Two Year Sentence For 3D Print a Gun.

[MrSuperb]

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.

 

yeah, you really proved me wrong.

[Trik'Stari]

yeah, you really proved me wrong.

If someones trying to kill you, you have every reason to defend yourself.

 

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.

And did you know that that same number includes suicides by firearms? The government (at least our government) always includes suicides with the "official number of homicides with firearms". Mainly because it makes the number a hell of a lot bigger, and mainly because most anti gun sheep aren't intelligent enough to look it up and do the math.

[Guest]

 

If someones trying to kill you, you have every reason to defend yourself.

 

And did you know that that same number includes suicides by firearms? The government (at least our government) always includes suicides with the "official number of homicides with firearms". Mainly because it makes the number a hell of a lot bigger, and mainly because most anti gun sheep aren't intelligent enough to look it up and do the math.

 

regardless its still more people than needed

[HalGameGuru]

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.

 

Many of which are suicides, many MORE of which are gang or drug related.

 

You cannot use the state imposition of criminal status and the inescapable trail to violence and money that that leads to as an assault on firearms. Just as we don't blame alcohol for the rise of the mob and the reign of the tommy gun. It was prohibition that allowed the rise of the mafia, promoted the rum runner and boot legger to star status, and provided the profits and criminal element that led to violence being the MO. The same with drugs. How many pharmacists were walking around with guns and waging turf wars when weed and snuff were sold out of your average pharmacy? How many brewers or distillers were demanding a cut of the profits by threat of violence or being victimized by organized crime, how many armed their delivery trucks with automatic weapons, when alcohol was legal?

 

Ignoring the fact most all drug laws are blatantly racist and have nothing to do with controlling drugs. You can trace ALL of that violence and victimization to the over stepping of the state and the prohibition of drugs. Those numbers are not an allegation against guns or drugs, but a glaring example of the failure of statist ideology. 

[Noctus]

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.

 

 

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?

You 2 are fucking dense.

 

Cae's original post:

 

@MrSuperb

 

A firearm is designed to capable of firing a projectile. That is the end of its intended purpose. YOU believe the purpose to be the injuring of humans, but that requires the input of another human, or some other kind of interacting factor.

 

It's like saying computers were designed to doxx people. It's that absurd. Address the actions of the people, not the tools used to implement those actions. It seems to work everywhere else, except when it comes to firearms.

 

My post:

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.

 

Just because i can bludgeon you to death with a spanner or use an oversized one as a baseball bat replacement in a game of rounders, does not mean it's original purpose wasn't to loosen nuts.

 

 

That is EXACTLY why the gun was created and was my entire point all along, but you 2 idiot's seem to think im saying all guns are tools for killing humans regardless of the type of weapon.

 

Actually read and know the fucking difference between word's before going balls out trying to prove me wrong on a subject im not even talking about.

[cae]

@Noctus Let's break it down, then:

 

"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."

 

Blue is something I'd agree to - a more compact, portable cannon. Sure.

 

Red is something you're loading that prior statement with, which makes the entire statement something I find error with.

 

You could have just added to my post "..and they were designed to be portable." Being that you chimed in on a post addressing someone else's assertion that they were intended to inflict pain and death with the red text above, what else am I to assume? Don't get all fussy because I'm calling you on it.

[HalGameGuru]

And to be both cogent and pedantic... those early cannons, if they were to be given any assumption of purpose at all, were made to shoot projectiles... at rocks. Employed as siege engines they set out to pulverize stone and mortar, you could just as easily call them innovative and eccentric mining devices.

 

And that segues quite nicely to my earlier post about catapults and trebuchets (the things cannons wound up replacing as siege engines) being used today to fling pumpkins for sport.

 

To impart the status to guns you wish to is to do the same to something like a catapult. We must now outlaw "Punkin' Chunkin'" as well?

[RuKiddin06]

Your rights are nothing before the concept of power, for instance. You can attempt to defend yourself, but t unless you succeed, what is the point of claiming the right of self-defense if it can be so easily stripped away?

 

I did not understand this, what did you mean by it?

[RuKiddin06]

You 2 are fucking dense.

 

Cae's original post:

 

 

My post:

 

That is EXACTLY why the gun was created and was my entire point all along, but you 2 idiot's seem to think im saying all guns are tools for killing humans regardless of the type of weapon.

 

Actually read and know the fucking difference between word's before going balls out trying to prove me wrong on a subject im not even talking about.

To be honest, I do not see the difference. I think you may actually be misunderstanding them. It may not be what you are trying to convey, but what I am reading off of my screen is: You, think that guns where originally intended to cause pain and death. That may or may not be true; it does not matter.

 

What they are saying is: the intended purpose of an item does not matter, an item does not decide what it is used for, people do. A screw driver might have been intended to be used to turn screws, however it can be heated with a torch, and used to punch a hole in leather.

 

Dogs where originally bread for a specific purpose: Chihuahuas where used to hunt bear, however now they are regularly owned as fashion statements.

 

A water glass may be for drinking, however I can fill it half way with sand and use it as a candle holder.

 

A candle may be a way to transport fire, but I can use it as an art medium.

 

Cocaine was intended to be used for pain relief, now it is used as a recreational drug.

 

Your argument was that an item's intended purpose somehow affects its use, and they are saying that is not true. I would be inclined to agree.

[Noctus]

To be honest, I do not see the difference. I think you may actually be misunderstanding them. It may not be what you are trying to convey, but what I am reading off of my screen is: You, think that guns where originally intended to cause pain and death. That may or may not be true; it does not matter.

 

What they are saying is: the intended purpose of an item does not matter, an item does not decide what it is used for, people do. A screw driver might have been intended to be used to turn screws, however it can be heated with a torch, and used to punch a hole in leather.

 

Dogs where originally bread for a specific purpose: Chihuahuas where used to hunt bear, however now they are regularly owned as fashion statements.

 

A water glass may be for drinking, however I can fill it half way with sand and use it as a candle holder.

 

A candle may be a way to transport fire, but I can use it as an art medium.

 

Cocaine was intended to be used for pain relief, now it is used as a recreational drug.

 

Your argument was that an item's intended purpose somehow affects its use, and they are saying that is not true. I would be inclined to agree.

My argument is exactly what i stated the 1st time i quoted cae and what ive stated throughout this: guns were made to be small compact killing machines. It's got sweet FA to do with their argument of "intent of use and actual use". Yet those 2 seem to think i am arguing this (after telling them different) and use this basis to counter points im not even arguing against.

 

cae said "a gun was made for "x" and that's the end of it"... which wasnt true and i corrected him. Now i've been sucked into some retarded debate of "imprinting human qualities on inanimate objects yadda yadda blah blah because it needs human interaction yadda yadda" which was never my point in any way shape or form if anyone bothered to read my 1st correction and subsequent posts correctly instead of blindly going on a herp derp vendetta .

[Noctus]

@Noctus Let's break it down, then:

 

"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."

 

Blue is something I'd agree to - a more compact, portable cannon. Sure.

 

Red is something you're loading that prior statement with, which makes the entire statement something I find error with.

 

You could have just added to my post "..and they were designed to be portable." Being that you chimed in on a post addressing someone else's assertion that they were intended to inflict pain and death with the red text above, what else am I to assume? Don't get all fussy because I'm calling you on it.

 

Fussy for calling me out on ... what? Correcting you? The buck didn't stop with "big ass cannons".

And to be both cogent and pedantic... those early cannons, if they were to be given any assumption of purpose at all, were made to shoot projectiles... at rocks. Employed as siege engines they set out to pulverize stone and mortar, you could just as easily call them innovative and eccentric mining devices.

 

And that segues quite nicely to my earlier post about catapults and trebuchets (the things cannons wound up replacing as siege engines) being used today to fling pumpkins for sport.

 

To impart the status to guns you wish to is to do the same to something like a catapult. We must now outlaw "Punkin' Chunkin'" as well?

Lol you're still going on? Just accept you got my point wrong and argued a subject i never spoke about in the 1st place.

[RuKiddin06]

Lol you're still going on? Just accept you got my point wrong and argued a subject i never spoke about in the 1st place.

Simple logic: if A = B, and C=B, it is implied that A=C right? 

 

Your argument was that if it is intended to kill, then it should be banned right? 

[Noctus]

Simple logic: if A = B, and C=B, it is implied that A=C right? 

 

Your argument was that if it is intended to kill, then it should be banned right? 

That's just you assuming that's my argument. Never stated that. For like the nth time, i corrected him. Dunno how much clearer this point can be made.

[RuKiddin06]

That's just you assuming that's my argument. Never stated that. For like the nth time, i corrected him. Dunno how much clearer this point can be made.

Now I get it.

 

I assumed you HAD an argument, because you kept saying "that is not my argument." Not saying its your fault, in fact it's mine for not getting it, however, you kept saying that they got your point wrong, but you never retold them your point again to clarify. That is where I was mislead to believe that you had an opinion regarding the relation of your point, and legislation on guns.

[Guest]

Many of which are suicides, many MORE of which are gang or drug related.

 

You cannot use the state imposition of criminal status and the inescapable trail to violence and money that that leads to as an assault on firearms. Just as we don't blame alcohol for the rise of the mob and the reign of the tommy gun. It was prohibition that allowed the rise of the mafia, promoted the rum runner and boot legger to star status, and provided the profits and criminal element that led to violence being the MO. The same with drugs. How many pharmacists were walking around with guns and waging turf wars when weed and snuff were sold out of your average pharmacy? How many brewers or distillers were demanding a cut of the profits by threat of violence or being victimized by organized crime, how many armed their delivery trucks with automatic weapons, when alcohol was legal?

 

Ignoring the fact most all drug laws are blatantly racist and have nothing to do with controlling drugs. You can trace ALL of that violence and victimization to the over stepping of the state and the prohibition of drugs. Those numbers are not an allegation against guns or drugs, but a glaring example of the failure of statist ideology. 

yep i agree with you but a revolution is needed to fix the issues you mention whereas a simple ban on a luxury item would save so many lives. if you think 'oh i like guns' and dont want them controlled that is selfish and basically saying id rather have a luxury item than loads of people die.

[Noctus]

Now I get it.

 

I assumed you HAD an argument, because you kept saying "that is not my argument." Not saying its your fault, in fact it's mine for not getting it, however, you kept saying that they got your point wrong, but you never retold them your point again to clarify. That is where I was mislead to believe that you had an opinion regarding the relation of your point, and legislation on guns.

Np dude, least you actually get what i was saying

[cae]

My argument is exactly guns were made to be small compact killing machines. Yet those 2 seem to think i am arguing this (after telling them different) and use this basis to counter points im not even arguing against.

 

cae said "a gun was made for "x" and that's the end of it"... which wasnt true and i corrected him. Now i've been sucked into some retarded debate of "imprinting human qualities on inanimate objects yadda yadda blah blah because it needs human interaction yadda yadda" which was never my point in any way shape or form if anyone bothered to read my 1st correction and subsequent posts correctly instead of blindly going on a herp derp vendetta .

 

I can't help it if you don't even understand/see what you're doing. "My argument is this." "I never made that argument."  Refutations were made, specifically to your statements in red.

[HalGameGuru]

yep i agree with you but a revolution is needed to fix the issues you mention whereas a simple ban on a luxury item would save so many lives. if you think 'oh i like guns' and dont want them controlled that is selfish and basically saying id rather have a luxury item than loads of people die.

That's no argument, removing the monopoly of violence from the state would save a ton of lives too but I don't see statists lining up to remove power from the hands of the state.

 

Prohibition of alcohol or drugs using the monopoly on violence of the state, leads to death at the hands of the state and death when those who would chase the profits of prohibited substances use violence to hold turf, protect product and profit, and wage a back streets war against the state.

[HalGameGuru]

Fussy for calling me out on ... what? Correcting you? The buck didn't stop with "big ass cannons".

Lol you're still going on? Just accept you got my point wrong and argued a subject i never spoke about in the 1st place.

 

Get over the fact that your argument was facile and inaccurate. The "gun" can in no way be implied, as a device, mechanism, nor object, to be created with the intent to kill. I KNOW this is wrong right off the bat due to the people I know who MAKE guns who have ZERO intention of them ever being used to take a life. Your argument can just as easily be made against explosives, a BADGE, or the BALLOT, it is just as inaccurate. Simply because A MAN might make an explosive with the intent to do harm that does not mar all explosives and even what he made could be used to clear a stump, help build a tunnel, or in mining. A BADGE is made with the intent of the person wearing it having the magical power to inflict pain and death at a whim because they work for the state, that is not something we can ascribe to all badges, a badge can just as easily denote membership or identity. A BALLOT is MADE to attempt to enforce YOUR OPINION by violence by proxy at the hands of the state. A Ballot is far more likely to kill someone than any single weapon, yet outlawing it would seem insane to you.

 

A GUN is an inanimate object, it was not designed to kill any more than rockets were designed to enact nuclear holocaust or HFCS was designed to kill people with diabetes. The ONLY projection we can make to any inanimate object is the sum of its design, a gun was designed to safely and reliably actuate a cartridge and propel a projectile downrange. That is the first and last of DESIGN, now whatever intent a person who makes or uses a gun for is on that individual, NOT THE GUN. I can make a hammer with the sole intent of beating my neighbor to a pulp, it doesn't change the fact that it is a hammer, it is not magically a dastardly weapon because I made that ONE with an aim to cause harm to my neighbor, I could just as easily have used any other hammer to inflict pain or death. There is no moral disparity inherent to dynamite between it being used to clear a right of way for a railroad, being used to fish, or being used to blow up a building with people still in it. The MORAL aspect only comes in with the PERSON who makes use of it, not the inanimate object.

 

You cannot project your opinion onto guns, and you cannot selectively project that opinion when you are attempting to use those things you despise to remove those things you despise from a select population. Your argument can be just as inaccurately used for a bevy of objects, and just as morally questionably lead to violence being used to prey upon the average person in the assumption and application of that argument. You don't like guns? You don't want me to HAVE guns? You better find a way to convince me to give up my guns without using violence and GUNS at the hands of the state to FORCE the subject. I am no danger to you, my guns are no danger to you, to wage war against me via the state is YOU being the immoral actor.