Why are bombs OK, but guns bad?

[SpheresOfBalance]

FACT: the person that's in control of the weapon, is the reason why the weapon murders.

You're just pushing back to some prior cause that's irrelevant to the issue. It's just a distraction or Red Herring argument. You could also push back your own argument and say that guns don't create themselves, people do. And so if people are the cause of murder, the people who create the weapons to which other people use are also guilty, not the weapons themselves!

Your logic is flawed, but your strawman is solid!

[SpheresOfBalance]

When terrorists kill and maim people with bombs, people don't blame the bombs, they blame the terrorists. But when the terrorists use guns, people blame the guns.

A very good point Bob. In fact it's always the people that are to blame for killing, never that which is used to do so. Why? Because one can always find something/anything to kill, if they really want to.

What is responsible for the horrible state of reasoning displayed in this forum?
I know you're not referring to me, unless of course you don't understand the whole of it.

If guns were blamed instead of terrorists, terrorists wouldn't use guns.
This is surely false logic.

They want their slayings to be attributed to themselves, not to their tools, that's the point of doing terror.
People are the reason for murder. And terror is not exclusively generated by people.

[SpheresOfBalance]

FACT: the person that's in control of the weapon, is the reason why the weapon murders.

You're just pushing back to some prior cause that's irrelevant to the issue. It's just a distraction or Red Herring argument. You could also push back your own argument and say that guns don't create themselves, people do. And so if people are the cause of murder, the people who create the weapons to which other people use are also guilty, not the weapons themselves!

Yes, and either God or the Big Bang is the cause of mass killings.

But the fact is that if they had been forced to use a kitchen knife because they could not get hold of a gun, then things would be different. Getting up close and personal is not so easily done.

I guess you've completely forgotten about throwing knives, shuriken, rocks, spears, and the bow and arrow. Then there are boulders precariously perched on a cliff edge. Just to name a few archaic killing methods not requiring close proximity to the intended victim.

[SpheresOfBalance]

FACT: the person that's in control of the weapon, is the reason why the weapon murders.

MORE FACT: There is a mother that is responsible for the person that is in control of the weapon that does the killing.
Obviously your logic is uncontrollably spinning around in your head. Or so your argument surely indicates.

And her mum is to blame too.
Have your feet on the ground much, (maybe not at all)?

Welcome to the exciting world of Antenatalism.
So you blame your mommy for everything you've done wrong in your life? I'm sorry son!

Yet she gave you the life that allows you to spout such absurdities. So I'm beginning to doubt whether I'd like her either.

[Hobbes' Choice]

You're just pushing back to some prior cause that's irrelevant to the issue. It's just a distraction or Red Herring argument. You could also push back your own argument and say that guns don't create themselves, people do. And so if people are the cause of murder, the people who create the weapons to which other people use are also guilty, not the weapons themselves!

Yes, and either God or the Big Bang is the cause of mass killings.

But the fact is that if they had been forced to use a kitchen knife because they could not get hold of a gun, then things would be different. Getting up close and personal is not so easily done.

I guess you've completely forgotten about throwing knives, shuriken, rocks, spears, and the bow and arrow. Then there are boulders precariously perched on a cliff edge. Just to name a few archaic killing methods not requiring close proximity to the intended victim.

no,why?

[SpheresOfBalance]

You're just pushing back to some prior cause that's irrelevant to the issue. It's just a distraction or Red Herring argument. You could also push back your own argument and say that guns don't create themselves, people do. And so if people are the cause of murder, the people who create the weapons to which other people use are also guilty, not the weapons themselves!

Yes, and either God or the Big Bang is the cause of mass killings.

But the fact is that if they had been forced to use a kitchen knife because they could not get hold of a gun, then things would be different. Getting up close and personal is not so easily done.

I guess you've completely forgotten about throwing knives, shuriken, rocks, spears, and the bow and arrow. Then there are boulders precariously perched on a cliff edge. Just to name a few archaic killing methods not requiring close proximity to the intended victim.

no,why?

You know you're extremely funny when your dumbfounded.

[FlashDangerpants]

If guns were blamed instead of terrorists, terrorists wouldn't use guns.
This is surely false logic.

No, the logic is very straight forward. The falsehood is the suggestion that guns are ever blamed "instead" of people. That's a basic and obvious category mistake. This thread should never have made it to a second page.

They want their slayings to be attributed to themselves, not to their tools, that's the point of doing terror.
People are the reason for murder. And terror is not exclusively generated by people.

Spiders and darkness do not have motives for terrorising you, nor do they have political desires.
If a gun or a bomb is used as a tool for terror, that terror is in turn used as a tool to achieve a political end.
Like spiders and darkness, guns and bombs do not in themselves hold political objectives.

It is instrumentally irrational to use an instrument for a purpose it cannot ever fulfill - try flying to the moon in an ice cream scoop if you need to test this concept.

If the claim that when terrorists use bombs - the terrorists get blamed, but when they use guns the guns get blamed instead were true, then guns would be irrational instrument for terrorism (terrorism must by definition have a political objective, guns by definition have no political aspirations).

This is not difficult.

[UniversalAlien]

“A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
― James Madison, The Constitution of the United States of America

“The constitution shall never be construed...to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.”
― Alexander Hamilton

“The Second Amendment is timeless for our Founders grasped that self-defense is three-fold: every free individual must protect themselves against the evil will of the man, the mob and the state.”
― Tiffany Madison

“The rifle itself has no moral stature, since it has no will of its own. Naturally, it may be used by evil men for evil purposes, but there are more good men than evil, and while the latter cannot be persuaded to the path of righteousness by propaganda, they can certainly be corrected by good men with rifles.”
― Jeff Cooper, Art of the Rifle

“Foolish liberals who are trying to read the Second Amendment out of the Constitution by claiming it's not an individual right or that it's too much of a public safety hazard, don't see the danger in the big picture. They're courting disaster by encouraging others to use the same means to eliminate portions of the Constitution they don't like.”
― Alan M. Dershowitz

“I'm all in favor of keeping dangerous weapons out of the hands of fools. Let's start with typewriters.”
― Frank Lloyd Wright

[SpheresOfBalance]

If guns were blamed instead of terrorists, terrorists wouldn't use guns.

This is surely false logic.

No, the logic is very straight forward. The falsehood is the suggestion that guns are ever blamed "instead" of people. That's a basic and obvious category mistake. This thread should never have made it to a second page.
No, you're not understanding something very fundamental to this argument. Many people want to abolish guns as if they are the reasons for some murders. In fact there are many means in which people can murder, guns only being one of them. The gun does not use itself to murder. A human has to pick it up, load it, take the safety off, aim it at a fellow human, and finally pull the trigger. The human is why they are used to murder humans, as they can also be used for self defense, against a plethora of would be predators.

Many people falsely reduce murder down to the fact that guns exist. That's the point.

They want their slayings to be attributed to themselves, not to their tools, that's the point of doing terror.

People are the reason for murder. And terror is not exclusively generated by people.

Spiders and darkness do not have motives for terrorising you, nor do they have political desires.
Terror is something in the minds of those looking over their shoulders, fearful of their impending death. Terror is not something someone can throw/deliver at/to another. Terror can only be created by those minds that fear.

If a gun or a bomb is used as a tool for terror, that terror is in turn used as a tool to achieve a political end.
Like spiders and darkness, guns and bombs do not in themselves hold political objectives.
I've never argued against this point, so why argue with me?

It is instrumentally irrational to use an instrument for a purpose it cannot ever fulfill - try flying to the moon in an ice cream scoop if you need to test this concept.
Still don't see the significance of your argument as it relates to anything I've said.

If the claim that when terrorists use bombs - the terrorists get blamed, but when they use guns the guns get blamed instead were true, then guns would be irrational instrument for terrorism (terrorism must by definition have a political objective, guns by definition have no political aspirations).
You misunderstood Bob's, (the OP's), OP. He was contrasting the verbiage used to comment on gun control relative to bomb usage. At least that's how I took it. Ask him and see.


This is not difficult.
It can be if one doesn't know the meaning of the OP.

[UniversalAlien]

Why are bombs OK, but guns bad?

Actually this is a false statement - Even here in the gun happy USA almost all bombs, excepting military and maybe construction and mining use, are illegal. If you own a bomb you are violating the law to begin with - regardless of how it is used.

On the other hand the fact that Democrats, so-called liberals, and Socialists want to greatly restrict, and ultimately ban private ownership of firearms for the public safety and assure that the media will play-up any and all incidents of gun violence committed by a mentally unhinged individual and lamenting the Second Amendment for the horrors it iis inflicting on the public - And how they will make the streets safe by disarming the public is well known - As are the German gun laws preceding the genocide of WWII, the Turkish genocide against the Armenians, the purges of Stalin and numerous others all preceded by GUN CONTROL laws to 'make you safe' and leading into the killing of MILLIONS of innocent men, women and children

The last person in Hell you can trust is a 'Liberal' trying to make the world safe by outlawing guns

The gun industry is "the only business in America that is wholly protected from any kind of liability."
— Hillary Clinton on Wednesday, October 7th, 2015 in a town hall-style campaign event in Iowa

Of course once the Clinton 'socialist cabal' has its way and can hold gun manufacturers liable for gun use they would effectively destroy the gun industry - a new technique for overturning the Second Amendment - And how long I ask you will the US Constitution last when the socialist cabal can re-write it to suit their own agendas

The last person in Hell you can trust is a 'Liberal' trying to make the world safe by outlawing guns

[FlashDangerpants]

If the claim that when terrorists use bombs - the terrorists get blamed, but when they use guns the guns get blamed instead were true, then guns would be irrational instrument for terrorism (terrorism must by definition have a political objective, guns by definition have no political aspirations).
You misunderstood Bob's, (the OP's), OP. He was contrasting the verbiage used to comment on gun control relative to bomb usage. At least that's how I took it. Ask him and see.

These are the words the OP wrote

When terrorists kill and maim people with bombs, people don't blame the bombs, they blame the terrorists. But when the terrorists use guns, people blame the guns.

Don't tell me he wrote something else. The same point has been used multiple times in this thread.
You guys are saying it's just a metaphor when that suits you, and treating it as literal when it doesn't.

I'm bored of infantile suggestions that I and other low lifes like me only disapprove of murder when it is committed with particular implements. Guns are sold in shops in your country and used to kill rooms full of school children, bombs are not. If bombs were packaged and sold the same way guns are, we would be appalled by it, as we are by the reckless sale of guns.

Don't lie about our motives when we don't congratulate you on the widespread sale of armaments to psychopaths.

[UniversalAlien]

Don't lie about our motives when we don't congratulate you on the widespread sale of armaments to psychopaths.

Inevitable, and no matter how much gun control, some psychopaths are going to get there hands on guns - some sane people will go crazy and kill people - Nothing will make guns safe except to outlaw them. And nothing will make you safe unless you turn over all your rights to the state - a free mind with a will of its own can always be dangerous - But you don't want danger,
you want to be safe. The problem is life is never safe - danger is always there. And when it comes to issues like gun control,
and not repeating again all the issues of genocide preceded by gun control, terrorists in France, just recently walked into a bar of young people partying and killed how many, was it 150? The terrorists were safe to kill - They knew France has good
gun control to keep its people SAFE - no armed citizens to shoot back

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."-
- Benjamin Franklin

[Obvious Leo]

UA. Your argument is a crock of shit. France has a far lower rate of gun homicide than does the US, yet by your polluted form of logic the reverse should be the case.

[Scott Mayers]

FACT: the person that's in control of the weapon, is the reason why the weapon murders.

You're just pushing back to some prior cause that's irrelevant to the issue. It's just a distraction or Red Herring argument. You could also push back your own argument and say that guns don't create themselves, people do. And so if people are the cause of murder, the people who create the weapons to which other people use are also guilty, not the weapons themselves!

Your logic is flawed, but your strawman is solid!

Stated but not proven.

I personally recognize morality itself has no actual foundation in reality. But if one is to consider 'optimizing' some condition with respect to society as a whole, the whole here is the perspective of any government of or by the people to attend to on this issue, not the individual. This is because, even respecting your gun-loving mentality to presume those desiring to harm WILL definitely harm regardless of whether they actually have real powerful weapons, any laws reflect the collective set of individuals to a right of security to have their independent rights acknowledged. If and ONLY if you propose a law that DEMANDS ALL people actually HAVE weapons at all costs, your rationale falls. It is false to assert people have some 'right' to guns when the actual access to them require a TRADE of value. And for those incompetent by mere accident of nature to be economically unable to afford such "choice", the actual FREEDOM to own a gun does NOT EXIST.

That is, to assume we should have a right to hole arms, you not only require people have the 'freedom' to do so, but must GUARANTEE that each and every individual actually DOES have a gun in law. But I don't believe you are sincerely proposing this because you are likely counting on the actual reality that people don't have the capacity universally to have a weapon for their right to defend themselves. Rather, you are predictably of some group or class of those who are contemporarily 'favored' economically who actually have the POWER to afford the luxury of gun ownership.

For example, a burgler who robs a local store for some lack of funds requires at LEAST the funds required to purchase the gun in order to effectively rob that store. But if the target of robbery is for survival, only if the gun is relatively MORE easy to obtain than the need to use it for robbing, would one bother to purchase the gun in the first place. Thus, it is the 'ease' to access which is the problem, not the persons behind the use of such weapons.

You, in error, falsely presume that people are either all good or all bad and further that each are equally as convicted to do whatever it takes to succeed in their goals based on their internal mindsets. But this is more reflective of who YOU are. No doubt, you are one who actually thinks you are ALL GOOD. Then again, you could be ALL BAD and so are simply utilizing the MEANS TO ANY ENDS mentality to justify your defense of the weapons you desire to stock up to OFFEND others in some indeterminate future.

If you want to assert some fallacy of reasoning, don't just STATE it, demonstrate where you actually believe it is occuring and why. Otherwise I can consider you a fraud with intent that coincides with your apparent black-and-white thinking (or pretense of 'thinking').

[FlashDangerpants]

Don't lie about our motives when we don't congratulate you on the widespread sale of armaments to psychopaths.

Inevitable, and no matter how much gun control, some psychopaths are going to get there hands on guns - some sane people will go crazy and kill people - Nothing will make guns safe except to outlaw them. And nothing will make you safe unless you turn over all your rights to the state - a free mind with a will of its own can always be dangerous - But you don't want danger,
you want to be safe.

Don't patronise me. I don't want children getting shot by selfish arseholes. That doesn't make me morally inferior to you, nor does it entail that I am a whimpering fool. I don't lack your intellect or vision simply because I don't share your opinions.

The problem is life is never safe - danger is always there. And when it comes to issues like gun control,
and not repeating again all the issues of genocide preceded by gun control, terrorists in France, just recently walked into a bar of young people partying and killed how many, was it 150? The terrorists were safe to kill - They knew France has good
gun control to keep its people SAFE - no armed citizens to shoot back

That was probably the one day last year in which Europe as a continent managed to have more murders than the USA.
Furthermore it was the work of highly committed terrorists, the sort of people who you correctly stated will find ways to murder people no matter what because they are certain to try really really hard.
The USA has 4 times the overall murder rate of the UK, perhaps we are just that much nicer than you wretches.
Or perhaps it's got something to do with us banning guns the first time some wanker went into a school and shot all the kids, while you all just wave your hands and say getting all your kids shot is the price of freedom.
We make it quite difficult for lazy people to slaughter other people, you allow it to be relatively convenient, and even cheap.

You accept all sorts of curtailed liberties. You don't permit people to import cocaine at will, nobody is allowed to have sex with goats in the street. You don't let people buy bombs or drive drunk. You accept these limits on your freedom because those activities are dangerous (assuming the goat is irritable) and antisocial. So don't fool yourself that this one risky thing you do because you like it is a sign that you enjoy a life of righteously splendid danger unless you are willing to live up to the commitment and cease to ban anything on the grounds of danger.