Firearms are for sporting and hunting

[arthwollipot]

So you were being metaphorical when you claimed that "when you have a gun, everything looks like a target"?

Do you think believing everything is a target just because you have a gun in hand is normal or abnormal? I don't think it is normal and anyone who thinks that way in my opinion is behaving very strange indeed.

Once again, I will draw a distinction between saying something like that and an armchair mental health diagnosis.

Saying "you're being paranoid" is expressing an opinion about your behaviour. Saying "That person is clearly a schizophrenic with paranoid delusions" is an armchair mental health diagnosis.

Saying "You seem to have little regard for human life" is expressing an opinion about your behaviour. Saying "you are a psychopath" is an armchair mental health diagnosis.

You need to grasp the difference between an opinion on someone's behaviour and an armchair mental health diagnosis, or we won't be able to continue this conversation because we'll just be talking past one another. I'll explain it again if you need me to.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

So where did you develop this attitude that guns are for causing ballistic trauma in living creatures, generally (as in most of the time) towards the purpose of inflicting lethal injuries very rapidly? I ask because it is easy to show that guns are almost always used in a nonviolent manner. The post I quoted was just evasion.

I covered that.

I tend to lean heavily towards efficiency (what task it is most suited towards AND what other options might be more suitable for the same task) when considering what a thing is "for." I recognize not everyone may think in those terms, however.

If you want to rapidly poke holes in paper, there's far less complicated and resource-intensive ways of doing it.

If you insist on doing it with a firearm, chances are you are trying to demonstrate superior aptitude with that particular tool at completing that task that tool is designed for.

This is similar to a martial arts master chopping a wood block in half with their hands. Do you think that their intention is to demonstrate that people should chop down trees with their bare hands?

 

[theprestige]

This is similar to a martial arts master chopping a wood block in half with their hands. Do you think that their intention is to demonstrate that people should chop down trees with their bare hands?

I think their intent is to demonstrate that people could (not should!) achieve a substantial degree of physical and mental discipline if they chose to do so. Many people find such achievements personally rewarding, and find such public demonstrations inspiring.

I don't think I've ever seen a martial arts master demonstrate block-breaking skills in support of a thesis of harming people. In fact, I don't think I've ever seen a martial arts master ever advance such a thesis.

I know that some do, necessarily: The Marine Corps Martial Arts Program; and Krav Maga as practiced by the Israeli special forces.

But the few martial arts masters I've had the privilege of knowing have all been emphatic that their practice is a sport, and that harming people has no place in their art.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

I think their intent is to demonstrate that people could (not should!) achieve a substantial degree of physical and mental discipline if they chose to do so. Many people find such achievements personally rewarding, and find such public demonstrations inspiring.

I don't think I've ever seen a martial arts master demonstrate block-breaking skills in support of a thesis of harming people. In fact, I don't think I've ever seen a martial arts master ever advance such a thesis.

I know that some do, necessarily: The Marine Corps Martial Arts Program; and Krav Maga as practiced by the Israeli special forces.

But the few martial arts masters I've had the privilege of knowing have all been emphatic that their practice is a sport, and that harming people has no place in their art.

So we agree that a skills demonstration can be about more than what it appears to be at face value.

 

[cullennz]

Anyone can shoot a piece of paper to show how awesome they are.

It's the gun owners who say they can act completely rationaly because they can shoot bits of paper, with a gun in a panic situation that may end up being their grand mother coming home that seem to be stupid

 

[theprestige]

So we agree that a skills demonstration can be about more than what it appears to be at face value.

No we do not agree. I think you are softening your argument to obtain agreement on one point, so that you can traduce that into agreement on a different point that is the actual hard form of your argument.

Be honest, and be explicit: What skill do you want me to believe is being demonstrated, when a marksman strives to shoot a bulls-eye on a paper target?

 

[Delphic Oracle]

No we do not agree. I think you are softening your argument to obtain agreement on one point, and then traduce that into agreement on a different point that is the actual hard form of your argument.

I said chopping a wood block is not meant to demonstrate that we should chop down trees with our hands.

You then turned around and refuted a point I never made in the first place.

Be honest, and be explicit: What skill do you want me to believe is being demonstrated, when a marksman strives to shoot a bulls-eye on a paper target?

That they are good marksmen and can put the projectile on target. Remember, my position here is that poking holes in paper is not a task that serves any purpose unto itself, nor is it a particularly efficient use of the resources expended in achieving that goal.

You dragged the violence component of the firearms discussion onto the analogy of the wood block, I made no mention of harming people at all so I can't "soften" an argument I didn't make in the first place. There is no "zen"/philosophical component of firearms culture that the analogy was meant to account for.

Basically you built a straw man and now expect me to defend it. ETA: I'll grant that you probably didn't do it on purpose and that I might have been better served by picking an analogy that couldn't be misinterpreted as implying a purpose of demonstrating violent force.

 

[Ranb]

I'll explain it again if you need me to.

I think you got caught saying something that would only make sense to someone who has no moral code at all or is mentally ill and are trying to double talk your way out of it.

 

[Ranb]

I covered that.

Not at all. I asked for a physical location. I thought it might be something like Hong Kong, Singapore or North Korea. I'm not kidding.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

Not at all. I asked for a physical location. I thought it might be something like Hong Kong, Singapore or North Korea. I'm not kidding.

How is my physical location relevant to the design and function of a device or its efficiency in accomplishing certain tasks?

 

[Jules Galen]

Once again, I will draw a distinction between saying something like that and an armchair mental health diagnosis.

Saying "you're being paranoid" is expressing an opinion about your behaviour. Saying "That person is clearly a schizophrenic with paranoid delusions" is an armchair mental health diagnosis.

Saying "You seem to have little regard for human life" is expressing an opinion about your behaviour. Saying "you are a psychopath" is an armchair mental health diagnosis.
You need to grasp the difference between an opinion on someone's behaviour and an armchair mental health diagnosis, or we won't be able to continue this conversation because we'll just be talking past one another. I'll explain it again if you need me to.

And you make damned sure to ignore the context of what was said. Now...can anyone know for 100% certainty that anyone else is a Psychopath...No! And the reason is because we are not like Mr. Spock of Star Trek: we can't actually get inside anyone's heads and know their thoughts. However, there are a lot of people out there who are not Psychopaths, but put on such a damned-fine imitation that you should be a fool not to treat them as such.

For example, have you ever heard of the University of Texas Bell Tower Killer - Charles Whitman? The man was not a Psychopath, but his brain tumour sure as hell made him indistinguishable from the real deal! And he killed lots of people to prove it. Whitman knew he had a problem. Whitman figured he was sick. I do not believe Whitman was a Psycopath. But when Whitman started his rampage...what did it matter: a Psycopath is what a Psycopath does? Charles Whitman was effectively a Psycopath - so deal with it accordingly.

 

[Ranb]

How is my physical location relevant to the design and function of a device or its efficiency in accomplishing certain tasks?

It isn't. I was asking about your attitude towards inanimate objects and wanted to know your location because you might be a product of that culture.

Firearms are for causing ballistic trauma in living creatures, generally towards the purpose of inflicting lethal injuries very rapidly.

This statement was extremely naive; as though you had no experience with guns at all and merely coughed up any old trope that appealed to your nature. Is it really that hard to understand that guns are made to shoot projectiles and they're just tools used by those who wield them? It seems you really don't understand it at all.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

It isn't. I was asking about your attitude towards inanimate objects and wanted to know your location because you might be a product of that culture.

This statement was extremely naive; as though you had no experience with guns at all and merely coughed up any old trope that appealed to your nature. Is it really that hard to understand that guns are made to shoot projectiles and they're just tools used by those who wield them? It seems you really don't understand it at all.

I have no "attitude towards inanimate objects."

Impugn my motives and attack my credibility all you want, I hope you have fun.

Meanwhile, returning to the substantive discussion at hand:

Tools are used towards the accomplishing of a purpose. The design of a tool gives clues as to what intended use it might be put towards.

I don't have to wield a hammer to observe how it is used, understand its purpose, and the application of simple machine principles in its design.

Perhaps guns make for great paperweights? They are certainly capable of it, right?

 

[cullennz]

It isn't. I was asking about your attitude towards inanimate objects and wanted to know your location because you might be a product of that culture.


This statement was extremely naive; as though you had no experience with guns at all and merely coughed up any old trope that appealed to your nature. Is it really that hard to understand that guns are made to shoot projectiles and they're just tools used by those who wield them? It seems you really don't understand it at all.

Sorry, but I call ********. Fire arms were invented to inflict death.

Pure and simple.

Unless you can give me another reason......

 

[arthwollipot]

I think you got caught saying something that would only make sense to someone who has no moral code at all or is mentally ill and are trying to double talk your way out of it.

No, I think you got caught imposing your own interpretation on something I said that I never intended, and you're refusing to back down despite my explaining where you went wrong.

I've lost interest in this conversation too. Disappointing really - I usually find you more reasonable than that.

 

[arthwollipot]

Sorry, but I call ********. Fire arms were invented to inflict death.

Pure and simple.

Unless you can give me another reason......

Firearms were originally invented as weapons of war - as tools to kill and injure other humans - and they have been used for that purpose ever since that time. However, that does not mean that they cannot be used for other purposes as well. They have, for example, been used for hunting pretty much since they became accurate enough to do so reliably.

Personally I don't find the argument that guns were invented to kill humans to be particularly compelling.

 

[cullennz]

Firearms were originally invented as weapons of war - as tools to kill and injure other humans - and they have been used for that purpose ever since that time. However, that does not mean that they cannot be used for other purposes as well. They have, for example, been used for hunting pretty much since they became accurate enough to do so reliably.

Personally I don't find the argument that guns were invented to kill humans to be particularly compelling.

I never said humans

 

[arthwollipot]

I never said humans

But it is true that guns were invented to kill humans, is it not? So when you said that firearms were "invented to inflict death", you were talking about death to humans, even though you didn't say it.

 

[cullennz]

But it is true that guns were invented to kill humans, is it not? So when you said that firearms were "invented to inflict death", you were talking about death to humans, even though you didn't say it.

Why are you putting words in my mouth?

Most weapons were made for hunting and crap warfare where it took about 2 minutes to reload

It's only been in the last 100 years or so that they were turned into straight do as much damage to as much stuff as possible

 

[arthwollipot]

Why are you putting words in my mouth?

Because the words that are already in your mouth are factually incorrect. For example:

Most weapons were made for hunting and crap warfare where it took about 2 minutes to reload

This is factually incorrect. The first guns were invented for warfare. Specifically, for use against large blocks of troops because they were not accurate. They were certainly not accurate enough for hunting - people hunted with spears and bows right up to the 17th century, a time when guns had been dominating battlefields for a couple of hundred years.

It's only been in the last 100 years or so that they were turned into straight do as much damage to as much stuff as possible

It's also in the last 100 years that guns have been accurate enough to hunt with.

According to Wikipedia (only my first stop in researching this, so it's not exactly inaccessible information), the first experiments in rifling firearm barrels took place in the 15th century, but black powder quickly fouled the barrels with soot and the amount of smoke produced and the method of warfare consisting of large, solid blocks of troops, made long-range accuracy fairly irrelevant anyway.

Contrast this to a hunting situation, where if you miss you don't get to eat. Accuracy is, shall we say, important. Clean powder, elongated bullets and rifling made firearms more accurate, and this is when they became useful for hunting.

Guns were used to kill people long before they were used to kill animals, or even paper targets.