You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →


[–] Pokerguy 2 points 54 points (+56|-2) ago 

Sounds right to me. The problem isn't the inanimate object, the problem is the nutcase wielding it that wants to use it to kill innocent people.


[–] hypercat 3 points 42 points (+45|-3) ago 

Spoons totally made me fat. Same argument.


[–] l_l_l 2 points 31 points (+33|-2) ago  (edited ago)

Not quite. I think it's more accurate to say "McDonald's made me fat" as a corollary.

In either case, it's not really true. A gun is not capable of forcing you to kill any more than McDonald's is forcing you to eat there every day. However, both guns and McDonald's are about efficiency. Guns are designed to be extremely lethal with extreme low effort, just as McDonald's is made to deliver an absurd amount of harmful calories that goes down really easily and cheaply.

Removing either one would make harmful things less efficient. This much is undeniable. The only question is whether the harm reduced would be worth the cost to liberties.


[–] helmetbox 3 points 3 points (+6|-3) ago 

A gun can kill people instantly. Can a spoon make people fat instantly and permanently? Further, that spoon affects people other than oneself?


[–] Moderately_soluble 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

And in either case, if the tool is banned, they will just use their hands. You can't take away things to change behavior.


[–] Vheissu_ 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Not really. If we apply Trump's reasonably sound logic to your argument, we could just say: if fat people can't get access to spoons to eat food, they'll just find another way to eat food without a spoon because they have an eating disorder (a recognised mental illness in itself). The problem is not guns, it is the fact that the controls in place are failing and if you trace things further back, it highlights the US health system is broken (but we already knew that).

Say we are able to better spot the signs of mental illness, what then? The for-profit healthcare system in the US will just expect the person who is sick to pay for their own treatment (or the family) through expensive appointments and pharmaceutical drugs. But what happens if the patient or the family can't pay? They go untreated and the problem remains. Guns don't kill people, people kill people.


[–] taxation_is_slavery 10 points -10 points (+0|-10) ago 

I doubt they were innocent, but they were probably undeserving.


[–] Pokerguy 1 points 11 points (+12|-1) ago 

Innocent means they have not committed a crime worthy of capital punishment and were not killed because of their own actions. If someone attacks you and you kill them in self defense, then they are not innocent. When you seek out someone and kill them for whatever crazy reason is floating around in your mind, that's killing innocent people IMO.


[–] Noordwijk 1 points 7 points (+8|-1) ago 

Lol what the fuck? I don't even give a fuck if they were harassing the guy - As wrong as it is, it doesn't justify taking the law into your own hands and taking the life of someone else.


[–] Devildetails 1 points 0 points (+1|-1) ago 

Innocent until proven undeserving?


[–] BrianFellow 1 points -1 points (+0|-1) ago 

That psychopath who shot them had problems with everyone, everywhere he worked. Him having problems with them too implies absolutely nothing about the kind of people they were, and you're a fucking idiot if you believe otherwise.