Why are bombs OK, but guns bad?

How should society be organised, if at all?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Post Reply
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 2536
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: Why are bombs OK, but guns bad?

Post by FlashDangerpants »

BigWhit wrote: Still never answered the original question. Why do you blame a tool for a murder only when it's a gun?
Nobody does, this is simple to illustrate.

ISIS recently did terrorism with guns in Paris. Terrorists wish their killings to be attributed to their terrorism, not to inanimate objects with no political agenda. If guns were 'blamed' instead of the people holding them, it would be instrumentally irrational to use guns for terrorist purposes.

Likewise, murderers who use knives would still go to prison, but those who use guns would not. The particular gun they used would be locked up or put to death in instead.

It's to be expected that a grunting halfwit like Bob would try to use this silly "blaming the gun" argument. It's dispiriting to see clever people following suit.
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:
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.
I remain unconvinced. How is their constitution better?
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: 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.
He has the tone of the holocaust in his voice, but its those minor notes too.
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:
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.
We al know you are a complete fuckwit, but this takes the biscuit. The 2nd ammendent was so that the gummit could raise a rabble in its own defence, moron. No polity designs a law for its own downfall.
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:He has the tone of the holocaust in his voice, but its those minor notes too.
The minor chord structures are very much a matter of musical taste, I agree, but for some reason they've always resonated well with me. I think you need to look past the tonal qualities of his voice to get at the more uplifting understructure beneath it, but there's no getting around the simple fact that the message of music always lies in the ear of the listener, just as the message of words lies in the mind of the reader. The artist just puts it out there and then it's up to the punters to attach the meaning to it. As a visual artist yourself I'm sure you know what I mean. You can create a piece with a meaning in mind but you can't mandate this meaning to the observer of it.
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:
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.
We al know you are a complete fuckwit, but this takes the biscuit. The 2nd ammendent was so that the gummit could raise a rabble in its own defence, moron. No polity designs a law for its own downfall.
"This takes the biscuit?" Only a stupid fucking limey could ever come up with such a stupid-ass illiterate-sounding remark like that! You have absolutely no idea what the Second Amendment is about, so stay away from that subject entirely. The people who wrote the U.S. Constitution and its Bill of Rights were only too aware of the oppressive British government they had escaped from, and were determined to see that the U.S. government would never morph into King George's evil twin!
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 9318
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Post by henry quirk »

"In that case the problem lies with the quality of the media you are consuming."

Mebbe so...up here, we oveflow with 'journalists' (who wanna tell me 'why') and damned few 'reporters' (who simply convey who, what, where, when, and how). I'm inclined to think the situation is no different down there, but - as I'm too lazy to fact check you - I'll just take your word that you have 'better' coverage than me.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 9318
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Post by henry quirk »

"I didn't know bombs were allowed by default like the gun is!?"

They're not but most of what goes into one is.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pressure_cooker_bomb

#

"we need limitations to assure THAT not everyone has ease to use such 'tools' when vulnerable to harm others indiscriminately"

Please, describe the limitations you wanna see.

#

"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."

I use my coach gun to hunt and self-defend...that is: to eat and to preserve my life (elsewhere, in-forum, I describe how I had would-be burglers leave my home empty-handed [empty of my stuff and my blood] cuz I pointed my shotgun at them)...I view eating and self-defense as neccessary...mebbe you don't?

#

"you assert, (anyone) who WANT(s) a gun can simply go 'buy' one, as if we are all so equally privileged in FACT!"

First, I live on the poor end of the spectrum...I have to squeeze the life out of every friggin' penny I earn...I have no disposable income...instead, I have a budget.

Second, no one gives me jack...I'm not privileged or privy to privilege...what I have - and it ain't much - is mine by way of my work.

Third, I place a high value on my autonomy and on myself (as my first, best, property)...I see my coach gun as one means of securing my autonomy and myself...so, I scrimped and saved for it, forgoing other stuff and pleasures in favor of it.

So: it's not about privilege, it's about priorities and what a body is willing to do, so - yeah - it is about character, and will, and capability.

Reality check: 'inequity' is the way of things...go into any hospital nursery: you'll see healthy, beautiful babies and sickly, ugly babies...from the start, there's no equality or fairness...uneven distribution of wealth is nuthin' when compared to the wholly natural and normal uneven distribution of 'capability', intelligence, gumption, self-directive capacity, etc., so I'm unimpressed by your (or any one's) playin' the 'inequity' card.
Last edited by henry quirk on Fri Feb 26, 2016 4:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 12313
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re:

Post by Arising_uk »

henry quirk wrote:"In that case the problem lies with the quality of the media you are consuming."

Mebbe so...up here, we oveflow with 'journalists' (who wanna tell me 'why') and damned few 'reporters' (who simply convey who, what, where, when, and how). I'm inclined to think the situation is no different down there, but - as I'm too lazy to fact check you - I'll just take your word that you have 'better' coverage than me.
The BBC isn't that bad compared to what I can see of your news-media but it's definitely getting worse. There's a newish word for the latest 'journalists', churnalists, as all they pretty much do is re-churn news without investigation or fact checking, mainly from the internet and social media. Can't blame them to much tho' as this 24/7 demand for 'news' is incessant.
Last edited by Arising_uk on Fri Feb 26, 2016 7:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 9318
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Post by henry quirk »

Yeah, companies, driven to sell advertising, push the idea of 24/7, and the public gets well-trained to expect 24/7...quality gives way to quantity.

Throw in a whole generation of folks who don't wanna be reliable witnesses to the world, who, instead, want to change it, and you get news as entertainment and ideology rather than news as conveyance.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 9318
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Post by henry quirk »

Bob, Hobbes,

It would be nice if it were a 'this or that' kinda thing, but - plainly - it isn't....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Am ... nstitution

Me: not caring one way or the other (or any which way)...repeal the second, ban guns, work to confiscate them, and I'm still not givin' up my coach gun.

Nerts to you both.
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:He has the tone of the holocaust in his voice, but its those minor notes too.
The minor chord structures are very much a matter of musical taste, I agree, but for some reason they've always resonated well with me. I think you need to look past the tonal qualities of his voice to get at the more uplifting understructure beneath it, but there's no getting around the simple fact that the message of music always lies in the ear of the listener, just as the message of words lies in the mind of the reader. The artist just puts it out there and then it's up to the punters to attach the meaning to it. As a visual artist yourself I'm sure you know what I mean. You can create a piece with a meaning in mind but you can't mandate this meaning to the observer of it.
Suzanne always grips me. It rips me open. When my ipod randomly chooses it I have to stop and listen, but most of the other stuff seems a poor relation to this moment of genius.
Here it is, is also supreme, but sung by Luciana Se Souza, is preferred.

My heart can't take more than two of those songs in any given week.
User avatar
Hobbes' Choice
Posts: 8364
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:45 am

Re:

Post by Hobbes' Choice »

henry quirk wrote:Bob, Hobbes,

It would be nice if it were a 'this or that' kinda thing, but - plainly - it isn't....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Am ... nstitution

Me: not caring one way or the other (or any which way)...repeal the second, ban guns, work to confiscate them, and I'm still not givin' up my coach gun.

Nerts to you both.
Would you object to having to have a licence such as you have for your car, so that any criminal could have that licence void for illegal use?
The difficulty is at the moment is that without some sort of regulation, police can't even stop criminals having a gun because of their "constitutional rights".
It seems a bit fucking stupid.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 9318
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Post by henry quirk »

As I recall, you asked me a similar question about licensing a while back, in another thread, and Leo inquired about licensing then too.

While I get your point, I'd object to having to register my gun or obtain a license for it.

There is, in place now, a half-assed background check system (gettin' better all the time, though) that goes some little way to keeping guns out of the hands of stupid criminals, but it would have been useless to prevent the last few years of mass shootings (done by disturbed, but not previously convicted, folks, and terrorist types who got guns outside of legal gun dealers), and it is (and will continue to be) useless in stopping the smart criminals from getting guns.

Take Chicago where the gun violence is high: most of the guns used aren't coming out of gun shops directly, but are stolen and/or bought on the street...effective background checks and licensing would have liitle effect in cleaning up Chicago in the same way the 'war on drugs' has done little to curb the appetite for, or supply of, drugs.

So: licensing would, practically, only affect the law abider cuz, by definition, the law breaker will not comply.
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: The people who wrote the U.S. Constitution and its Bill of Rights were only too aware of the oppressive British government they had escaped from, and were determined to see that the U.S. government would never morph into King George's evil twin!
The blokes who wrote the US constitution were a self-selected clique of wealthy aristocrats who wrote it in such a way that it would entrench the new aristocracy firmly in control of the wealth and power of the new nation. They did a fucking good job of it.
Post Reply