• Welcome to League Of Reason Forums! Please read the rules before posting.
    If you are willing and able please consider making a donation to help with site overheads.
    Donations can be made via here

Guns and Intent

  • Thread starter Deleted member 42253
  • Start date
arg-fallbackName="Deleted member 42253"/>
Sparhafoc said:
It's still trivially false as well.

Buying a gun to ward off intruders indicates zero intent to kill someone.
Click to expand...

Pray tell, how are you planning to ward off the feared intruder? Just show him the gun? Shoot in the air? Point it at him?
What are you gonna do, if he is not impressed with your threat to kill him?
Nevermind that no one wants to intrude on you or is ever going to.
 
arg-fallbackName="Greg the Grouper"/>
21st Demon Lord said:
Yeah, thats a problem psikhrangkur. I have no right to kill someone over my property in Europe and it is the job of the police to protect me. When someone intrudes my home, I am supposed to run or hide in the bathroom.

And honestly, I personally find the idea that my TV is worth more than someones life, morally reprehensible .. and no, no one wants to kill me or my family.

And yes, puchasing a firearm to defend yourself(by killing someone) is .. premediation. The only difference is, that I am not planning to kill someone specifically.
Click to expand...
I said intruder, not someone robbing your house. And I fail to see how "no one wants to kill me or my family" is an argument: you may believe that, but certainly not everyone does. No one plans to have their home broken into, some just do what they feel is necessary to prepare for such a possibility.

Maybe the qualifications of premeditation in the US are just stricter, because I fail to see how anything so vague could ever qualify as premeditation. Even if you wanted to put a specific victim aside, you'd at least plan to attack a specific institution, or location.

Why is it so hard to find trash bags at Walmart?
 
arg-fallbackName="*SD*"/>
21st Demon Lord said:
@*SD* Yeah ... I was thinking cockroaches when you mentioned pests, anything bigger is a job for a hunter.
Click to expand...

"Hunter" and "pest controller" aren't mutually exclusive terms, they're entirely compatible.
21st Demon Lord said:
And I disagree with anything other than hunting, sports and collections, considering how dangerous guns are. And many countries actually agree there.
Click to expand...

So? You've already moved the goalposts from your OP, now you've been presented with many other reasons for gun ownership.

Are guns more dangerous than cars? What about knives? Do you want to ban everything that can potentially cause harm? What about dangerous sports? What about bungee jumping? Boxing? MMA? Chainsaws? Aspirin?
 
arg-fallbackName="Sparhafoc"/>
21st Demon Lord said:
@*SD* Yeah ... I was thinking cockroaches when you mentioned pests, anything bigger is a job for a hunter.
Click to expand...

Or a farmer, or a groundskeeper, or a person living in a rural area with old property, animals or crops they need to protect.


All right, but apart from the sanitation, the medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, a fresh water system, and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?



21st Demon Lord said:
And I disagree with anything other than hunting, sports and collections, considering how dangerous guns are. And many countries actually agree there.
Click to expand...

Not really much to discuss there, is there? You think X. Ok.

I happen to agree and don't think bearing arms has anything much to do with freedom these days - I'd rather ensure the right to peaceful protest is repeatedly enshrined than to have guns made available - the former gives me greater sense of liberty than the latter, which would ironically make me feel fear of society.

Guns are tools. Used as tools, they're fine - still potentially dangerous, but then so are most tools.

When they become fetishized as symbols of freedom from government oppression, and are sold at local malls with very little in the way of background checks, then I think we can all see what kind of society that produces: a deadly violent one where even the police have to be so tooled and amped up - because of the prevalence of guns - that people frequently end up terrified, harmed, or killed.
 
arg-fallbackName="Sparhafoc"/>
21st Demon Lord said:
Pray tell, how are you planning to ward off the feared intruder?
Click to expand...

Are you playing stupid because you're trying to defend a poorly stated idea instead of just acknowledging it was a stupid idea and moving on?

It's hardly fucking rocket science, is it? By threatening them with the gun.

21st Demon Lord said:
Just show him the gun? Shoot in the air? Point it at him?
What are you gonna do, if he is not impressed with your threat to kill him?
Click to expand...

Why am I suddenly the guy holding the gun?

The only time I'd buy a gun is if anarchy was on the horizon, and I'd be buying it expressly to put bullets in the facehole of anyone threatening to harm me or mine.

Absent Mad Max scenarios, I am not the person we need to be talking about in the hypothetical.

What you need to do is to think about your poor argumentation.

It doesn't matter if the idea of possessing the gun to ward off intruders is a TERRIBLE idea - it still contradicts your flat assertion that the only reason to buy a gun is to murder someone.


21st Demon Lord said:
Nevermind that no one wants to intrude on you or is ever going to.
Click to expand...

This is on par with the Mad Max scenario I just dismissed.
 
arg-fallbackName="*SD*"/>
Sparhafoc said:
Are you playing stupid because you're trying to defend a poorly stated idea instead of just acknowledging it was a stupid idea and moving on?
Click to expand...

Right! I'd be more than keen to discuss this with him, because it's one of my favourite topics to debate, but his original assertion has already been shown false and he doesn't really seem to want to drop it, despite moving the goalposts.

As you said, he doesn't like X, ok cool. Not much we can do with that really.
 
arg-fallbackName="Deleted member 42253"/>
psikhrangkur said:
I said intruder, not someone robbing your house. And I fail to see how "no one wants to kill me or my family" is an argument: you may believe that, but certainly not everyone does. No one plans to have their home broken into, some just do what they feel is necessary to prepare for such a possibility.

Maybe the qualifications of premeditation in the US are just stricter, because I fail to see how anything so vague could ever qualify as premeditation. Even if you wanted to put a specific victim aside, you'd at least plan to attack a specific institution, or location.
Click to expand...
What else would someone want in my house than my TV? I have no enemies, no one wants to kill me.
So .. why exactly would I want or need to shoot someone? Just for the crime of stepping on my lawn?

Oh and of course this does not apply to the US.

*SD* said:
So? You've already moved the goalposts from your OP, now you've been presented with many other reasons for gun ownership.

Are guns more dangerous than cars? What about knives? Do you want to ban everything that can potentially cause harm? What about dangerous sports? What about bungee jumping? Boxing? MMA? Chainsaws? Aspirin?
Click to expand...
Only added two more exception, should have been a little less sloppy, but the focus was supposed on the reasoning, not exceptions.
And yes, everything that can harm others, needs to be regulated or banned, depending on how dangerous it is. If you wanna juggle chainsaws, be my guest, just do not do it in a crowd.

Sparhafoc said:
Guns are tools. Used as tools, they're fine - still potentially dangerous, but then so are most tools.
Click to expand...
Guns are weapons. And the whole reason for their existence is to kill humans. And the only reason for furthering their development, is to making killing people easier.
Now, I have no problem with using a rifle to fend off a bear or coyote ... but we are living in cities for the most part, there simply is no reason for anyone to own a gun in Jersey.

Sparhafoc said:
Are you playing stupid because you're trying to defend a poorly stated idea instead of just acknowledging it was a stupid idea and moving on?

It's hardly fucking rocket science, is it? By threatening them with the gun.



Why am I suddenly the guy holding the gun?

The only time I'd buy a gun is if anarchy was on the horizon, and I'd be buying it expressly to put bullets in the facehole of anyone threatening to harm me or mine.

Absent Mad Max scenarios, I am not the person we need to be talking about in the hypothetical.

What you need to do is to think about your poor argumentation.

It doesn't matter if the idea of possessing the gun to ward off intruders is a TERRIBLE idea - it still contradicts your flat assertion that the only reason to buy a gun is to murder someone.




This is on par with the Mad Max scenario I just dismissed.
Click to expand...
Yeah .. I cant follow .. so you are arguing for having a gun for something that only happens on TV, admit it only happens on TV and ... still think its an argument for having/needing a gun?
 
arg-fallbackName="Greg the Grouper"/>
Not gonna lie, I'm pretty sure that first question of his was meant to be taken with the rest of the post, as an argument to suggest that you would ultimately be firing on the person, and that people who purchase firearms for defense against intruders realize that this is a possibility.
 
arg-fallbackName="Deleted member 42253"/>
*SD* said:
Right! I'd be more than keen to discuss this with him, because it's one of my favourite topics to debate, but his original assertion has already been shown false and he doesn't really seem to want to drop it, despite moving the goalposts.

As you said, he doesn't like X, ok cool. Not much we can do with that really.
Click to expand...
Nope SD, I still firmly stand by the statement, that the only purpose of a gun is to kill people.
Thats what we invented it for, thats why we call it a weapon, not a tool, thats what we developed it for. Guns are for killing humans.
Can you use it for something else? Sure. Killing people is still the main purpose.
 
arg-fallbackName="*SD*"/>
21st Demon Lord said:
Nope SD, I still firmly stand by the statement, that the only purpose of a gun is to kill people.
Click to expand...

I know you do, this is manifestly obvious. The problem is, it's wrong, has been shown wrong, was wrong the last 5 times you said it and will still be wrong the next 5 times you say it.
 
arg-fallbackName="*SD*"/>
21st Demon Lord said:
Thats what we invented it for, thats why we call it a weapon, not a tool, thats what we developed it for. Guns are for killing humans.
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter if that's what they were originally invented for, do you think sharp objects were originally invented for peeling fruit?
 
arg-fallbackName="Greg the Grouper"/>
21st Demon Lord said:
What else would someone want in my house than my TV? I have no enemies, no one wants to kill me.
So .. why exactly would I want or need to shoot someone? Just for the crime of stepping on my lawn?

Oh and of course this does not apply to the US.
Click to expand...
Well, hey, serial killers are a real thing. It's not as if anyone that's ever been killed, raped, etc. had enemies.

Okay, yeah, I guess that's why we disagree on premeditation. In my mind, characteristics of premeditation are specific goals, and playing the part of the initial aggressor.
21st Demon Lord said:
Yeah .. I cant follow .. so you are arguing for having a gun for something that only happens on TV, admit it only happens on TV and ... still think its an argument for having/needing a gun?
Click to expand...
Yes. This is a key flaw in your argument. After all, we're not talking about practicality, we're talking about the intentions of people and their reasoning behind decisions. They're not hyper-logical actors, and if they're buying a gun because they saw Die Hard and thought it was fucking awesome, they're specifically purchasing a firearm for a reason aside from the ones you've posited.
 
arg-fallbackName="Greg the Grouper"/>
21st Demon Lord said:
Guns are for killing humans.
Can you use it for something else? Sure. Killing people is still the main purpose.
Click to expand...
I'd like to add 'breaching' to the list of activities that guns are actively used for. I have a coworker that smashed his mandible, after his superior ordered him to grab the breaching shotgun and blow a door off its hinges. Swears he had one peel like a banana. He's sworn off Mossbergs. Oh, and you've kind of slid off your initial claim now, if we've gone from 'only purpose' to 'main purpose'.

Oh, and actually, I'm pretty sure guns have been used in active warzones without the intention of killing someone. Suppressive fire, and all that. I suppose you might argue it's all to eventually kill someone? I guess that one's debatable.
 
arg-fallbackName="Sparhafoc"/>
21st Demon Lord said:
Nope SD, I still firmly stand by the statement, that the only purpose of a gun is to kill people.
Click to expand...

All right. I'll grant you the hunter and the athlete are two other things.

And yeah. Obviously the collectors. I mean, the collectors go without saying, don't they?

But apart from the hunters, the athletes, the enthusiasts, the collectors, the recreational shooters and the farmers-- the only purpose of a gun is to kill people!
 
arg-fallbackName="Deleted member 42253"/>
@*SD* No, it has not been proven or shown to be wrong.
Sure, I can clean my toilet with a toothbrush, does not change that its meant for brushing my teeth.

And you do realize I am talking about guns in general, not just handguns? You might be able to argue for rifles, maybe even handguns ... what about the other categories, doesnt even have to be the infamous AR-15, how about something cute and small, like a Mac 10?
 
arg-fallbackName="Sparhafoc"/>
so you are arguing for having a gun for something that only happens on TV
Click to expand...


This is moving rapidly into farce now.

Is it so hard just to admit you overstated your case, didn't think it through first, and amend your contention now that you'd rather engage in such absurd and specious argumentation to somehow prove your original absurdity is valid?

Seriously, man.
 
arg-fallbackName="Deleted member 42253"/>
Sparhafoc said:
All right. I'll grant you the hunter and the athlete are two other things.

And yeah. Obviously the collectors. I mean, the collectors go without saying, don't they?

But apart from the hunters, the athletes, the enthusiasts, the collectors, the recreational shooters and the farmers-- the only purpose of a gun is to kill people!
Click to expand...
Nope, just hunters, sportsmen and collectors, though I am even on the fence about collectors.

And honestly, whats your point? Of course some people have access to poison, explosives, drugs and whatnot. Doesnt mean average Joe gets to have any of that.

You brought up Mad Max, not me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top