Friday, November 18, 2011

Apples and Oranges

OK, you want to pretend that a firearm is "just an inanimate object" when it's not--it's a fucking weapon. They are intended to be used as weapons to injure or kill.

I've got better "inanimate objects" for you to understand how stupid that argument is: Nuclear Weapons or Nerve Gas.

After all, they are perfectly safe if you follow the safety rules. In fact, it is so safe that one site I worked at worked with nerve gas in an urban area! Betcha didn't know that the US Army plays with the stuff at Fort Detrick and the Aberdeen Proving Ground right in the NorthEast Megapolis!

Come on, don't you want your neighbour to have some VX or Sarin in his garage?

How about a Thermonuclear weapon--and I'm not tallking the piddly things they dropped on Japan, but a big job in the megaton range?

After all. they are just inanimate objects--what's to worry?

It's just an inanimate object.

21 comments:

  1. Laci The Dog:

    Now that they think they have the handgunz situation whipped, they'll be working on saddlegunz, up through fully automatic crew-served weapons, light and heavy artillery and mine sowing equipment.

    It will be a few more years before you hear about the NNWA's principled and plucky defense of the red,white and blue-blooded right to keep and bear tactical and strategic nukes.


    *National Nu-Q-Lar Weppins Association.

    ReplyDelete
  2. YEeHAAaAA!

    The Second Amendment does say it's a right to bear "arms".

    Why the fuck can't they own WMD?

    You can't fight a tyrannical guvment armed with WMD with a piddly arsed firearm!

    They gonna blow yer arse to high heaven!

    ReplyDelete
  3. Yeah, I think I might have to start a new, "AAA", the Americans for Armageddon Association. I'd better go secure the domain name.

    ReplyDelete
  4. "You can't fight a tyrannical guvment armed with WMD with a piddly arsed firearm!"

    Not saying we are using WMD's in Afghanistan, but the Taliban are doing a pretty good job whipping our ass, using those, along with IED's. So who is to say the same couldn't be done here.

    That is not an endorsement of the Taliban in any way, just an observation. I do not think we should be over there anyway.

    ReplyDelete
  5. PJ wrote:
    Not saying we are using WMD's in Afghanistan, but the Taliban are doing a pretty good job whipping our ass, using those, along with IED's. So who is to say the same couldn't be done here.

    Yes of course we COULDN"T DO THAT HERE. The reason is that here we would never sacrifice the numbers of our fellow countrymen that they do there. Do you have any idea how many Afghanis have died from the Taliban's style of warfare? It is a stupid thing to believe that we would be effective in opposing a modern government by the methods you claim. IEDs are one thing, but the firearms they use is another. They aren't armed with deer rifles and hand gns. They're armed with AK47s and RPGs and other weaponry sufficient to make significant attacks.

    Any idea on how many Taliban we've killed in the time we've been in Afghanistan? I wouldn't call that a Taliban success story against an armed government military force.

    There is more to defeating a government. There has to be some of you left for you to have won.

    Sheesh.

    ReplyDelete
  6. If a firearm is just an inanimate object, then GC can be equally happy with marshmallows or feather pillows tucked in his holster or under his shirt.

    No?

    That is because the inanimate objects are defined by their USE, not that they are inanimate objects or what they are like when NOT IN USE.

    This is a false analogy by GC, and the fact that he doesn't understand that it is a false analogy, that it is the differences between objects that is significant for this argument.

    We could make the following syllogism:

    -We hunt animals and raise animals and then kill them for meat and other products that we need, so killing animals is desirable
    -Human beings are members of the animal kingdom
    Therefore it is desirable that we hunt and kill people for food and other products

    That was in essence the analogy that old Jonathan Swift used in his brilliant satire, A Modest Proposal in 1729, which was widely read and discussed at the time, including our well educated founding fathers. Therefore killing people for food and other benefits that must be the intent of the 2nd Amendment.

    The above syllogism is wrong because it fails to make important distinctions of differences. The reasoning of Swift relies on cold logic to make the point of those differences upon the English in relation to their treatment of the Irish.

    It is the SIGNIFICANT differences that matter between things, whether they are animate or inanimate that determine if an analogy is valid or invalid.

    That Greg and others don't recognize the logical reasoning, the critical thinking merely spotlights that they are failing at logic and failing at critical thinking.

    Laci has correctly named the flaws; false analogy. We reasonably and objectively differentiate how we determine safety, how we handle and how we regulate objects on the basis of their danger when USED, their potential and their intentional design.

    If there was anything here that had convinced me that there should perhaps be an IQ test or a test of logical reasoning required for a carry permit, the comments offered here would be the perfect evidence of dangerous deficiencies of reason by the progun crowd.

    ReplyDelete
  7. "OK, you want to pretend that a firearm is "just an inanimate object" when it's not--it's a fucking weapon. They are intended to be used as weapons to injure or kill."

    So your contention is that guns are not inanimate objects? They have free will and the ability to act on their own? Cool. Maybe this will help:

    Coalition to Prevent Assault Weapon Violence

    This violence prevention organization is bringing the problem to light by providing 24 video surveillance of several assault weapons, just waiting for them to jump up and start killing people. They have been doing this for almost a decade I believe.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Point Take, Dog Gone, it is the fact that firearms have the ability to injure or kill that gives them their power--they wouldn't care if they were just mere "inanimate objects".

    PJ, the US already has enough of a problem fighting an insurgency and there are other ways to fight an insurgent war than WMD.

    On the other hand, did Saddam Hussein give a fuck when he used chemical weapons on Halabja?

    Most of the insurrection theory of the second amendment is pure bullshit. Not to mention that most people wouldn't recognise what they were talking about these days anyway.

    The Second Amendment is an anachronism, and you are admitting that fact if you are going to say the militia has no relevance to the right.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Laci The Dog said:
    PJ, the US already has enough of a problem fighting an insurgency and there are other ways to fight an insurgent war than WMD.

    True, but we haven't seemed to figure out what that is. We have hamstrung ourselves by trying to fight a conventional war against an unconventional enemy. Look at history - the Vietnam war, for example - to see what the possible outcome may be. No one will claim victory, just a large unnecessary body count on both sides.

    I agree the majority of people today do not associate the insurrection theory with the second amendment. For a majority of people, if it doesn't affect their cell phone service, internet access, or personal way of life, they pay no attention. I do not believe one could gather enough people together to rise up against the government. The government would have to commit some heinous acts before that happened.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Actually, I've already answered that question in an article that I wrote a while ago:

    http://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/2011/02/17/size-matters/

    We have to evaluate two aspects of the object in question, and yes, we are talking about inanimate objects that must be operated by someone with will.

    The two aspects are the danger posed by the object balanced against the number of legitimate uses that it has.

    Nuclear bombs are the most dangerous object ever created by human beings. They have mass effects that are both far reaching and long lasting. There is also no legitimate usage to which I can put a nuclear bomb as a private citizen. There aren't even many legitimate uses that governments can claim. Nerve gas falls under the same category. What possible legitimate use can you name for my using nerve gas?

    Now consider firearms. They have many legitimate uses: target shooting, pest control, hunting, and self defense, among others. They pose a small danger--specifically, a one-on-one danger, not a mass effect. (There's a reason that they're not classified as Weapons of Mass Destruction.)

    With regard to arms, I've pointed this out before, but "arms," as used in the amendment, refers to the type of weapons that a gentleman was understood to have and be able to use (as in, a coat of arms). It refers to edged weapons, rifles, shotguns (called fowling pieces then), handguns, and the like. It did not refer to cannon. It did not mean a warship. (That was covered under the laws regulating letters of marque.)

    As for Laci's point that I'm admitting the Second Amendment to be an anachronism if I say that the right isn't dependent on the militia clause, he's correct only if grammar is also an anacrhonism. He's correct only if the notion that the people have rights is also an anachronism. I suspect that we disagree on those two as well.

    I can only conclude, from reading this article and your comments, that you really do believe all of us who support gun rights to be crazy.

    You could prove me wrong in that conclusion by addressing my specific points without resorting to schoolyard taunts.

    ReplyDelete
  11. FWM wrote:
    So your contention is that guns are not inanimate objects? They have free will and the ability to act on their own?

    Nope.The contention is that being an inanimate object is too broad a description to have meaning in the context of discriminating between a non-weapon and a weapon.

    But then that was clear in the many times we have pointed out that it is a false analogy.

    The distinguishing characteristic is not animate versus animate; it is weapon versus not a weapon.

    In other words we have no need to regulate marshmallows as a dangerous weapons, but we do have a need to regulate weapons like firearms.

    You're smarter than that FWM; quit playing dumb. There are enough conservatives who are stupid, like Herman Cain, that are stupid for real. We don't need smart people playing at it.

    ReplyDelete
  12. NO, Greg, once the reason for a law ceases--the law ceases.

    If you say that the militia clause is irrelevant, you have just admitted that there is no reason for the Second Amendment.

    It has nothing to do with grammar.

    It has everything to do with statutory interpretation.

    Two different subjects.

    As I said, you love showing your ignorance.

    Dog Gone shows that I am not being abstruse or arcane--comparing non-weapons to weapons is a false analogy.

    You lot seem to miss that, but logic and reality defies you as well.

    Thomas, the Taliban have been fighting for some 30 years and are well trained. They are also very well funded due to the West's taste for heroin--sort of like fighting the Columbians.

    The relevance to the Second Amendment was that large military establishments are ruinous to an economy, which is a theme which is common. Unlike the alleged belief in personal weapons--which is next to non-existant.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Laci the Dog,

    You're using a Straw Man fallacy here. You've picked on a minor point to make the focus of your response. The militia clause is the reason that the amendment was written, but the right stands on its own. The rights clause does not depend on the militia clause.

    How about you answer my main points: the definition of "arms" and the balance of danger vs. legitimate uses?

    Dog Gone,

    Weapons and marshmallows are both inanimate objects. Yes, they fall under different subcategories. The point that we're making here is that an inanimate object can't act on its own. We want to hold the user responsible for the act. People can misuse marshmallows, with obvious consequences to their health. People can misuse guns in the same manner.

    When I said that my handgun in its holster is no harm to you because it is an inanimate object, that was correct. No will is acting upon it at that moment. If I draw it, the situation changes, and you may then ask me why I've done so and what my intentions are in the future. We require carry guns to remain concealed in Arkansas unless there's a justified reason for exposing them.

    Now, you are correct to say that guns are weapons. So?

    ReplyDelete
  14. Gunz are unable to fire themselves --although, surprisingly, when they "accidentally" go off and someone is wounded or killed, it's never an animate being's fault--but there's a bit more to it than that.

    Gunz are totemic, they are talismans, they are fetish symbols and they are frequently analogues for something else, much like big, hard boats, cars and paychecks.

    Gunz are designed to LOOK menacing in many cases.

    They can't fire themselves (except as noted previously) but they make folks WANT to fire them.

    The disingenuousness of people like Greg Camp is fairly easy to spot.

    He constantly talks about how HE would never do this or that with HIS gun (something we have to take HIS word for). What he and others never want to talk about is the millions of undertrained, untrained and, sometimes, untrainable gun owners that are out there, right now, carrying and using weapons irresponsibly.

    There you go, Greg, not one "schoolyard taunt" or pottymouth word; not in the whole fucking lot.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Democommie,

    I have no objection to arresting, charging, and trying anyone who commits a criminal act with a firearm. How about that? Address the behavior of those who have choice in their actions, rather than maintaining this obsession over an object that can't act on its own.

    And as I said, since a firearm poses only a small degree of danger and has many legitimate uses, it's not in the same category as weapons of mass destruction. Dog Gone was saying something about a false analogy, if I recall. . .

    ReplyDelete
  16. Greg Camp:

    Saying things like this:

    "Address the behavior of those who have choice in their actions, rather than maintaining this obsession over an object that can't act on its own.'

    Truly reveals the scope of your lack of critical thinking skills. If the gunz got no value as a symbol, if it's nothing but a piece of iron and it's the people that are the problem (I have never been against guns, only azzholez with gunz) then let's vet the folks that carry the inanimate object.

    ZOMFG! We can't do that, that's unfreedomy!! It makes Weenie LaPew cry!!!

    ReplyDelete
  17. Democommie,

    If you want to do a discussion of the semiotics of firearms, I will enjoy reading it. To me, a blued steel 1911 is beautiful, while a Glock looks like a 2 x 4 that someone painted black. That's an aesthetic preference on my part.

    You tried to twist what I said, so I'll reiterate: Punish those who commit crimes, and leave everyone else alone. What's so hard about that?

    ReplyDelete
  18. PJ is the funniest, in that delusional way so many gun owners have. Way up thread he compared himself and his fellows to the Taliban.

    Now, I don't know about you but my impression of the Taliban fighters is that they're tough as nails, can withstand terrible deprivations, can walk up and down mountains all day long, etc., etc.

    My impression of the American gun owners is that they're anything but tough, fat bellies, spoiled by modern-day comforts, poor eating habits, etc.

    The wonderful fantasy world of the gun owner is so perfectly exemplified in PJ's comment. I love it.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Mikeb302000,

    I can't speak for P.J., but I don't want to fight a war of insurrection against my government. I can't imagine that many people do. But that kind of war has a way of coming upon a society without asking permission--typically, not in a system of government like our own, but it could happen. You're right that many Americans would merely feel deprived of their toys, but I hope at least some would acquit themselves well.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Greg Camp wrote:

    I can't speak for P.J., but I don't want to fight a war of insurrection against my government. I can't imagine that many people do. But that kind of war has a way of coming upon a society without asking permission--typically, not in a system of government like our own, but it could happen. You're right that many Americans would merely feel deprived of their toys, but I hope at least some would acquit themselves well.


    You do realize, Greg, that according to the U.S. Constitution such an armed insurrection is treason? And that as other insurrections have shown, any hope of such an insurrection succeeding against a modern armed military is futile?
    It is proof of that fact that UNarmed insurrection is effective, in places like Egypt, where the army refused to slaughter their own population. Similarly in Tunisia.

    Unarmed resistance was less effective , in that regard in Libya, where there were tribal hatreds and large numbers of mercenaries that were less reluctant to fire on the civilian population.

    It will remain to be seen how this plays out in Syria, Saudi Arabia, and some of the other parts of that region, but I think it is reasonable to assert that it is a matter of time before those totalitarian dictatorships fall. Particularly if we don't support the dictators, and if others don't support the dictators either.

    But it is reasonable to say that dictatorships have been pressured pretty effectively,and will either make at least some changes as concessions (although not enough change) or will fall more quickly. The events have clearly any way you look at it, changed the status quo.

    You have a gun fantasy that is disconnected from fact and from reality.

    And it is THAT disconnection from reality that concerns many of us about some of the people carrying guns. They're mildly nuts, and their judgment is questionable in identifying appropriate situations for using their firearm. Fortunately, I think many of them are as afraid of being punished for bad decisions as they are fearful of what are largely non-existent criminals in their worlds.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Dog Gone,

    Now who has a problem with reading comprehension? I said that insurrection is highly unlikely here. Did I ever advocate for starting an insurrection? Now if our country became a dictatorship, that would be a different case, since it's the moral duty of everyone to resist dictatorship, but I don't see that happening here.

    You say that such a conflict against a modern military is futile? I give you Afghanistan. When the Soviets invaded, the Afghans faced a force that was much more advanced than they. The Afghans fought with small arms and ultimately with weapons that we supplied them and defeated the Soviets. They are now making our job difficult, and it remains to be seen what will be the outcome.

    By contrast, consider Tianamen Square. In that case, an unarmed group protested an oppressive government, but that government demonstrated its willingness to respond in force, and the general populace failed to rise up. Tibet is still under the thumb of Beijing.

    I recognize that peaceful protest has its own power, especially when the general population supports it. But there are times when armed resistance is the only thing that will work.

    ReplyDelete