4588686 Posted April 16, 2013 Share Posted April 16, 2013 (edited) I hope that yesterday's events at the Boston Marathon don't lead to a panicked rush to prevent law-abiding citizens from owning and carrying bombs. The best defense against a bad guy with a bomb is a good guy with a bomb. Has anybody noticed that almost all bombings occur in bomb-free zones? Places where law-abiding citizens have been legally prevented from carrying their own bombs? Should we consider that merely a coincidence? I think not. Edited April 16, 2013 by Hasan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anastasia13 Posted April 16, 2013 Share Posted April 16, 2013 Give me bombs or give me death! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihil Obstat Posted April 16, 2013 Share Posted April 16, 2013 Iunno, sort of feels like you are taking advantage of something pretty shocking in order to make an only indirectly related point about gun control. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4588686 Posted April 16, 2013 Author Share Posted April 16, 2013 Iunno, sort of feels like you are taking advantage of something pretty shocking in order to make an only indirectly related point about gun control. I think it's a direct logical analogy and I think that it's a fair point to make. I had a friend in Boston during the bombings. I do understand that it is a shocking and awful thing that occurred. This isn't only about gun control. We need to get serious about regulating and disarming the materials of mass destruction from both the civilian population and governments. We're kind of fine with this sort of thing happening regularly in Iraq and Afghanistan so I think it is even more important to ask uncomfortable questions and make uncomfortable statements when this is happening to us as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhuturePriest Posted April 16, 2013 Share Posted April 16, 2013 Bombs, guns, swords, ponies, none of them kill people. Looks kill people. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cY1jdHzYiX8 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4588686 Posted April 16, 2013 Author Share Posted April 16, 2013 I guess it's like when my friend died of cancer. I think that an important component to the tragedy is the fact that her family will now be burdened with debt and bills for some time to come. I don't think that pointing out that some aspect of the tragedy is the result of a socially determined state of affairs is manipulating the tragedy any more than insisting that no component of the social element of her family's tragedy can be overtly discussed. But I am open to being wrong about this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhuturePriest Posted April 16, 2013 Share Posted April 16, 2013 I guess it's like when my friend died of cancer. I think that an important component to the tragedy is the fact that her family will now be burdened with debt and bills for some time to come. I don't think that pointing out that some aspect of the tragedy is the result of a socially determined state of affairs is manipulating the tragedy any more than insisting that no component of the social element of her family's tragedy can be overtly discussed. But I am open to being wrong about this. You are a better man than most. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihil Obstat Posted April 16, 2013 Share Posted April 16, 2013 I guess where I am seeing the issue is more the way in which you addressed it, rather than what you are saying precisely. It is one thing to say "the bombing today points to a need to make sure violent people cannot be allowed to assemble improvised bombs." But I think linking it to gun control is misleading because there are many legitimate uses of firearms that are not indiscriminately destructive. A bomb is indiscriminate almost necessarily. The only real link I can see between guns and bombs is that both can be used in a tragically destructive manner. I cannot think of many relevant similarities after that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4588686 Posted April 16, 2013 Author Share Posted April 16, 2013 I guess where I am seeing the issue is more the way in which you addressed it, rather than what you are saying precisely. It is one thing to say "the bombing today points to a need to make sure violent people cannot be allowed to assemble improvised bombs." But I think linking it to gun control is misleading because there are many legitimate uses of firearms that are not indiscriminately destructive. A bomb is indiscriminate almost necessarily. The only real link I can see between guns and bombs is that both can be used in a tragically destructive manner. I cannot think of many relevant similarities after that. But that is true of bombs as well. Any explosive can be used in a precise and non-violent manner. Here in eastern NC explosives are used in legal and carefully controlled circumstances to get rid of tree stumps. Ditto for precise and controlled demolitions of buildings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihil Obstat Posted April 16, 2013 Share Posted April 16, 2013 But that is true of bombs as well. Any explosive can be used in a precise and non-violent manner. Here in eastern NC explosives are used in legal and carefully controlled circumstances to get rid of tree stumps. Ditto for precise and controlled demolitions of buildings. I agree. (I thought of that about halfway through my post, and forgot to go back and revise the rest to incorporate that.) I think we both agree that unjustifiably violent people should be prevented from harming people. But really, that is just a platitude and practically everyone agrees. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhuturePriest Posted April 16, 2013 Share Posted April 16, 2013 But that is true of bombs as well. Any explosive can be used in a precise and non-violent manner. Here in eastern NC explosives are used in legal and carefully controlled circumstances to get rid of tree stumps. Ditto for precise and controlled demolitions of buildings. Dude, North Carolina sounds awesome! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apotheoun Posted April 16, 2013 Share Posted April 16, 2013 But that is true of bombs as well. Any explosive can be used in a precise and non-violent manner. Here in eastern NC explosives are used in legal and carefully controlled circumstances to get rid of tree stumps. Ditto for precise and controlled demolitions of buildings. Yep, my grandfather used to use explosives to get rid of tree stumps on his farm, and he never once blew up a person. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BG45 Posted April 16, 2013 Share Posted April 16, 2013 But that is true of bombs as well. Any explosive can be used in a precise and non-violent manner. Here in eastern NC explosives are used in legal and carefully controlled circumstances to get rid of tree stumps. Ditto for precise and controlled demolitions of buildings. In Eastern NC, don't people also use explosives to blow up fish in streams? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Papist Posted April 16, 2013 Share Posted April 16, 2013 Move to lame board b/c this was a lame attempt to be funny. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Papist Posted April 16, 2013 Share Posted April 16, 2013 Dude, North Carolina sounds amesome! That's because it is! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts