Ohio National Guard training to fight 2nd Amendment supporters?

[magley64]

 A gun does not have an inherent purpose, let alone a sole one.

 

If these things came about naturally, I'd be behind that statement, but they don't.

 

They begin as an idea, someone thinks them up, and when they think them up, they have a specific purpose in mind.

As the process of developing, and refining takes place, the creation in question becomes more efficient at executing it's designed purpose.

 

They are weapons, they were designed as weapons, they were refined as weapons, and they serve little other purpose than to intimidate, to destroy, and to injure.

[smccrory]

They are weapons, they were designed as weapons, they were refined as weapons, and they serve little other purpose than to intimidate, to destroy, and to injure.

 

To you, perhaps, and therefore I'd be happier if you didn't own one because you would use it to express intimidation, destruction and injury using the gun.  But the gun itself does not imbue those properties any more than an airplane's sole purpose is to taxi, or an elbow's sole purpose is to defend.  To say so requires superstition, and I would most certainly not expect an atheist to be selectively superstitious about an inanimate object.

[magley64]

To you, perhaps, and therefore I'd be happier if you didn't own one because you would use it to express intimidation, destruction and injury using the gun.  But the gun itself does not imbue those properties any more than an airplane's sole purpose is to taxi, or an elbow's sole purpose is to defend.  To say so requires superstition, and I would most certainly not expect an atheist to be selectively superstitious about an inanimate object.

 

You can't divorce an object from it's design intent without redesigning or re-purposing it... No superstition required.

An airplane's purpose is to fly, it has to taxi as an additional function to be included in our airport infrastructure. it's sole purpose is to carry people and cargo through the air. That's why it has the wings it has. You could repurpose it as a house, but that's not the intent that the designers and builders constructed it for. The wings have a very specific design to lower the air pressure over the top to the point where the wing has enough lift at a certain speed to carry the objects attached into the air.

 

What other use is there for a gun than to destroy, injure or intimidate? please tell me how YOU use a gun that includes none of those.

[Tonik]

Automobiles appear to be far more efficient at killing people than guns. We should have the CDC do a study on that and maybe charge extra for car insurance. I'm told that solves everything.

[magley64]

Automobiles appear to be far more efficient at killing people than guns. We should have the CDC do a study on that and maybe charge extra for car insurance. I'm told that solves everything.

 

 

Maybe we could have some kind of licensing program where you have to prove proficiency, and pass a test in order to legally drive a car on public roads...

[smccrory]

You can't divorce an object from it's design intent without redesigning or re-purposing it... No superstition required.

An airplane's purpose is to fly, it has to taxi as an additional function to be included in our airport infrastructure. it's sole purpose is to carry people and cargo through the air. That's why it has the wings it has. You could repurpose it as a house, but that's not the intent that the designers and builders constructed it for. The wings have a very specific design to lower the air pressure over the top to the point where the wing has enough lift at a certain speed to carry the objects attached into the air.

 

What other use is there for a gun than to destroy, injure or intimidate? please tell me how YOU use a gun that includes none of those.

 

Let me ask you this:  What is the purpose of a computer?  To bully, intimidate, force a fat kid to commit suicide, assemble a group of terrorists for a common IED goal, spread fear and hate, exploit women for porn?  No?  That's certainly a set of uses it is incredibly efficient at.  What about a wet towel?  To mock-suffocate a prisoner?  Few things do it better.  But if not, then does that towel now inherently have bad juju built into its fibers?  What about a gun after it's murdered a tin can?  It it now inherently a can killer?

 

There is design intent/context, and there is transmission intent/context and there is use intent/context, and Aleister Crowley called this WILL.  He was an EXPERT at convincing people there's inherent value in "magical" objects, yet when you read deeper, it's clear that those values were not inherent at all - they're imbibed into the PERSON handling the objects based on elaborate belief systems.  Superstition.  That was perhaps his primary secret originally intended only for the most qualified of practitioners.

 

Duane, you're being superstitious about guns, it's as simple as that, and again, I'm shocked that an atheist would.  C'mon man, use your knowledge of science!

 

But you asked me a question: What do I use my guns for, if not to destroy, injure or intimidate.  OK, here's what I do, or have previously used them for:  Target shooting at paper targets, milk jugs, tin cans and steel plates.  Collection to admire their historical context, usually accompanied with a history book binge.  Elimination of grain bin mice and field gophers whose holes can break the legs of farm horses.  Personal and home defense.  Clay shooting - a very fun marksman sport.  Bonding with my daughter with one of the aformentioned activities, teaching her respect for dangerous things and confidence around them and other sources of stress (it's helped to relieve panic attacks).  Bonding with my nephew and other family members for similar reasons.  I think that's it...

[magley64]

so you did use it to destroy those objects noted... paper targets and tin cans.. et all.

 

To injure or kill mice and gophers, and to intimidate or injure someone who may want to make themselves welcome to the property you've earned... that's what they were designed for, and that's why you purchased them. 

 

a computer's design intent is to process data as quickly and efficiently as possible within the design parameters, and the individual programs loaded within the computer's software have their own specific design intent.. specific computers have more specific designs, for example, the targeting computer on a missile is built for the sole purpose of guiding that missile to it's target.

 

I'm making no claims that the guns have a "will", or "juju" or "consciousness" (if you believe that to be my stance perhaps I'm not making myself clear), but that they have a clearly designed purpose.

As an engineer, I'm quite familiar with the process of turning ideas into objects. It's my passion, it's what I've devoted my life to doing. Turning ideas into things that work.

 

When the new Smith & Wesson handgun is presented, it will be the culmination of hours and hours of design work intended to make the best weapon possible within the parameters of the project. Accuracy, Precision, Damage, Conceal-ability, Functionality, these are all design elements that are maximized within the design intent of the weapon. If you're designing a go-cart, your first parameters are going to be things like Safety, Speed, Ruggedness, Ground Clearance, Power, Comfort, all maximized within the design of making a child's transportation device.

 

You can't divorce a designed object from it's designed intent. I don't know how else to say it. Now if you're talking about things that are not designed, well then it's all subjective. Design intent is not subjective.The Engineers had a specific use in mind. 

[smccrory]

You can't divorce a designed object from it's designed intent. I don't know how else to say it. Now if you're talking about things that are not designed, well then it's all subjective. Design intent is not subjective.The Engineers had a specific use in mind. 

 

I'm also an engineer, have been for 30 years, so what you're describing (strictly above) is not in dispute.  But your extension beyond that point is where the juju comes in and it "offends" my engineering and scientific sensibilities.  When an object is efficient at something and designed with that tuned efficiency in mind, its efficiency does not govern its use or take on some evil inherency.  Those things may shape the object's likely use perhaps, but the attributes do not govern them.

 

You say one the one hand that guns are designed for "Accuracy, Precision, Damage, Conceal-ability, Functionality, these are all design elements that are maximized within the design intent of the weapon," and you are quite right, yet you go beyond and imbue guns with some inherent propensity to intimidate, destroy and injure.  Do you believe that an engineer just like you and me, working for Smith and Wesson with a family, mortgage, a car and smartphone is also mixing Crowley-esque intimidation, destruction and injury juice into the metal?  Of course not.  I bet if anything, they are thinking about the mom, grandpa, nephew or father defending themselves, target shooting at a boy scout event or protecting their livestock.  And as much as the NRA would like us to believe that guns have THAT inherent value, they don't really have it either (sorry Wayne and Ted, you're full of BS on that one).

 

You used the pejorative "destroy" regarding my paper targets, cans and milk jugs.  But the targets fulfilled their purpose in being destroyed, and in doing so created a greater experience for the participants.  As such, the destruction brought about by the BB, pellet, .22, shotgun, pistol and rifle rounds was a minor part of their total context.  A sling shot would have done the same, and man, I guarantee you that a modern slingshot can kill a man, but that's doesn't make the slingshot inherently anything except a pack of particles singing in form.

 

As for the murder of grain mice and gophers, a gun was a lot more humane than poison, I'll tell you that.

Edited April 30, 2014 by smccrory

[magley64]

I'm also an engineer, have been for 30 years, so what you're describing (strictly above) is not in dispute.  But your extension beyond that point is where the juju comes in and it "offends" my engineering and scientific sensibilities.  When an object is efficient at something and designed with that tuned efficiency in mind, its efficiency does not govern its use or take on some evil inherency.  Those things may shape the object's likely use perhaps, but the attributes do not govern them.

I'm extending nothing beyond that, Just the assertion that these weapons are designed FIRST and foremost as weapons, and their function as a weapon is their only viable utility. (other than exceptions regarding investments as collector items, and decorations)

 

You say one the one hand that guns are designed for "Accuracy, Precision, Damage, Conceal-ability, Functionality, these are all design elements that are maximized within the design intent of the weapon," and you are quite right, yet you go beyond and imbue guns with some inherent propensity to intimidate, destroy and injure.  Do you believe that an engineer just like you and me, working for Smith and Wesson with a family, mortgage, a car and smartphone is also mixing Crowley-esque intimidation, destruction and injury juice into the metal?  Of course not.

Nope, My mentor in college was a S&W engineer (why i picked that particular weapons manufacturer in the first place).

There is no crowley-esque juices in the materials, but there is the clear shape, form, and functionality of a device designed to be used as a weapon, and is so specilaized in that use that there are few remnants of other viable uses remaining... it's simply too specialized as a piece of hardware. Could you use it as a hammer? certainly you could, but that is clearly outside of it's intended use.

 

As for intimidation, that comes with it's design as a quick and efficient deadly weapon. Nearly anyone who might see you carrying it knows exactly what it is, and exactly what it does when you squeeze the trigger. They know that you are carrying a device that serves little other purpose than to cause deadly injury at a moments notice. That's a big part of why you might carry one is to intimidate other people who might have some designs on your property.

 

One of the things that professor loved to rant about was tort reform. He often spent entire classes carrying on about how the things he designed would get misused, and predictably in that misuse people would injure themselves, and try to sue his company. He was the expert witness on a few of these cases.

 

One example he loved to bring up was a police baton with a tear gas canister loaded into the end of it. This device was designed and used for beating violent suspects into submission, and if that wasn't working, you could flip a switch and push a button, this would set off a primer which fired off a tear gas canister that was specially designed for this baton.

One officer decided that the tear gas canister was awfully similar in shape and size to a shotgun slug, so he decided to load one in and fire it off...

Predictably, this didn't end well, the whole baton split banana peel style and lacerated his arm pretty badly. He then tried to sue S&W, claiming that the slug was overloaded, my professor countered that the plaintiff was overloaded, and the rest is history.

Edited April 30, 2014 by magley64

[smccrory]

I love your story, and since we have a reasonable tone going, perhaps we can make use of it.  First...

 

I'm extending nothing beyond that, Just the assertion that these weapons are designed FIRST and foremost as weapons, and their function as a weapon is their only viable utility. (other than exceptions regarding investments as collector items, and decorations)

 

I wouldn't have disagreed with your statement except that your definition of what a weapon means to a person is selective and incomplete.  My definition, and the definition of millions of law-abiding gun owners, embraces a weapon in many ways: as a collectible, an investment vehicle, a facilitator of bonding and coming-of-age rituals (hey Jimmy, dad says you can come this time!), a defender of life and limb and family, of engineering appreciation, of historical gateway, and so much more.  You have to understand that when you characterize a gun as exclusively for intimidation, destruction and injury, it misrepresents the experience of millions of owners, and that should explain the emotional responses you get every time.  When you do that, you mischaracterize ME as an intimidator, destroyer and injurer just by fact of owning a gun, and we know we're not.  Law-breaking gun owners are a different matter, but that gets very much to the a-priori locale of will, of intent...

 

Nope, My mentor in college was a S&W engineer (why i picked that particular weapons manufacturer in the first place).

There is no crowley-esque juices in the materials, but there is the clear shape, form, and functionality of a device designed to be used as a weapon, and is so specilaized in that use that there are few remnants of other viable uses remaining... it's simply too specialized as a piece of hardware. Could you use it as a hammer? certainly you could, but that is clearly outside of it's intended use.

 

One of the things that professor loved to rant about was tort reform. He often spent entire classes carrying on about how the things he designed would get misused, and predictably in that misuse people would injure themselves, and try to sue his company. He was the expert witness on a few of these cases.

 

One example he loved to bring up was a police baton with a tear gas canister loaded into the end of it. This device was used for beating violent suspects into submission, and if that wasn't working, you could flip a switch and push a button, this would set off a primer which fired off a tear gas canister that was specially designed for this baton.

One officer decided that the tear gas canister was awfully similar in shape and size to a shotgun slug, so he decided to load one in and fire it off...

Predictably, this didn't end well, the whole baton split banana peel style and lacerated his arm pretty badly. He then tried to sue S&W, claiming that the slug was overloaded, my professor countered that the plaintiff was overloaded, and the rest is history.

 

This story is fascinating, and moreso that you tell it in this thread.  Duane, this directly speaks clearly to the intent of the operator, and not the designer or the object itself.  Duane, the answer to your logic is right there in your past.  You may still NOT LIKE guns and you may still OPPOSE them, but I present that you must now do so now for one fewer reason.

 

The use of the gun is tied to the will, the intent, of the user, not the designer or the device itself.

[Pokey]

If y'all like to eat meat, then you really cannot have a problem with guns. And yes allot of meat that many of us eat is in fact still killed with guns. The 2nd amendment was put into place for very obvious reasons, and one of those was also "a man has gotta eat". Fear of guns, that is just hilarious......fear people with bad intentions, not the object they use to carry out those bad intentions with. Not everyone lives within city limits, and those that don't tend to kill for allot of their meat "believe it or not".

[smccrory]

If y'all like to eat meat, then you really cannot have a problem with guns. And yes allot of meat that many of us eat is in fact still killed with guns. The 2nd amendment was put into place for very obvious reasons, and one of those was also "a man has gotta eat". Fear of guns, that is just hilarious......fear people with bad intentions, not the object they use to carry out those bad intentions with. Not everyone lives within city limits, and those that don't tend to kill for allot of their meat "believe it or not".

 

And that includes rail guns that inject a rod into the animal's cortex.  As far as I know, that device has only one purpose...

[Pokey]

And that includes rail guns that inject a rod into the animal's cortex.  As far as I know, that device has only one purpose...

 

The purpose sets me up for some tasty BBQ and other various dead animal flesh to be thrown on the grill. Of course that rail gun shows it can also be used on people in No country for old men.

[smccrory]

The purpose sets me up for some tasty BBQ and other various dead animal flesh to be thrown on the grill. Of course that rail gun shows it can also be used on people in No country for old men.

Eeeek! Creepy movie, creepy character, and bad things done with air pressure.

[Gixxus Christ!]

Captive bolt stunner. Rail guns use electromagnetic forces to propel a kinetic energy warhead several times the speed of sound.

[smccrory]

Captive bolt stunner. Rail guns use electromagnetic forces to propel a kinetic energy warhead several times the speed of sound.

 

Oh crap, someone else as pedantic as me??

[Gixxus Christ!]

I'm working on it.

[speedytriple]

Wait didn't they repurpose an airplane into a weapon on 9/11?

 

"it's sole purpose is to carry people and cargo through the air."

[chevysoldier]

Holy fuck magley. You're a special kind of stupid.

[mattm]

Automobiles appear to be far more efficient at killing people than guns. We should have the CDC do a study on that and maybe charge extra for car insurance. I'm told that solves everything.

Just a couple of nits to pick here. A far larger percentage of the country has a car vs a gun. Second; insurance campanies have their own organization called IIHS that performs crash testing on the cars and identifies issues with the ability of the vehicle to survive different crashes with minimal physical impact to the vehicle and the occupants of said vehicle.

The best part is that you brought this up as it is further proof that research into everything other than the safety impact of gun ownership is legally allowed to occur in this country. In fact, the impact of so many other consumer items are extensively studied that weapons and more specifically firearms are suspect in their absence. I am sure you know the answer but I have to ask the question. Why are firearms a special case that absolutely cannot be studied by law? Why is it that one class of manufacturer, the firearm manufacturer, is not subject to product liability lawsuits? Automobile manufacturers are subject to product liability claims and as you correctly stated, cars kill more people than firearms every year. My question is why is any study on firearms prevented by law as compared to pretty much every other product?

Edited May 1, 2014 by mattm

[magley64]

Wait didn't they repurpose an airplane into a weapon on 9/11?

"it's sole purpose is to carry people and cargo through the air."

Yes, they did. The people at Boeing didn't design that plane as a weapon, the hijackers misused it as a weapon.

[Pokey]

Just a couple of nits to pick here. A far larger percentage of the country has a car vs a gun. Second; insurance campanies have their own organization called IIHS that performs crash testing on the cars and identifies issues with the ability of the vehicle to survive different crashes with minimal physical impact to the vehicle and the occupants of said vehicle.

The best part is that you brought this up as it is further proof that research into everything other than the safety impact of gun ownership is legally allowed to occur in this country. In fact, the impact of so many other consumer items are extensively studied that weapons and more specifically firearms are suspect in their absence. I am sure you know the answer but I have to ask the question. Why are firearms a special case that absolutely cannot be studied by law? Why is it that one class of manufacturer, the firearm manufacturer, is not subject to product liability lawsuits? Automobile manufacturers are subject to product liability claims and as you correctly stated, cars kill more people than firearms every year. My question is why is any study on firearms prevented by law as compared to pretty much every other product?

 

I will make you a bet that there are more firearms out there in responsible owners hands than all the cars in driveways and everywhere else in the country. 

[Steve Butters]

firearms are subject to product liability lawsuits....but theres a difference in a defect, and someone misusing it. if a child gets in their parents night stand and shoots themselves, that isnt any more the firearm companys fault than it is an auto manufacturer's fault when someone wrecks while txting and driving.

 

check out the remington 700 lawsuits for reference

[Tonik]

I will make you a bet that there are more firearms out there in responsible owners hands than all the cars in driveways and everywhere else in the country.

Round numbers, 254 million private cars, 310 million private guns.

[smccrory]

firearms are subject to product liability lawsuits....but theres a difference in a defect, and someone misusing it. if a child gets in their parents night stand and shoots themselves, that isnt any more the firearm companys fault than it is an auto manufacturer's fault when someone wrecks while txting and driving.

 

check out the remington 700 lawsuits for reference

 

Excellent reference, I was thinking the same.  Now, if you want a controversial issue on OR, let's talk about the Rem 700 situation, because I'll bet some of us believe Rem was at best asleep at the wheel when owners started running into issues.

 

A parallel situation is the introduction of firing pin disengagement in modern guns to avoid slam-fires.  It wasn't considered a defect per-se, but it was IMHO an excellent design refinement for the purposes of safety.