The Heroic Gunslinger Fantasy

[CabinetMaker]

why would i point my loaded gun at a living being and pull the trigger?

You said your guns were defective implying that they couldn't kill a living being.

is that what you do with your 45s?

I treat my .45's as loaded and dangerous at all times. There is no doubt in my mind that the guns were originally designed to be effective killers of men. That I use them to hunt balloons does not mean that they were not designed to be lethal towards humans, and any other living being that I might point them at.

 

[ok doser]

They are so good at it that one person can kill a lot of people in a very short amount of time.

not unless they're pointing it at them

 

[ok doser]

You said your guns were defective implying that they couldn't kill a living being.

it was a response to your statement that guns are designed to kill

guns are not designed to kill

they're designed to fire bullets


where you choose to have those bullets go is up to you

 

[rexlunae]

it was designed to be used by a mentally disturbed person to murder children?

cite?

It wasn't designed to distinguish. So, yes, it was. But don't pretend you don't already understand that. And also, since gun nuts have pushed back against every attempt to keep firearms out of the hands of people who shouldn't have them, it's a little rich that you think this is some sort of defense. You can't both rely on and refuse mental health requirements.

And that doesn't even begin to deal with the other elephant in the room, which is that most of these shooters have no identifiable mental illness.

 

[Yorzhik]

Based on what you just said, my analogy is accurate. Yelling fire in a crowded theater could result in the loss of life in the ensuing panic to get out of the theater. Similarly, carelessly executing your right to bear arms could result in the loss of life.

Oy. Trying to get you to think is like trying to get a pet rock to roll over.

Your analogy is inaccurate because the right to free speech is not shown to be weakened by the "fire in a theater" speech. Therefore to say the right to self defense is weakened by untrained gun carriers does not follow.

Thus, there might be an analogy that is accurate. Try to find one. My guess is that you've always shown yourself to be intellectually lazy and you won't even try.

 

[ok doser]

... a .223 carbine with all the trimmings, then act shocked, shocked, when it operates precisely as it was designed.

it was designed to be used by a mentally disturbed person to murder children?

cite?

... yes, it was.

can you find me something in the advertising or manual about that?

 

[rexlunae]

can you find me something in the advertising or manual about that?

Learn to read.

 

[ok doser]

Learn to read.

i read what you posted

by your logic, it was designed to be picked up by an orangutan and used to shoot coconuts

because it wasn't designed to distinguish

 

[rexlunae]

i read what you posted

by your logic, it was designed to be picked up by an orangutan and used to shoot coconuts

because it wasn't designed to distinguish

If it can't distinguish, you can't claim that it's not designed to be used only by certain individuals. At best, you can say that wasn't a design consideration, but that disqualifies it as a solution to any problem, both practically and from an engineering perspective.

Suppose orangutans are able to fire the gun, do you think it would be responsible or irresponsible to leave them in places that orangutans could get their hands on them? Whose fault would it be if an orangutan shot someone with it?

 

[ok doser]

If it can't distinguish, you can't claim that it's not designed to be used only by certain individuals.

if it can't distinguish, then it's an inanimate object

that was designed to fire bullets

period

 

[rexlunae]

if it can't distinguish, then it's an inanimate object

that was designed to fire bullets

period

Right. So it can't be said that it wasn't designed to be used by some people. That's the point.

 

[ok doser]

Right. So it can't be said that it wasn't designed to be used by some people. That's the point.

care to address granite's post?

...when it operates precisely as it was designed.

 

[rexlunae]

care to address granite's post?

There's nothing for me to address. He was right. The gun is being used exactly as it was designed. You're the one who tried to invent some imaginary designed-in limitation in terms of distinguishing between users that doesn't exist. There actually are guns that can distinguish between users, and gun nuts have been pretty against those, too. So, it seems you're in favor of designing guns to be safer, as long as it's only pretend, and you think that's the actual solution to the problem.

 

[CabinetMaker]

it was a response to your statement that guns are designed to kill

guns are not designed to kill

they're designed to fire bullets


where you choose to have those bullets go is up to you

s Very short sighted and seeks serving position. Why do you need to fire a bullet? What did Colt design the Pacemaker? Why did Henry design the Big Boy? What wad going on in their lives that sled them to design something that could fire more bullets in a shorter period of time?

 

[CabinetMaker]

Oy. Trying to get you to think is like trying to get a pet rock to roll over.

Your analogy is inaccurate because the right to free speech is not shown to be weakened by the "fire in a theater" speech. Therefore to say the right to self defense is weakened by untrained gun carriers does not follow.

Thus, there might be an analogy that is accurate. Try to find one. My guess is that you've always shown yourself to be intellectually lazy and you won't even try.

My analogy remains accurate: there are limits on rights. You have the right to carry a gun. You do not have the right to murder with that gun. Your right to own and carry a gun is not weekend by being twitted to demonstrate that you are qualified and mentally capable of doing so. In other words, you have the responsibility to prove that exercising your right to carry will not infringe my right to life.

 

[ok doser]

There's nothing for me to address. He was right. The gun is being used exactly as it was designed.

it was used by a mentally ill person to kill children

that's how it was designed?

 

[CabinetMaker]

it was used by a mentally ill person to kill children

that's how it was designed?

Cards are not designed to be driven by drunk drivers but they are. A car is designed to react to specific inputs from the driver.

Guns are the same. That are designed to fire a projectile with sufficient energy to destroy what it is pointed at.

You are confusing the design of the weapon with the intent or ability of the user.

 

[rexlunae]

it was used by a mentally ill person to kill children

that's how it was designed?

Like I said, the best you can claim is that it wasn't a design consideration. Which is likely true, but irrelevant. If it had been a design consideration, and the result is still a device that can be used by children and the mentally ill and orangutans, that would be a design flaw and the manufacturers would be potentially liable.

Back in the day, cars were designed to favor sex appeal, and survival in an accident wasn't a design consideration. Seat belts and airbags weren't required, and they generally weren't equipped either. The government mandated that cars design for accident survival, and instituted formal testing standards as well as specific measures, and cars became a lot safer, but it wasn't sufficient for car makers to simply say that their products just weren't designed to experience accidents because accidents happen and are reasonably foreseeable.

 

[Huckleberry]

re: wording of the 2nd amendment

 

[CabinetMaker]

re: wording of the 2nd amendment

If the second amendment is to be interpreted as stated in the video then you must be content to live with punishing a shooter and living with the death toll for you will only be able to prevent mass shootings on those very rare occasions where a person with the right training happens to be in the right place at the right time.

I think we can and should do better as a society.