Oregon community college shooting, multiple casualties

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jezie said:
No need to be testy at me, you are better than that... I am going off of the actual definition of the word weapon... It was you who once told me how important understanding definitions were and how using them properly is the way to clear understanding...
I actually agree with you that a gun in and of itself cannot cause harm without human intervention...
But, to say a gun is not a weapon then you would have to be able to argue the terms which state that a weapon is something designed or used to create bodily harm... Then show how guns were not created with the intent of causing bodily harm...
These are facts not philosophy... Facts based on the dictionary and the history of guns...
Click to expand...

First of all. I have never claimed a gun is not a weapon. I am stating it is a weapon but it also is other things depending on the intent of its user.

Like any object.

Any object can be a weapon. That meaning..the symbol...what a thing is, is, it is only what it is, by the human mind. We make a thing a weapon by our intent to use a thing, any object as one.

Is a knife a weapon?
Yes if it us used as such. It also is a tool to cut meat, or spread various things, so on.

Is a shoe lace a weapon?
It sure is. If the user has intent to use it as one.

A plane? Indeed.

Why firearms seem according to some, to have intrinsic a priori meaning in themselves seperate from human will and intent i ask you or anyone to pls explain to me.

It is not the principle of creation that defines an object as a weapon, again go stab a person with a pencil causing grevious bodily harm and see if " a pencil was designed for drawing not to harm anyone thus its not a weapon" excuse gets you.

What makes a thing, any thing a weapon, is the human intent to use that thing as one, not the design pinciple behind it. First is intent, thats the defining feature....
That goes for any object.
A plane, a shoelace, a knife, a pillow, a gun, a broken bottle, ect ect ect.

That stated.
Im not here to convince anyone. If you or anyone believe objects hold intrinsic meaning on their own accord seperate from and outside of human will and intent..
Cool
 
Also "21 percent had suffered a “definite or suspected head injury in the past,” and 55 percent had gone through some sort of psychosocial stressor"

So anyone who's had a head trauma or been through some sort of psychosocial stressor can't be trusted either. So no war vets, no athletes, no survivors of violence or abuse. I'm sure that list can go on for ever. Any one of them could become a mass murderer?
 
Hello
hoichi said:
First of all. I have never claimed a gun is not a weapon. I am stating it is a weapon but it also is other things depending on the intent of its user.

Like any object.

Any object can be a weapon. That meaning..the symbol...what a thing is, is, it is only what it is, by the human mind. We make a thing a weapon by our intent to use a thing, any object as one.

Is a knife a weapon?
Yes if it us used as such. It also is a tool to cut meat, or spread various things, so on.

Is a shoe lace a weapon?
It sure is. If the user has intent to use it as one.

A plane? Indeed.

Why firearms seem according to some, to have intrinsic a priori meaning in themselves seperate from human will and intent i ask you or anyone to pls explain to me.

It is not the principle of creation that defines an object as a weapon, again go stab a person with a pencil causing grevious bodily harm and see if " a pencil was designed for drawing not to harm anyone thus its not a weapon" excuse gets you.

What makes a thing, any thing a weapon, is the human intent to use that thing as one, not the design pinciple behind it. First is intent, thats the defining feature....
That goes for any object.
A plane, a shoelace, a knife, a pillow, a gun, a broken bottle, ect ect ect.

That stated.
Im not here to convince anyone. If you or anyone believe objects hold intrinsic meaning on their own accord seperate from and outside of human will and intent..
Cool
Click to expand...
You said that a gun is not a weapon but the human mind is, in your older post. Anyway when your aunt visits you and sees your gun on your coffee table, it would scare the sh*t out of her because she sees it as a weapon. You know that, don't you?
 
CrazyPaul said:
Hello
You said that a gun is not a weapon but the human mind is, in your older post. Anyway when your aunt visits you and sees your gun on your coffee table, it would scare the sh*t out of her because she sees it as a weapon. You know that, don't you?
Click to expand...

Not everyone is scared of guns. If your first thoughts when seeing a gun are harm to other humans then maybe you should ask yourself why.
 
CrazyPaul said:
Hello
You said that a gun is not a weapon but the human mind is, in your older post. Anyway when your aunt visits you and sees your gun on your coffee table, it would scare the sh*t out of her because she sees it as a weapon. You know that, don't you?
Click to expand...

I stated a gun or any object is not a weapon outside and apart from human intent to use it or any object as a weapon.

The human mind is the greatest weapon of all.
Where do you think weapons come from?

I spend allot of my time demonstrating to people how i can use their very own limbs and cloths as weapons against them. Its a perk of teaching karate.

Are you arguing their arms and cloths where designed as weapons, and thus i can use them as weapona, in spite themselves? Due to design?

Or perhaps is it,my intent, my motive and ability through training, my mind and experience that makes them weapons?

Which do you think it is?

I find this a bizzare conversation.

Take a look around where you are. How many objects in arms reach can you crazy paul use as a weapon?
How many of them were designed as weapons?
How many hold intrinsic a priori manining as weapons apart from your intent to use them as weapons?
Il wait
 
hoichi said:
I stated a gun or any object is not a weapon outside and apart from human intent to use it or any object as a weapon.

The human mind is the greatest weapon of all.
Where do you think weapons come from?

I spend allot of my time demonstrating to people how i can use their very own limbs and cloths as weapons against them. Its a perk of teaching karate.

Are you arguing their arms and cloths where designed as weapons, and thus i can use them as weapona, in spite themselves? Due to design?

Or perhaps is it,my intent, my motive and ability through training, my mind and experience that makes them weapons?

Which do you think it is?

I find this a bizzare conversation.

Take a look around where you are. How many objects in arms reach can you crazy paul use as a weapon?
How many of them were designed as weapons?
How many hold intrinsic a priori manining as weapons apart from your intent to use them as weapons?
Il wait
Click to expand...
A pen I see is not designed as a weapon but a gun I see is designed as a weapon. Simple as that.
Are you aware of the news about the customers at a restaurant calling cops on one customer with a visible gun and he was kicked out of the restaurant? My point is that they wouldn't call cops on a customer with a pen in his shirt pocket. Why? If you answer that they saw his gun as a weapon, not his pen, you are correct.
 
CrazyPaul said:
A pen I see is not designed as a weapon but a gun I see is designed as a weapon. Simple as that.
Are you aware of the news about the customers at a restaurant calling cops on one customer with a visible gun and he was kicked out of the restaurant? My point is that they wouldn't call cops on a customer with a pen in his shirt pocket. Why? If you answer that they saw his gun as a weapon, not his pen, you are correct.
Click to expand...

I always thought that was funny. People see someone with a gun in a holster and get scared. They apparently never thing about all the guns that they don't see that people carry around all the time. Just because it's out of sight doesn't change a thing.
 
jonnyghost said:
I always thought that was funny. People see someone with a gun in a holster and get scared. They apparently never thing about all the guns that they don't see that people carry around all the time. Just because it's out of sight doesn't change a thing.
Click to expand...

We shouldn't surprise that he grew up in anti-gun culture and NJ is infamous for most strictest gun law in the nation, even worse than California.

Jiro is from NJ but he is on different track.
 
 
Well, the pen is mightier than the sword. ;)
 
hoichi said:
First of all. I have never claimed a gun is not a weapon. I am stating it is a weapon but it also is other things depending on the intent of its user.

Like any object.

Any object can be a weapon. That meaning..the symbol...what a thing is, is, it is only what it is, by the human mind. We make a thing a weapon by our intent to use a thing, any object as one.

Is a knife a weapon?
Yes if it us used as such. It also is a tool to cut meat, or spread various things, so on.

Is a shoe lace a weapon?
It sure is. If the user has intent to use it as one.

A plane? Indeed.

Why firearms seem according to some, to have intrinsic a priori meaning in themselves seperate from human will and intent i ask you or anyone to pls explain to me.

It is not the principle of creation that defines an object as a weapon, again go stab a person with a pencil causing grevious bodily harm and see if " a pencil was designed for drawing not to harm anyone thus its not a weapon" excuse gets you.

What makes a thing, any thing a weapon, is the human intent to use that thing as one, not the design pinciple behind it. First is intent, thats the defining feature....
That goes for any object.
A plane, a shoelace, a knife, a pillow, a gun, a broken bottle, ect ect ect.

That stated.
Im not here to convince anyone. If you or anyone believe objects hold intrinsic meaning on their own accord seperate from and outside of human will and intent..
Cool
Click to expand...

I agree with you, however you did state :

hoichi said:
...
What makes an object a weapon is not design. Its intent ...
Click to expand...
You state it again in this post
When you blanket it as "anything" you skip the very definition of the word "weapon" which provides the parameters for this discussion.

"A thing designed or used for inflicting bodily harm or physical damage: nuclear weapons"

I must point out that your view is based in philosophy not fact. While this is true on many things... Bombs, guns, and other tools of war are weapons by design and do not depend on human intent any longer ... For their very development was for the intended purpose of causing bodily harm. However, outside of things that were built for bodily harm, yes it is human intent and application that will determine if it is a weapon. Yet, I do agree that a gun is just a lump of metal and plastic parts until a person decides to pick it up and harm someone with it. But a shoelace is only a weapon in the hands of someone who has a basic understanding of how to use it as a weapon... Sadly as we learn often even an toddler can kill with a gun....

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/weapon
 
jonnyghost said:
Also "21 percent had suffered a “definite or suspected head injury in the past,” and 55 percent had gone through some sort of psychosocial stressor"

So anyone who's had a head trauma or been through some sort of psychosocial stressor can't be trusted either. So no war vets, no athletes, no survivors of violence or abuse. I'm sure that list can go on for ever. Any one of them could become a mass murderer?
Click to expand...

It goes back to what I originally said, if a person has trouble reasoning or has made threats or is plain crazy, they should not have guns. In many of the shootings after the fact the family, friends, neighbors, etc. said that the person was not right or they had made threats saying they were going to kill someone, yet they never said anything to anyone or got the person helpm but kept it within the family. Adam Lanza, James Holmes and the Oregon shooter could be poster boys for missed opportunities to keep a tragedy from happening.
 
My disagreement still remains with your assumption that people with ASD are unreasoning with a high likelyhood of becoming killers. And that gun controll is not the issue as prooven by places such as Maine vs DC.
 
jonnyghost said:
My disagreement still remains with your assumption that people with ASD are unreasoning with a high likelyhood of becoming killers. And that gun controll is not the issue as prooven by places such as Maine vs DC.
Click to expand...

Never said they all were, just some of them. I personally know two people with Aspergers who have serious reasoning issues and I wouldn't trust them with a gun. It's not really gun control, it's keeping the guns out of the hands of people who shouldn't have them in the first place.

The difference between Maine and Washington DC proves nothing. Your comparing apples to oranges. Maine has a total population of 1.33 million in the entire state, with Portland having the largest population of 66,666 people. The state also has 43.1 people per square mile. Washington DC on the other hand has a population of 658,893 and a population in excess of 6 million in the metropolitan area. The DC metro area also has 13,039 people per square mile or 302 times the number of Maine per square mile. Metropolitan areas also have a violent crime rate almost double that of a rural area and that is not just Maine vs Washington DC but throughout most of the US. In metropolitan areas the rate of violent crime known to law enforcement is on average 428 per 100,000 of population, in non metropolatain areas it is 195 per 100,000 of population. The reason Maine has fewer gun deaths is basically they have a much lower population density and fewer people per mile to shoot.
 
jonnyghost said:
Interesting, by that definition not every gun is a weapon either. There are many designed and built specifically for sport such as target and clay shooting. There are also pens designed to be weapons in the conventional sense.

https://jet.com/product/detail/2efe...000077455f9b&gclid=CIHcg_bJ48gCFc8YHwodGGoB_A
Click to expand...

You have me there... I often try to stear clear of blanket statements for this reason... You are correct some guns are designed for sports and recreation...
Even through the original guns were designed for bodily harm these are not, thus would only be a weapon if human intent made them one...
Took marksmanship in high-school... Those rifles were only air soft pellet guns but they were also capable of killing a person... But they were for sport and education so we're allowed in school.
Thanks for pointing this out :D
 
CrazyPaul said:
A pen I see is not designed as a weapon but a gun I see is designed as a weapon. Simple as that.
Are you aware of the news about the customers at a restaurant calling cops on one customer with a visible gun and he was kicked out of the restaurant? My point is that they wouldn't call cops on a customer with a pen in his shirt pocket. Why? If you answer that they saw his gun as a weapon, not his pen, you are correct.
Click to expand...

the law disagrees. anything can be used as a weapon if used to harm a person... which is why there is a criminal charge like "assault with a deadly weapon".. "aggravated assault"...

as defined by criminal law... if you tried to kill someone with a piece of broken glass or pen... that is a weapon.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top