Why are bombs OK, but guns bad?

[bobevenson]

What about anthrax, Bob. I've never actually held a gun so it wouldn't be my weapon of choice, but I know my way around a biological laboratory better than the average punter. If I put my mind to it I'm pretty sure I could make myself a flask of anthrax bacteria which would be many orders of magnitude more lethal than the most sophisticated of guns. Would the AEP protect my basic human right to do this if I so chose?

Yes, but you would have to stay in Australia to avoid human mortality.

[Obvious Leo]

I don't live in mortal fear of my own government, Bob, because I understand that they work for ME, not the other way around, so I don't think I'll be bothering with the anthrax. I'm sure you'll understand the more general point I was making which is that I consider that this government which works for ME has a duty of care to protect me from shitheads running around with dangerous weapons which are solely designed to kill people. I'm not even suggesting that your country has more shitheads in it than mine does on a per capita basis but I'm fucking certain that Australian shitheads aren't as lethal as American ones.

[Hobbes' Choice]

Uh, huh. My guns have never been in the hands of a child and in the rural areas where I grew up we were taught the dangers of weapons from a very young age. Result? None of us ever fucked around with guns like a dumbass. No one I know ever shot anyone by accident or on purpose. It's a called being educated about weapons. Just like sex ed can help people avoid STDs and unwanted pregnancies, gun education can help prevent people from being gun phobic little fuckwits like you.

Keep acting like you know me and my life from across an ocean and through a fucking computer screen.

Yeas that's why the US has the greatest prison population on earth, and mass shootings are as common as a trip to the dentist

[BigWhit]

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?

[Obvious Leo]

Why do you blame a tool for a murder only when it's a gun?

You didn't answer my question? Nobody is blaming guns for the crime of murder. However guns are specifically designed for precisely this purpose so do you not regard this as a point relevant to the debate? What use does a gun have other than to shoot things with it?

[Arising_uk]

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.

Just thought. Over here because of our experience with the IRA I think we did try to restrict access to simple bomb making materials, at least in any large quantities. So I'm pretty sure you have to have some form of ID and proof of use if you wish to buy the requisite chemicals in any bulk and the vendor would be reporting suspicious buying. Not perfect but seemed to have worked with respect to the big weedkiller versions. Although I guess the Internut might make this more difficult nowadays but then again maybe more easier to spot?

[BigWhit]

Why do you blame a tool for a murder only when it's a gun?

You didn't answer my question? Nobody is blaming guns for the crime of murder. However guns are specifically designed for precisely this purpose so do you not regard this as a point relevant to the debate? What use does a gun have other than to shoot things with it?

The specific purpose of a gun is to fire a projectile. That is it. Some projectiles are fired at targets at a range. Some are fired at animals to put food on the table. Some are fired at burglars, rapists, and other offenders. Some are fired by bad people to kill innocent people, unfortunately. But a gun's purpose is not murder. Murder is an act that requires intent, which requires a conscious actor. If guns are designed for murder then 99.999% of the 300 million+ guns in this country are being misused.

[bobevenson]

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.

[Scott Mayers]

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?

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?

Huh?

I was partially being funny here and its superfluous to the argument here. My point to which you seem to miss is that if Bob's argument is counter to my own and others in irony. Bob is appearing to interpret an absurdity or hypocrisy he interprets of those demanding more controls for guns:

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.

Irony One: Those who even use the term 'terrorists' with most hypocrisy ARE the ones who BELIEVE in guns, those who USE them, and BELIEVE in maiming with the power of capital, power of arms, and the ones framing who are the 'terrorists' or not. The irony is that often those who are 'terrorists' perceive those they harm AS THE 'terrorists'.

Irony Two: This argument interprets all of us as thinking we 'blame' the people with absolution for acts of terrorism. The reality is that it is intrinsic in ALL of us to BE cruel as much as to be kind. Thus the difference to those who DO succeed in harming others has to do with their availability, access, and power to weapons. The irony is that those like bob interpret a real good-evil dichotomy exists to which one label applies to one but never the other. A "terrorist" is a perspective assignment of "the other". And gun-lovers falsely think there is such thing as a "law abiding" set of people who have some intrinsically good nature and so their acts are never defined as "terrorism" but are "heroes" in some form when or where they act.

Irony Three: Nobody asserts that those behind the use of guns is as much at fault here regardless of whether they have them or not. But you, like Bob, no doubt falsely assume that the EVIL is intrinsic and sufficient enough in ALL cases to assure that those who would harm with guns are always certain to harm regardless of whether they have a gun or not. This is false. Everyone is vulnerable to think 'evil' thoughts and if, given access to certain weapons in these times, only amplifies the likelihood of us all to use them.

...and my point in contrast was to show that the opposite to bob's thinking is 'ironic' and absurd: that if it is fair to presume we SHOULD have guns, since he assumes the people behind them are the ones we should blame and not the guns, then we should also allow the 'good' people everywhere to have no limits on what they can have, hold, or be eligible to use, like weapons of mass destruction.

You are wrong too to presume that 'deterrence' exists UNLESS EACH AND EVERY PERSON EVERYWHERE should have the same equal power to hold. Your error is still in assuming that their are definitively 'good' people (who are ALWAYS in INTRINSICALLY 'good) versus others who are definitively 'evil', in direct opposition. Yet again, ironically, if this was the case, all we'd require is to have the first government we perceive 'good' to to have the sole power of gun ownership and alleviates the need for that supposed constitutional need for everyone this 'right'. This is because, if you presume strictly 'good' and strictly 'evil' people, at the point that those ONLY 'good' people who originally had the power of gun-ownership, are sufficient to restrict the rest (all the rest being presumed 'evil') should never 'own'.

That is, if those owning guns presently are the 'good and virtuous' people, AND should they have the power to be in Government, then we should never fear such a governing body to use its force in some 'bad or evil' way against the people. Thus, these good gun-toting lovers in power can simply remove that law OR interpret those others who demand weapons you, as a government don't like, as "terrorists", who you make ineligible to have the same right.

[Scott Mayers]

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.

Again, you interpret, like bob or other gun owners, as though they were intrinsically 'good' or 'bad'. The truth is that EVERYONE is equally vulnerable to behavior as extreme as those Boston Marathon bombers. That was the lesson some try to expose when raising WWII and the Holocaust. The 'extremes' that people go to often make some acts appear more overtly EVIL. Yet, what gets missed is that for those who have more power, they too have as much 'evil' too. The difference is that we don't interpret those who cleverly use tactics that redirect or hide accountability as non-evil. In reality, you should be able to recognize that those who could cleverly act 'evil' best would logically be the ones who could make themselves look banally 'good' but the actual INNOCENT appear MOST EVIL!!

Would you not agree that the ones who act to deceive their accountability AND successfully DO evil, are MORE EVIL than those who overtly act with clear harm. Do you respect the person who dislikes you, is clear to assure you their animosity, and acts to harm you in ways you can hold them accountable for? Or...do you prefer that same person to feign themselves as your friend, but hate you, and cleverly act to misdirect their harm by getting others to harm you instead?

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.

If you are right, then let's not simply assert people to have a 'right' to own guns, but let's ASSURE that EVERYONE has a gun, regardless of judging them 'good' nor 'evil'. You'd have to create a law to DEMAND everyone have a gun by LAW. Is this MORE reasonable?

You are more absurd because while it is reasonable we could LIMIT gun ownership, the alternative is to ASSURE EVERYONE have guns. I am CERTAIN that this is NOT what you would wish. You perceive a LIMIT to gun ownership to those YOU believe are intrinsically EVIL.

[Scott Mayers]

Why do you blame a tool for a murder only when it's a gun?

You didn't answer my question? Nobody is blaming guns for the crime of murder. However guns are specifically designed for precisely this purpose so do you not regard this as a point relevant to the debate? What use does a gun have other than to shoot things with it?

The specific purpose of a gun is to fire a projectile. That is it. Some projectiles are fired at targets at a range. Some are fired at animals to put food on the table. Some are fired at burglars, rapists, and other offenders. Some are fired by bad people to kill innocent people, unfortunately. But a gun's purpose is not murder. Murder is an act that requires intent, which requires a conscious actor. If guns are designed for murder then 99.999% of the 300 million+ guns in this country are being misused.

A gun's purpose is ONLY to fire a projectile and as a 'tool' if you have a reason to shoot a projectile with such force. You assert that it is the people behind the weapon that matters, not the tool. Thus you require being able to assure that those people using those 'tools' are using such a thing with the supposed reasons you interpret that tool to be used for, BY HUMANS. Guns don't care one way or the other how they are used.

Likewise, a 'hammer' doesn't CARE that it is being used to fasten wood pieces together with nails. But the HUMANS using them allow them for this purpose. When or where it is used as a weapon to harm is NOT approved of but a hammer still has sufficient use as a CONSTRUCTIVE tool to make it valuable.

A gun is a 'tool' not simply used to CONSTRUCTIVELY aid humans. Is it so important that one should have a right to have such a mundane 'tool' to shoot harmless targets when this can be done in other ways? That is, if shooting targets for the fun of it is the reason 'good people' use them, why do they not prefer tossing stones at targets instead? Which requires more skill and challenge to the human condition?

The gun IS specifically designed BY HUMANS to be MOST DESTRUCTIVE, non constructive. And this risk and the ease to which it can be used to destroy other people makes it sufficient to warrant concern just as it is not wise to allow us to own bombs. If you think that somehow others should interpret target shooting is a necessary requirement of the human condition, I question your mental faculties as it seems absurdly a retarded activity most suited for immature children's whims of entertainment. And it makes anyone arguing for a right to be childishly simple-minded to then think we should trust them to use such a tool, trusting they'd not INTEND to harm anyone with it. Do you let your child run with sharp knives around because they like it and have no intent to 'harm' others?

[henry quirk]

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'm just reporting what I see on the tube, in the papers, on the net, and reiterating Bob's question (which everyone seems to ignore in favor of ridin' Bob's ass).

As for all this hooey about EVIL: that's your ax to grind, not mine. As I, roundaboutly, pointed out, all of that malarkey is in the eye of the beholder. Joe shoots at me with a 22 and I think he's bad. Sam comes along and puts a fist-sized hole in Joe's chest with a 44 and I thnk he's good. Now, Joe may have perfectly legit reasons for wanting to plug me, and it's damned certain Joe's family and friend's aren't gonna have happy, warm feelings toward Sam. Eye of the beholder, nuthin' more or less. 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.

As for LIMITS: as I say, chase them rainbows.

#

"A gun is a 'tool' not simply used to CONSTRUCTIVELY aid humans."

I think it's pretty friggin' CONSTRUCTIVE when I can feed mine with sumthin' that doesn't come from the grocery...that is: when I bring home meat I killed with my coach gun, there is a benefit to me and mine.

#

"target shooting...(as)...a retarded activity most suited for immature children's whims of entertainment"

HA! Mebbe so...and if so, then I'm a retard who can feed his family without trundling to the grocery, who can defend his family without worrying if the cops will arrive 'in time' to do so.

Embedded in your little assessment of folks like me is, best I can tell (INTERPRET, if you like) is a definition of, I guess, folks like you: 'mature, intelligent folks rely on some one else for food, for protection...to be mature, intelligent, one must be helpless'.

Queer way of lookin' at things...best of luck with that.

[henry quirk]

"I don't live in mortal fear of my own government, Bob, because I understand that they work for ME."

I don't 'fear' the governors...I am, however, highly suspicious of them, of any one, in fact, who claims he or she knows what's best for me, who seeks power to enact those 'noble' plans 'on my behalf'.

Mebbe down there the scum stays down and only the cream rises, but up here it's the opposite. Eye of the beholder again applies: loads of folks think Mr. Obama is the cat's meow workin' tirelessly on their behalf; others see him as an incompetent, or worse, workin' tirelessly to put sugar in the gas tank.

All depends on if one is benefiting, and if one is willin' to pay the price for that benefit.

We see things with different eyes, you and me.

[BigWhit]

+1 to the last two posts by henry

[Obvious Leo]

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

When guns are used, the focus is on the gun.

In that case the problem lies with the quality of the media you are consuming. Every time there is yet another mass shooting in the US it receives mass coverage in the Australian media and the nature of the weaponry used is only ever mentioned in passing. The focus is ALWAYS on the motivations and the psychology of the perpetrators who perform such appalling acts and the fact that such dangerous weaponry is so easily available to them. What the weapons actually ARE is generally perceived as quite irrelevant but who can and cannot gain access to them is instead regarded as the point of discussion. I very much doubt that the focus of the US media is any different but if it is then you must ask yourself why this should be the case.