/k/ - Weapons

It is fair to make the distinction between weapon and non-weapon at the level of intent. If you intend to harm somebody with it, it's a weapon, if you don't, it's not. This is where libcucks short-circuit. Not all harm is bad. Self defense is just.

Carrying a firearm for self defense can be labelled a non-weapon because it's intent isn't just to cause harm, but to prevent unjust harm. It's either not a weapon or more than a weapon. While the firearm is being used for self-defense, it is a weapon. When it's being carried just in case, it's a potential weapon. You don't go somewhere intending to harm someone, but things may turn out in a way that it would be better for you to be able to intend and succeed in harming someone.

>>516234

>Carrying a firearm for self defense can be labelled a non-weapon because it's intent isn't just to cause harm, but to prevent unjust harm. It's either not a weapon or more than a weapon.

Schrodinger's handgun

>>516234

So by that logic would nukes deployed in order to deter an enemy from an attack not be considered a weapon?

Do we live in an age where nukes are non-weapons?

>>516253

I'm starting to think that the case that it's more than a weapon is correct. It's a weapon, but that's not what's important about it. It's intent to cause harm is held by a conditional. It's increased capacity for harm.

An interesting thing about peoples' capacities for harm is that you can't completely remove it. Most people have teeth. Most people who are physically incapable have some companion that could step in for them if it comes to harm. The minimum capacity for harm is not zero. One of the reasons why libs get scared is that the maximum capacity for harm keeps increasing, and it did so exponentially over the past centuries. Used to be you only needed a rock to kill someone. Now you can just point something at them and pull a lever. God made man, but Colt made them equal.

Should the line for maximum capacity for harm be drawn, and if so where? Obviously there have been some people that would've been just happy wiping away all life on Earth. I'd be fine with denying such people such power. However people are opaque, so you have to do so to everybody, unless circumstances are special enough to justify the giving a person power.

>>516222

>Using the dictionary as an argument

Dictionaries are descriptive not prescriptive. People who write dictionaries for the most part try to define words based on what that word is used for not how the word should be used.

This is an argument about how the word should be used and defined, not how the word is used and defined. The dictionary definition is only relevant as a starting point, but not as an argument.

Secondly

>Guns are made to kill

except when they're not. The Baikal IZH-46M is a gun, but it's made for the express purpose of accurate target shooting.

Their argument is so bad I can poke holes in it without sharing my position on the issue.

>>516222

spoiler next time you post that dumbshit 30 year old femcunt hag

>>516275

Good post.

I think they were just focusing on people cc'ing firearms around when they were talking. It wouldn't be a stretch to say that cc firearms are meant to kill. I only watched the video once, they're just too far up their collective ass.

>>516252

It's the perfect solution to gun laws, tbh. It's not a firearm until directly observed to be used as one.

>>516319

More like it's not a weapon until directly observed to be used as one. It's a firearm either way. I believe this is what you meant.

>>516258

>Should the line for maximum capacity for harm be drawn, and if so where?

Are we talking for possession or public use/carry?

I'd argue that the bar should be set a little higher for taking weapons out into the wider community - if only because I'm pretty sure that a few streloks would try to use an 81mm mortar for 'defensive' purposes if you gave them the chance.

Would it be more useful to think of it in terms of indiscriminate harm and discriminate harm? The standard for 'discriminate harm' being that the weapon, when reasonably used, is not likely to harm those other than the person causing you to fire in self defence.

Under that model it then becomes a question of accuracy, projectile energy/over-penetration, and the area affected. Pistols (even automatics), slug firing shotguns, and SMGs/carbines would be perfectly acceptable under that standard - as unless you were chucking grenades or waving the weapon around while mag-dumping and screaming "GET SOME!" it would not be likely that you would harm anyone other than the person who necessitated the defensive action.

You might even be able to sell it to the anti-fun crowd - as a way to legally limit the public to only approved 'safe' guns. Granted it's a long shot, but it couldn't hurt.

>>516473

>81mm mortar

>'defensive' purposes

I prefer 30 and 50 mm stuff, easier to handle on your own and it isn't going to level the woods.

>>516473

>Should the line for maximum capacity for harm be drawn, and if so where?

>Are we talking for possession or public use/carry?

I'm talking about whenever. And I'm defining maximum capacity for harm as able to literally kill everyone, no hyperbole. i.e. a bomb strong enough to destroy Earth. Obviously that's ludicrous, but I'm just describing a line as high as possible. I'm saying I'm fine with a Joe Shmo not being able to do that.

That's a really good point about making a distinction between discriminate and indiscriminate harm. However, arguments could be made requiring a certain accuracy at a range before one's allowed to cc. Just like with driving safety.

>>516479

>arguments could be made requiring a certain accuracy at a range before one's allowed to cc

shall not be infringed, end of discussion.

>>516482

I'm playing devils advocate m8. People are going to try to regulate it and I'm trying to think up avenues they would take. If "shall not be infringed" were an effective argument, we wouldn't even have to bother with all this philosophy bs. I wish it were an effective argument, but it's apparently not.

>>516479

>requiring a certain accuracy at a range before one's allowed to cc

Look at the the testing requirements LEOs have to fulfill to carry a weapon. They're laughable. And these are people who are empowered by the state to use lethal force in the enactment of their duties.

If the requirements for citizenry are less than or equal to those of LEOs, why fucking bother? They're obviously ineffective as a test of competency.

If the requirements for citizenry are greater than those of LEOs, isn't it unjust for government agents to get preferential treatment?

>>516537

> isn't it unjust for government agents to get preferential treatment?

That happens anyway. The LEOSA, for example.

The reason I was talking bars for accuracy is because of the indiscriminate vs discriminate harm. If that's the axiom by which we should judge whether or not a weapon should be used in self defense in a public setting, then the more discriminate, the better. If someone's so incompetent that their self defense can be reasonably labelled indiscriminate or not discriminate enough, then by this metric, they shouldn't have the right using weapons where they likely would cause indiscriminate harm.

You're saying that the bar for where it becomes discriminate is embarrassingly low, at least when it comes to LEOs.