Why are bombs OK, but guns bad?

[Obvious Leo]

Henry. In some ways you and I are kindred spirits. We are ideologues who see ourselves as decent people who therefore deserve to be left alone to conduct our lives as we see fit. We have a moral code which safeguards the rights and liberties of others in this process and if only the rest of the world was just like us then we'd all get along just fine. It's a true story, mate, but it's a fucking fairy-tale nevertheless.

[Arising_uk]

Not as much as people presenting false pretenses to the world.

Such as?

[henry quirk]

"it's a fucking fairy-tale"

Yep...that's (one big reason) why I own a coach gun.

[SpheresOfBalance]

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.

A very good point Bob. In fact it's always the people that are to blame for killing, never that which is used to do so. Why? Because one can always find something/anything to kill, if they really want to.

[Scott Mayers]

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.

A very good point Bob. In fact it's always the people that are to blame for killing, never that which is used to do so. Why? Because one can always find something/anything to kill, if they really want to.

No. You assume that one's intended goal to kill is absolute and intrinsically certain to those who think it. Pretest to determine one's honesty in many high-sensitivity occupations where trust is required, like in policing or securing properties like banking, would be to ask the potential employee whether they had ever thought of criminal behaviors. If one asserts no such thoughts, while possible for many of us, the likelihood is that we all have 'evil' thoughts and if some potential opportunities existed, we are as equally vulnerable at some times to be criminal. So it is to be suspect of ones honesty should they assert such a perfect immunity to be bad universally. [Except me, of course! ]

So while the people may be to blame rightfully who use tools in ways that harm people, the ease to availability for specific tools that are DEFINED most purposely to kill, bombs or guns inclusively, require just reasons to question whether we allow these 'tools' to be treated trivially. A gun may be USED as a paper weight. So do you think it reasonable to let your child excuse his/her right to have a gun on the basis they would only use it for such purposes? Can they not use something else as a paper weight instead? And if they INSISTED with paramount significance that they should have a gun for this purpose, should you not question whether this child actually has some suspiciously irrational need to be so adamantly trusted to be a 'law abiding child'?

When terrorists kill others with bombs, the particular people who don't blame the bombs as remotely relevant, are also the same identical people who also would not blame the guns as relevant to be the cause; those particular people who blame gun-availability to cause problems ALSO blame bomb-availability in the same light, or even worse. The hypocrites supporting guns but inversely demand others not to have a capacity to have bombs (weapons of mass destruction) are in strongest need to question since they think it alright for them to have 'tools' intended to ease killing with trust but others not to.

[Obvious Leo]

"it's a fucking fairy-tale"

Yep...that's (one big reason) why I own a coach gun.

And I'm lucky that I live I live in a world where such a thing is completely unnecessary.

[SpheresOfBalance]

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.

A very good point Bob. In fact it's always the people that are to blame for killing, never that which is used to do so. Why? Because one can always find something/anything to kill, if they really want to.

No. You assume that one's intended goal to kill is absolute and intrinsically certain to those who think it. Pretest to determine one's honesty in many high-sensitivity occupations where trust is required, like in policing or securing properties like banking, would be to ask the potential employee whether they had ever thought of criminal behaviors. If one asserts no such thoughts, while possible for many of us, the likelihood is that we all have 'evil' thoughts and if some potential opportunities existed, we are as equally vulnerable at some times to be criminal. So it is to be suspect of ones honesty should they assert such a perfect immunity to be bad universally. [Except me, of course! ]

So while the people may be to blame rightfully who use tools in ways that harm people, the ease to availability for specific tools that are DEFINED most purposely to kill, bombs or guns inclusively, require just reasons to question whether we allow these 'tools' to be treated trivially. A gun may be USED as a paper weight. So do you think it reasonable to let your child excuse his/her right to have a gun on the basis they would only use it for such purposes? Can they not use something else as a paper weight instead? And if they INSISTED with paramount significance that they should have a gun for this purpose, should you not question whether this child actually has some suspiciously irrational need to be so adamantly trusted to be a 'law abiding child'?

When terrorists kill others with bombs, the particular people who don't blame the bombs as remotely relevant, are also the same identical people who also would not blame the guns as relevant to be the cause; those particular people who blame gun-availability to cause problems ALSO blame bomb-availability in the same light, or even worse. The hypocrites supporting guns but inversely demand others not to have a capacity to have bombs (weapons of mass destruction) are in strongest need to question since they think it alright for them to have 'tools' intended to ease killing with trust but others not to.

Scott you're out of your fucking tree,

because guns do have legitimate uses. And I'll give you a hint, "It has nothing to do with examples so absurd as [paper weights]." They are for the elderly to protect themselves in their own homes against young strong home invaders, that might kill them otherwise. But the most obvious use, being the original use, is to kill prey for dinner. Especially in the shadow of failing economies. Trust me, if the shit finally hits the fan for good and governments fall, such that anarchy prevails. I'm heading straight for what woods are left, with my guns and reloading tools to live off the land, like I was taught by the US DOD! I don't need no fucking stores that ask for something so absurd as paper money! The land provides all one needs!!!!! And in such cases, 'hand tools' are the new money.

[Obvious Leo]

Plonker alert!!

[SpheresOfBalance]

Plonker alert!!

Still pissed at me, huh Leo? Aaaaahh you'll get over it.

[Obvious Leo]

Plonker alert!!

Still pissed at me, huh Leo? Aaaaahh you'll get over it.

Not at all, SOB. I never hold a grudge. This is a totally different subject and your survivalist nonsense is bollocks of a different kind.

[SpheresOfBalance]

Plonker alert!!

Still pissed at me, huh Leo? Aaaaahh you'll get over it.

Not at all, SOB. I never hold a grudge. This is a totally different subject and your survivalist nonsense is bollocks of a different kind.

To simply say something is bollocks, without saying why one thinks so, is kinda lame Leo! I expect more form an aging hippy.

[Obvious Leo]

Answer me this then. How many human beings do you think our biosphere could sustain if our species reverted to a hunter-gatherer lifestyle? How long would it take before we also reverted to cannibalism? We clawed our way to the top of the tree of sentience by eating the dumb ones so why wouldn't we revisit this proven methodology?

[SpheresOfBalance]

Answer me this then. How many human beings do you think our biosphere could sustain if our species reverted to a hunter-gatherer lifestyle? How long would it take before we also reverted to cannibalism? We clawed our way to the top of the tree of sentience by eating the dumb ones so why wouldn't we revisit this proven methodology?

Leo, you're not thinking of how it would go down, I mean sequentially. Very few would initially leave the cities in such a case, only ever knowing city life, not knowing how to deal with country living. Looting would ensue, and killing one another would surely be the norm. Eating one another??? Possibly in time, once all food reserves were used up. I'd leave right away, first thing! I'd have the jump, except of course for those already in the county. By the time more would follow in my foot steps, I'd be set up far far away from the beaten path. And when I say setup, I pity the fool, that gets too close to my digs, because I'll not be anyone's victim. Not that I'm perfect, but they'll play hell trying to take me down, it won't be an easy feat. Front door, back door, side doors, and making sure my cave looks inhospitable, booby traps, punji sticks, you name it. Make no mistake I was DOD trained to survive, and I paid attention! I was a flyer, trained to survive behind enemy lines, coupled with the PTSD of my childhood, I can seem like a shadow. Just call me ninja!

Of course I'd have no problems remaining thin in such a case, because my new job would be survival.

[Scott Mayers]

Leo, you're not thinking of how it would go down, I mean sequentially. Very few would initially leave the cities in such a case, only ever knowing city life, not knowing how to deal with country living. Looting would ensue, and killing one another would surely be the norm. Eating one another??? Possibly in time, once all food reserves were used up. I'd leave right away, first thing! I'd have the jump, except of course for those already in the county. By the time more would follow in my foot steps, I'd be set up far far away from the beaten path. And when I say setup, I pity the fool, that gets too close to my digs, because I'll not be anyone's victim. Not that I'm perfect, but they'll play hell trying to take me down, it won't be an easy feat. Front door, back door, side doors, and making sure my cave looks inhospitable, booby traps, punji sticks, you name it. Make no mistake I was DOD trained to survive, and I paid attention! I was a flyer, trained to survive behind enemy lines, coupled with the PTSD of my childhood, I can seem like a shadow. Just call me ninja!

Of course I'd have no problems remaining thin in such a case, because my new job would be survival.

Wait, I thought you were locked away already.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_McVeigh

There's only so much free country space available for such luxury that even for you to be so arrogant to think you suffer sufficiently to warrant staging another Waco-styled defense for fear of losing something is just plain sick. But don't worry, with modern technology, WHEN you eventually act out in extreme violence, we have drone technology now that can simply blow you up at a safe distance.

If you think you have earned some worthy skill to survive, then I challenge you to really get grass roots, toss all things away, including guns, and prove that you can truly survive solo in nature. A single man with a nuke is sufficiently powerful even without the skills you declare as qualifying virtues. So prove that you can fight a wild polar bear without anything, and maybe,...just maybe, we can all realize your sincere capacity to survive as some hero.

[Obvious Leo]

Too much bad acid. It starts to take its toll as the neurons wither on the vine.