*Are Guns Bad?*

[chesswarsnow]

Sorry bout that,

1. Well are they?
2. Most deaths due to guns involve a shooter and a dead person.
3. Can being shot always be blamed on a gun, or does a shooter, and his reasons for shooting have any bearing?
4.Is shooting some people a good thing?
5. Can some one get shot, and the shooting be considered a clean shooting, or is the gun still bad, in any case?
6. Read this, it may change your mind about how you think about this topic:


""The Gun Is Civilization"
By Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret)

Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that's it.

In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.

When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force.

The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger, and a single guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.

There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we'd be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a [armed] mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger's potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat - it has no validity when most of a mugger's potential marks are armed.

People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that's the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.

Then there's the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser.

People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don't constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level.

The gun is the only weapon that's as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weight lifter. It simply wouldn't work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn't both lethal and easily employable.

When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I'm looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn't limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation... And that's why carrying a gun is a civilized act.

By Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret.)


So the greatest civilization is one where all citizens are equally armed and can only be persuaded, never forced.




6. Maybe its time to start carrying a peace eh folks?



Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

 

[uscitizen]

Basically it is like any tool, it is the use it is put to.

However one thing to consider is that many guns are only designed for shooting people.

No quite like killing someone with a hammer which has several other useful purposes.

 

[Agit8r]

Guns like other implements of force are at best a necessary evil

though they can be fun for recreation

 

[blastoff]

Bullets kill people. As do lots of other things.

 

[Old Rocks]

I have owned guns since I was 12 years old. I do not and will not own a gun that is only designed for the killing of other human beings. I can defend myself adaquetly with a hunting gun. And have done so on one occasion. And I will not ever put a gun on an alter as the OP seems to be doing. A gun is a tool. No more to be diefied than a crecent wrench.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

*Are Guns Bad?*

No-more-so than drugs.​

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Basically it is like any tool, it is the use it is put to.

However one thing to consider is that many guns are only designed for shooting people.

No quite like killing someone with a hammer which has several other useful purposes.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iZc-fXHTSt8[/ame]​

 

[RDD_1210]

Sorry bout that,






6. Maybe its time to start carrying a peace eh folks?



Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

LOVE this typo. Irony is overflowing. You're quickly becoming my new favorite poster on this site.

 

[Contumacious]

*Are Guns Bad?*

Yes, sireee bob, they are.

But only if you are a criminal , which include corrupt politicians and other bureaucrats.

.

 

[Missourian]

I have owned guns since I was 12 years old. I do not and will not own a gun that is only designed for the killing of other human beings. I can defend myself adaquetly with a hunting gun. And have done so on one occasion. And I will not ever put a gun on an alter as the OP seems to be doing. A gun is a tool. No more to be diefied than a crecent wrench.

This seems like a rationalization to me...if you have ever thought "I would take a life with this weapon if I had to." it makes little difference whether the weapon was design solely for that purpose or not.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Basically it is like any tool, it is the use it is put to.
However one thing to consider is that many guns are only designed for shooting people.
No quite like killing someone with a hammer which has several other useful purposes.

The right to arms is all about killing people, as it is sometimes necessary to do so.
Given that, the "many guns are only designed for shooting people" are -exactly- those protected by the Constitution.

 

[Bill O'Olberman]

Basically it is like any tool, it is the use it is put to.
However one thing to consider is that many guns are only designed for shooting people.
No quite like killing someone with a hammer which has several other useful purposes.

The right to arms is all about killing people, as it is sometimes necessary to do so.
Given that, the "many guns are only designed for shooting people" are -exactly- those protected by the Constitution.

Of course with gun ownership as a right for everyone and widespread availability of guns, also comes with some unnecessary, senseless, and random acts of violence.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Basically it is like any tool, it is the use it is put to.
However one thing to consider is that many guns are only designed for shooting people.
No quite like killing someone with a hammer which has several other useful purposes.

The right to arms is all about killing people, as it is sometimes necessary to do so.
Given that, the "many guns are only designed for shooting people" are -exactly- those protected by the Constitution.

Of course with gun ownership as a right for everyone and widespread availability of guns, also comes with some unnecessary, senseless, and random acts of violence.

Being free assumes certain risks - one of which is that some people will abuse their freedom and harm others.

 

[Intense]

When necessary force is required? Not at all. Gun's are not good or evil of themselves. Self Defense, Preservation, Force of Law, Hunting, Play. What can be Evil is intention.

 

[Foxfyre]

When necessary force is required? Not at all. Gun's are not good or evil of themselves. Self Defense, Preservation, Force of Law, Hunting, Play. What can be Evil is intention.

And with all due respect to Old Rocks' point of view, what gun can not be used for purposes other than killing people? Most of our cowboys out here in the wild west have a rifle on their saddle or a revolver on their hip. Not one expects to point at or threaten another human being with such weapons but will have them handy to put a sick cow or wounded deer out of its misery, eliminate a rattlesnake threatening the calves.

And, if needed for self defense against evil intent by another human, how is that less noble than doing anything else we need to do to insure our own life, safety, and well being?

 

[M14 Shooter]

When necessary force is required? Not at all. Gun's are not good or evil of themselves. Self Defense, Preservation, Force of Law, Hunting, Play. What can be Evil is intention.

And with all due respect to Old Rocks' point of view, what gun can not be used for purposes other than killing people? Most of our cowboys out here in the wild west have a rifle on their saddle or a revolver on their hip. Not one expects to point at or threaten another human being with such weapons but will have them handy to put a sick cow or wounded deer out of its misery, eliminate a rattlesnake threatening the calves.

And, if needed for self defense against evil intent by another human, how is that less noble than doing anything else we need to do to insure our own life, safety, and well being?

Not that this refers specifically to anyone here...

Its my belief that some, perhaps many, memebers of the anti-gun crowd recognize that they do not possess the mental, emotional or physical capacities necesary to protect themselves from those who would cause them harm, and so seek the protection of the state. They then see that some people - like many gun owners - DO have those capacities. This creates a sense of inferiority which must be dealt with NOT by increasing their own capacities, but by reducing those of others, so that they too must seek protection from the state.

In essence, they seek to limit the right to arms because they want outcome-based personal security.

 

[Claudette]

Guns don't kill people. People kill people.

We've all heard that old saying.

A gun in and of itself is nothing.

Its the mentality of the person holding the gun thats the problem in most cases.

Hell. Some folks would shoot you for your car a pair of sneakers or for 50 cents.

To those folks human life means nothing and is worth less than nothing.

Unfortunatley we have plenty of folks like that in this country.

Is a gun bad?? Nope. The bad parts comes in with some of the folks who use guns..

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

A gun is an inanimate object. It can be neither good nor bad.

 

[JScott]

Guns shouldnt be a political issue.

 

[hboats]

"Are guns bad?"

Of course the answer has to be NO.

I defy anyone to lay a gun, not touching any other thing, in a room with a window, then go outside of that room and watch that gun through the window for as long as your little heart desires. I can guarantee you, as long as no other person or thing enters that room and touches that gun, the gun will do absolutely nothing.

That gun could sit in that room for eternity, and as long as nothing else ever came in contact with it, it would just sit there and do exactly nothing.

Guns do not have a personality of their own, so therefore guns can be neither good or bad.

Rick