Why are bombs OK, but guns bad?

How should society be organised, if at all?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Post Reply
Scott Mayers
Posts: 1706
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am
Location: Saskatoon, SK, Canada

Re:

Post by Scott Mayers »

henry quirk wrote:Scott,

I 'interpret' nuthin'.

When bombs were used, the focus of the talkin' heads was the bomber.

When guns are used, the focus is on the gun.
I didn't know bombs were allowed by default like the gun is!?
...
Anti-gunners are more than happy to see any one who doesn't view guns as EVIL as maladjusted, and gunners are more than happy to see anyone who doesn't view guns as a 'right' as commies. Me: just want both sides to shut up and leave me be.

As for ASSURING everyone has a gun: if Joe wants a gun, let him do what I did...go buy one with his own money.
I'm an 'anti-gunner' who does NOT declare guns as either 'good' nor 'evil'. I also understand this to be irrelevant and to what the vast majority of similar anti-gun supporters think too.

Gun supporters though, DO interpret those people using guns as exclusively either 'good' or 'evil' and HEAR anyone else speaking in dissent as arguing from either the side of 'good' or 'evil'. So this accusation that ones against the EASE of the population to have guns is about judging the gun itself as having virtue or not doesn't hold. The rhetoric to draw this conclusion is to evade attention from the real concern: that we need limitations to assure THAT not everyone has ease to use such 'tools' when vulnerable to harm others indiscriminately. Gun supporters are supporters specifically because they fear another from using the same means to defeat them,...especially when or where they have unusual value in things that the majority is not privileged to.

A very good example is the point you make: that those, you assert, who WANT a gun can simply go 'buy' one, as if we are all so equally privileged in FACT! Buying things is not an arbitrary decision to just go out and CHOOSE to have. The gun supporting community usually have a privileged sense of entitlement to what they own beyond the average. Wealth is NOT a choice of ones character but of what they actually HAVE to begin with. I want a mansion. Can we all too just go out and 'buy' one for merely wanting it? And if I complain that I can't afford it, is it my lack of character or will power that prevents me from getting it?
User avatar
Hobbes' Choice
Posts: 8364
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:45 am

Re: Why are bombs OK, but guns bad?

Post by Hobbes' Choice »

BigWhit wrote:Mass shootings almost always happen in "gun free" zones and the prison population is a result of many factors but the two biggest being the war on drugs and for profit prisons.

Still never answered the original question. Why do you blame a tool for a murder only when it's a gun?
Rubbish. The Uk is a gun free zone and we never get mass shootings.
Why are you repeating the NRA propaganda shit? Why not think it out for yourself?
User avatar
Hobbes' Choice
Posts: 8364
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:45 am

Re: Why are bombs OK, but guns bad?

Post by Hobbes' Choice »

bobevenson wrote:
Obvious Leo wrote:I don't live in mortal fear of my own government, Bob, because I understand that they work for ME.
I believe German voters felt the same way in 1933.
Trump, Trump, Trump.

The USA will be winning, winning, winning.
First annex Canada, then invade Mexico.
Scott Mayers
Posts: 1706
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am
Location: Saskatoon, SK, Canada

Re: Why are bombs OK, but guns bad?

Post by Scott Mayers »

Hobbes' Choice wrote:
bobevenson wrote:
Obvious Leo wrote:I don't live in mortal fear of my own government, Bob, because I understand that they work for ME.
I believe German voters felt the same way in 1933.
Trump, Trump, Trump.

The USA will be winning, winning, winning.
First annex Canada, then invade Mexico.
Annexing us would actually be good for us (I'm Canadian) but BAD for the U.S.. They already dominate (own) most of our economy indirectly without the need to take on more people demanding the same virtues of their constitutional protections. That's why they gave up Manifest Destiny. It's not spoken openly, that I'm aware, but it seems to logically follow if one is attentive enough.
Obvious Leo
Posts: 4007
Joined: Wed May 13, 2015 1:05 am
Location: Australia

Re: Why are bombs OK, but guns bad?

Post by Obvious Leo »

Hobbes' Choice wrote:First annex Canada, then invade Mexico.
One of my favourite poet/philosopher/musicians is Leonard Cohen, perhaps the most influential Canadian artist of all time. You might be giving Trump one of my favourite songs as a theme tune for his campaign.

"First we take Manhattan, then we take Berlin"... Leonard Cohen.
User avatar
Hobbes' Choice
Posts: 8364
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:45 am

Re: Why are bombs OK, but guns bad?

Post by Hobbes' Choice »

Scott Mayers wrote:
Hobbes' Choice wrote:
bobevenson wrote: I believe German voters felt the same way in 1933.
Trump, Trump, Trump.

The USA will be winning, winning, winning.
First annex Canada, then invade Mexico.
Annexing us would actually be good for us (I'm Canadian).
This sounds the craziest thing I've read all week. ~I hardly know where to begin.
User avatar
Hobbes' Choice
Posts: 8364
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:45 am

Re: Why are bombs OK, but guns bad?

Post by Hobbes' Choice »

Obvious Leo wrote:
Hobbes' Choice wrote:First annex Canada, then invade Mexico.
One of my favourite poet/philosopher/musicians is Leonard Cohen, perhaps the most influential Canadian artist of all time. You might be giving Trump one of my favourite songs as a theme tune for his campaign.

"First we take Manhattan, then we take Berlin"... Leonard Cohen.
LC has written two or three great songs, which I love. But generally I find him hard going, depressing with little variation in mood.
I'd never heard this "First we take Manhattan", before and I don't really like it. I looked at the lyrics. He's obviously giving a nod to Rogers and Hart's "Manhattan" made famous by Ella Fitzgerald, but his words are ambiguous enough to mean nothing. But the worst of it is the modern arrangement.
Scott Mayers
Posts: 1706
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am
Location: Saskatoon, SK, Canada

Re: Why are bombs OK, but guns bad?

Post by Scott Mayers »

Hobbes' Choice wrote:
Scott Mayers wrote: Annexing us would actually be good for us (I'm Canadian).
This sounds the craziest thing I've read all week. ~I hardly know where to begin.
And why?

If you can have someone else's cake and eat it too without having to worry about the rights of the baker, send a piece back to them AT a higher premium, and even send the plate back for them to wash for little to nothing, why would you want the burden of treating them as equally as you?

The U.S. would be absurd to take on the social functions and responsibilities of another country's people but optimistically OWN their resources and economy without it instead. What's so difficult to follow here?
User avatar
Hobbes' Choice
Posts: 8364
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:45 am

Re: Why are bombs OK, but guns bad?

Post by Hobbes' Choice »

Scott Mayers wrote:
Hobbes' Choice wrote:
Scott Mayers wrote: Annexing us would actually be good for us (I'm Canadian).
This sounds the craziest thing I've read all week. ~I hardly know where to begin.
And why?

If you can have someone else's cake and eat it too without having to worry about the rights of the baker, send a piece back to them AT a higher premium, and even send the plate back for them to wash for little to nothing, why would you want the burden of treating them as equally as you?

The U.S. would be absurd to take on the social functions and responsibilities of another country's people but optimistically OWN their resources and economy without it instead. What's so difficult to follow here?
In this tangled analogy, tell me how this would be good for Canada?
Scott Mayers
Posts: 1706
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am
Location: Saskatoon, SK, Canada

Re: Why are bombs OK, but guns bad?

Post by Scott Mayers »

Hobbes' Choice wrote:
And why?

If you can have someone else's cake and eat it too without having to worry about the rights of the baker, send a piece back to them AT a higher premium, and even send the plate back for them to wash for little to nothing, why would you want the burden of treating them as equally as you?

The U.S. would be absurd to take on the social functions and responsibilities of another country's people but optimistically OWN their resources and economy without it instead. What's so difficult to follow here?
In this tangled analogy, tell me how this would be good for Canada?
Relatively, we'd get their constitution which, while not perfect, is better than ours AND they'd have to then treat us equally as other Americans. We have no present real means to compete with the U.S. and only rely solely with our fortune of raw resources. Our economy otherwise is owned up by mostly international interests of which the U.S. is most significant or to those of an establishment within our country based primarily in Ontario and Quebec. At present, the U.S. prevents us from successfully creating secondary industries, like manufacturing as they are able to successfully block trades of anything except raw resources.

But I assure you, if we begged the U.S. to take us tomorrow, they WOULD NOT! Even Britain learned this lesson and why they've relieved themselves of the formal colonization practices of the past. 'Common Wealth' countries are now technically self-running but still under its potential yoke of controls where need be. Owning economies with the exclusion of its people is why our Western countries only attend to those political systems that prevent this from happening with ease.
Last edited by Scott Mayers on Thu Feb 25, 2016 11:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Obvious Leo
Posts: 4007
Joined: Wed May 13, 2015 1:05 am
Location: Australia

Re: Why are bombs OK, but guns bad?

Post by Obvious Leo »

Hobbes' Choice wrote: LC has written two or three great songs, which I love. But generally I find him hard going, depressing with little variation in mood.
"Music to slash your wrists by" used to be a common phrase used to describe Cohen's work but I reckon this has more to do with his dour vocal intonation than his talent as either lyricist or melody man. He's still very highly regarded as a musician's musician and his influence on various musical genres for half a century is undeniable. I rarely play his music at home but I've been to many of his live concerts over the years and I would never pass up an opportunity to do so again because many of the best musicians in the world would happily give their left ball for a chance to play in his support band, which is usually a different line-up every time. He's over 80 now so he might not pass this way again but if you ever get a chance to see him live on stage don't pass it up.
Obvious Leo
Posts: 4007
Joined: Wed May 13, 2015 1:05 am
Location: Australia

Re: Why are bombs OK, but guns bad?

Post by Obvious Leo »

Scott. Maybe the Yanks have learnt a lesson from the Chinese. In the long run it works out a lot more cost effective to buy a country than it does to annex it, especially if you can buy it with somebody else's money. You then get to have your cake and eat it too.
BigWhit
Posts: 139
Joined: Sun Dec 27, 2015 7:20 pm

Re: Why are bombs OK, but guns bad?

Post by BigWhit »

Hobbes' Choice wrote:
BigWhit wrote:Mass shootings almost always happen in "gun free" zones and the prison population is a result of many factors but the two biggest being the war on drugs and for profit prisons.

Still never answered the original question. Why do you blame a tool for a murder only when it's a gun?
Rubbish. The Uk is a gun free zone and we never get mass shootings.
Why are you repeating the NRA propaganda shit? Why not think it out for yourself?
If you take away ALL of the guns, then yes, you have no mass shootings. I'm referring to the phenomena in which some people think posting a sign prohibiting firearms actually prevents their use on the premises in a land where guns and, apparently, mentally disturbed persons are in no shortage.

I'm not a member of the NRA. Please, keep making stereotypical assumptions of a person you don't know. There are more types of people in the US than just religious right wing fucktards and delusional socialist fuckwits.
bobevenson
Posts: 7349
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2009 12:02 am
Contact:

Re: Why are bombs OK, but guns bad?

Post by bobevenson »

Hobbes' Choice wrote:Why are you repeating the NRA propaganda shit?
The NRA is a namby-pamby organization that doesn't even know the reason for the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which is to give citizens the ultimate defense against an oppressive government.
Obvious Leo
Posts: 4007
Joined: Wed May 13, 2015 1:05 am
Location: Australia

Re: Why are bombs OK, but guns bad?

Post by Obvious Leo »

bobevenson wrote:
Hobbes' Choice wrote:Why are you repeating the NRA propaganda shit?
The NRA is a namby-pamby organization that doesn't even know the reason for the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which is to give citizens the ultimate defense against an oppressive government.
Then why don't you softcocks get off your fat self-indulgent arses and shoot the shit out of the fucking lot of them. You'd be the doing the rest of the world a favour at the same time.
Post Reply