Why are bombs OK, but guns bad?

[SpheresOfBalance]

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.
That's exactly what he wrote! But it's his meaning that's at issue.

He said:
"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.
It's obvious to at least me, that he's speaking of the rhetoric surrounding gun control. The difference between the significance of each means of destruction, relative to the rhetoric supplied for each.

I can't believe you people are actually whining about guns when humanity is so far past their destructive potential that it's not funny. Just last night I saw a documentary on nuclear weapons grade plutonium, or more specifically, I'm referring to the outrageous number of metric tons that are floating around every day, every where, yes every country, like it's candy. When only a quantity as large as a grapefruit yields megatons of total destruction, cities of people completely gone, nothing left but a fucking shadow of what once was. You people are fucking hilarious, many of you I'm sure, defend nuclear power plants as a viable source of energy. Simply because energy serves your selfish needs, to run your toys! Please shut the fuck up, not for mine, but for yours, as it's your ass that's obviously showing. Like ostriches you brain dead people are. (my nastiness reserved for those to whom it applies, not necessarily for he/she to whom I initially replied).

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.

The reasons people kill with anything, is largely to do with inequality amongst people, due to fear. That's been the case since the beginning of our time. Our legacy, if you will! But of course it's also true that even if all were equally not starving, having the same means to grow and flourish, there would be those that are physically deficient in the brain pan, chemically unbalanced. But then, isn't that the reason why we have so much plutonium floating around in the first place? Yes I'm suggesting that the human animal, from the very beginning, has been chemically imbalanced, as evidenced by it's fear laden history, of continually building a better means for killing another, not itself, finally ending with the ultimate killing device that can ensure no human is left standing, potentially ending it's fear laden journey down insanity lane. Then bickering about relative pop guns. The monkey boys just really make me laugh out loud, the fools they are! Always serving self, yet not quite!

All arguments for and against hand guns are in fact fear laden. PERIOD! But there's a new kid on the block, indiscriminate of the source of everyone's fears! It's surely M.A.D.!

[SpheresOfBalance]

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

Yes, we're so far past guns it's not funny, such that it renders this argument ridiculous!!

[SpheresOfBalance]

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.

Do you even know what example is, and how it can be used, thus taken?

[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!

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').

Your logic is flawed, My trump card? M.A.D.! We are past that point where knowledge allows for them to exist, so they'll always exist. The ones that build them from scratch, easily accomplished with today's tools, will insure they have them while the rest of the law abiding citizens, won't; easy targets. We're past the point of no return, our imbalanced fears/powers the reason, history tells this story. Are we to then outlaw brass, lead, steel, sulfur, salt peter, charcoal and machine tools? Absurd with so many metric tonnes of plutonium floating around!

[SpheresOfBalance]

OK, socialists you win - This origianal post was probably done by you to bait the 'gun nuts' so you could further your agendas - So for now I will bow out of this argument - Just one other thing:

The Right To Keep And Bear Arms

The Relationship Between Gun Control And Genocides


_________________________________________________________________

Excerpts from

THE WAR ON GUN OWNERSHIP STILL GOES ON

as appearing in March 1994's Guns & Ammo magazine.
_________________________________________________________________

LETHAL LAWS

Military rifles are society's "life preservers." Without them gun
control can ultimately lead to mass murder.

By Jay Simkin

The Down-Side of Gun Control

Advocates cannot see any harm in gun control, but it has a nasty
downside. Its victims number in the tens of millions. Its downside is
genocide: the mass-murder of civilians on account of religion,
language, or political views. Since 1900, at least seven major
genocides have occurred worldwide involving 50-60 million victims (see
table).

MAJOR 20th CENTURY GENOCIDES -- THE COST OF GUN-CONTROL
Date of
Perpetrator # Murdered Gun-Ctrl Source
Gov. Date Target (Estimated) Law Document
~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~
Ottoman 1915-17 Armenians 1-1.5 Mil. 1866 Art. 166,
Turky Penal Code

Soviet 1929-53 Anti-Comm. 20 Million 1929 Art. 128,
Union Anti-Stal. Penal Code

Nazi 1933-45 Jews, 13 Million 1928 Law on Fire-
Germany Anti-Nazis, arms & Ammun.
& occupied Gypsies April 12,
Europe Weapons Law,
March 18

China 1948-52 Anti- 20 Million 1935 Arts. 186 & 7
Communists Penal Code.
1966- Pro-Reform
1976 Group

Guatemala 1960-81 Mayan 100,000 1871 Decree #36
Indians 1964 Decree #283

Uganda 1971-79 Christians, 300,000 1955 Firearms Ord.
Pol. Rivals 1970 Firearms Act

Cambodia 1975-79 Educated 1 Million 1956 Arts. 322-328,
Persons Penal Code

TOTAL VICTIMS: 55.9 MILLION
_________________________________________________________________

(English translations of the original gun control laws responsible for
all this genocide are in the book, Lethal Laws, available from:

JPFO, Inc.,
2872 South Wentworth Ave
Milwaukee, WI 53207
Information source:
http://whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/PO ... ocide.html

SO LEO YOU CAN TAKE YOUR GUN CONTROL AND ALL YOU SOCIALIST HUMANISM AND SHOVE IT

“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

Leo, on some points, is obviously a fool. He is afforded this luxury due to arms, It's the reason all so called free people can relax in their recliner spouting their rationalizations. It's easy to forget that which is unseen in day to day life. The pampered, especially if they're well to do, shall always dislocate from that which has yielded that which they enjoy! Fools, them all! Only an unseen force, much like gravity, could ensure we can all sit in our recliners, free and easy, without a care in the world. Yet the fools with advantage, shall always see it otherwise, as it serves their selfish purpose. Reality has set in, there is no such force ensuring all are equal. So there shall always be those that take from others, build infrastructure in laws backed by arms, so as to use others as batteries/slaves, much like the matrix. Inequality their friend, their life's blood!

[SpheresOfBalance]

...
I agree to you in that the extreme to be completely too trustworthy of ANY entity, such as government, to just give up all means of security should be discounted for the sake of safety. But, if you read my last post above, my concern is that IF we must have some 'right' to keep any government in check of acting as an abusive body when their power enables them to make the population defenseless, it has to be done either most universally to actually guarantee everyone HAS a gun (even if they may not agree to having or using it), or we are perpetually in some back and forth competition to assure WHO actually has the power to maintain force in practice using such tools. ...

And yet in many countries where guns are rife the rule is abusive, how do you square this?
All rule is abusive, as no human, at least at this particular stage of development, can separate itself from it's wants desires and fears!

Do you seriously think that if your govt decided to become abusive the averagely armed citizen would be able to do anything against your military?
Sure it could, as you continually abuse the fact that blood is thicker than water. Almost all military men and women have civilian families.

Are deserters, deserters once the government is overthrown?

Then I again I guess the government could unleash the nukes, next door?

[SpheresOfBalance]

Do you seriously think that if your govt decided to become abusive the averagely armed citizen would be able to do anything against your military?

I'm picturing Dad's army lined up against nukes, cruise missiles and stealth bombers with a blunderbuss. There could be a TV sitcom in it.

You show yourself to be both a suck up and a fool. There is no necessary distance between government and it's people, such that, such weapons could be deployed. You just want to align yourself with your hero's with the bigger weapons, out of fear, you've sold your soul, and quite cheaply I might add! Such that when all those poor are dead you'll become your masters poor. Fools indeed!

Most of you people here suck at philosophy, "the love of wisdom," because wisdom escapes your minds so readily! You're so caught up in mankind's infrastructure, a pawn, so easily bought and sold, you can't see it for what it is.

Groupism, Cronyism, it's really quite the laughing matter!

[Arising_uk]

All rule is abusive, as no human, at least at this particular stage of development, can separate itself from it's wants desires and fears!

You a Buddhist or something? Most rule is abusive to someone but that is not the point, the point was that the claim that gun-ownership makes for non-abusive govt is demonstrably false.

Sure it could, as you continually abuse the fact that blood is thicker than water. Almost all military men and women have civilian families.

You think we should kidnap them and hold them hostage then?

Whilst it's a truism of revolutionary thought that the revolution is won when the troops refuse to fire it's also generally the case that this is against unarmed peaceful masses, you think the troops won't fire back if their families are firing upon them?

Are deserters, deserters once the government is overthrown?

No.

Then I again I guess the government could unleash the nukes, next door?

No eyed-deer what you are babbling about here?

[Hobbes' Choice]

These fanciful scenarios are interesting so I'll play along for the moment.

Would it have done any good in Nazi Germany if Germany had not instituted strict gun control but still decided to round up
all Jews, Gypsies, etc. The armed civilians may have been able to slow them down - same case scenarios could be made for the Turkish Armenian genocide and the numerous others mentioned previously - But if the the state is bent on murder, being better armed than the public - they will succeed - I would get some satisfaction at being able to slow them down and die fighting then to die in a gas chamber in a concentration camp - how about you

The absurdity of connecting two disconnected facts cannot be over estimated here. You might as well connect the German ability to brew beer as consider gun law in this respect.
Had the German people had no gun control laws the only difference would have been Hitler coming to power earlier or the whole country descending into civil war in the 1920s.
Consider the Kristallnacht, with handguns and rifles!!
The idea that 'armed civilians would have been able to slow them down" is somewhere on the scale of historic imagination between moronic to idiotic. It was the "PEOPLE" breaking glass and the head of Jewish shop keepers.
DUH!

But you say these are exceptional abuses of power from long ago and could not happen today - Not that long ago - In fact the 20th Century - and did the people see it coming

Today, yes today, the barbarians are at the gate - In the Middle East, not too far from Europe, and in European countries they have their people, ready, if they could, to create a genocide to rival any and all of the 20th Century - Are you sure your military and police can protect you when the Barbarians over-run your country

Americans have more to fear from the Barbarians inside the gates.
You're a funny guy.

I am particularly concerned with the UK - A country that not so long ago was almost attacked on the ground by the Nazi empire - then your people still had the right to own arms and could have aided the resistance -

You are a fuck wit.
Its called a fucking army. Fuck al to do with gun laws.

Today if the Barbarians in the Middle East were to get to your country and your military was busy fighting them on other fronts - you would have no protection - And if you stuck up your hands and said we surrender do you think the barbarians will go easy on you? - Yeah maybe they will turn you into slaves instead of killing you

More misdirected irrelevant paranoia.
What the fuck are you using for a brain; blancmange?

And what does Socialism have to do with gun control someone asked - I don't think it should have anything to do with gun control - but as the political forces keep playing out it is the Socialists who want to make you safe by greatly restricting the public ownership of guns - And in a small way, temporarily they make you safe, say from lunatics on a killing spree, but in the long run history has shown us that many more lives are being jeopardized and lost when strict gun control is in force many more die than the relatively few who die by nut jobs.
[/b]

If you are an example of the average American, its no wonder things have go so fucked up.

[SpheresOfBalance]

All rule is abusive, as no human, at least at this particular stage of development, can separate itself from it's wants desires and fears!

You a Buddhist or something? Most rule is abusive to someone but that is not the point, the point was that the claim that gun-ownership makes for non-abusive govt is demonstrably false.
You plead the case of ignorance, as surely it runs rampant. Rome had it right, feed them and make them happy, and you'll maintain your wealth and the control of that which makes you wealthy. Not all understand. The propaganda engine is strong, surely in America, right?

Sure it could, as you continually abuse the fact that blood is thicker than water. Almost all military men and women have civilian families.

You think we should kidnap them and hold them hostage then?
That's an absurd notion, that as usual because you can see nothing else, you have attributed to my argument, not so!

Whilst it's a truism of revolutionary thought that the revolution is won when the troops refuse to fire it's also generally the case that this is against unarmed peaceful masses, you think the troops won't fire back if their families are firing upon them?
You try and stack the deck as to the sequence in such an event, because it serves your purpose, I'll not try and consult your crystal ball as if I can then know the future. Because I know that the future unfolds as it does.

Are deserters, deserters once the government is overthrown?

No.

Then again, I guess the government could unleash the nukes, next door? [/color]

No eyed-deer what you are babbling about here?
Fuck you with your condescension crap, that you're too stupid to understand is your fault. (Hey you just started it, not I! From me you'll get what you give, you don't want it, don't give it.)

[Arising_uk]

You plead the case of ignorance, as surely it runs rampant. ...

You speak in sage-babble once more.

Rome had it right, feed them and make them happy, and you'll maintain your wealth and the control of that which makes you wealthy. Not all understand. The propaganda engine is strong, surely in America, right?

Romans were armed to the teeth.

That's an absurd notion, that as usual because you can see nothing else, you have attributed to my argument, not so!

But it'd be a solution to the revolutionaries problem of the soldiers that are supporting the regime?

You try and stack the deck as to the sequence in such an event, because it serves your purpose, I'll not try and consult your crystal ball as if I can then know the future. Because I know that the future unfolds as it does.

And yet you tell me how it'll be with these family loving soldiers.

You claimed that the soldiers would not fire upon revolutionaries because their families might be amongst them, I pretty much quoted the revolutionaries experience of how that could and has occurred. What hasn't ever happened is that the troops have withheld fire when being fired upon and that is what the right to hold a gun supporters claim is a reason for having their toys in the first place.

Fuck you with your condescension crap, that you're too stupid to understand is your fault. ...

Fine with me as it was obviously not a point you wished to communicate.

(Hey you just started it, not I! From me you'll get what you give, you don't want it, don't give it.)

Spare me your explanations as I don't give a toss about your emotional make-up.

[FlashDangerpants]

All arguments for and against hand guns are in fact fear laden. PERIOD! But there's a new kid on the block, indiscriminate of the source of everyone's fears! It's surely M.A.D.!

OK. Follow the logic of this. You don't approve of controlling handguns because the only reason to do so is fear, which is a bad reason for controlling stuff for some reason you hint at but don't seem inclined to explain. Whatever, you can't approve of restrictions on nuclear armaments because the only reason to do so is fear, right?

For what it's worth though, fear is probably a pretty good reason for banning murder and rape. I don't want to be raped and murdered, therefore I am not willing to allow you to do those things. Are you in favour of banning those activities?

[UniversalAlien]

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

More misdirected irrelevant paranoia.
What the fuck are you using for a brain; blancmange?

I'm using your sh-t for a brain JERK! At this point I could not care less if Isis overruns your country - I don't see your point a- hole - But you have made me understand them - And the American Revolution is not over - It has just begun

[Obvious Leo]

You tell him,UA. John Wayne never died and now we have the Trumpster to show the world the true American spirit. Why bother arguing with people when it's quicker to just shoot the fuckers.

[UniversalAlien]

but in the long run history has shown us that many more lives are being jeopardized and lost when strict gun control is in force

What history would that be?

Leo also wrote:

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.

Like he can't read - I think at this point I would laugh if Isis were to overrun the once great UK.

I like sci-fi and was watching this new popular sci-fi series 'Dark Mirror' from Britain and in the first episode terrorists seized someone from royalty and required the Prime Minister Of Britain to have sex with a pig to redeem her - And this was shown nationwide to a mass audience including children - On the other hand some years ago I was listening to the BBC Worldwide where they were quoting Charleston Heston on the joys of gun shooting - And the announcers comment was 'disgusting'

OK Brits continue to show children about sex with pigs - AS far as I am concerned you are disgusting

I was going to continue this post by showing how the US and the UK were similar and how you should take back your rights to protect yourselves and your property - That would have been a mistake - There is, besides language, nothing similar between the US and the UK - And your overlords are right - You should not have the right to own guns or to protect yourselves or what you own