• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's 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
1,604
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.
 
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.
 
A firearm is more accurately defined as a machine designed to kill.
 
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.
 
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?
 
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
 
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.
 
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
 
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.
 
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.
 
Back
Top Bottom