Time to register/ban Pressure Cookers?

[dthames 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Gasoline is pretty easily obtained. No ratios to worry about, either.

If you want to make a fire with gasoline, you're right.
If you want to make an explosion with gasoline, you're wrong.

But if you want to make explosions with gasoline vapors, your right...

Edited to add:
All you need is a pressure cooker....

I think the OP's point was that controlling things is not the solution because those bent on doing harm will just go down the thing list to something else.

I don’t know if anyone really answered one of the early questions about what a pressure cooker is for. Water boiling under pressure boils at a higher temperature. Food will cook faster if boiled under pressure. This can be very important if you are at higher elevations trying to cook.

Instructor quote, “What's weird is that you're older than my dad!”

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Well, no, he didn't - he called someone else out on stating that was their 'only' purpose, quite firmly. He also covered the animal part when he differentiated between the primary suited purpose of rifles vs handguns. Who goes hunting with a pistol as their primary weapon?? No one, it's the wrong tool for the job. I reckon Bill made a spot on assessment splitting the two out.

plenty of people use handguns on animals, even as their primary. My neighbor used to collect specimens for the Academy of Science with a small caliber one, since large holes don't make for good examination or display. And then you have match grade .22s used for competitive shooting. They would be lousy choices for killing others. Accurate, no doubt, but awkward to use.

No, it gets back to the "little strawman" I referred to earlier. It's not a flat out fabrication, but when you declare their purpose is to kill, you're avoiding the debate. It's equally honest to say their purpose is to defend yourself, which includes a set of uses/outcomes much larger than shooting and killing someone. So such snarkiness doesn't lead to honest discourse. It's a dodge.

[SkyDekker 1,129]

Quote

No, it gets back to the "little strawman" I referred to earlier. It's not a flat out fabrication, but when you declare their purpose is to kill, you're avoiding the debate. It's equally honest to say their purpose is to defend yourself, which includes a set of uses/outcomes much larger than shooting and killing someone. So such snarkiness doesn't lead to honest discourse. It's a dodge.

Sure, just as much as denying that the purpose of the tool is mainly killing is a dodge.

Why do people use guns to defend themselves? Because it is one of the more effective tools to kill an assailant with.

You want honest discourse, yet you cannot agree that the firearm was invented to kill. Or, since you ahve had firearm training, are you hear to tell me the firearm was invented for the purpose of shoot/no shoot competitions?

Just like the canon was invented to start the Iron Man in Kona, right?

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

You want honest discourse, yet you cannot agree that the firearm was invented to kill. Or, since you ahve had firearm training, are you hear to tell me the firearm was invented for the purpose of shoot/no shoot competitions?

channeling Kallend here - I said no such thing.

I said it was a wee bit of a strawman. Gross simplification, if you prefer. I know Canadian English is a bit wonky, eh, but get with it, mate.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Who goes hunting with a pistol as their primary weapon?? No one,

I have half a dozen friends that do.

Just talked to one a couple nights ago and he got special sights put on his .44 revolver (I'm old school.....guns are collectibles and the history is important, rifles should have wood stocks and the black plastic crap looks horrible to me......so I was dismayed that he marred such a nice piece with modern sights. But he said it was for function)

You really are talking out your ass on this topic. Let alone the strawman/emotional argument that 'gun are designed for killing' - it's such a dodge and non-starter. The comment is solely to question another person's right to own property and determine for themselves how it's used.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

yet you cannot agree that the firearm was invented to kill.

who cares? what matters is how it's used by individuals. It's a non-starter and a crappy distractive tactic.

I own guns. I don't use them to kill people. So the point that once upon a time, they might have been invented to kill doesn't apply to me as a citizen one bit.

And to use that argument as a rationalization to deny me my right to my property is totally off base.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[SkyDekker 1,129]

Quote

channeling Kallend here - I said no such thing.

I said it was a wee bit of a strawman. Gross simplification, if you prefer.

Okay, so you can agree that the firearm was invented to kill then?

And is it a strawman or a gross simplification, or are you just throwing terms out and hoping one will stick? And how is it either, when it is the simple truth? Firearms were invented to be used to kill living beings.

And mate is not commonly used in Canadian English. But then Americans do tend to have problems with their geography. Just to help out, Australia and Canada aren't all that close together.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Okay, so you can agree that the firearm was invented to kill then?

I'll contend that firearms, knives, bows and arrows, spears, etc etc etc were invented to help PEOPLE kill others (amongst many other applications) or that use was a 2ndary application if not primary.

so ..... now that you have that position. what do you want to do with it to restrict the rights of citizens that don't have any inclination toward murder?

it's a non-starter. You might try just as decisively "you know, dogs bark...therefore we need to tighten border security"

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[SkyDekker 1,129]

Quote

Quote

Okay, so you can agree that the firearm was invented to kill then?

I'll contend that firearms, knives, bows and arrows, spears, etc etc etc were invented to help PEOPLE kill others (amongst many other applications) or that use was a 2ndary application if not primary.

so ..... now that you have that position. what do you want to do with it to restrict the rights of citizens that don't have any inclination toward murder?

it's a non-starter. You might try just as decisively "you know, dogs bark...therefore we need to tighten border security"

Thank you.

So with that in mind, I don't think it is unusual one would take a bit more precaution in dealing firearms than one would in dealing pressure cookers, even if both can be used for nefarious purposes

Which goes back to the OP.

That was a lot of huffing and puffing to get to a pretty simple truth and some simple logic.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

So with that in mind, I don't think it is unusual one would take a bit more precaution in dealing firearms than one would in dealing pressure cookers, even if both can be used for nefarious purposes

I'm ok with that also. Provided the 'precautions' are actually effective, and not just a placebo to make unreasonably ignorant people feel better about it. Still waiting for those, though.

However, your point of - 'my bumper sticker slogan' bothers me, therefore, restrict the rights of lawful citizens is still a non-starter.

Though I wouldn't minimize the importance of safe and responsible pressure cooker use.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

That was a lot of huffing and puffing to get to a pretty simple truth and some simple logic.

Yeah, you shouldn't have tried to keep this unrelated tangent going...and you "logic" isn't very logical - you are still going after the object, not the people, nor the culture.

I also plan to own a pointy rock tied to a stick - even though that was even more clearly designed to kill other people. What can I say? I'm a rebel.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[rehmwa 2]

All this talk of pressure cookers is making me hunger for the Colonel's original recipe.....

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[SkyDekker 1,129]

Quote

Yeah, you shouldn't have tried to keep this unrelated tangent going...and you "logic" isn't very logical - you are still going after the object, not the people, nor the culture.

I am not going after any object lol, you can have as many guns as you can afford as far as I am concerned.

However, to me it makes sense that you prohibit the sale of a firearm to a 10 year old, while not prohibiting the sale of pressure cookers to a 10 year old, based purely on the primary purpose of the object.

I know, absolute sillyness.

I am also okay with oher substances not being widely and easily available, just because they can do a lot of damage.

[livendive 8]

Quote

A handgun's primary purpose is to kill people.

Disagree. If that were the case, we wouldn't have handguns that range from .22 revolvers to .50 Desert Eagles. The former I've found particularly good for hunting rattlesnakes (loaded with shot). A friend of mine has a .445 super magnum specifically for bear hunting. An overwhelming majority of handguns are fired at relatively non-descript targets, not people. No, the purpose of a handgun is to shoot a projectile, same as a rifle, but in an easier to carry format.

Nailguns and staple-guns are designed to shoot nails and staples, not to build houses. For each of these types of guns, the primary purpose of the tool is to launch something in the direction the gun is pointed at a high rate of speed. What it's pointed at is entirely up to the user. A secondary purpose would be something like "paperweight" or "collectible", not "shoot a bullet at something other than a person" or "build a shed".

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[Andy9o8 0]

I can't believe that 89 posts on, we have intelligent people seriously disputing the premise that the principle design of a firearm is to serve as a weapon. Very Twilight Zone surreal, I have to say.

Kind of like arguing with the religiously devout over a point of pure faith. Yes, the bush actually burned with actual fire, but was never consumed. Yes, Mary gave birth to Jesus, even though she was a virgin.

Yeah, ok, whatever.

[livendive 8]

Quote

Who goes hunting with a pistol as their primary weapon?? No one, it's the wrong tool for the job.

The only hunting I've done in the last 10 years was for rattlesnake, with a frog jig on a broom handle in one hand, and a .22 revolver loaded with shot in the other. When you're shooting at things dangerously close to your feet, it's nice to know that your steel toed shoes are all the protection you need, and I honestly can't think of any other purpose for .22 shot than shooting things less than 10 or so ft away.

Similarly, I have friend who only uses a handgun for bear hunting. He says it's more fun that way. If I remember correctly, this also used to substantially lengthen his season, similar to archery and muzzleloaders.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[livendive 8]

Quote

I can't believe that 89 posts on, we have intelligent people seriously disputing the premise that the principle design of a firearm is to serve as a weapon. Very Twilight Zone surreal, I have to say.

A gun shoots bullets like a hammer pounds nails. You are free to decide where to put those bullets and nails...the tools don't care.

Are these guns primarily built to kill people? Nope. They're designed to shoot at whatever the competitor is pointing at (hopefully NOT a person)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISSF_shooting_events

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[DanG 1]

Are guns arms?

- Dan G

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

Quote

I can't believe that 89 posts on, we have intelligent people seriously disputing the premise that the principle design of a firearm is to serve as a weapon. Very Twilight Zone surreal, I have to say.

A gun shoots bullets like a hammer pounds nails. You are free to decide where to put those bullets and nails...the tools don't care.

Are these guns primarily built to kill people? Nope. They're designed to shoot at whatever the competitor is pointing at (hopefully NOT a person)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISSF_shooting_events

You're engaging in semantic masturbation, Dave. I'm surprised because you usually don't do that.

[livendive 8]

Quote

You're engaging in semantic masturbation, Dave. I'm surprised because you usually don't do that.

Perhaps, but I don't think so. The statement I'm disputing is that guns are primarily designed to kill people. That's a powerful statement, and quite wrong in my opinion. If that point were conceded, it would follow logically that people purchase guns for the primary purpose of killing people, and that's similarly incorrect.

There are many purposes for guns, and the vast majority of guns that are sold are purchased for some purpose other than killing people. Shotguns work great for close quarter home defense, but most people buy them for shooting birds or skeet. Many people own several handguns, but only those used for concealed carry or kept in a nightstand are likely to ever be used to kill anyone. A "range gun" is just that. A .50 Desert Eagle is for killing trucks, not people. A .22 rifle is primarily for killing vermin or small game, or accuracy competitions.

I have two guns...a .40 carry gun that my wife is comfortable shooting and that we keep in a nightstand (or on a nightstand, when I'm out of town ). Even though 100% of the rounds we put through it have been on a range, and that will likely remain the case forever, I guess you could argue that there is still a "kill people" aspect to its purpose. My other gun is a scary black gun that is, in my opinion, great fun on the range and a good coyote gun, but that's it. The world would have to change drastically before it would ever be used for killing people.

Now for a bit of semantic masturbation: "assault weapon" is a stupid term. The security guards at my work have a purely defensive role. Assault is not in their job description, yet every one of them has an AR.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

"assault weapon" is a stupid term.

Blame the Germans (which, you have to admit, is always fun).

[champu 1]

Guns were originally designed to kill people and marriage was originally between a man and a woman.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

And mate is not commonly used in Canadian English. But then Americans do tend to have problems with their geography. Just to help out, Australia and Canada aren't all that close together.

it's like shooting retarded ducks in a barrel...hardly fun at all.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

I can't believe that 89 posts on, we have intelligent people seriously disputing the premise that the principle design of a firearm is to serve as a weapon. Very Twilight Zone surreal, I have to say.

No, we were debating the bias shown by phrasing that handguns' primary design is to kill people. You yourself changed that to weapon, which is exactly what I wrote and suggested was more correct.

weap·on (wpn)
n.
1. An instrument of attack or defense in combat, as a gun, missile, or sword.
2. Zoology A part or organ, such as a claw or stinger, used by an animal in attack or defense.
3. A means used to defend against or defeat another: Logic was her weapon.
tr.v. weap·oned, weap·on·ing, weap·ons

Note that these definitions include defense, not simply killing other people.

[kallend 1,635]

Quote

Quote

yet you cannot agree that the firearm was invented to kill.

who cares? what matters is how it's used by individuals. It's a non-starter and a crappy distractive tactic.

I own guns. I don't use them to kill people. So the point that once upon a time, they might have been invented to kill doesn't apply to me as a citizen one bit.

And to use that argument as a rationalization to deny me my right to my property is totally off base.

Tell us how expanded background checks or stronger penalties for straw purchases would deny YOU any right.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.