing against a point I am not making.

That's because you have utterly failed to make a cogent "point."

But it's the nature of the gun that made it dangerous.

Man-made, inanimate objects have no "nature" of their own. "Their" nature is determined from concept to finished, working product by man.

Leaving a loaded gun where a 3 year old can gain access to it is a natural failing of man, not of the gun. A gun cannot fail "naturally" in any way, shape, manner or form, because it has no "nature" to implement its intended functions either correctly or incorrectly, either with care or carelessly. It is not inherently dangerous, only man's handling of the technology, any technology, creates the potential for objects to be dangerous.

"Nature of the gun" is a pure oxymoron.

Blues

 

[Axeanda45]

Everything you said reenforces the premise that humans are the deciding factor in making objects dangerous... objects alone have no danger associated with them, just people.

We are not going to agree here, I empathize with your argument I just don't agree with it. Shall we just call it quits or keep going back and forth? I've got thousands more examples I could use... none of which would change your mind.

So, in your world, something like, say a chainsaw running at full speed with no-one holding it isnt dangerous.... or a train running at 50mph down the track with no-one at the controls cannot hurt you if you park your car on the tracks and wait for it to come hit you? How about a boat (no-one on board)
that has come loose in a storm and is now out in the shipping lanes, is it not dangerous? I have plenty more examples if you need some......

And if you try to say that "well, someone had to start them BEFORE they were left alone", wouldnt that make a LOADED gun dangerous? (You have already stated it isnt, remember?)

 

[Firefighterchen]

So, in your world, something like, say a chainsaw running at full speed with no-one holding it isnt dangerous.... or a train running at 50mph down the track with no-one at the controls cannot hurt you if you park your car on the tracks and wait for it to come hit you? How about a boat (no-one on board)
that has come loose in a storm and is now out in the shipping lanes, is it not dangerous? I have plenty more examples if you need some......

And if you try to say that "well, someone had to start them BEFORE they were left alone", wouldnt that make a LOADED gun dangerous? (You have already stated it isnt, remember?)

A chainsaw running full speed with no one around it isn't dangerous, it will stop on its own.

A train going 50 mph without a conductor isn't dangerous either, it will eventually stop on its own.

A boat floating around also isn't dangerous, it will eventually beach itself.

What is dangerous, is human intervention. In all your scenarios it takes a person to choose to get close to the chain saw, to park on the tracks, or to get in or near the water. The human intervention is dangerous, not the object themselves.

A tree isn't dangerous...but if someone were to jump off a 100' cliff into a tree they will probably die from hitting the tree...The human act of jumping into the tree is dangerous, not the tree itself.

Sent from my HTCONE using USA Carry mobile app

 

[gunnerbob]

A chainsaw running full speed with no one around it isn't dangerous, it will stop on its own.

A train going 50 mph without a conductor isn't dangerous either, it will eventually stop on its own.

A boat floating around also isn't dangerous, it will eventually beach itself.

What is dangerous, is human intervention. In all your scenarios it takes a person to choose to get close to the chain saw, to park on the tracks, or to get in or near the water. The human intervention is dangerous, not the object themselves.

A tree isn't dangerous...but if someone were to jump off a 100' cliff into a tree they will probably die from hitting the tree...The human act of jumping into the tree is dangerous, not the tree itself.

Sent from my HTCONE using USA Carry mobile app

That's pretty much what I was going to say, thanks.

 

[aacx22]

That's pretty much what I was going to say, thanks.

Okay, so since objects by themselves are not ever dangerous, if I point a rubber chicken at you it will make you feel exactly the same as if I point a loaded gun at you, right? I mean, after all... my action remains exactly the same... only the harmless objects changed.

 

[NavyLCDR]

Okay, so since objects by themselves are not ever dangerous, if I point a rubber chicken at you it will make you feel exactly the same as if I point a loaded gun at you, right? I mean, after all... my action remains exactly the same... only the harmless objects changed.

So, what you are disclosing to us is that you cannot discern the difference between the capability of an object to be used to inflict harm and between an object actually being able to cause harm by itself. Do I have to do anything to the gun itself to keep it from harming me? No. It won't harm me until you pull the trigger. All I have to do is take action to keep you from pulling the trigger. If I want to keep my children from harming themselves with a gun, all I have to do is keep them from pulling the trigger on a fully loaded gun. The gun, by itself, poses no danger to them.

 

[aacx22]

So, what you are disclosing to us is that you cannot discern the difference between the capability of an object to be used to inflict harm and between an object actually being able to cause harm by itself. Do I have to do anything to the gun itself to keep it from harming me? No. It won't harm me until you pull the trigger. All I have to do is take action to keep you from pulling the trigger. If I want to keep my children from harming themselves with a gun, all I have to do is keep them from pulling the trigger on a fully loaded gun. The gun, by itself, poses no danger to them.

No. I am specifically talking about objects having the capability to inflict harm vs objects lacking that. This is exactly the point. This is why a gun is dangerous. Just like why a belt sander is dangerous. It's not to say that it's bad, simply that it must be handled appropriately because of its capabilities. People mishandle things all the time... but mishandling some things produce worse results that mishandling others. This is why a gun is more dangerous than a banana.

Your last sentence is technically correct, but wrong in application. No one cares that your gun is not sentient and does not have the ability to shoot people on its own volition. It is dangerous because of what mishandling it can cause and because it's easy to mishandle.

 

[Axeanda45]

A chainsaw running full speed with no one around it isn't dangerous, it will stop on its own.

A train going 50 mph without a conductor isn't dangerous either, it will eventually stop on its own.

A boat floating around also isn't dangerous, it will eventually beach itself.

What is dangerous, is human intervention. In all your scenarios it takes a person to choose to get close to the chain saw, to park on the tracks, or to get in or near the water. The human intervention is dangerous, not the object themselves.

A tree isn't dangerous...but if someone were to jump off a 100' cliff into a tree they will probably die from hitting the tree...The human act of jumping into the tree is dangerous, not the tree itself.

Sent from my HTCONE using USA Carry mobile app

Are you really this dense? do you actually think a running chainsaw isnt dangerous? If it isnt dangerous then stick your little man part on it... How about this.... A meteorite is falling from the sky, and it hits you square in the head after coming through your roof.. Of course you are now dead, but that object that had no sentient life took yours.... and no-one threw it at you or altered its trajectory at all.... I guess it wasnt dangerous..... it was only deadly, right?

 

[NavyLCDR]

Are you really this dense? do you actually think a running chainsaw isnt dangerous? If it isnt dangerous then stick your little man part on it... How about this.... A meteorite is falling from the sky, and it hits you square in the head after coming through your roof.. Of course you are now dead, but that object that had no sentient life took yours.... and no-one threw it at you or altered its trajectory at all.... I guess it wasnt dangerous..... it was only deadly, right?

I can use a pillow to suffocate someone to death - so I guess pillows are dangerous...

 

[Axeanda45]

I think I am going to bow out of this one (while telling myself I won) as I can actually agree with both sides of this particular exchange....

 

[S&W645]

Are you really this dense? do you actually think a running chainsaw isnt dangerous? If it isnt dangerous then stick your little man part on it... How about this.... A meteorite is falling from the sky, and it hits you square in the head after coming through your roof.. Of course you are now dead, but that object that had no sentient life took yours.... and no-one threw it at you or altered its trajectory at all.... I guess it wasnt dangerous..... it was only deadly, right?

No, a running chainsaw is not dangerous. Until the human that started it screwed up. Just like with a gun. It requires the human to make the chainsaw hazardous by locking the trigger on at full speed. Just like the human has to pull the trigger on the gun. If the throttle lock is off, the chainsaw will go to idle. And the chain will stop turning. If not, the chainsaw is defective and not in proper working condition. Same thing as with slamfires with a gun.

 

[aacx22]

I can use a pillow to suffocate someone to death - so I guess pillows are dangerous...

Yes. But not for the reason you state. Pillows are dangerous if you leave them in the crib with an infant. You don't have to suffocate the child, they can do that on their own not knowing any better. That's why they in fact are dangerous, under some circumstances. Just as guns are dangerous too.

 

[Firefighterchen]

Are you really this dense? do you actually think a running chainsaw isnt dangerous? If it isnt dangerous then stick your little man part on it... How about this.... A meteorite is falling from the sky, and it hits you square in the head after coming through your roof.. Of course you are now dead, but that object that had no sentient life took yours.... and no-one threw it at you or altered its trajectory at all.... I guess it wasnt dangerous..... it was only deadly, right?

Ad hominem attacks...self proclaimed win...pretty easy to see who is the sore loser.

The action of sticking my genitals on a running chainsaw would be dangerous. How often do you think about my little man part?

Has any one been killed by a meteorite?

There have been no recorded deaths due to a meteorite fall. A dog was, however, reputedly killed by the fall of the Nakhla martian meteorite in Egypt in 1911 and a boy was hit but not seriously injured by the fall of the Mbale meteorite in Uganda in 1992. The chances of witnessing a meteorite fall let alone being hit by one are negligible

http://www.nhm.ac.uk/nature-online/space/meteorites-dust/meteorite-faq/index.html

If someone were to be killed by a natural phenomenon, when they were outside watching said phenomenon, the act of going outside would be dangerous...otherwise millions of meteorites have hit earth, and no one has died according to one source.

Yes. But not for the reason you state. Pillows are dangerous if you leave them in the crib with an infant. You don't have to suffocate the child, they can do that on their own not knowing any better. That's why they in fact are dangerous, under some circumstances. Just as guns are dangerous too.

Again, it takes a human to put the pillow in the crib. When a pillow gets up and walks itself into a crib I'll think they are dangerous.

Sent from my HTCONE using USA Carry mobile app

 

[aacx22]

Ad hominem attacks...self proclaimed win...pretty easy to see who is the sore loser.

The action of sticking my genitals on a running chainsaw would be dangerous. How often do you think about my little man part?


If someone were to be killed by a natural phenomenon, when they were outside watching said phenomenon, the act of going outside would be dangerous...otherwise millions of meteorites have hit earth, and no one has died according to one source.



Again, it takes a human to put the pillow in the crib. When a pillow gets up and walks itself into a crib I'll think they are dangerous.

Sent from my HTCONE using USA Carry mobile app

Have you ever played with a squirt gun?

 

[Firefighterchen]

Have you ever played with a squirt gun?

Is this another one of your "tests"?

Sent from my HTCONE using USA Carry mobile app

 

[aacx22]

Is this another one of your "tests"?

Sent from my HTCONE using USA Carry mobile app

Actually it's something called a conversation. I can post a link to a online dictionary if its helpful.

 

[Firefighterchen]

Actually it's something called a conversation. I can post a link to a online dictionary if its helpful.

Sure you should probably do that.

While your at it, think about this, in case you forgot:

Okay, I was digging to see if you were inconsistent, but it does not appear to be the case. I disagree with you, but can't fault your honesty.

Sent from my HTCONE using USA Carry mobile app