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.
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.