• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Let's be honest about what a firearm is....

csbrown28

DP Veteran
Joined
May 6, 2013
Messages
3,102
Reaction score
1,603
Location
NW Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
What is a firearm?

Is it "just a tool"? I can't help but get a little indignant when I hear someone casually refer to a firearm as "just a tool" and while I think in some ways the person is right, I think it's for the wrong reasons and culturally it sends the wrong message.

A tool is defined as "Noun: A device or implement, esp. one held in the hand, used to carry out a particular function.

By definition, a firearm is indeed a tool, but a firearm can also be defined by many other words, like; object, thing, item and device. Now tool may be better then all the other words I've chosen, because tool gives us a little more information because it has better descriptive power then the 4 words I've listed. So the question is, are their better word to describe a firearm?

How about weapon?

A weapon is defined as; "A thing designed or used for inflicting bodily harm or physical damage."

Wow, so there are a few ways to look at this. By this definition, anything used to inflict bodily damage is a weapon. Under the right circumstances, I could weaponize virtually anything. I mean, if I could accelerate 8oz of jello fast enough, it could potentially kill you. So what is the difference between jello and a firearm?

If we're being honest, jello is about as inefficient a way to kill someone as you can think of, while a firearm, is the exact opposite....

Jello is food, even if it can be used as a weapon, it's still food and AR-15 is a weapon even if I can use it for other things other then shooting or killing other people.

In the world there are only 2 ways to make other people do what you want, persuasion and force. Most of use use persuasion every day, we save force for times we feel it is necessary and justified.

Firearms about about projecting force in the most efficient manner possible. There are ways to project more force, but again, projecting force isn't the only goal (remember the jello?), it's about projecting force efficiently.

Since I can't persuade the deer to come home with me and be my dinner, I project force upon it and have yummy venison, and if someone enters my home uninvited and threatens the lives of family or friends and can't be persuaded to leave, then I may be forced to use my firearm, the tool, object, device or whatever you want to call it, to project (my hopefully) justified use of force upon another person to compel them to cease what they are doing.....

So the question is, would removing the firearm from the equation solve the problem?

Removing the firearm, if it were possible, only removes the potential efficiency with which a person can kill, it does nothing to address the desire to kill. However, removing the firearm will in most cases guarantee, that the defender will be limited in their ability to defend themselves (project force), because as we all know, the complete and total elimination of firearms is, for the foreseeable future an impossibility.
 

Aunt Spiker

Cheese
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 20, 2009
Messages
28,431
Reaction score
16,986
Location
Sasnakra
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
You state this:
Removing the firearm, if it were possible, only removes the potential efficiency with which a person can kill, it does nothing to address the desire to kill. However, removing the firearm will in most cases guarantee, that the defender will be limited in their ability to defend themselves (project force)
So why would someone WANT to remove the availability of firearms? They're too focused on the criminal aspect and not focused on the other elements. Projection, hunting - these things.
 

American

Constitutionalist
Bartender
Supporting Member
Monthly Subscriber
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
88,990
Reaction score
28,042
Location
SE Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
A firearm is more accurately defined as a machine designed to kill.
 

the makeout hobo

Rockin' In The Free World
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 13, 2006
Messages
7,102
Reaction score
1,504
Location
Sacramento, CA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Nobody with any authority is saying though, "let's ban all guns." Lots of people support the Assault Weapon Ban, for instance, but would be right there with you if they tried to ban all guns. As American put it, "a firearm is a machine designed for killing." As I understand it, some people want to keep machines that are TOO good at killing out of the hands of people who might kill the wrong people with them. Not all guns.
 

blaxshep

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
16,875
Reaction score
7,666
Location
St. Petersburg
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
As I understand it, some people want to keep machines that are TOO good at killing out of the hands of people who might kill the wrong people with them. Not all guns.
If the goal is to reduce the killing then why are they going after guns used in less than 1% of killings?
 

Aunt Spiker

Cheese
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 20, 2009
Messages
28,431
Reaction score
16,986
Location
Sasnakra
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
If the goal is to reduce the killing then why are they going after guns used in less than 1% of killings?
Another cursed 1%!

I'm surprised they haven't tried to ban the 1% altogether from the numerical system.

Stopthe1%.jpg
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
253,452
Reaction score
76,542
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Nobody with any authority is saying though, "let's ban all guns." Lots of people support the Assault Weapon Ban, for instance, but would be right there with you if they tried to ban all guns. As American put it, "a firearm is a machine designed for killing." As I understand it, some people want to keep machines that are TOO good at killing out of the hands of people who might kill the wrong people with them. Not all guns.
horsecrap

those who want to ban common semi auto firearms only start with some because they know calling for a full ban would be a disaster for the anti gun movement

the mentality of a gun banner is the same whether they are a complete banner or an incrementalist.
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
253,452
Reaction score
76,542
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
If the goal is to reduce the killing then why are they going after guns used in less than 1% of killings?
its called precedent. they want to pick the guns most easily demonized so that the low information voters, and the low wattage citizens will agree to it.

once you create a law banning the firearms MOST protected by the second amendment its easy to ban the rest
 

LaMidRighter

Klattu Verata Nicto
DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2005
Messages
30,534
Reaction score
10,682
Location
Louisiana
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
According to the ATF, a "firearm" is:
Oh, but when I tell gun control advocates that very same thing they say "No, you're lying, guns are designed to kill". Wonder if they'll take the word of the ATF.
 

Jerry

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2006
Messages
51,123
Reaction score
15,258
Location
United States
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Oh, but when I tell gun control advocates that very same thing they say "No, you're lying, guns are designed to kill". Wonder if they'll take the word of the ATF.
Heymarket will just cry about how we're using big words so he and the left don't understand.
 
Top Bottom