I get what you’re saying and you’re correct, but my comment was an attempt to point out that republicans use bullshit logical arguments to divorce cause and effect, the tool and the user. Yes, people kill people, but the gun is the tool specifically used to make it easier and faster. No, Mao didn’t personally kill millions, but he used the tool of ignorance and populism to accomplish it. It’s like if Mao said “I didn’t starve people, they starved themselves.”
I have always thought you could make that point with something like a knife. It is a tool made to assist in chores. You can use the knife to feed your family or kill your family. The knife is just a knife.
But a gun is specifically designed to kill. There is literally no other purpose for the gun. You can’t use it in a kitchen. You can’t use it to carve tools. Its only use it to take life.
That’s why the guns don’t kill people mantra rings endlessly hollow to me.
That is a valid argument. However, conservatives refuse to make any connection between the tool, the wielder, and the fact that the tool is designed to make the job easier. Whether it be hammering a nail or killing people as quickly as possible. Usually followed by taking the absurd and hyperbolic argument that baseball bats or cars kill people too while ignoring that cars are specifically designed to avoid causing death and baseball bats are for sport with no intent to maximize harm like bullets or blades.
Ah the whataboutism. I have run into that one too when I argue against recreational drugs. Pro drug users always always always bring up alcohol and everytime I’m like "yes, alcohol sucks too and I would ideally see it phased out of society instead of adding weed and cocaine etc to the legality club. And then they start their blabbering about how restrictions just makes the black market boom and yadda yadda and you shouldn’t have any restrictions because criminals will win, then. But I’m still like: yeah, but making accessibility easier will also not benefit society.
It’s the same discussion as it is with guns. They never want to actually talk about the issues, but would rather deflect and focus the discussion in on topics that has less and less and less to do with the original point. Ignore all your arguments and declare themselves the winner of the discussion because they feel they successfully won against their own strawman argument instead of actually trying to engage in the conversation.
More right wing “guns don’t kill people” bullshit logic.
Isn’t it kind of the opposite though? As in the gun would be analogous to the worker carrying out the order, and the shooter would be Hitler.
Not that they’d ever give a shit about consistency or hypocrisy.
I get what you’re saying and you’re correct, but my comment was an attempt to point out that republicans use bullshit logical arguments to divorce cause and effect, the tool and the user. Yes, people kill people, but the gun is the tool specifically used to make it easier and faster. No, Mao didn’t personally kill millions, but he used the tool of ignorance and populism to accomplish it. It’s like if Mao said “I didn’t starve people, they starved themselves.”
deleted by creator
“the gun helps.”
Eddie Izzard
The gun is “just following orders.”
I have always thought you could make that point with something like a knife. It is a tool made to assist in chores. You can use the knife to feed your family or kill your family. The knife is just a knife.
But a gun is specifically designed to kill. There is literally no other purpose for the gun. You can’t use it in a kitchen. You can’t use it to carve tools. Its only use it to take life.
That’s why the guns don’t kill people mantra rings endlessly hollow to me.
That is a valid argument. However, conservatives refuse to make any connection between the tool, the wielder, and the fact that the tool is designed to make the job easier. Whether it be hammering a nail or killing people as quickly as possible. Usually followed by taking the absurd and hyperbolic argument that baseball bats or cars kill people too while ignoring that cars are specifically designed to avoid causing death and baseball bats are for sport with no intent to maximize harm like bullets or blades.
Ah the whataboutism. I have run into that one too when I argue against recreational drugs. Pro drug users always always always bring up alcohol and everytime I’m like "yes, alcohol sucks too and I would ideally see it phased out of society instead of adding weed and cocaine etc to the legality club. And then they start their blabbering about how restrictions just makes the black market boom and yadda yadda and you shouldn’t have any restrictions because criminals will win, then. But I’m still like: yeah, but making accessibility easier will also not benefit society.
It’s the same discussion as it is with guns. They never want to actually talk about the issues, but would rather deflect and focus the discussion in on topics that has less and less and less to do with the original point. Ignore all your arguments and declare themselves the winner of the discussion because they feel they successfully won against their own strawman argument instead of actually trying to engage in the conversation.
Guns don’t….rappers do. I saw it on a documentary on BBC2.
/s