|
Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today. |
30th December 2012, 08:49 PM | #1 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 32,635
|
Uses for guns
So, guns aren't just for killing anymore.
You can use a rifle instead of a crowbar to pry with. Hold a pistol by it's barrel and you have a hammer. Most firearms could be used as a phallic surrogate. They make good paperweights. With a string, a gun can be used as an anchor for RC boats. The barrel can be used to scratch your back. |
__________________
1. He'd never do that. 2. Okay but he's not currently doing it. 3. Okay but he's not currently technically doing it. 4. Okay but everyone does it. 5. He's doing it, we can't stop him, no point in complaining about it. 6. We all knew he was going to do it which... makes it okay somehow. 7. It's perfectly fine that's he's doing it. |
|
30th December 2012, 08:51 PM | #2 |
AI-EE-YAH!
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 6,354
|
|
__________________
Looks like the one on top has a magazine, thus needs less reloading. Also, the muzzle shroud makes it less likely for a spree killer to burn his hands. The pistol grip makes it more comfortable for the spree killer to shoot. thaiboxerken |
|
30th December 2012, 08:53 PM | #3 | |||
Confusion Reactor
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 25,141
|
Look, this isn't an argument!
|
|||
30th December 2012, 08:53 PM | #4 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 32,635
|
|
__________________
1. He'd never do that. 2. Okay but he's not currently doing it. 3. Okay but he's not currently technically doing it. 4. Okay but everyone does it. 5. He's doing it, we can't stop him, no point in complaining about it. 6. We all knew he was going to do it which... makes it okay somehow. 7. It's perfectly fine that's he's doing it. |
|
30th December 2012, 08:54 PM | #5 |
Banned
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 7,235
|
|
30th December 2012, 08:54 PM | #6 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 32,635
|
A rifle can be used for sport. Hold by the barrel and it can substitute as a baseball bat.
|
__________________
1. He'd never do that. 2. Okay but he's not currently doing it. 3. Okay but he's not currently technically doing it. 4. Okay but everyone does it. 5. He's doing it, we can't stop him, no point in complaining about it. 6. We all knew he was going to do it which... makes it okay somehow. 7. It's perfectly fine that's he's doing it. |
|
30th December 2012, 09:04 PM | #7 |
Banned
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 7,235
|
You can use your car as a paperweight and you can fill your pool with soil and grow philodendrons in it. You can glue a strong magnet on the back of your cell phone and use it to stick business cards to the refrigerator. You can use a bobby pin as a roach clip, peanut butter to hide a scratch on a wooden table, and use your vacuum sealer tool to dry pack ammunition instead of food products. With a little creativity you can come up with many uses for almost anything. But guns, nope, 10 billion bullets a year get shot from guns and every last one of them is about killing things. |
30th December 2012, 09:14 PM | #8 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 7,854
|
Yay, troll thread!
Well, according to the great Herschel Schmoikel Pinchas Yerucham Krustofski, guns are for (1) family protection, (2) killing dangerous and delicious animals, and (3) keeping the king of England out of your face. In all seriousness, however, this kind of thread serves a useful purpose. Some in the 2A community are convinced that their opposition is totally unreasonable, out to take their rights at any cost. This thread shows that it isn't entirely paranoia. And that's why the discussion is such a difficult one. It'd be great if those on both sides of gun control could muzzle the disruptive fools in their midst, but alas. I have two firearms that are specifically designed not to kill people. One is designed to kill small birds but remain relatively nonlethal in the event of a hunting accident. Another is a rifle designed for paper targets only -- as an inexpensive trainer counterpart to a much more lethal rifle. But I'm sure engineering has as little place in this discussion as common sense or civil rights. |
30th December 2012, 09:18 PM | #9 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 32,635
|
Why shouldn't a person use guns for the purposes I've listed?
|
__________________
1. He'd never do that. 2. Okay but he's not currently doing it. 3. Okay but he's not currently technically doing it. 4. Okay but everyone does it. 5. He's doing it, we can't stop him, no point in complaining about it. 6. We all knew he was going to do it which... makes it okay somehow. 7. It's perfectly fine that's he's doing it. |
|
30th December 2012, 09:29 PM | #10 |
No Ordinary Rabbit
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Wyoming, NY
Posts: 6,757
|
|
__________________
-------------------------------------- Stop asking me about that stupid fruity cereal...that's the OTHER rabbit! |
|
30th December 2012, 09:30 PM | #11 |
Muse
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 555
|
|
30th December 2012, 09:32 PM | #12 |
Banned
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 7,235
|
|
30th December 2012, 09:33 PM | #13 |
Muse
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 555
|
|
30th December 2012, 09:33 PM | #14 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 32,635
|
|
__________________
1. He'd never do that. 2. Okay but he's not currently doing it. 3. Okay but he's not currently technically doing it. 4. Okay but everyone does it. 5. He's doing it, we can't stop him, no point in complaining about it. 6. We all knew he was going to do it which... makes it okay somehow. 7. It's perfectly fine that's he's doing it. |
|
30th December 2012, 09:47 PM | #15 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,029
|
They can also serve as compensation for other, er, less-than-optimal traits.
Like, say for instance somebody had a really, really, really tiny wiener. And they were sad about it, because having your wiener laughed at is embarrassing and very hurtful. So this totally hypothetical somebody decided, "I'll show them who the REAL MAN is!" and marched down to the local gun store, and subsequently bought this beauty: desert eagle.jpg WHOOOWHEEEE!!! Man that is sweet! WHO'S LAUGHING NOW *******!!! *cough* Ahem, sorry about that, back to the story. So now this completely random somebody can carry this bad boy with him everywhere he goes, and anytime he starts to get those bad thoughts about "inadequacy" and "micropenii" and "you couldn't please a hamster with that thing" he can just pat this beast and go to his happy place. |
30th December 2012, 09:56 PM | #16 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 3,035
|
|
__________________
Self deception is the root of all evil. Political correctness is linguistic Fascism. - P.D. James |
|
30th December 2012, 10:23 PM | #17 |
Banned
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 58,581
|
Any reasonably competant human should be able to kill with all sorts of materials/objects. I like to be competant. Figured out sap gloves in elementary school - as well as non-fire branding (1.5V battery +?) Note, I neither killed or functionally damaged anyone with these and similar, just liked the idea of using what's around you in some of my reading and applied the logic experimentally. The advantage to guns though is their usefulness at some distance and the greater likelihood of fully halting an attack with them. They are simply more efficient.
You may well dislike that, but......... As to why per your actual question - because they are are ineficient - though they might well work as substitutes for the correct tool (per ex: I am out in the wilderness and get hit by a heavy falling branch or boulder ish rock. I can use my rifle/shotgun as a lever and possibly get the thing off my leg. (After removing all ammo from it and checking it twice[like Santa]). Then I can use it for a crutch. If while crutching I am spotted by a bear I am, however, up Schist Creek (feeds into Phekle's Bay.........) without a paddle |
30th December 2012, 10:27 PM | #18 |
Banned
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 58,581
|
|
30th December 2012, 10:51 PM | #19 |
Muse
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 555
|
Maybe we should have a different word for swords and guns then to distinguish them from the weapons that weren't designed to hurt people. How about "killing tool" or "murder device"? I say we ban murder devices. Weapons are ok though.
Since everything is such a great weapon, why were guns and swords invented in the first place? I mean, you can do the same thing with a hammer as you can with a gun. |
30th December 2012, 11:06 PM | #20 |
Ninja wave: Atomic fire-breath ninja
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 5,009
|
|
__________________
"Man, if Socrates thought like Rick, I don't think Socrates would have ever written a word." - "Red" (@ Red Pill Philosophy FB page) |
|
30th December 2012, 11:31 PM | #21 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 13,843
|
Quote:
The only use for high speed projectiles is to kill living things. People claim target shooting is the new purpose but target shooting has always been a method of preparing for the real thing . . . the real thing being killing living things. Claiming a gun is a paper weight is as stupid as claiming the Hubble telescope (yes, it's a tool) is a boat anchor. |
__________________
"How long you live, how high you fly The smiles you'll give, and tears you'll cry And all you touch, and all you see Is all your life will ever be." |
|
30th December 2012, 11:32 PM | #22 |
Ninja wave: Atomic fire-breath ninja
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 5,009
|
I've been swayed! Guns are way more than simple hurty-killy things!
The gun is a symbol, it's part of the national identity for many Americans. Without it, apparently, they'd not know who they were. It lends power to the individual who might otherwise feel less so...and it is as worshiped as Gollum's ring. It's a totem denoting power. A "mancard". A superpower needed by the hero to defend all that is good. Without it he's powerless, impotent, and unidentifiable. He may as well be French! And we wondered why Sara Palin was popular?? Wonder no more. A beautiful woman that goes hunting in a helicopter gunship is just the person to embody this idea of America. The gun need have no other uses...but if it would help the gun lobby to be able to say it had other uses, then we'd soon have some pretty interesting and deadly variations on a Swiss Army knife. -z |
__________________
"Man, if Socrates thought like Rick, I don't think Socrates would have ever written a word." - "Red" (@ Red Pill Philosophy FB page) |
|
31st December 2012, 12:54 AM | #23 |
Banned
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 58,581
|
You apparently are unaware of that lovely and terrible weapon of war in medieval times - the Warhammer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_hammer
Weirdly, it was a technological advance designed to counter the much improved armor of the knight. Also I do not believe I said everything is/can be a weapon. There are quite enough that can to remove that as a problem in any normal defense/attack situation. On the bright side, many devices have had improvements made to improve vastly their weapon potential - often for that reason. Flashlights for example = right now I am looking at one that sells for 17.95 for three (Costco), fits nicely in one hand, can be used in hand to accentuate very effectively a blow to any part of the body and still continue to function - and it's normal function is intense enough to temporarily blind if turned on at night as well as to disorient in darkened areas/times - by strobing. Not at all bad for $6.00 each........... |
31st December 2012, 01:14 AM | #24 |
Banned
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 58,581
|
Sorry: high speed projectiles can be effective in inserting genes into crops (genetic engineering (saw vid of it being done for corn). They can also be used in construction to make it much quicker and stronger (nail gun). Neither is for killing people - though either could be used for doing so. I could likely come up with a number more if it wasn't almost 3:00AM here (I'm just under a couple hundred miles from JREF HQ).
Oh, to be fair I will certainly give you the point that a gun is specifically designed for the purpose of killing living things but, that given, what does that imply bad? The ability of the US to field people prepared to kill with weapons ended the lives and harm by a good number of gang members, enough Germans and Japanese (and allies of same) to stop the Nazi's and the Empire. Unfortunately all people can get guns if they work hard enough at it. Stopping good people from having them just gives bad ones an edge. I do not want bad ones to have anything but the peace their non-existance givesthe rest of us. I do not care about them in any other way. Oh - I cannot resist this, and I am honestly not making this up - there is a fan in this room and I have lots of research material on the desk next my computer. On top of a stack of papers on this desk is one of my 2 HKUSP Compact .45s (one is safetied for right hand and one for left) - it is being a paperweight. Perfectly legitimately -and for the last week plus a day or two. |
31st December 2012, 01:23 AM | #25 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 21,382
|
I was kind of wondering if someone was going to point out the difference between rifle and gun here...
|
31st December 2012, 02:28 AM | #26 |
Banned
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 58,581
|
I have given up the following things: 1) the difference you mention, 2) the difference between clip and magazine (please, please show me a clip that holds 30 rounds rationally or effectively) and 3) the differences between semi-auto and auto. Frankly I do not think anyone who does not know those is competant to discuss or try to make decisions for others in this area.
|
31st December 2012, 05:12 AM | #27 |
Thinker
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 133
|
In my shed I use my hammer to hammer, my drill to drill, my screwdriver to drive screws... I could go on.
|
31st December 2012, 06:17 AM | #28 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 21,203
|
I'll take "Uses of a gun as a drill" for $500 Alex.
|
__________________
It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871) |
|
31st December 2012, 06:47 AM | #29 |
Banned
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 7,235
|
|
31st December 2012, 06:47 AM | #30 |
Not bored. Never bored.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Leicester, UK
Posts: 10,619
|
In many discussions, a rifle is a type of gun. The distinction between a clip and a magazine is irrelevant to many discussions, and the word clip is used to describe magazines, to the extent that it appears in the dictionary as such. Obviously anyone can understand the difference between automatic and semi-automatic.
I'm not sure what you mean by 'make decisions for others'. If the argument is about limiting access to firearms, I'm not convinced that all parties need to know all the terminology related to firearms in order to discuss that. If you're talking about limiting the size of magazines, then calling them clips would be a slight gaffe, but hardly means you can't discuss it. |
__________________
"Man muß den Menschen vor allem nach seinen Lastern beurteilen. Tugenden können vorgetäuscht sein. Laster sind echt." - Klaus Kinski UKLS 1988- Sitting on the fence throwing stones at both sides. |
|
31st December 2012, 08:00 AM | #31 | ||||||
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 13,843
|
Well, I used to own guns, and do a fair amount of shooting with my brother and friends. I never owned a full auto, or even a semi-auto but I do know how to do a bump shot which will legally turn a semi-auto into a full-auto.
Apparently, all you "experts" don't even know how to do that or else it is something you are leaving out of the discussion on purpose. For those who don't know, here's how it works: A bump shot is a triggering technique whereby the recoil of the gun fires your next shot, and the recoil of the gun fires the next, and the recoil fires the next . . . It is very easy to learn and almost everyone I shot with knew how to do it even though only a few owned semi-automatics. These days, there is a special stock you can legally buy that does all the work for you. It moves with the recoil of the gun so that that the energy of a shot fires the next round, and then the next, and the next . . . Here's what it looks like in real time, and remember, this is all perfectly legal:
So, tell me again what the difference is between semi and full automatic because there really isn't one. ETA: Here's how it's done without the special stock:
|
||||||
__________________
"How long you live, how high you fly The smiles you'll give, and tears you'll cry And all you touch, and all you see Is all your life will ever be." |
|||||||
31st December 2012, 08:17 AM | #32 |
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 13,961
|
Considering it's not a common practice, and alters the weapon, and is dangerous WRT the weapons integrity, it's stupid IMO.
And yes, there is a difference in SA and full auto still. It is still a semi-auto weapon. It still only fires a single bullet for every trigger pull. For you to obviously understand that, and still try to say otherwise, is dishonest. |
31st December 2012, 08:23 AM | #33 |
Village Idiot.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 8,368
|
I like to think I'd never be mistaken for a "gun nut," however one may define that term. But I believe self-defense is a very legitimate reason for owning a handgun. I've considered purchasing one for that purpose myself, and probably would if I lived in a more dangerous neighborhood. And although I don't currently hunt, I do love fishing. Thus I'd be a hypocrite to oppose guns used for hunting, especially since (as I understand it) such guns have little utility as weapons for killing people.
|
__________________
"Stellafane! My old partner in crime!" - Kelly J |
|
31st December 2012, 08:25 AM | #34 |
Banned
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 7,235
|
Since you seem to believe this... ... it's probably better if you don't own guns. That's one seriously dangerous and irresponsible way of thinking about it.
Quote:
Well no, it won't. But you're entitled to whatever figments of your imagination make you feel good. Religious people wallow in their self righteous ignorance, and that's okay, too. But it's irrational to suggest society should implement regulations based on how you feel about things you don't seem to know much about. |
31st December 2012, 08:31 AM | #35 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail
Posts: 21,423
|
How would you use them if they are banned?
These uses would get you a long jail term. You would be in possession of illegal weapons. Well, you would serve a long term if the gov't had any money to keep prisoners in jail... (This sort of post is why you are unlikely to ever get anywhere in a discussion regarding firearms. You consistently treat them as some sort of punch line.) |
__________________
What a fool believes, no wise man has the power to reason away. What seems to be, is always better than nothing. 2 prints, same midtarsal crock..., I mean break? |
|
31st December 2012, 08:41 AM | #36 |
Muse
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: British Columbia
Posts: 990
|
Isn't the point of boxing to hurt people?
|
31st December 2012, 08:52 AM | #37 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: The great American southeast
Posts: 9,008
|
|
__________________
If at first you don't succeed try try again. Then if you fail to succeed to Hell with that. Try something else. |
|
31st December 2012, 08:54 AM | #38 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,029
|
That's how it's done? Doesn't look very feasible. Guy has to stand very still, hold the gun at his hip, then fires wildly with the rounds striking all over the place. Cool effect, but how practical is it? The first video with the special stock appears more practical, but that's a modification of the weapon. Anyways, is the gun more deadly on automatic? I've carried an M4A1 for the past 5 years, with a lot of stateside training and several deployments. The weapon has been placed on auto... once? Maybe twice? And that's just messing around. The full auto setting (or burst in other variants) just isn't an effective or efficient use of the gun. Would Lanza have killed more people if his rifle had been capable of automatic fire? He probably would've killed less. |
31st December 2012, 09:17 AM | #39 |
Not bored. Never bored.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Leicester, UK
Posts: 10,619
|
|
__________________
"Man muß den Menschen vor allem nach seinen Lastern beurteilen. Tugenden können vorgetäuscht sein. Laster sind echt." - Klaus Kinski UKLS 1988- Sitting on the fence throwing stones at both sides. |
|
31st December 2012, 09:23 AM | #40 |
Confusion Reactor
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 25,141
|
|
Thread Tools | |
|
|