Two Year Sentence For 3D Print a Gun.

[Noctus]

And you apparently don't know the history of gunpowder and cannons. If you are going to reach back and project modern industry onto ancient you better be ready to follow it up.

 

Tools are tools, just as when guns were found to be more effective projectors than bows bows got to keep doing their thing outside of the martial arts. Projecting missiles. Into game, into targets, as competition, as defense, as a source of food. None of those uses any more or less legitimate, but, none of them the inherent cause of whatever bow you are holding to exist.

Cool, ignore the fact you misread it. And yes i know my history. The GUN was designed from those fireworks etc etc to kill. Plain and simple. It might of been repurposed and splintered off as a hunting tool because of it's effective killing ability, but at it's base was made as a portable, hassle free (compared to its bigger brother cannon etc) killing tool for war. Nothing more, nothing less.

[HalGameGuru]

Cool, ignore the fact you misread it. And yes i know my history. The GUN was designed from those fireworks etc etc to kill. Plain and simple. It might of been repurposed and splintered off as a hunting tool because of it's effective killing ability, but at it's base was made as a portable, hassle free (compared to its bigger brother cannon etc) killing tool for war. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

So whenever some random dude goes into something with malice we have to make that assumption FOR an inanimate object for all of history? We have to denounce rockets as weapons of Nazi domination, cancer treatments as Nazi torture and experimentation, microwave ovens as tools derived from war, chainsaws because one psycho showed how much more effective they are at murdering people than trees?

 

An inanimate object has no agenda. It is not the watchmakers fault someone triggers a bomb with his watch, it is not on the inventor of the internal combustion engine that it was used to gas jews, it is not on the chinese guy a couple thousand years ago that he found a way to propel things with a raucous little chemical mixture and now you believe all these tools making use of it are murder spewers.

 

It is not on the GUN that someone uses it to harm. Any more than it is a critique of machetes that it was the weapon of choice in african genocide. It is on the ACTOR! There is no will or purpose in a lifeless piece of property.

[cae]

Except the actual original reasoning behind a "gun" was to compact the ability to fire one of those big ass cannons use to inflict pain and death.

 

And yet on their own, they're useless, just like tools. So people use them to kill each other; how is this the fault of the gun? Can a gun have fault?

 

[HalGameGuru]

So.. the purpose of a gun is to kill, so the purpose of war, which makes use of them, is to kill, so the purpose of the state which makes use of WAR is to kill, so the purpose of the VOTE which makes use of the state is to KILL... Good to know you are a murder spewer.

 

The purpose of the vote is not to kill, but the use of the vote to enforce your opinion by proxy thru the state, by use of violence and coercion, surely kills as much as pulling a trigger so by your argument the vote is a weapon of murder and by making use of it YOU are a murderer. Heck you can't even deny it, you freely admit you vote to try to get your opinion to be the one enforced by the state, you revel in this murder.

 

Logic for the win.

[IdortMasterRace]

Reducing guns most likely will. Not everyone thinks "ill go stab up that school" (obv an example) it's far easier to pull a trigger than it is to get personal in a stabbing.

 

Also it's not implied at all

 

Reducing guns has never, ever reduced crime/murder/injury rates. In fact, it often increases them. See: UK.

[Noctus]

So whenever some random dude goes into something with malice we have to make that assumption FOR an inanimate object for all of history? We have to denounce rockets as weapons of Nazi domination, cancer treatments as Nazi torture and experimentation, microwave ovens as tools derived from war, chainsaws because one psycho showed how much more effective they are at murdering people than trees?

 

An inanimate object has no agenda. It is not the watchmakers fault someone triggers a bomb with his watch, it is not on the inventor of the internal combustion engine that it was used to gas jews, it is not on the chinese guy a couple thousand years ago that he found a way to propel things with a raucous little chemical mixture and now you believe all these tools making use of it are murder spewers.

 

It is not on the GUN that someone uses it to harm. Any more than it is a critique of machetes that it was the weapon of choice in african genocide. It is on the ACTOR! There is no will or purpose in a lifeless piece of property.

You seem to be thinking my argument was "guns kill people" When it's actually "guns were designed to kill another human". Which is a fact.

 

So.. the purpose of a gun is to kill, so the purpose of war, which makes use of them, is to kill, so the purpose of the state which makes use of WAR is to kill, so the purpose of the VOTE which makes use of the state is to KILL... Good to know you are a murder spewer.

 

The purpose of the vote is not to kill, but the use of the vote to enforce your opinion by proxy thru the state, by use of violence and coercion, surely kills as much as pulling a trigger so by your argument the vote is a weapon of murder and by making use of it YOU are a murderer. Heck you can't even deny it, you freely admit you vote to try to get your opinion to be the one enforced by the state, you revel in this murder.

 

Logic for the win.

 

was that aimed me?

Reducing guns has never, ever reduced crime/murder/injury rates. In fact, it often increases them. See: UK.

Umm it actually increased briefly and is now well below what it used to be . Overall reduced.

[IdortMasterRace]

Umm it actually increased briefly and is now well below what it used to be . Overall reduced.

 

Wrong again. Gun crime has reduced, but overall crime has not, it has increased (and this rapid increase started at the gun ban).

[HalGameGuru]

You seem to be thinking my argument was "guns kill people" When it's actually "guns were designed to kill another human". Which is a fact.

 

 

was that aimed me?

Umm it actually increased briefly and is now well below what it used to be . Overall reduced.

 

No I understood your argument, and its overly generalized, broadly sweeping, and assumes on behalf of everyone who has ever made, designed, used, or shot a gun.

 

You have guns made by groups like Remington that are very good for hunting, so you give them the nod as being "designed" for hunting... only those same rifles were so good they were also the goto model for snipers... so were they made for hunting or for murder? Neither, they were made to mechanically operate safely and reliably; the use of the gun and its intent is on the user. Using a gun to trigger an avalanche, start a race, or knock over little steel targets within a time limit are not against its intended purpose. They are doing exactly what its intent was, for different ends.

 

The only intent put into the manufacture of a gun is mechanical process, just as the only intent put into a watch is precise and predictable movement, the only intent put into a vehicle is to allow transport, the only intent on a TV is to display content. It is on the final user whether that watch is used to tell time or trigger a device, that vehicle is used for racing or the soccer run, that TV is used in a classroom or to watch porn. A gun's purpose is dictated by the hands that wield it, not the hands that make it.

 

 

EDIT: It was aimed at not JUST you but anyone who has this deranged outlook about firearms but somehow still holds to this statist ideal like your vote and opinion enforcement is not at the point of a gun and just as guilty of death and destruction as any gun wielding murderer. If you are going to call out guns as evil walk the walk and live without the vote, a gun is no less evil because it is handled by someone else as proxy for your opinion.

[HalGameGuru]

Wrong again. Gun crime has reduced, but overall crime has not, it has increased (and this rapid increase started at the gun ban).

 

And I would just like to point out, again, that those numbers are actually way worse than what they show as the UK figures have been a lie for years.

[Noctus]

No I understood your argument, and its overly generalized, broadly sweeping, and assumes on behalf of everyone who has ever made, designed, used, or shot a gun.

 

You have guns made by groups like Remington that are very good for hunting, so you give them the nod as being "designed" for hunting... only those same rifles were so good they were also the goto model for snipers... so were they made for hunting or for murder? Neither, they were made to mechanically operate safely and reliably; the use of the gun and its intent is on the user. Using a gun to trigger an avalanche, start a race, or knock over little steel targets within a time limit are not against its intended purpose. They are doing exactly what its intent was, for different ends.

 

The only intent put into the manufacture of a gun is mechanical process, just as the only intent put into a watch is precise and predictable movement, the only intent put into a vehicle is to allow transport, the only intent on a TV is to display content. It is on the final user whether that watch is used to tell time or trigger a device, that vehicle is used for racing or the soccer run, that TV is used in a classroom or to watch porn. A gun's purpose is dictated by the hands that wield it, not the hands that make it.

 

 

EDIT: It was aimed at not JUST you but anyone who has this deranged outlook about firearms but somehow still holds to this statist ideal like your vote and opinion enforcement is not at the point of a gun and just as guilty of death and destruction as any gun wielding murderer. If you are going to call out guns as evil walk the walk and live without the vote, a gun is no less evil because it is handled by someone else as proxy for your opinion.

Nop you don't understand what i said at all. Cae said a gun's one and only reason for creation is to fire a projectile (like a rubberband gun) and not meant to kill. Which is wrong. Stop imprinting your argument on mine then build up an opposition to something i never thought about in the 1st place.

[HalGameGuru]

Nop you don't understand what i said at all. Cae said a gun's one and only reason for creation is to fire a projectile (like a rubberband gun) and not meant to kill. Which is wrong. Stop imprinting your argument on mine then build up an opposition to something i never thought about in the 1st place.

 

And he is right, as a mechanical construct the ONLY intent you can impart to it is the process and the completion of its mechanical design. NOT the intent of the end user. A guillotine is just a big slap chop until you use it to murder.

[cae]

Nop you don't understand what i said at all. Cae said a gun's one and only reason for creation is to fire a projectile (like a rubberband gun) and not meant to kill. Which is wrong. Stop imprinting your argument on mine then build up an opposition to something i never thought about in the 1st place.

 

Make a damn point, then, if you have one. We're fumbling through definitions and getting nowhere. You aren't going to change my mind. I'm not going to change yours. I've had this conversation at least 3 times now on this forum, they're all the same.

[VulsaviiK]

Hey come on, guns have good uses too. Like hunting for example.

 

Oh, and I'm sure a military style assault rifle is an absolute necessity for hunting

 

 

Reducing guns has never, ever reduced crime/murder/injury rates. In fact, it often increases them. See: UK.

 

And Australia?

[HalGameGuru]

Oh, and I'm sure a military style assault rifle is an absolute necessity for hunting

 

 

 

 

And Australia?

 

Rights have nothing to do with necessity, you CAN hunt with a pit and a rock, your rights are not limited to that. A modern sporting rifle is a fine hunting weapon, ESPECIALLY if you are hunting small game. Just because it looks scary you have to call it an "assault Rifle"

[cae]

And Australia?

 

http://www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/ausguns.asp

[Noctus]

 A guillotine is just a big slap chop until you use it to murder.

Proof you are now just being a twat. A gun was designed to kill. Plain and simple.

Make a damn point, then, if you have one. We're fumbling through definitions and getting nowhere. You aren't going to change my mind. I'm not going to change yours. I've had this conversation at least 3 times now on this forum, they're all the same.

I made a fucking point in the post you quote and in my 1st god damned reply to you. Only this gameguru twat seem's to think the point i MADE and his argument in his head are on the same page.

[HalGameGuru]

Proof you are now just being a twat. A gun was designed to kill. Plain and simple.

I made a fucking point in the post you quote and in my 1st god damned reply to you. Only this gameguru twat seem's to think the point i MADE and his argument in his head are on the same page.

 

Hey, if you are comfortable projecting human intent onto inanimate objects go ahead, feel like your sex doll really loves you or your gun is planning on murdering you in your sleep, its no skin off of my nose, but when you try to force your opinion down my throat at the threat of violence from the guns you so despise through the vote we ARE going to tussle because that is a direct affront to my rights.

[cae]

I made a fucking point in the post you quote and in my 1st god damned reply to you.

 

Counterarguments were provided. Repeating yourself doesn't change that. Look, if you want to think that your definition is somehow more accurate or to your liking, go for it. I want to go to the root, and with firearms that means taking any human operators out of the picture. With human operators out of the picture, firearms cannot be loaded, aimed, or fired - so they cannot injure or kill. If you wanted to say that firearms were designed to be used by humans, that's fine, but you can't ascribe the resulting actions of those human users to a universal intended purpose. That's exactly what you're doing.

[Noctus]

Counterarguments were provided. Repeating yourself doesn't change that. Look, if you want to think that your definition is somehow more accurate or to your liking, go for it. I want to go to the root, and with firearms that means taking any human operators out of the picture. With human operators out of the picture, firearms cannot be loaded, aimed, or fired - so they cannot injure or kill. If you wanted to say that firearms were designed to be used by humans, that's fine, but you can't ascribe the resulting actions of those human users to a universal intended purpose. That's exactly what you're doing.

Thats not what im doing, nor was my point in the 1st fucking place. "guns were designed to kill" That is an absolute fact. No way you try to slice it. Reason i typed this is YOU said "a gun was designed to fire a projectile only" which is like saying a missile was designed to go really fast, disregarding it's explosive payload and what it's used for.

 

My point has nothing to do with "oh its an inanimate object it can't kill without human interference" which is what you 2 seem to be missing completely and would of got if you bothered to read my post in the 1st place correctly. 

[HalGameGuru]

Thats not what im doing, nor was my point in the 1st fucking place. "guns were designed to kill" That is an absolute fact. No way you try to slice it. Reason i typed this is YOU said "a gun was designed to fire a projectile only" which is like saying a missile was designed to go really fast, disregarding it's explosive payload and what it's used for.

 

My point has nothing to do with "oh its an inanimate object it can't kill without human interference" which is what you 2 seem to be missing completely and would of got if you bothered to read my post in the 1st place correctly. 

That statement is overly generalized and is assuming. You would have to know the motivations of every gun designer and builder to say that, and right off the bat I can tell you its not true, heck the gatling gun was designed to end war. Glock was making farm implements before he got into firearms, there are people out there right now making weapons with no desire for them to ever take a human life. YOU project and assume THEIR intentions, and then say that in the end THOSE INTENTIONS define an inanimate object. They DON'T. You ASSUME intent and knowledge of these minds you know nothing of and extend this ignorant assumption to an inanimate object. Empirically all we can KNOW from our perspective is that they were designed for their mechanical function, NOT for an assumed implementation. No person tests these weapons on human bodies or for lethality as far as the makers are concerned they are designed and built SOLELY to put a round down range, safely and reliably. And they test and design for this purpose.

 

Go ask a few gunsmiths or gun makers. Do they make these with an intent to take life, or do they see them as tools? As far as your argument goes they should all be making these with a direct intent to end human life.

[cae]

"guns were designed to kill" That is an absolute fact. No way you try to slice it.

 

Okay. Prove it. "We know this to be an absolute fact as evidenced by ______________." Alternatively, you could speculate the reasons why so many of these firearms, being "designed to kill" and all, simply don't. Were they poorly designed? Are mine defective? Should I get an RMA and return them?

[Shroomster]

Oh, and I'm sure a military style assault rifle is an absolute necessity for hunting

 

 

 

And Australia?

In what part of my post I said I hunt with an AR-15.

[MrSuperb]

How about this one; a deck of cards?

 

Two simple questions

 

1) Is the purpose of a deck of cards gambling?

 

2) can the deck of cards be used for gambling?

 

no

yes

[Guest]

Your statement reeks entirely of complete and total ignorance of the culture about which you speak. Also say that to the people who get raped and or murdered each year because they have no means with which to defend themselves.

 

Again, laws do not prevent crime, the people with guns that enforce the consequences do. A piece of paper can't do anything, a person with a gun can, for good or evil. Laws do not prevent crime, they validate the punishment for those who do break the law, and there have been ample studies suggesting that harsher consequences for breaking the law do not deter crime.

thats the worst excuse ever.... i do know what i am talking about but you quite obviously dont

 Roughly 16,272 murders were committed in the United States during 2008. Of these, about 10,886 or 67% were committed with firearms.

[trentonjeffro]

they are made for hurting/killing people. Even when you habe a gun just for self defense, the purpose ist still to hurt or kill someone.

You arent even making an argument. You are just repeating the same thing you said after we have proved you wrong.(I say "we" but I got out of this discussion long ago, after I started the mess about it) You are wrong, just face it.