What do state-regulated militias have to do with individuals owning guns?
What is the difference between a weapon and a tool?
What tools do we not have rights to?
1 Like
Remember, even in Isaiah it was recognized that tools and weapons are different. It doesnât mean one canât be transformed into another, but you literally had to beat your sword physically into a ploughshare.
Bibled. 
2 Likes
You should be able to file with your saw and saw with your file, but just because you have to beat your file into a hammer doesnât mean they both arenât tools.
Franklined. 
3 Likes
Rollinsâed
7 Likes
Not all of us are strong. Though thereâs certain strength in admitting it, but thatâs the kind of strength that wonât help you in a confrontation with a stronger adversary. It may help you duck out of said confrontation but it is not always possible.
I am biased, I freely admit it, and it is likely obvious why.
A gun is a tool, sure, but I have never (nor anyone Iâm related to, met, been friends with, etc.) experienced a situation where escalation to firearms would have made things better.
They are pretty good for armies, militias, warfare, and the like. But even police donât need firearms 99% of the time. (See the UK)
7 Likes
A weapon is a tool specifically designed for killing something. But you knew that.
1 Like
And itâs not just that they donât need them, itâs that we are all safer if they donât have them. America has an arms race between police and criminal that leaves a lot of unarmed people dead.
8 Likes
Not so specifically. According to wikipedia:
A weapon, arm, or armament is any device used in order to inflict damage or harm to living beings, structures, or systems. Weapons are used to increase the efficacy and efficiency of activities such as hunting, crime, law enforcement, self-defense, and warfare. In a broader context, weapons may be construed to include anything used to gain a strategic, material or mental advantage over an adversary.
Emphasis mine.
There is a large number of improvised weapons, often repurposed tools or anything else on hand at the moment of need.
The line between a weapon and a tool is often very blurred and sometimes it is just not there at all.
So. What luck to we have with legislating away tools?
How well as the DMCA worked for us?
Why do we think a legal solution to a social problem will work this time when it has never worked before?
1 Like
2 Likes
It does work. It has worked in many other jurisdictions around the world.
Why do Americans like murdering children so much?
2 Likes
Ok, let me put it into 2nd amendment terms, seeing as how you are insisting on being a pedant.
No one should have the right to arms.
There. Now do you have an actual argument or are you just a grammar troll?
Maybe lots, depending on what you define as âlegislating awayâ. Bathroom appliances didnât used to have ground fault interrupters, but now they do. We didnât legislate away hairdryers, but we legislated away hairdryers that could accidentally electrocute you if dropped in the bath. And the electrical code says that you need to put ground fault interrupters in the sockets in the bathroom as well - again, we didnât legislate away electrical outlets in bathrooms, just ones that are prone to electrocute people. And there are lots of tools that you need a license to operate as well, a license that depends on demonstrating that you have the required training, and you donât have
But imagine trying to pass a law that required something like more robust safeties on guns - something that children wouldnât easily circumvent (say, to shoot their moms in a walmart). It would be seen as the first step to a slippery slope to get rid of guns entirely. People would say, âBut if someone breaks into my house I want to have my gun ready, not have to fight with some safety.â And they would blame irresponsible gun owners for deaths, using itâs not any fault of mine, so why am I being punished? Imagine trying to bring in a requirement that you demonstrate you have taken a gun safety course before being allowed to purchase a gun.
An outright ban of guns implemented right now would be about as good as alcohol prohibition was. But if someone says, âHey, waiting periods would save some lives by preventing suicide,â the react is, âWhy should I have to wait a few days to get a gun just because it saves some other idiotâs life? Maybe they should just not kill themselves if they donât want to die,â or the somewhat incredible, "Suicidal people are extremely determined, cunning and resourceful and would just circumvent such restrictions.
The mantra is âNothing can be done.â Nothing can be done about children being killed with guns. Never mind that everyone else has done something about it, nothing can be done.
7 Likes
Are you walking back your previous point about âmore an indicator that society is willing to changeâ?
If Americans do, and others do not, why would a legal remedy solve that spiritual malady?
I really donât get how people on this board think that waving a magic legal wand canât do anything to change the way digital technology works, but that waving a magic legal wand can do wonders for society and non-digital technology.
As long as these things remain fetish objects, instead of tools, they will be fetishisized (that which is owned in order to be owned, in this case) and worshiped, and rational arguments will not work on the worshipers.
3 Likes
I wouldnât say Iâm walking back from my point, as you see my post is really about the reactions I see to suggestions for change. I think some regulations would have a real effect - as real an effect as those ground fault interrupters (21k firearm suicides to be mitigated by waiting periods versus about 60 electrocutions from small appliances and power tools). But the question is, are people willing to inconvenience themselves to save a few lives a year. The answer seems to be no. As long as that is the answer, I donât know what change could be made to make much of a difference.
You can, though, improve safety and licensing requirements for dangerous objects or tools successfully. But I agree with you that you canât legislate away fetishes, and that seems to be what is being dealt with.
1 Like
Safety via design, where it is not compromising the thingâs usability, great. But licensing just adds paperwork and annoyances for those who want the given thing and have to go through either a mountain of paperwork or lie and cheat and rely on friendly proxies or DIY.
I just love the do-gooders who push more paperwork on everybody.
There are reasons why I spend so much time and effort on figuring out how to make things from scratch, from so elemental feedstocks that nobody can ban them nor require âlicensingâ and other crap.
But safety via design often happens because of the regulation. Licensing happens because we really just canât take everyoneâs word for it that they are great drivers. It may be that if you look at the system as a whole something like driverâs licenses may cost a huge amount of money for each life saved, Iâm really not sure how that would shake out. I think that spending that money to save those lives, though, is an objective measure of how much lives are worth to us. Basically this is the same point I made higher up in the thread. We have to pay for things one way or another, in paperwork, in dollars, in lives. Dollars are probably the cheapest way to pay, paperwork the most egalitarian, and lives are something that I would hope we could call a last resort.
1 Like
The magic legal wand, or hammer, doesnât do much for those who donât want to give the appropriate amount of the damns.
There is also the magic wand of technology, that once waved, aka source code or even just the executables released, does large-scale changes; PGP here, Napster there, Bittorrent over there, Bitcoin just to the right of it.
