Guns

[mooeypoo]

a gun is Not intended to kill anything, it`s intended to eject a projectile (usualy metalic) at sufficient velocity to reach an intended point. nothing more nothing less. the INTENTION to do harm comes from the gun holder! )

 

SMARTASS

 

Well the gun was CREATED for the reason of KILLING and fataly harming others.

Up until then, people used swords - which were also inteded to kill people, only they weren't as EFFECTIVE as guns.

 

 

Now, PerpetualYnquisitive:

 

DUDE. You ARE aware that by comparing 11,000 deaths to the WWII you actually SUPPORT my claim... right?

That was a genocide.. this is.. what, really?

 

Other than that, why not doing the conclusion already that america has a PROBLEM.

If I'm not mistaken, Canada has gun purchasing rules and is allowing it, yet Canada has about less than 50 deaths-by-guns a year.

Why's that?

 

So I agree with you that guns are not the MAJOR CAUSE of crime and deaths-by-guns, but heck, it's a HUGE suppliment AND it's just a higher risk.

 

If you have kids at home, would you still own a loaded gun? I would ASSUME (and hope,dear god) that no. Why? because it's DANGEROUS.

 

You have no need for it with or without kids.

 

And if your reason is because police sux, then it's a lowsy one. I can say my government politicians SUCK, it doesnt mean I go around creating militias to replace the government by violence, now, does it?

 

FIX the broken, dude, don't create more mess by trying to go around it.

 

~moo

[Dave]

So I agree with you that guns are not the MAJOR CAUSE of crime and deaths-by-guns, but heck, it's a HUGE suppliment AND it's just a higher risk.

 

I'd say guns are probably the only cause of death-by-guns myself

 

But seriously, your statement is right; guns were created to kill or harm other people and for that reason they are only designed to do one thing. You can apply a similar argument to people who say 'nuclear weapons are designed to release a very large amount of energy by the process of nuclear fission' or 'nuclear weapons are a deterrent'. They may do both of these things; but they were designed to kill people and as such they can only be used for one thing.

[YT2095]

the hammer or club was created to bash heads in, long before baseball and nails were invented, are they to be banned also?

so what if guns were originaly intended to kill, that`s not their sole purpose now

[Sayonara]

the hammer or club was created to bash heads in, long before baseball and nails were invented, are they to be banned also?

We've already been over that in this thread.

 

so what if guns were originaly intended to kill, that`s not their sole purpose now

It remains their primary function, and always will. The fact that a good number of gun owners enjoy a reasonable and regulated sport does not change the nature of the tools they employ, much less for those who do not own their guns for sports reasons.

[-Demosthenes-]

I don't get why it matters that something is intended to do something. Does it make it any more likely that it will be used for that use? What I think matters is the possible use. I could understand if it was the most common use, but it's not.

[atinymonkey]

It bloody well is it's common use. Your at war, you know?

 

Pop over to France and ask if the Germans used rifles for recreation. Run over to General Mugabe's office, and ask what the target practice to shooting civilian ratio is. Ask in the Gaza strip if they think the main use of guns is for relaxation and entertainment.

 

Stop thinking in an insular middleclass isolated American viewpoint.

[Dave]

I don't get why it matters that something is intended to do something. Does it make it any more likely that it will be used for that use? What I think matters is the possible use. I could understand if it was the most common use, but it's not.

 

I doubt many people that buy a gun doubt that its primary (and most common) use is for killing.

[-Demosthenes-]

So more bullets killl people than hit targets at a range?

 

Stop thinking in an insular middleclass isolated American viewpoint.

Sorry, I do have a hard time thinking that not everything is not like here.

[Dave]

So more bullets killl people than hit targets at a range?

 

Why do people go to practice ranges in the first place?

[atinymonkey]

So more bullets killl people than hit targets at a range?

 

During the first world war, in 1916, at any one time there was an average of 17 tonnes of metal projectiles in the air. If you can find a gun club that can match that, I'd be impressed.

 

It's not that more bullets have killed people than have ever been fired, it that more bullets have been fired with the intent of killing.

[Phi for All]

It bloody well is it's common use. Your at war' date=' you know?

 

Pop over to France and ask if the Germans used rifles for recreation. Run over to General Mugabe's office, and ask what the target practice to shooting civilian ratio is. Ask in the Gaza strip if they think the main use of guns is for relaxation and entertainment.

 

Stop thinking in an insular middleclass isolated American viewpoint.[/quote']I don't think the intent of this thread was to include military actions of any kind. Blike can correct me if I'm wrong, but I got the impression from his one word thread starter "Guns..." that he was speaking about guns in the hands of civilians. I'd love to hear from one of our Psych members about what goes through the minds of people who buy guns to "defend their households".

 

I'm sure most people are thinking they will only "actually kill" psychos, terrorists, rapists and serial killers, which the US media tell us are roaming the streets in packs just waiting for us to let our guard down.

 

If a burglar breaks in, we will somehow automatically know he is only there to steal and will simply fire a warning shot over his head, which will miraculously not harm anyone or anything else along its trajectory. If we do take his life in the process, we will somehow be exonerated because "anyone who breaks into a private home for any reason gets what they deserve".

 

I think it is simply part of the macho image we still, unfortunately, hold in the US when it comes to justice. John Wayne never shot anyone who didn't deserve it, and when we're waiting for the gun we ordered to arrive, we think up a whole wall of justification to protect our minds from what is really likely to happen: someone is going to die at our hands.

 

It could be a psycho, or a terrorist, or a rapist, or a serial killer. Then we'd be heroes.

 

Or it could be a family member, or a friend, or a neighbor, or even ourselves. Then we'd just be another idiot with a gun. The media tells us there are a lot of those running around, too.

[Sayonara]

It could be a psycho, or a terrorist, or a rapist, or a serial killer. Then we'd be heroes.

This is the whole issue.

 

Saying "yeah I shot him, but he was a psycho" isn't good enough when you've just taken a life.

 

If a country is going to allow capital punishment, it should do everything possible to make sure that the meting of such punishments remains firmly in the prevue of the supreme courts, and not in the hands of anyone who can hold a gun.

[Phi for All]

Saying "yeah I shot him, but he was a psycho" isn't good enough when you've just taken a life.

How do you reverse the mentality of a whole culture that believes the bad guys fire a thousand rounds and hit everybody BUT the hero, and the hero never misses? Has there ever been a movie made where the hero kills someone and then agonizes over snuffing out the life energy of a fellow human being?

 

(btw Sayonara, I like your new custom title, and thanks for protecting us by severing trolls)

[Sayonara]

It's a good question.

 

Maybe commission a series of big budget films where the gung-ho goodies keep getting killed horribly.

[Phi for All]

Coming soon to a theater near you, Bruce Willis in Think Hard!

[mooeypoo]

ROFL.

 

And yet... so true. I am the last to say computer games and movies are causes for violence, but they SERIOUSLY don't help.

 

The cause though, in my opinion, is education. That, and the massive availability of guns.

 

~moo

[Phi for All]

I am the last to say computer games and movies are causes for violence, but they SERIOUSLY don't help.

Some people think they provide an outlet for agression. I think they desensitize people the same way movies glorifying violence do.

The cause though, in my opinion, is education. That, and the massive availability of guns.

The only conspiracy theory I subscribe to is that arms cartels, people who sell weapons and munitions, are just as capable of "seeding the market" as any other wholesaler. Things are getting too quiet? Give some cheap weapons to some fanatics, stand back and watch the orders come in.

 

Nintendo sells their game computers cheaply so people can buy tons of games at a higher profit. Xerox sells copiers cheaply so people will buy more toner. And weapons merchants sell guns cheaply so their customers will buy higher profit ammunition.

[-Demosthenes-]

I agree that there are safer more practical ways to protect your home, such as a dog (if I'm right most burglers want to get into the easiest house, and if there is a dog there very likkely to skip the house altogether), but I still believe this country should provide fair laws that uphold everyone's rights, and there are some people who perfectly fine with the resposibility of the possession of a firearm. The secerety should be tighter, background check, psychological tests maybe, just something like that. More breaking down on the black markets would also help so criminals can't buy their guns anywhere.

[mooeypoo]

Phi, I agree, and yet, there are countries that sell guns freely (like canada) and don't have anti-gun ban and they don't have as much killing as the USA.

 

Something's definately up with the education.

 

I agree however, that those who sell are seeding the market I just think it's not the largest contribution to the killings.

I think the moment people are educated better regarding violence and guns, the better our society looks.

 

Israel for instance is filled with violence from the inside and outside of the country, in terms of terrorism and army, and yet, people are not VIOLENT. We *know* what guns are. Most of us here had experience with guns, experience with friends who died in bombings and shootings. We are aware of those. People (ordinary people!) comment soldiers on busses to unload their guns on a public place.

It's a lot about education. I'm not saying you should take israel as an example (I don't think you guys should experience army either..) but I'm just saying that BASICALLY we could have evolved to a very very violent country, and yet we're not. We don't have deaths out of guns in israel (military personnel dying in action is not the same, though painful enough).

 

I hope you got my point, I'm a bit tired and quite drousy from a little bit of wine I just had so if I'm blabbering, let me know, I'll explain myself better tomorrow after a good night sleep

 

g'night!

 

~moo

[iglak]

Why do people go to practice ranges in the first place?

the challenge of being able to use a skill better than other people, or being able to improve your own skills. also sometimes for practice so that they could use the skill on something else.

 

Has there ever been a movie made where the hero kills someone and then agonizes over snuffing out the life energy of a fellow human being?

yes, plenty of movies show that. i can't name any at the moment, but almost any hero vs. villian movie will have that element in it (the villian always has innocent lackeys )

[Phi for All]

yes, plenty of movies show that.

????

i can't name any at the moment' date=' but [/quote']Yeah, neither could I.

almost any hero vs. villian movie will have that element in it

Again' date=' I couldn't think of any.

(the villian always has innocent lackeys

The "innocent lackeys" don't get shot by the hero. Lackeys who get shot are usually firing at the hero indiscriminantly, so it's deemed OK to blow them away.

[YT2095]

Why do people go to practice ranges in the first place?

to maintain their ability and improve upon it, so that next time you`re in a competition you can Whoop Ass and outscore the other guy/girl

[mooeypoo]

I wish all those who had guns only have them for SPORTS.

 

In reality, it's just not working. Besides, there are special olimpyc guns. I don't believe this debate is about those...

 

And I must say that I'm against people having guns, but *if they do have them*, then I'd rather they'd at least be TRAINED to use them. It's the "least bad" situation. Better than someone who doesn't know how to even hold a gun that has one at home..

 

~moo

[YT2095]

I agree, owning a gun and not knowing how to use it properly or even strip and clean it properly (dirty guns can kill the shooter!) is at the very least STOOOOPID!

if you ignore the risk to others, the risk to yourself makes it not worth it!

[mooeypoo]

Exactly.

 

 

I still think having NO GUN is better, but yeah. If you own one, at least be a professional on handling it.

 

~moo