Opinion article from local paper - Page 10

**Pokerface** · 10-13-2004, 12:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by leejo

That's a pretty hysterical and silly comparison.

What? A nuclear warhead without someone to arm it and set it off would just sit there, right? What's the harm in me owning one? Tell you what, I'll even put it in a locked cabinet if you let me have one.

**leejo** · 10-13-2004, 01:17 PM

Dude, a pistol is like a nuclear warhead like my smiling at an old lady makes me Jesus.

Show me a picture of a few hundred million pistols and we're looking at a reasonable comparison of destructive power.

A pistol fires a bullet. A nuclear warhead sets off the equivalent of about 10 million TONS of TNT.

**Pokerface** · 10-13-2004, 01:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by leejo

Dude, a pistol is like a nuclear warhead like my smiling at an old lady makes me Jesus.

Show me a picture of a few hundred million pistols and we're looking at a reasonable comparison of destructive power.

A pistol fires a bullet. A nuclear warhead sets off the equivalent of about 10 million TONS of TNT.

Not unless a person sets them off though. I can be responsible with a nuclear weapon. I won't even fire it for target practice or anything, I just want one as a collector.

Why does destructive power matter? The weapon isn't dangerous; it's the person that uses it, right? So there's no problem with me having one.

**leejo** · 10-13-2004, 01:47 PM

If you insist on comparing a pistol to a nuclear weapon I can't help you. A pocket knife is like a nuclear weapon in exactly the same way.

**Pokerface** · 10-13-2004, 02:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by leejo

If you insist on comparing a pistol to a nuclear weapon I can't help you. A pocket knife is like a nuclear weapon in exactly the same way.

I'm still waiting for the counterargument, and that wasn't it.

wickerman · 10-13-2004, 02:10 PM

Quote:

The weapon isn't dangerous; it's the person that uses it, right?

Right. A gun in and of itself is no more or less dangerous that a rock. Both can be used to kill or injure but by themselves they lack the ability to form the intent to do harm. Simply because they are capable of harming if used towards such ends is NOT sufficient reason to ban them.

Ultimate blame and responsibility lies with the individual who chooses to use the tool (gun, rock, knife, giant cardboard tube) to inflict harm upon another. Unfortunately our society doesn't place much worth on personal responsibility. It's much easier to fault Ozzie Osbourne, Marilyn Manson, Smith & Wesson, video games, etc..

You don't blame the hammer if your carpenter builds your home incorrectly, how can you blame the gun if some sociopath uses it to injure. The person MUST be held responsible for the results of their actions. Period.

**leejo** · 10-13-2004, 03:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pokerface

I'm still waiting for the counterargument, and that wasn't it.

You're going to have to keep waiting, because I'm not going to attempt a serious discussion about how pistols and nuclear weapons are similar or not. A tricycle is like a porsche. A pidgeon is like an F-16. A ridiculous post on an internet forum is like the Constitution. Whatever.

**Pokerface** · 10-13-2004, 04:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by leejo

You're going to have to keep waiting, because I'm not going to attempt a serious discussion about how pistols and nuclear weapons are similar or not. A tricycle is like a porsche. A pidgeon is like an F-16. A ridiculous post on an internet forum is like the Constitution. Whatever.

Your contention is that a weapon by itself is not dangerous, and that responsible people should be allowed to possess one. I want to agree with you, but "well, a gun can only kill so many people, while a nuke can kill bazillions" isn't a good reason, because we'd like to have zero deaths, right? And we would have zero deaths if the owner of whichever weapon were responsible... right?

IceCold · 10-13-2004, 06:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by leejo

You're going to have to keep waiting, because I'm not going to attempt a serious discussion about how pistols and nuclear weapons are similar or not. A tricycle is like a porsche. A pidgeon is like an F-16. A ridiculous post on an internet forum is like the Constitution. Whatever.

You're dodging the point. The point is that the photo proves that inanimate objects don't kill things by themselves. Whether that object is a rock, a gun or a nuke makes no difference, it won't harm anyone else by itself.

**leejo** · 10-13-2004, 07:09 PM

I'm not dodging the point at all. Pokerface contends that a gun is like a nuclear device because they are both "weapons" and I contend that is a silly position, akin to saying that letting a parking meter run out and sawing off someone's head are both "crimes". There is an order of magnitude difference that cannot be ignored and no serious person forgets.

Has anyone suggested that nuclear weapons be kept in private homes?

If y'all want to beat this horse, feel free. I'm out.

**Pokerface** · 10-13-2004, 08:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by leejo

I'm not dodging the point at all. Pokerface contends that a gun is like a nuclear device because they are both "weapons" and I contend that is a silly position, akin to saying that letting a parking meter run out and sawing off someone's head are both "crimes". There is an order of magnitude difference that cannot be ignored and no serious person forgets.

Has anyone suggested that nuclear weapons be kept in private homes?

If y'all want to beat this horse, feel free. I'm out.

Then PUT THE ORDER OF MAGNITUDE into your context.

Let's try this one: a tank shoots bullets, albeit bigger ones than a pistol. Can I own one of them? How about a rocket launcher? Since levels of destruction obviously matter to your argument, please define the line at which it becomes a problem for a responsible person merely to possess one, and why the line is there as opposed to anywhere else.

I AM suggesting that nuclear weapons be kept in private homes, per the logic of "It's not the weapon that's dangerous, it's the person that uses it."

This ain't my horse I'm beating, so I'm more than happy to keep whipping it.

wickerman · 10-13-2004, 10:32 PM

Since I'd really be interested in a response to my earlier attempt at a point I'll post it again...

Quote:

A gun in and of itself is no more or less dangerous that a rock. Both can be used to kill or injure but by themselves they lack the ability to form the intent to do harm. Simply because they are capable of harming if used towards such ends is NOT sufficient reason to ban them.

Ultimate blame and responsibility lies with the individual who chooses to use the tool (gun, rock, knife, giant cardboard tube) to inflict harm upon another. Unfortunately our society doesn't place much worth on personal responsibility. It's much easier to fault Ozzie Osbourne, Marilyn Manson, Smith & Wesson, video games, etc..

You don't blame the hammer if your carpenter builds your home incorrectly, how can you blame the gun if some sociopath uses it to injure. The person MUST be held responsible for the results of their actions. Period.

**CingularDuality** · 10-13-2004, 11:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wickerman

Since I'd really be interested in a response to my earlier attempt at a point I'll post it again...

You're absolutely correct.

Benny_ · 10-14-2004, 05:47 AM

Aw, and I'd avoided this one.....but you're kinda agreeing with Pokerface (who IMHO makes a good point).

Rocks, pebbles, sticks, pistols, rifles, nukes.....all dangerous in the wrong hands. Where's the line?

**CingularDuality** · 10-14-2004, 08:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Benny_

Aw, and I'd avoided this one.....but you're kinda agreeing with Pokerface (who IMHO makes a good point).

Rocks, pebbles, sticks, pistols, rifles, nukes.....all dangerous in the wrong hands. Where's the line?

Pokerface is absolutely correct on this, but he claims that he was being sarcastic...

The existence of a nuclear weapon poses no threat to anyone by itself. It only becomes dangerous when controlled by somebody with dangerous intentions... Granted, that's a simplistic way of looking at it, but it's true.

10-13-2004, 01:17 PM	#137 (permalink)
leejo Join Date: Sep 2003 Age: 39 Posts: 7,839	Re: Opinion article from local paper Dude, a pistol is like a nuclear warhead like my smiling at an old lady makes me Jesus. Show me a picture of a few hundred million pistols and we're looking at a reasonable comparison of destructive power. A pistol fires a bullet. A nuclear warhead sets off the equivalent of about 10 million TONS of TNT.

10-13-2004, 01:47 PM	#139 (permalink)
leejo Join Date: Sep 2003 Age: 39 Posts: 7,839	Re: Opinion article from local paper If you insist on comparing a pistol to a nuclear weapon I can't help you. A pocket knife is like a nuclear weapon in exactly the same way.

10-13-2004, 07:09 PM	#145 (permalink)
leejo Join Date: Sep 2003 Age: 39 Posts: 7,839	Re: Opinion article from local paper I'm not dodging the point at all. Pokerface contends that a gun is like a nuclear device because they are both "weapons" and I contend that is a silly position, akin to saying that letting a parking meter run out and sawing off someone's head are both "crimes". There is an order of magnitude difference that cannot be ignored and no serious person forgets. Has anyone suggested that nuclear weapons be kept in private homes? If y'all want to beat this horse, feel free. I'm out.

10-14-2004, 05:47 AM	#149 (permalink)
Benny_ Join Date: Nov 2003 Posts: 369	Re: Opinion article from local paper Aw, and I'd avoided this one.....but you're kinda agreeing with Pokerface (who IMHO makes a good point). Rocks, pebbles, sticks, pistols, rifles, nukes.....all dangerous in the wrong hands. Where's the line?

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Usage of Local VOIP	munchkin	Red Orchestra - Tactics and Mission Discussion	4	03-19-2006 09:46 PM
Sociology Paper	Phantom	The Sandbox	4	11-17-2005 02:49 PM
Paper slips vs. double-wide DVD Cases	Diceman	General Discussion	7	11-01-2005 02:46 AM
Crawford sees backlash after local paper endorses Kerry	Pokerface	The Sandbox	13	10-14-2004 11:28 AM

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)

Sponsored links

Sponsored links

Sponsored links

Sponsored links