Why are bombs OK, but guns bad?

How should society be organised, if at all?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

BigWhit
Posts: 139
Joined: Sun Dec 27, 2015 7:20 pm

Re: Why are bombs OK, but guns bad?

Post by BigWhit »

FlashDangerpants wrote:Do you own any guns Bob?

And do you, Whit, think Bob's guns should probably be taken away given that he's he's clearly psychotic?
Bob may be delusional when it comes to his prophecy but I don't think he's a threat to anyone's physical wellbeing. So, no.
BigWhit
Posts: 139
Joined: Sun Dec 27, 2015 7:20 pm

Re: Why are bombs OK, but guns bad?

Post by BigWhit »

Scott Mayers wrote:
But then I had argued similarly that,

If guns are okay because they don't kill people,

We should all be allowed to have bombs too!


I think it would be cool to 'collect' a few nukes! :roll:
Oh, ...and I'm a 'law abiding citizen too'!
Why the hell would anyone want a nuke? Deterrence is the only reason they're kept by nations anymore. Even if you had the resources, why would you waste them on a nuke?

As far as bombs are concerned you can still make a fertilizer bomb a la Timothy McVeigh. None of the ingredients for that bomb have been banned. You can still make pipe bombs and other types of explosives if you have the know how.

You can buy a friggin RPG if you've got the right license.
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 2536
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: Why are bombs OK, but guns bad?

Post by FlashDangerpants »

BigWhit wrote: Why the hell would anyone want a nuke? Deterrence is the only reason they're kept by nations anymore.
Doesn't the second ammendment exist in order to deter your own government from adopting evil ways of tyranny? Deterring a nation seems to be the point.
Scott Mayers
Posts: 1812
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am
Location: Saskatoon, SK, Canada

Re: Why are bombs OK, but guns bad?

Post by Scott Mayers »

BigWhit wrote:
Scott Mayers wrote:
But then I had argued similarly that,

If guns are okay because they don't kill people,

We should all be allowed to have bombs too!


I think it would be cool to 'collect' a few nukes! :roll:
Oh, ...and I'm a 'law abiding citizen too'!
Why the hell would anyone want a nuke? Deterrence is the only reason they're kept by nations anymore. Even if you had the resources, why would you waste them on a nuke?

As far as bombs are concerned you can still make a fertilizer bomb a la Timothy McVeigh. None of the ingredients for that bomb have been banned. You can still make pipe bombs and other types of explosives if you have the know how.

You can buy a friggin RPG if you've got the right license.
I live in Canada, not the U.S.. We aren't allowed RPGs. I also live in a place with the highest grade and second largest quantity of uranium in the world. It would be easier for us here to make a nuke than to own a gun! Does this deter you from disagreeing with me? :lol:
bobevenson
Posts: 7349
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2009 12:02 am
Contact:

Re: Why are bombs OK, but guns bad?

Post by bobevenson »

Obvious Leo wrote:
bobevenson wrote:No, I'm talking about blaming the bomb people, but not the gun people.
Are you saying that people who kill other people with bombs are held accountable for their crimes and that people who kill other people with guns are not held accountable for their crimes, Bob. It's no fucking wonder you live in such a dangerous country. Get yourself a passport and piss off without delay, mate. Come to Australia. Beautiful weather, naked women on the beaches and being a brainless fuckwit is no impediment to success.
I'm saying the anti-gun radicals will jump on any reason to ban guns. They don't complain about the people who shoot to kill, it's the guns that are evil.
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:I'm saying the anti-gun radicals will jump on any reason to ban guns. They don't complain about the people who shoot to kill, it's the guns that are evil.
This statement is simply false, Bob, and you bloody well know it. The anti-gun lobbyists in your country are simply objecting to the easy availability of guns and pointing out that this is a major contributor to the inordinately high rate of gun-related homicide in the US. Since this rate is far higher than the comparable rate in countries where guns are far more difficult to acquire these lobbyists have a very persuasive argument. A shithead with a gun is far more likely to kill somebody than a shithead without one and that is a FACT.
Scott Mayers
Posts: 1812
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am
Location: Saskatoon, SK, Canada

Re: Why are bombs OK, but guns bad?

Post by Scott Mayers »

bobevenson wrote:
Obvious Leo wrote:
bobevenson wrote:No, I'm talking about blaming the bomb people, but not the gun people.
Are you saying that people who kill other people with bombs are held accountable for their crimes and that people who kill other people with guns are not held accountable for their crimes, Bob. It's no fucking wonder you live in such a dangerous country. Get yourself a passport and piss off without delay, mate. Come to Australia. Beautiful weather, naked women on the beaches and being a brainless fuckwit is no impediment to success.
I'm saying the anti-gun radicals will jump on any reason to ban guns. They don't complain about the people who shoot to kill, it's the guns that are evil.
Wait...

Guns kill people "with ease"
AND
People kill people "without guns hesitantly"

Statistics?

Compare the average male vs the average female.
The male represents the more physically capable of doing physical harms that lead to death, as a gun does.
In contrast, the female represents the less physically capable of doing physical harm, as one without a gun.

Both men and women kill. But the nature of the relatively subtle size differences leads men to often do more critical damage that leads to death. Both are equally vulnerable to criminal behavior and women may tend to harm indirectly. Yet because it is harder more for women to kill, their success to do so at worst makes them use other men to kill indirectly.

This should be sufficient to prove that considering the significantly powerful tool, guns, which act uniquely to project things that go faster than cars, should be more likely to lead to more deaths than without. Correct or not?
Scott Mayers
Posts: 1812
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am
Location: Saskatoon, SK, Canada

Re: Why are bombs OK, but guns bad?

Post by Scott Mayers »

How our 'terrorists' in Canada successfully achieve their assassinations:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOXfbtWPZjw

or

http://imgur.com/wZTIFY3
BigWhit
Posts: 139
Joined: Sun Dec 27, 2015 7:20 pm

Re: Why are bombs OK, but guns bad?

Post by BigWhit »

Scott Mayers wrote: I live in Canada, not the U.S.. We aren't allowed RPGs. I also live in a place with the highest grade and second largest quantity of uranium in the world. It would be easier for us here to make a nuke than to own a gun! Does this deter you from disagreeing with me? :lol:
Precisely how do you suppose you're going to get your hands on enough weapons grade uranium to make a nuke? Let alone shield yourself from the radiation from it, and actually build a nuclear bomb. And even if you could, for what purpose? Just to keep in an underground bunker so you can stare at it and sip moose drool?
BigWhit
Posts: 139
Joined: Sun Dec 27, 2015 7:20 pm

Re: Why are bombs OK, but guns bad?

Post by BigWhit »

Scott Mayers wrote: Wait...

Guns kill people "with ease"
AND
People kill people "without guns hesitantly"
This is exactly the point bob is trying to make here.

Why is it that when a person shoots another person it's the "guns" that kill people and not people killing people? If someone gives you a labotamy with a hammer no one says that hammers kill people (even though they kill more people than *trigger warning* "assault rifles").
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 »

BigWhit wrote: Why is it that when a person shoots another person it's the "guns" that kill people and not people killing people?
Who is saying this? Who exactly are you trying to argue with because nobody has made this claim?
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 »

The notion for which the Second Ammendment was written, was that a local militia upon whom the people could call at times of need were ready with muskets.
Image
It was based upon a siege mentality by a people that were engaged in a massive land steal, against a people whom they called savages.

The musket was a single shot weapon that took over 30 seconds to reload.


Americans think that amendment gives the right of any moron to own a modern weapon.
Screen Shot 2016-02-24 at 10.54.17.png
Screen Shot 2016-02-24 at 10.54.17.png (206.06 KiB) Viewed 2007 times
Screen Shot 2016-02-24 at 10.55.42.png
Screen Shot 2016-02-24 at 10.55.42.png (139.34 KiB) Viewed 2006 times
bobevenson
Posts: 7349
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2009 12:02 am
Contact:

Re: Why are bombs OK, but guns bad?

Post by bobevenson »

Obvious Leo wrote:
BigWhit wrote: Why is it that when a person shoots another person it's the "guns" that kill people and not people killing people?
Who is saying this? Who exactly are you trying to argue with because nobody has made this claim?
Please, all of you idiots directly or indirectly make that claim, especially you, Leo!
BigWhit
Posts: 139
Joined: Sun Dec 27, 2015 7:20 pm

Re: Why are bombs OK, but guns bad?

Post by BigWhit »

Did you read the quote in that post, Leo or are you just blind to implicit assertions that agree with your ideas?

HC, the day I take lessons on my constitution from a socialist limey fuckwit like you is the day I'll cut my dick off and call myself Caitlyn Jenner. If the second amendment only applies to muskets then I guess the first amendment applies to quill pens and presses only?

If the KKK member has a federal firarms license (which requires extensive background checks and a lot of money) then idk if he owns a maxim machine gun. Have they used it on anyone? No.

The kid in the photo is obviously too young to own the firearm (you have to be 21 to own a handgun in the US) and is playing around with a dangerous weapon like a fool because his parents obviously didn't teach him shit about gun safety most likely because no one taught them anything about it either, which is a fucking shame. No doubt the thug culture of the inner city has something to do with this idiot wanting to look cool to god knows who.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 9318
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Post by henry quirk »

I own a nice, well-used (by me), 12 gauge coach gun. No, I'm not an N.R.A. member...I read no gun magazines and belong to no gun clubs...I attend no gun shows and have no gun buddies.

Never shot up a theatre or school or mall...never used it in an illegal (or, as I see it, improper) way.

Not seein' why my ownership or use of this shotgun should be moderated or hobbled cuz other folks do bad things with their guns.

Also not seein' why I should have to self-report my ownership and use of this shotgun to any one.

Whole whack of busy bodies with too much time on their hands worrying about the (potential) weeds in another's garden, if you ask me.

And: Bob's question stands...when pressure cooker bombs (easy to make) were used at a Boston Marathon running, little was said about the bombs (again, easy to make...the parts are legal, the process of weaponizing easy)... the focus, rightfully, was on the bad guys. But, let some one use a gun in a bad way and the focus (lately, anyway) is on the gun and how some (new) law would keep such weapons out of the 'wrong' hands.

Thing is, lots of anti-gun (not anti-crime) folks deem simply wanting a gun as 'wrong' so, they say, "no guns for you, bad, maladjusted, person!". Such folks are on a kind of snipe hunt cuz guns (of any kind, and the associated ammo) ain't goin' nowhere.

My suggestion to folks in the U.S. who find the very notion of 'gun' deplorable: buck up and move on.

My suggestion to folks outside the U.S. who find the notion of 'gun' deplorable: stay home.

Understand: I get that we here in America have a problem (several actually), but Pandora's Armory done opened its doors ages back and all the evils are loose...confiscations will fail...strict controls will fail...look here https://homemadeguns.wordpress.com/ people will make what they want if they can't buy it.

It is what it is and all the wailin' and criticism and good (and not-so-good) intentions aren't gonna do jack...all the proposed and enacted legislations to hobble and moderate and stymie aren't gonna do jack.

But, please, chase them rainbows.
Post Reply