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

[aacx22]

(gonna have to get back to this... taking kids to the park)

 

[maestromsv]

More dangerous than a gun is a liberal, uneducated view of the world.

Don't forget to add "...With a Pen and a Phone"

Lock 'n Load, Tapatalk!!

 

[Bikenut]

Originally Posted by Bikenut View Post
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....

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


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.

Happy to oblige........

Originally Posted by aacx22 View Post

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.

Didn't you just say, granted not directly, that guns are more dangerous than hammers, belt sanders, knives, etc...?

Originally posted by aacx22

Originally Posted by Bikenut View Post
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.

Did you just say a gun is more dangerous than a pencil?
Need more? Just go reread your own posts. Thank you.

Edited to add:
An argument that says one object is more dangerous than another object is based on the assumption/acceptance that all objects are dangerous... and the argument then becomes just a matter of degree of "dangerousness".

It is a flawed argument since no object is dangerous... only a human who uses an object has the potential to use that object in a dangerous manner.

 

[aacx22]

Happy to oblige........

Didn't you just say, granted not directly, that guns are more dangerous than hammers, belt sanders, knives, etc...?

Nope. In that quote I made no comparison between those and guns. It was a comment that people have clearly not banned these things that could be used or misused dangerously. That's all I said there.

Did you just say a gun is more dangerous than a pencil?
Need more? Just go reread your own posts. Thank you.

Yes, and it is... BUT that is not what I asked you to find. The correct question is... where in ANY of these examples or in any of my posts have I indicated that any of these are dangerous "all by itself", which is what YOU claim I have said. So, where is it?

Edited to add:
An argument that says one object is more dangerous than another object is based on the assumption/acceptance that all objects are dangerous... and the argument then becomes just a matter of degree of "dangerousness".

It is a flawed argument since no object is dangerous... only a human who uses an object has the potential to use that object in a dangerous manner.

Quick question on this... does every object have the same potential to be used in an equally dangerous manner?

 

[Bikenut]

Nope. In that quote I made no comparison between those and guns. It was a comment that people have clearly not banned these things that could be used or misused dangerously. That's all I said there.



Yes, and it is... BUT that is not what I asked you to find. The correct question is... where in ANY of these examples or in any of my posts have I indicated that any of these are dangerous "all by itself", which is what YOU claim I have said. So, where is it?


Quick question on this... does every object have the same potential to be used in an equally dangerous manner?

Your comparisons seem to leave out the human part of the equation and your arguments stand on just the "dangerousness" of the objects themselves. Are we to just ass u me that you are including that in your examples?

As for your question... again you are assessing different degrees of "dangerousness" but at least this time you are acknowledging that it is the human who has to use the object in differing degrees of "dangerousness" instead of just comparing how much more dangerous a firearm is than a pencil like you did earlier.

Oh... and I'll let your own words speak for themselves as to whether or not objects are "dangerous" all by themselves...

Originally posted by aacx22

Originally posted by Bikenut
Did you just say a gun is more dangerous than a pencil?
Need more? Just go reread your own posts. Thank you.

Yes, and it is...

I didn't see your mention of any qualifying factors involving human interaction. You flat out said that a firearm is more dangerous than a pencil. And that statement, without any qualifying statements, accepts the premise that objects in and of themselves are dangerous and is only referencing a difference in degree of dangerousness between the firearm and the pencil.

Which is exactly what you asked me to go find.

It doesn't matter how you want to try to say that you aren't saying that objects are dangerous all by themselves when you continue to assess different values of "dangerousness" to different objects while leaving out the simple fact that without human interaction no objects are dangerous all by themselves.

I have a question for you... a very simple question that can end this entire back and forth.

Are there any objects that are dangerous enough to harm people all by themselves without human interaction at some point? I'll expand that a bit to include interaction by a force of nature... such as a rock falling off a hill during an earthquake (even then the rock isn't dangerous... the earthquake that set the rock to falling was).

In short... are there any objects that are "dangerous"?

 

[aacx22]

Your comparisons seem to leave out the human part of the equation and your arguments stand on just the "dangerousness" of the objects themselves. Are we to just ass u me that you are including that in your examples?

I'd rather you not assume anything. If I didn't say it, then I didn't say it. If you think I might have meant it, ask. But don't assume, because at least in this case you would have been wrong.

As for your question... again you are assessing different degrees of "dangerousness" but at least this time you are acknowledging that it is the human who has to use the object in differing degrees of "dangerousness" instead of just comparing how much more dangerous a firearm is than a pencil like you did earlier.

This is BS. There have been several times in this thread I have clearly stated that a human uses objects. I never said otherwise.

Oh... and I'll let your own words speak for themselves as to whether or not objects are "dangerous" all by themselves...

No. You claimed that I said these objects were dangerous "all by itself". YOU claimed that. So, I'd like a quote where I did that please.

I didn't see your mention of any qualifying factors involving human interaction. You flat out said that a firearm is more dangerous than a pencil. And that statement, without any qualifying statements, accepts the premise that objects in and of themselves are dangerous and is only referencing a difference in degree of dangerousness between the firearm and the pencil.

Which is exactly what you asked me to go find.

No it doesn't. You are assuming what I meant beyond what I actually said. Don't blame me for your imagination.

It doesn't matter how you want to try to say that you aren't saying that objects are dangerous all by themselves when you continue to assess different values of "dangerousness" to different objects while leaving out the simple fact that without human interaction no objects are dangerous all by themselves.

I never said that objects were dangerous without human interaction anywhere... this is a strawman that you and others have been using and it's total BS. Over and over I have said that it's not one or the other, it's both. The human intention to shoot a gun without a gun isn't going to get anyone shot. The gun without a human pulling the trigger also is not going to get anyone shot. It's stupid to leave out either part of this equation. Also, a misused gun will probably cause a lot more harm than a misused pencil. The combination of the weapon + the intention is more harmful. That's because the gun has more potential than the pencil for harm, even if the intention in both cases was equally malicious.

I have a question for you... a very simple question that can end this entire back and forth.

Are there any objects that are dangerous enough to harm people all by themselves without human interaction at some point? I'll expand that a bit to include interaction by a force of nature... such as a rock falling off a hill during an earthquake (even then the rock isn't dangerous... the earthquake that set the rock to falling was).

In short... are there any objects that are "dangerous"?

With or without human intervention? If you are looking for something that's dangerous without any human interaction, how about a pile of uranium?

 

[Bikenut]

-snip-The gun without a human pulling the trigger also is not going to get anyone shot. -snip-

Thank you. I've been saying all along that without human interaction the gun (an object) does nothing and since it does nothing it is not dangerous without human interaction.

 

[aacx22]

Thank you. I've been saying all along that without human interaction the gun (an object) does nothing and since it does nothing it is not dangerous without human interaction.

Ignoring the parts you can't dispute?

 

[Bikenut]

Ignoring the parts you can't dispute?

Have it your way... regardless.... a gun (an object) in and of itself... is not dangerous. It takes human interaction. It is not both the dangerous gun and the dangerous human... it is only the human that can be dangerous.

And you finally acknowledged that.

Originally Posted by aacx22 View Post
-snip-The gun without a human pulling the trigger also is not going to get anyone shot. -snip-

Thank you. I've been saying all along that without human interaction the gun (an object) does nothing and since it does nothing it is not dangerous without human interaction.

Have a nice day.

 

[BluesStringer]

If you are looking for something that's dangerous without any human interaction, how about a pile of uranium?

No one has said that nature isn't dangerous without human interaction, but if you're talking about refined, weapons-grade uranium, well, a human had to leave it in the open in a pile after his interaction(s) with it, didn't he?

 

[slamhouse]

Humans are dangerous, end of story. And with certain objects(firearms) we can be incredibly more dangerous(war).

Some objects are also dangerous when handled incorrectly(firearms, chainsaw, table say, wood chopper, etc...).

 

[aacx22]

Have it your way... regardless.... a gun (an object) in and of itself... is not dangerous. It takes human interaction. It is not both the dangerous gun and the dangerous human... it is only the human that can be dangerous.

And you finally acknowledged that.

Have a nice day.

Actually untrue that I "finally" acknowledged that. I have always maintained that it's both... You just cropped off part of my comment to misrepresent what I said. You also keep on fighting against a point I have never made, even going so far as to make a BS claim that I said that it's only the object that's dangerous, then dropping it when I called you on it. It's unfortunate that you are not willing to have an honest discussion.

Have a nice day, too.

 

[Bikenut]

Actually untrue that I "finally" acknowledged that. I have always maintained that it's both... You just cropped off part of my comment to misrepresent what I said. You also keep on fighting against a point I have never made, even going so far as to make a BS claim that I said that it's only the object that's dangerous, then dropping it when I called you on it. It's unfortunate that you are not willing to have an honest discussion.

Have a nice day, too.

In order to maintain that it is "both" as you claim then it is necessary for the gun and the human to each be "dangerous". If you are claiming that it is "both" then you are claiming that not only is the human dangerous but the gun also is dangerous.

You keep saying that and you keep saying that you aren't saying it.

Fine... you may have the last word.

 

[aacx22]

In order to maintain that it is "both" as you claim then it is necessary for the gun and the human to each be "dangerous". If you are claiming that it is "both" then you are claiming that not only is the human dangerous but the gun also is dangerous.

You keep saying that and you keep saying that you aren't saying it.

Fine... you may have the last word.

Milk, flour, sugar, and eggs can make a cake... it doesn't mean that each of them are cakes. Thanks for giving me the last word. *shrug*