Gun Rights: How The Left Will Push Us Into Civil War:

[Raphael]

Words can't directly, immediately, or literally kill anyone,

I know I am responding to this without bothering to read the rest of the thread BUT I disagree with this somewhat.

There an increasing number of cases where teens are literally being bullied into committing suicide.

While guns can and do create immediate physical damage, words can and do create emotional damage which can be just as immediate and lethal.

[seer]

"To kill" means to be the cause of someone's death. If a hammer was the cause of a person's death, then a hammer killed a person. Would you go around saying that a boulder that fell on someone and crushed him to death didn't kill that person?

That is nonsense, have you ever heard people running around saying that baseball bats or knives kill people? No you say Joe killed Ed with a hammer - not hammers kill. And if a boulder happen to roll down a hill and kill someone, you could rightly say that he was killed by a rock - be we don't go around saying that boulders kill. That is nonsensical. But if Joe killed Ed with a big rock we would say that Joe killed Ed with a rock. The point is that you leftists twist the language when it comes to firearms because of your bias.

And, of course, a key distinction is that unlike hammers, guns are created with the express purpose of efficiently causing a person or animal's death. So yes, regardless of what position one takes on the gun control debates, it is accurate to say that guns kill people.

Nonsense. Guns are not created for any expressed purpose, firearms do not have an inherent teleology. They can be used by a rational agent for an expressed purpose. Self-defense, target shooting, hunting, collecting, etc...

[seer]

Law don't effect logic, seer. Laws change, logic don't

But what is your point? I said I have no problem with legal drugs, used legally, any more than I have a problem with legal guns used legally.

[Jaecp]

Then congratulations on either missing the point or engaging in petty pedantry

[seer]

Then congratulations on either missing the point or engaging in petty pedantry

Then expound, because I'm not getting your point.

[firstfloor]

And? Guns don't kill anyone either - they are inanimate objects.

[fm93]

I know I am responding to this without bothering to read the rest of the thread BUT I disagree with this somewhat.

There an increasing number of cases where teens are literally being bullied into committing suicide.

While guns can and do create immediate physical damage, words can and do create emotional damage which can be just as immediate and lethal.

I realize that, and I don't mean to trivialize those who've struggled with suicidal thoughts. But as emotionally damaging as words can be for some people, the people themselves still have to go find some other means of actually committing the suicide. The words may pressure them into killing themselves, and anyone who directly targets those words at them with the intent of causing such emotional pain deserves condemnation, but the words themselves are not what finally causes the death. A gun, on the other hand, has no intermediate step besides expelling the bullet.

That is nonsense, have you ever heard people running around saying that baseball bats or knives kill people?

Absolutely, when knives or baseball bats are the direct cause of a person's death. It's a legitimate use of language, seer.

And if a boulder happen to roll down a hill and kill someone, you could rightly say that he was killed by a rock - be we don't go around saying that boulders kill.

Wha-? But you JUST said in the first clause of your sentence that a boulder killed someone!

if a boulder happen[ed] to roll down a hill and kill someone

That is nonsensical. But if Joe killed Ed with a big rock we would say that Joe killed Ed with a rock. The point is that you leftists twist the language when it comes to firearms because of your bias.

No. I'm not going to engage with this pedantic bickering any further.

Nonsense. Guns are not created for any expressed purpose

I don't believe that you actually believe this. They were created to more efficiently bring about death or injury by firing a bullet. This is not up for debate.

They can be used by a rational agent for an expressed purpose. Self-defense

Which is typically accomplished by killing or injuring an attacker.

target shooting

In preparation for times when one has to kill or injure someone/something.

hunting

Which involves killing or injuring animals.

collecting, etc...

That's a case of not using it. That's not a reason that guns were invented.

Please don't waste my time with pedantry like this ever again.

[Zymologist]

Then congratulations on either missing the point or engaging in petty pedantry

How many times can you say this fast?

[rogue06]

How many times can you say this fast?

I went 15 times before getting bored and quitting. Then again I can say the sixth sick sheik's^[1] sixth sheep's sick three times without trouble. Try saying "toy boat" three times.











1. the tongue twister is based on the mispronunciation of sheik with it rhyming with squeak rather than the correct pronunciation where it is a homonym of shake.

[seer]

Absolutely, when knives or baseball bats are the direct cause of a person's death. It's a legitimate use of language, seer.

That is complete nonsense - we do not go around saying that knives or baseball kill people, period. But they do go around saying the guns kill people.

Wha-? But you JUST said in the first clause of your sentence that a boulder killed someone!

Are you slow? If there is no agent involved - the rock just happened to roll down the hill and kill Ed the you could rightly say that the boulder killed Ed. But if Joe purposely pushed that boulder down to harm Ed, we would naturally say that Joe killed Ed with a boulder. And we would not go around saying boulders kill people.

No. I'm not going to engage with this pedantic bickering any further.

That is because your double standard in your use of language has been exposed.

I don't believe that you actually believe this. They were created to more efficiently bring about death or injury by firing a bullet. This is not up for debate.

Of course I do. Guns are designed to do one thing - fire a projectile. What the agent does with that is completely immaterial as far as inherent purpose..

In preparation for times when one has to kill or injure someone/something.


Which involves killing or injuring animals.

But the agent who has the gun can decide to shoot or not shoot. The firearm is merely the tool. Guns don't make decisions. And people do target shooting strictly for sport. It is an Olympic event for goodness sake.

That's a case of not using it. That's not a reason that guns were invented.

Please don't waste my time with pedantry like this ever again.

Grow up, FM...

[Pinoy]

I think the first weapon use for the purpose of killing is the knife. Before guns, i believe guns and knife are used for hunting ang killing. Beside every soilder now has a knife use to kill enemies.

Edit to add: blunt object is i think what first man use for killing. So beware of poles.

[rogue06]

I think the first weapon use for the purpose of killing is the knife. Before guns, i believe guns and knife are used for hunting ang killing. Beside every soilder now has a knife use to kill enemies.

Edit to add: blunt object is i think what first man use for killing. So beware of poles.

Rocks. I've never trusted them what with their stony silence.