Subject:
|
Re: Sticking my gun where it doesn't belong...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 15 Sep 2003 19:43:53 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
817 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys wrote:
| |
A guns only inherent purpose is to shoot bullets at something.
|
But a gun’s purpose isn’t interently to shoot a person; that’s an
inferential purpose.
|
Hence I didn’t say that the inherent purpose of a gun is to shoot someone.
However, the ‘usual’ purpose of a gun *user* is to shoot at someone, either in
an act of “defense” or in an act of crime. Maybe to scare, maybe to intimidate,
and maybe to kill or maim.
And we’re back to the intended and inherent function of an object. You can get
into your semantics all you want, but scissors aren’t coming off the assembly
line with the intent to kill or maim people, or be used as objects of
intimidation. A gun, however, is. It is the only function under discussion.
If you mention hunting or ‘at the range’ as reasonable alternatives, then I’ll
gladly grant you that function, as long as the guns stay at the range or at the
hunting refuge when you’re done.
| |
By extension, the purpose of a pair of scissors is to
cut things, therefore I can cut someone’s throat with them, so scissors
should be banned. A baseball bat is designed to hit things with tremendous
force, therefore I can hit someone’s head with tremendous force, so baseball
bats should be banned. Rat poison is used to kill things, therefore I can
kill someone with rat poison, therefore rat poison should be banned.
|
Again, you’re arguing about “Hey, Timmy can do this so I should be able to as
well” The differnce between baseball bats, scissors, and rat poison, is that
their intended purpose is for something other than killing your fellow man.
| |
The problem is that an item’s inherent purpose is basically irrelevant to its
purpose-in-practice, so it’s difficult to justify the banning of something
based on inherent purpose alone.
|
If you wish to go into the purpose-in-practice of a gun, this cements the issue
with greater clarity--In light of all the mayhem and death guns do in
society--Barring statistics, guns in homes are responsible for the maimings and
deaths of relatives. Guns in homes get stolen to be used in crimes. It’s
difficult to go through a day without reading or viewing some sort of crime in
which a gun was a prominent factor. Hostage situations, domestic disputes,
robberies, etc. Someone usually ends up with a bullet lodged somewhere in their
body. And then there’s Mike who speaks of people better be ready for ‘lead in
the brain’. What kind of society talks like that?
| |
| |
It’s irrefutable--less guns, less gun related injuries and deaths.
|
Alas, that’s an unsubstantiated leap of logic. If you have 100 guns, and 99
of them never fire a shot, but 1 of them is used to kill 100 people, then
what’s the value in banning the other 99? In fact, if the other 99 are
eliminated, then the person with the remaining 1 gun will be the only one so
armed. Your argument is based on the assumption that the incidence of gun
violence is equally distributed across the society-wide inventory of guns,
and that’s not the case.
|
Not really--my arguement is based on reading the paper and watching the news.
These gun related incidents are not caused by 1 gun distributed across 100
killings, whilst 99 guns are sitting forlorn in a locked cupboard somewhere.
Your flawed logic is much akin to certain acquaintences of mine who say, “Well,
my papa smoked until he died of old age!” Smoking kills. Not every single
individual to be sure, but it does kill. It kills, imho, more than the worth of
the smoke.
Just as guns kill. Dave! Your gun in your particular house may never be used
in a violent way, but that does not mean that 98 other guns out of 100 that are
in the homes around you will not as well be used to kill/maim.
It is the case--if you lessen the number of guns, you lessen the incidents with
guns. And if you get rid of them all, well that would take a total change in
mindset...
Dave K
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Sticking my gun where it doesn't belong...
|
| (...) Okay, but now we're back to "guns don't kill people; people kill people." If you wish to condemn guns based on their "intent," then you can't simply abandon that argument in favor of the user's "'usual' purpose." You seem to be claiming (...) (21 years ago, 15-Sep-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
| | | Re: Sticking my gun where it doesn't belong...
|
| (...) Specifically what I said was: "Anyone that tries to take away my constitutionally protected fundamental rights better find a cure for brain lead first." (...) One that recognizes Freedom was purchased in blood. I highly doubt that I will ever (...) (21 years ago, 16-Sep-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Sticking my gun where it doesn't belong...
|
| (...) But a gun's purpose isn't interently to shoot a person; that's an inferential purpose. By extension, the purpose of a pair of scissors is to cut things, therefore I can cut someone's throat with them, so scissors should be banned. A baseball (...) (21 years ago, 15-Sep-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
111 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
