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

[aacx22]

Isn't the subject of the OP....

The 5 Most Dangerous Guns in America Pictures - Pistols | Rolling Stone

The 5 Most Dangerous Guns in America
These are the firearms causing the most harm
-snip-

Ah, gotcha... no, I'm not on board with the Rolling Stone peeps at all.

Please note the part of your post I put in bold .... did you just say that a squirt gun is less dangerous than a hammer, a bottle of chlorine, or a gun but still saying that the squirt gun, the hammer, the bottle of chlorine, and the gun... are dangerous?

Yeah... I know I might be quibbling about the use of words but it is the use of words and how those words can be spun to demonize inanimate objects that the anti gunners use as their primary weapon against the right to bear arms. Once we buy into the idea that guns are "dangerous" then we must also buy into the idea that in order to protect people from those dangerous guns we need "reasonable", "appropriate", and "acceptable", restrictions placed upon those guns. And that line of reasoning(?) is how we ended up with the fuster cluck of gun control we have now. Sadly we have many gun owners who buy right into that never realizing that no matter what laws are passed hoping to control those "dangerous" guns none of those laws control the dangerous human beings who misuse those inert, inanimate, incapable of independent action, and therefor not dangerous unless a human touches them... guns.

Bottom line... no matter what wording is used guns are not dangerous in and of themselves. There has never been a gun that walked into a store and shot someone all by itself. There ALWAYS has to be a human being somewhere in the equation whether that be an irresponsible parent so a child has access, someone who drank too much, a fool, or a bad guy, who's use of the gun caused harm.

Will the result of being shot by a squirt gun hurt less than being shot by a firearm? Well hell yes! But without the human pulling the trigger the firearm is no more "dangerous" than the squirt gun.

I did say that the squirt gun is less dangerous... I can add the word "Potential" if that makes you more comfortable. The point is, if you simply dismiss any sort of difference between a real firearm and a squirt gun, then you're making a big mistake in my opinion because they have very important differences. Minimizing that difference can certainly lead to the sort of cavalier treatment of firearms that ultimately results in more mishaps.

Link Removed

Injury and death rates:
The number of unintentional deaths from firearms declined 80 percent from 1997 to 2002.
In 2005, 75 children ages 14 and under died from unintentional firearm-related injuries; more than half of those children were between the ages of 10 and 14.

Awesome to see the huge drops in unintentional deaths. Still, 75 kids got ahold of a gun, one way or the other, and fired it killing themselves or someone else. The kid's partially to blame for his mistake. The parent is mostly to blame for his mistake. Their actions caused the deaths, absolutely. But the nature of a firearm made it possible. If you don't like the word dangerous, feel free to pick one, but there should be a word to define the nature of objects who's potential for harm is pretty serious.

 

[Bikenut]

-snip-
If you don't like the word dangerous, feel free to pick one, but there should be a word to define the nature of objects who's potential for harm is pretty serious.

There is a way to define such things. Some objects can be used by humans to inflict more harm/damage than other objects.

It is still all about the human and not the object. A hammer can be used to build a shelter for people... or it can be used to bash in a person's head and take their life. But the "nature" of the hammer never changed.

A firearm can be used to stop a bad guy's attack and save a life or a bad guy could use it to attack and take a life.... but the "nature" of the firearm never changed.

A pencil can be used to write an emotionally moving literary work that changes an entire society... or it can be shoved through someone's eye into the brain and take a life. But the "nature" of the pencil never changed.

And the squirt gun can be filled with water for some hot summertime fun... or it can be filled with a caustic liquid and blind someone. But the "nature" of the squirt gun never changed.

Objects are inert and inanimate. It is humans who use those objects, oftentimes the very same object, for either.. and sometimes both... good or evil.

However... if a word is wanted to describe the nature of something who's potential for harm is pretty serious I would think that the word "criminal" would pretty much cover it.

 

[aacx22]

There is a way to define such things. Some objects can be used by humans to inflict more harm/damage than other objects.

It is still all about the human and not the object. A hammer can be used to build a shelter for people... or it can be used to bash in a person's head and take their life. But the "nature" of the hammer never changed.

A firearm can be used to stop a bad guy's attack and save a life or a bad guy could use it to attack and take a life.... but the "nature" of the firearm never changed.

A pencil can be used to write an emotionally moving literary work that changes an entire society... or it can be shoved through someone's eye into the brain and take a life. But the "nature" of the pencil never changed.

And the squirt gun can be filled with water for some hot summertime fun... or it can be filled with a caustic liquid and blind someone. But the "nature" of the squirt gun never changed.

Objects are inert and inanimate. It is humans who use those objects, oftentimes the very same object, for either.. and sometimes both... good or evil.

However... if a word is wanted to describe the nature of something who's potential for harm is pretty serious I would think that the word "criminal" would pretty much cover it.

That's no good. The last thing we need is for firearms, due to their potential for harm, to be called criminal. Dangerous is more reasonable. Also, a hammer has a purpose that is unlike a gun's purpose. Using a hammer to bash someone's head in is not using it as intended. The gun blowing someone's head off is working as intended. Hammers build by design. Guns destroy by design. That you can use them to protect something doesn't change that the way they protect is by threat of harm or death. A gun also has a much higher potential for harm by misuse than that hammer, and is clearly more dangerous than a hammer. (yes, I know... when a human misuses them.)

 

[Bikenut]

Originally Posted by Bikenut View Post
There is a way to define such things. Some objects can be used by humans to inflict more harm/damage than other objects.

It is still all about the human and not the object. A hammer can be used to build a shelter for people... or it can be used to bash in a person's head and take their life. But the "nature" of the hammer never changed.

A firearm can be used to stop a bad guy's attack and save a life or a bad guy could use it to attack and take a life.... but the "nature" of the firearm never changed.

A pencil can be used to write an emotionally moving literary work that changes an entire society... or it can be shoved through someone's eye into the brain and take a life. But the "nature" of the pencil never changed.

And the squirt gun can be filled with water for some hot summertime fun... or it can be filled with a caustic liquid and blind someone. But the "nature" of the squirt gun never changed.

Objects are inert and inanimate. It is humans who use those objects, oftentimes the very same object, for either.. and sometimes both... good or evil.

However... if a word is wanted to describe the nature of something who's potential for harm is pretty serious I would think that the word "criminal" would pretty much cover it.

That's no good. The last thing we need is for firearms, due to their potential for harm, to be called criminal. Dangerous is more reasonable. Also, a hammer has a purpose that is unlike a gun's purpose. Using a hammer to bash someone's head in is not using it as intended. The gun blowing someone's head off is working as intended. Hammers build by design. Guns destroy by design. That you can use them to protect something doesn't change that the way they protect is by threat of harm or death. A gun also has a much higher potential for harm by misuse than that hammer, and is clearly more dangerous than a hammer. (yes, I know... when a human misuses them.)

Concerning the portion of my quoted post in bold...

Perhaps I was not clear enough. I was talking about how humans are the dangerous "thing" so if a word is needed to describe a dangerous thing then the word "criminal" is appropriate.

Hammers do not build by design. Hammers are designed to hit things. Human use hammers to hit nails while the human builds something.... or the human uses the hammer to hit people and smash their heads. And yet the hammer did exactly what it was designed for... it hit things.

Cars are designed to provide transport. Humans use them to transport their kids to the hospital.... or to run over their cheating spouse. And yet the car did exactly what it was designed for... it transported.... but was used to transport one spouse over the top of the other spouse.

Knives are designed to cut things. Humans use them to prepare meals and whittle whistles for their kids.... or as a weapon to attack and slice up another human. Yet the knife did exactly what it was designed for... it cut things.

Guns are designed to spit out lead pellets. Humans use them to provide an afternoon's entertainment hitting targets or to defend life or a way of life .... or to harm other humans. And the gun did exactly what it was designed for... it spit out lead pellets.

About the portion of your post that I underlined....

Again you are ascribing the human potential for misusing the gun to inflict harm to the gun itself when a gun, an inanimate and inert object that cannot initiate any action on it's own, has no potential to cause harm at all. The potential to cause harm is contained fully within the human who uses that gun... not the gun. And you recognize that when you said ...

(yes, I know... when a human misuses them.)

 

[aacx22]

Concerning the portion of my quoted post in bold...

Perhaps I was not clear enough. I was talking about how humans are the dangerous "thing" so if a word is needed to describe a dangerous thing then the word "criminal" is appropriate.

Then I suppose I was also not clear enough. How do you differentiate between two OBJECTS who's potential for harm is different?

Hammers do not build by design. Hammers are designed to hit things. Human use hammers to hit nails while the human builds something.... or the human uses the hammer to hit people and smash their heads. And yet the hammer did exactly what it was designed for... it hit things.

No, that's not right. There was not some inventor out there thinking, what can I build that will better enable us to hit things? Striking things is what it does, but there is a purpose beyond that.

Cars are designed to provide transport. Humans use them to transport their kids to the hospital.... or to run over their cheating spouse. And yet the car did exactly what it was designed for... it transported.... but was used to transport one spouse over the top of the other spouse.

No. Running people over with a car is a misuse of it. Engineers did not design it to figure out how to run people over. Not the same.

Knives are designed to cut things. Humans use them to prepare meals and whittle whistles for their kids.... or as a weapon to attack and slice up another human. Yet the knife did exactly what it was designed for... it cut things.

Knives were designed both as a weapon and as a tool.

Guns are designed to spit out lead pellets. Humans use them to provide an afternoon's entertainment hitting targets or to defend life or a way of life .... or to harm other humans. And the gun did exactly what it was designed for... it spit out lead pellets.

Spitting out pellets is what it does, not what it was designed for. Guns were originally designed to harm or kill people during war. Sporting and hunting uses came later.

About the portion of your post that I underlined....

Again you are ascribing the human potential for misusing the gun to inflict harm to the gun itself when a gun, an inanimate and inert object that cannot initiate any action on it's own, has no potential to cause harm at all. The potential to cause harm is contained fully within the human who uses that gun... not the gun. And you recognize that when you said ...

Nope. Because it is not one or the other, its both together. A person that wants to shoot you and has nothing but his empty hand will do a poor job of it.

 

[BluesStringer]

But the nature of a firearm made it possible.

The only way "nature" has the potential to make an inanimate object dangerous is if it's sitting on a high shelf, an earthquake hits, and it falls bonking someone on the head.

A rock is a naturally-occurring inanimate object, but still, the only way it gains the potential for danger is either through a natural rock-slide, earthquake, or avalanche, or if a human being inserts his/her natural ability to propel that rock through the air, hitting someone and injuring or killing them with the inanimate object. Pulling the trigger on a gun is no different in definitive terms than propelling a rock through the air. Only humans have the "nature" to accomplish either act. Neither object has any natural potential for harm without actual nature exerting energy to it, or a human being doing same.

A non-natural-occurring inanimate object has no nature of its own.

I've seen unbending obstinance in the face of overwhelming majority disagreement, cites, links and proofs on this forum before, but this one's goin' for a record methinks.

Blues

 

[Bikenut]

Then I suppose I was also not clear enough. How do you differentiate between two OBJECTS who's potential for harm is different?

No object has any potential for harm since left to itself it will do absolutely nothing what so ever. It is the human being who picks it up that has the potential to use that object to inflict harm.

Originally posted by Bikenut..
Hammers do not build by design. Hammers are designed to hit things. Human use hammers to hit nails while the human builds something.... or the human uses the hammer to hit people and smash their heads. And yet the hammer did exactly what it was designed for... it hit things.

No, that's not right. There was not some inventor out there thinking, what can I build that will better enable us to hit things? Striking things is what it does, but there is a purpose beyond that.

I suspect that the hammer began as a stick whacking something and the inventor of the hammer merely improved upon the idea of using something to hit things with. But regardless... the purpose of a hammer is to hit things. It is the human who has the potential to use that hammer to hit nails to build a house or to hit people over the head to harm them. Same hammer with the same non potential to be dangerous until a human picks it up.

Originally posted by Bikenut..
Cars are designed to provide transport. Humans use them to transport their kids to the hospital.... or to run over their cheating spouse. And yet the car did exactly what it was designed for... it transported.... but was used to transport one spouse over the top of the other spouse.

No. Running people over with a car is a misuse of it. Engineers did not design it to figure out how to run people over. Not the same.

But according to the logic(?) you are presenting ... since the car can be misused to run people over doesn't that make the car have the potential to be dangerous? Of course not... the only time the car becomes dangerous is when a human uses it to run over another human.

Originally posted by Bikenut..
Knives are designed to cut things. Humans use them to prepare meals and whittle whistles for their kids.... or as a weapon to attack and slice up another human. Yet the knife did exactly what it was designed for... it cut things.

Knives were designed both as a weapon and as a tool.

Now you are confusing design with use ... again. Knives in many forms have been around for a very long time and, by the design of having a sharp edge, they are... intended... to be used to cut things. It is the human who decides whether to cut veggies intending to make a salad or to cut another person intending to do harm.

Originally posted by Bikenut..
Guns are designed to spit out lead pellets. Humans use them to provide an afternoon's entertainment hitting targets or to defend life or a way of life .... or to harm other humans. And the gun did exactly what it was designed for... it spit out lead pellets.

Spitting out pellets is what it does, not what it was designed for. Guns were originally designed to harm or kill people during war. Sporting and hunting uses came later.

Incorrect. The gun was designed to spit out lead pellets. Doesn't matter if the designer had the purpose of using it to harm people or not when he designed it.... the gun, the object itself, was designed to spit out lead pellets. Humans used it to harm other people.

Originally posted by Bikenut..
About the portion of your post that I underlined....

Again you are ascribing the human potential for misusing the gun to inflict harm to the gun itself when a gun, an inanimate and inert object that cannot initiate any action on it's own, has no potential to cause harm at all. The potential to cause harm is contained fully within the human who uses that gun... not the gun. And you recognize that when you said ...

Nope. Because it is not one or the other, its both together. A person that wants to shoot you and has nothing but his empty hand will do a poor job of it.

It really is only the human interaction with an object that determines whether or not the object is used to do harm.

But you are correct about one thing. The person who does not have a gun cannot shoot you. What you fail to understand is that a gun that does not have a person still cannot shoot you. Which makes the person the "dangerous" element in the getting shot equation... not the gun.

So no, it is not both... doesn't matter what the object is, car, hammer, rock, knife, or gun... without a human using the object for the purpose of doing harm the object cannot and will NOT ... do any harm.

My reply is contained within your quoted post above in blue.

 

[aacx22]

My reply is contained within your quoted post above in blue.

You don't have any way to gauge the difference between objects, eh? A stick of dynamite, a stick of gum... no way to characterize the difference in their capabilities at all? That's a pretty limited understanding of things. There is a reason one of these two things needs to be managed more carefully than the other. It's irrelevant that human interaction needs to be involved for these things to perform whatever their capability is. The intention or the carelessness is in the person, but the capability is in the object. I think that you know this and are just being stubborn.

 

[Bikenut]

You don't have any way to gauge the difference between objects, eh? A stick of dynamite, a stick of gum... no way to characterize the difference in their capabilities at all? That's a pretty limited understanding of things. There is a reason one of these two things needs to be managed more carefully than the other. It's irrelevant that human interaction needs to be involved for these things to perform whatever their capability is. The intention or the carelessness is in the person, but the capability is in the object. I think that you know this and are just being stubborn.

It doesn't matter what the capability of an object is... that object doesn't become dangerous until a human being interacts with it in some manner.

A hammer is capable of driving nails... and smashing skulls.

A car is capable of transporting people... and running over cheating spouses.

A gun is capable of saving lives... or taking them.

Dynamite is capable of exposing the earth's riches... or blowing up people.

Gum is capable of offering a tasty treat... or choking a person.

All of those things have some kind of "capability" yet none of the capabilities of any of those objects are utilized until a human being interacts with them.

Doesn't matter what the capability of an object is... what matters is what use the human being puts those capabilities to.

And I am dismayed to see how many folks have fallen for the false logic that projects the dangerousness of the human who uses a gun to cause harm onto the gun itself. The idea that if guns are banned then folks will be safe from being attacked by a human with a gun is how we got all this gun control, some of it with the willing assistance of gun owners who have fallen for the idea that the "dangerous" gun is the problem, yet all of gun control neglects to address the fact that the real dangerous thing is the human doing the attacking. Take away the gun and the human will still attack.... perhaps with a hammer.

The old saying "Guns don't kill people. People kill people" is exactly correct. Let me rephrase that just for this argument. "Guns aren't dangerous. People who use guns to do harm are dangerous."

 

[Firefighterchen]

It doesn't matter what the capability of an object is... that object doesn't become dangerous until a human being interacts with it in some manner.

A hammer is capable of driving nails... and smashing skulls.

A car is capable of transporting people... and running over cheating spouses.

A gun is capable of saving lives... or taking them.

Dynamite is capable of exposing the earth's riches... or blowing up people.

Gum is capable of offering a tasty treat... or choking a person.

All of those things have some kind of "capability" yet none of the capabilities of any of those objects are utilized until a human being interacts with them.

Doesn't matter what the capability of an object is... what matters is what use the human being puts those capabilities to.

And I am dismayed to see how many folks have fallen for the false logic that projects the dangerousness of the human who uses a gun to cause harm onto the gun itself. The idea that if guns are banned then folks will be safe from being attacked by a human with a gun is how we got all this gun control, some of it with the willing assistance of gun owners who have fallen for the idea that the "dangerous" gun is the problem, yet all of gun control neglects to address the fact that the real dangerous thing is the human doing the attacking. Take away the gun and the human will still attack.... perhaps with a hammer.

The old saying "Guns don't kill people. People kill people" is exactly correct. Let me rephrase that just for this argument. "Guns aren't dangerous. People who use guns to do harm are dangerous."

And around and around and around we go.

Sent from my HTCONE using USA Carry mobile app

 

[Bikenut]

And around and around and around we go.

Sent from my HTCONE using USA Carry mobile app

Yes... but if the idea that objects all by themselves are "dangerous" is not challenged people will believe that objects should be banned because they are "dangerous"... and that idea is one of, if not the entire, fundamental ideas that anti gunners use to push their gun control agenda.

I used to believe that some objects were "dangerous" and some objects were "safe" until I learned the lowly pencil can be used to kill a person. That one thing alone caused me to understand that it isn't the object that is safe or dangerous... it is how some human being uses that object that is safe or dangerous.

If nothing else this discussion might have caused some folks to rethink what they have been led to believe.

 

[Firefighterchen]

Yes... but if the idea that objects all by themselves are "dangerous" is not challenged people will believe that objects should be banned because they are "dangerous"... and that idea is one of, if not the entire, fundamental ideas that anti gunners use to push their gun control agenda.

I used to believe that some objects were "dangerous" and some objects were "safe" until I learned the lowly pencil can be used to kill a person. That one thing alone caused me to understand that it isn't the object that is safe or dangerous... it is how some human being uses that object that is safe or dangerous.

If nothing else this discussion might have caused some folks to rethink what they have been led to believe.

I hope so.

Sent from my HTCONE using USA Carry mobile app

 

[aacx22]

Yes... but if the idea that objects all by themselves are "dangerous" is not challenged people will believe that objects should be banned because they are "dangerous"... and that idea is one of, if not the entire, fundamental ideas that anti gunners use to push their gun control agenda.

That explains why they have banned hammers, belt sanders, knives, etc... Oh, wait.

I used to believe that some objects were "dangerous" and some objects were "safe" until I learned the lowly pencil can be used to kill a person. That one thing alone caused me to understand that it isn't the object that is safe or dangerous... it is how some human being uses that object that is safe or dangerous.

If nothing else this discussion might have caused some folks to rethink what they have been led to believe.

The pencil does not facilitate killing people nearly so much as a gun. These two things clearly can be defined as having different statuses. That you close your eyes and stick your fingers in your ears and yell, lalalala doesn't change this obvious fact.

 

[aacx22]

It doesn't matter what the capability of an object is... that object doesn't become dangerous until a human being interacts with it in some manner.

And yet again........................ I have never said otherwise.

A hammer is capable of driving nails... and smashing skulls.

A car is capable of transporting people... and running over cheating spouses.

A gun is capable of saving lives... or taking them.

A stretch of sorts... let me know when a gun performs some sort of life saving medical procedure. A gun is used either to kill or harm a bad guy until he either gives up or becomes incapable of taking a life.

Dynamite is capable of exposing the earth's riches... or blowing up people.

Gum is capable of offering a tasty treat... or choking a person.

All of those things have some kind of "capability" yet none of the capabilities of any of those objects are utilized until a human being interacts with them.

Doesn't matter what the capability of an object is... what matters is what use the human being puts those capabilities to.

That explains why people are able to use gum to blow a big hole in the earth and expose its riches, so long as the user of said gum wills that power into it. Fascinating.

And I am dismayed to see how many folks have fallen for the false logic that projects the dangerousness of the human who uses a gun to cause harm onto the gun itself. The idea that if guns are banned then folks will be safe from being attacked by a human with a gun is how we got all this gun control, some of it with the willing assistance of gun owners who have fallen for the idea that the "dangerous" gun is the problem, yet all of gun control neglects to address the fact that the real dangerous thing is the human doing the attacking. Take away the gun and the human will still attack.... perhaps with a hammer.

It's not the people that respect firearms, recognizing the immense responsibility once undertakes being a responsibly armed citizen, that are going to get firearms banned. Its the people that can't tell the difference between a firearm and a toy.

The old saying "Guns don't kill people. People kill people" is exactly correct. Let me rephrase that just for this argument. "Guns aren't dangerous. People who use guns to do harm are dangerous."

Like 5 year olds that find one at grandpa's house? It's not so simplistic as you want it to be.

 

[Bikenut]

Originally Posted by Bikenut View Post
It doesn't matter what the capability of an object is... that object doesn't become dangerous until a human being interacts with it in some manner.

And yet again........................ I have never said otherwise.

Originally Posted by Bikenut View Post
A hammer is capable of driving nails... and smashing skulls.

A car is capable of transporting people... and running over cheating spouses.

A gun is capable of saving lives... or taking them.

A stretch of sorts... let me know when a gun performs some sort of life saving medical procedure. A gun is used either to kill or harm a bad guy until he either gives up or becomes incapable of taking a life.

And using a gun to stop a bad guy isn't a life saving procedure?

Originally Posted by Bikenut View Post
Dynamite is capable of exposing the earth's riches... or blowing up people.

Gum is capable of offering a tasty treat... or choking a person.

All of those things have some kind of "capability" yet none of the capabilities of any of those objects are utilized until a human being interacts with them.

Doesn't matter what the capability of an object is... what matters is what use the human being puts those capabilities to.

That explains why people are able to use gum to blow a big hole in the earth and expose its riches, so long as the user of said gum wills that power into it. Fascinating.

Yes..... your replies are becoming increasingly .... fascinating... as you continue to try to say that one object is more dangerous than another all by itself while continuing to say....

Originally Posted by Bikenut View Post
It doesn't matter what the capability of an object is... that object doesn't become dangerous until a human being interacts with it in some manner.

And yet again........................ I have never said otherwise.

Originally Posted by Bikenut View Post
And I am dismayed to see how many folks have fallen for the false logic that projects the dangerousness of the human who uses a gun to cause harm onto the gun itself. The idea that if guns are banned then folks will be safe from being attacked by a human with a gun is how we got all this gun control, some of it with the willing assistance of gun owners who have fallen for the idea that the "dangerous" gun is the problem, yet all of gun control neglects to address the fact that the real dangerous thing is the human doing the attacking. Take away the gun and the human will still attack.... perhaps with a hammer.

It's not the people that respect firearms, recognizing the immense responsibility once undertakes being a responsibly armed citizen, that are going to get firearms banned. Its the people that can't tell the difference between a firearm and a toy.

Most people are quite capable of differentiating between how a human uses a firearm and how a human uses a toy. And most people also understand that neither the firearm nor the toy is "dangerous" or "fun" until a human uses it for either "fun" or in a "dangerous" manner. You are aware that toys have been used by kids to bonk or cut (harm) another kid during play ... and that toys can even be used to kill right?

Actually it is the folks who fall for the anti gun narrative that guns are inherently "dangerous" ....without understanding that guns all by themselves are not "dangerous" (which has been the core of this discussion) since without human interaction a gun is just a chunk of metal and plastic incapable of independent motion or decision making.....who are helping the anti gunners push their agenda of controlling who is allowed to have/use guns through controlling the rhetoric about how "dangerous" guns are.

Originally Posted by Bikenut View PostThe old saying "Guns don't kill people. People kill people" is exactly correct. Let me rephrase that just for this argument. "Guns aren't dangerous. People who use guns to do harm are dangerous."

Like 5 year olds that find one at grandpa's house? It's not so simplistic as you want it to be.

And it still isn't the gun that is "dangerous".... it was Grampa who engaged in the dangerous action of leaving a gun where the 5 year old could find it.

Part of my reply is contained within the post above in blue.......

It is sad to see just how effective decades of anti gun propaganda about how guns are "dangerous" has been.

 

[Bikenut]

Originally Posted by Bikenut View Post
Yes... but if the idea that objects all by themselves are "dangerous" is not challenged people will believe that objects should be banned because they are "dangerous"... and that idea is one of, if not the entire, fundamental ideas that anti gunners use to push their gun control agenda.

That explains why they have banned hammers, belt sanders, knives, etc... Oh, wait.

Originally Posted by Bikenut View PostI used to believe that some objects were "dangerous" and some objects were "safe" until I learned the lowly pencil can be used to kill a person. That one thing alone caused me to understand that it isn't the object that is safe or dangerous... it is how some human being uses that object that is safe or dangerous.

If nothing else this discussion might have caused some folks to rethink what they have been led to believe.

The pencil does not facilitate killing people nearly so much as a gun. These two things clearly can be defined as having different statuses. That you close your eyes and stick your fingers in your ears and yell, lalalala doesn't change this obvious fact.

What is obvious is that those who are afraid of guns (whether afraid of being harmed by them in the hands of a criminal or having their positions of power challenged by those who have guns like criminals who want unarmed victims and politicians who want a subservient population... by the way... "subservient population" is spelled V I C T I M S) have launched an all out attack on guns... and it is also obvious those same folks aren't afraid of belt sanders, or pencils, or they would launch an attack on those too.

By the way... you are aware that in England there has been attempts to ban knives? Follow the link below....

BBC NEWS | Health | Doctors' kitchen knives ban call

and that the call to ban knives comes after guns were banned? Think about that....... the gun control agenda (that demonizes guns by labeling them as "dangerous") is about much much more than controlling guns.

And there are numerous knife control laws in place in the U.S. too. Were those laws put in place because a knife is "dangerous" all by itself due to it's sharp edge or were those laws put in place because humans used those sharp edges to harm people?

As I said many times. It isn't the object that is "dangerous" ... it is the human being who uses that object (regardless of what that object is) to do harm that is ... dangerous.

 

[BC1]

What is obvious is that those who are afraid of guns (whether afraid of being harmed by them in the hands of a criminal or having their positions of power challenged by those who have guns like criminals who want unarmed victims and politicians who want a subservient population... by the way... "subservient population" is spelled V I C T I M S) have launched an all out attack on guns... and it is also obvious those same folks aren't afraid of belt sanders, or pencils, or they would launch an attack on those too.

By the way... you are aware that in England there has been attempts to ban knives? Follow the link below....

BBC NEWS | Health | Doctors' kitchen knives ban call

and that the call to ban knives comes after guns were banned? Think about that....... the gun control agenda (that demonizes guns by labeling them as "dangerous") is about much much more than controlling guns.

And there are numerous knife control laws in place in the U.S. too. Were those laws put in place because a knife is "dangerous" all by itself due to it's sharp edge or were those laws put in place because humans used those sharp edges to harm people?

As I said many times. It isn't the object that is "dangerous" ... it is the human being who uses that object (regardless of what that object is) to do harm that is ... dangerous.

Sporks. That's it. England will switch to sporks. Of course you'll need an eating permit, a residence permit or a carry permit if you want to eat in the park. Before getting a spork carry permit one will undergo a psych evaluation and background check. Persons convicted of past crimes will not be issued sporks, they must eat with their hands. Any person leaving a spork where it can be reached by a minor or person not suitable to posses a spork will be guilty of a misdemeanor.

 

[aacx22]

To keep this from getting to convoluted I'll break this into a couple of replies.

Yes..... your replies are becoming increasingly .... fascinating... as you continue to try to say that one object is more dangerous than another all by itself while continuing to say....

Okay, so since you are making this claim. Find anywhere that I actually said this (especially bolded part) and provide exact quote please. Thank you.

 

[BluesStringer]

It's amazing that aacx22 can talk about "...why haven't they banned knives" etc. while he's living in CA. Try walking down to the local knife shop and buying an auto-opener if you think knives aren't banned in CA. Try carrying a knife with a 3 1/8" blade (3" carry is the limit in most SoCal jurisdictions - actually, I believe it's all SoCal jurisdictions) if you think many unnecessary and utterly stupid laws controlling knives don't exist.

I worked in SoCal as a welder/sign-hanger/welding instructor/steel estimator for close to 20 years. I used tools of every manner that, if misused or carelessly used, could bite you, or even kill you. I worked at times hanging off the wall on a Bosun's Chair of 30+ story buildings with a helicopter delivering 1,500 cubic ft. sign sections. I walked 10" - 20" wide beams 300+ feet off the ground. I tied myself off with safety equipment not because the beams were dangerous, but because the human activity of balancing on narrow foundations high off the ground is dangerous. I never went to the tool-room to check out a grinder or torch or high-current, high-voltage welding machine and thought to myself, "Gee, that thing is dangerous, I gotta keep my eye on it." I thought to myself instead, "Gee, if I'm not careful, and if I don't pay attention as I'm using that tool, then I could hurt myself." And if I left a grinder locked in the on position, or left a torch burning and walked away to the porta-potty, then I could hurt someone else.

Self-responsibility is a wonderful thing. Knowing your own limitations is also. If I didn't have good balance and was afraid of heights, I would've certainly hurt myself by choosing that career path. And in fact, the last job I ever did off the ground caused a panic attack in me that I'd never experienced before. That was only 65' off the ground, but I literally jumped from a bucket onto the roof that the sign I was working on was mounted, walked down the stairs, drew the crane/bucket back down from the bed of the truck, drove back to the shop and tossed the keys to the boss while telling him I had to quit. A man's got to know his limitations. I found mine, walked away and went into estimation work so I wouldn't have to climb exposed anymore.

I admire those who can stay patient with the anal-retentive argument being presented here, but I gotta say, it's one of the most obstinate, ridiculous, over-blown and stupid arguments I've ever seen presented here. It's almost as bad as those who can't or won't acknowledge the betrayals of the N R A against gun owners in the face of irrefutable mountains of evidence proving same. Not *quite* as bad, but almost.

Blues

 

[Firefighterchen]

It's amazing that aacx22 can talk about "...why haven't they banned knives" etc. while he's living in CA. Try walking down to the local knife shop and buying an auto-opener if you think knives aren't banned in CA. Try carrying a knife with a 3 1/8" blade (3" carry is the limit in most SoCal jurisdictions - actually, I believe it's all SoCal jurisdictions) if you think many unnecessary and utterly stupid laws controlling knives don't exist.

I worked in SoCal as a welder/sign-hanger/welding instructor/steel estimator for close to 20 years. I used tools of every manner that, if misused or carelessly used, could bite you, or even kill you. I worked at times hanging off the wall on a Bosun's Chair of 30+ story buildings with a helicopter delivering 1,500 cubic ft. sign sections. I walked 10" - 20" wide beams 300+ feet off the ground. I tied myself off with safety equipment not because the beams were dangerous, but because the human activity of balancing on narrow foundations high off the ground is dangerous. I never went to the tool-room to check out a grinder or torch or high-current, high-voltage welding machine and thought to myself, "Gee, that thing is dangerous, I gotta keep my eye on it." I thought to myself instead, "Gee, if I'm not careful, and if I don't pay attention as I'm using that tool, then I could hurt myself." And if I left a grinder locked in the on position, or left a torch burning and walked away to the porta-potty, then I could hurt someone else.

Self-responsibility is a wonderful thing. Knowing your own limitations is also. If I didn't have good balance and was afraid of heights, I would've certainly hurt myself by choosing that career path. And in fact, the last job I ever did off the ground caused a panic attack in me that I'd never experienced before. That was only 65' off the ground, but I literally jumped from a bucket onto the roof that the sign I was working on was mounted, walked down the stairs, drew the crane/bucket back down from the bed of the truck, drove back to the shop and tossed the keys to the boss while telling him I had to quit. A man's got to know his limitations. I found mine, walked away and went into estimation work so I wouldn't have to climb exposed anymore.

I admire those who can stay patient with the anal-retentive argument being presented here, but I gotta say, it's one of the most obstinate, ridiculous, over-blown and stupid arguments I've ever seen presented here. It's almost as bad as those who can't or won't acknowledge the betrayals of the N R A against gun owners in the face of irrefutable mountains of evidence proving same. Not *quite* as bad, but almost.

Blues

All those people that cant distinguish between a knife and a fork that got knives banned...duh.

Sent from my HTCONE using USA Carry mobile app