The advent of guns...

Guns... they have the ability to end your life in a single second.

Do they serve a useful purpose overall?

What is your take on snipers? Is it fair that a bullet can take a person out from a mile away without their knowing?

Do you or would you own a gun?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No I don't own one but yes, I would, if it would prevent more gun threads.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Damn, I wish I started this poll.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

To Cesspool or not to Cesspool, that is the question...

 

I think this thread should have been in the ethics section but...

Guns to me seem to contribute nothing to society. Their invention was inevitable when you consider humanity's lack of concern for life versus lack of resources and land. Look at how fucking retarded and violent Americans are. That's why you can't beat Canada.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Done.

 

Ethics seems a fitting venue, although the opening question is more practical than ethical.

Do guns have a useful purpose?
How can it possibly be denied that this is the case?

Guns are useful, and they have greatly advanced the state of humanity since their invention. So, I'll go out on a limb to say that 'overall' they are a boon and not a bane.

Death is death.
The general complaint about acts of killing which take place over great distances is one of ease and detachment on the part of the killer. No longer must one walk away from mortal combat covered in the literal blood of your enemy. A cold detachment develops which depersonifies your enemy. Statistical analysis becomes prevalent.

However, I don't think sniping actually falls into this category. To be a sharpshooter requires a huge amount of skill and patience. And, also, you must understand your target. Snipers may be cold by nature, but they get under the skin of their prey in a way that most do not.

What does fair have to do with anything?

"Not until you're twelve, son."

 

True. But they also have the ability to end your attacker's life in a single second ...or the life of the attacker who is trying to rape your wife or child.

Just like the club or sword or spear, guns can serve as protection from the attacks of others or of wild animals.

No, it's not fair ....and the intended target should be notified of the coming bullet so that he has plenty of time to hide behind a substantial shield.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I own several guns and intend to buy a few more. I also own several swords, a couple of spears, a couple of bows with arrows, a few knives, a couple of good clubs, a baseball bats, .... And I also have locks on my doors for much the same reasons ....to keep out the scumbags who would do me harm.

Guns are like any other tool. The tool doesn't do anything wrong by itself. A hammer can be used properly, for it's intended purpose, or it can be used to kill someone just as a gun can.

Baron Max

 

Invert,

It has a lot to do with statistics when it comes to snipering. I think of that scene in Elektra when I think of the thoughts of snipers. But there's a difference in how detached a sniper is when they work for hire than when it's personal and they actually know the victim.

Consider the vast difference when a target is a favorite movie star, versus an old friend turned enemy, versus a stranger. And how the sniper sees each of them. You have to wonder if it then becomes a question of money or ethics in regards to what decision the sniper makes.

You say that a cold detachment is developed. This would assume that it makes no difference to the sniper after working for hire a number of years, of course there are exceptions. I would venture to guess that those examples would be some of them.

 

There's some differences when a killer/defender uses a hammer and a gun. The gun is distant, the hammer is more up close and personal. See with the gun, a human life is not an issue because it's still kind of like target practice. Does that still make the shooter a killer? Of course.

 

I do wonder how many gun advocates would be so gung-ho about plunging a cold, steel blade into someone's guts, or bashing their brains out with a hammer. Probably just as many. It's all bravado with these people.

 

So does everything down to your fists and a #2 pencil. The difference with guns is that if someone points a gun at you from more than 3 feet away, there's no way you getting the jump on them.

As long as other people with guns exist.

Of course not, what can we do about that?

Yes.

 

I don't fully grasp what you're trying to say here?

Is it that the man with the gun is a killer just by having the gun in such a deadly confrontation? Yet the man with the hammer is only a killer AFTER he's killed the person??

I'm just not clear on what you're attempting to explain. Can you be a bit more though and explanatory?

I also wonder how you'd feel if one man had a long spear, and the bad guy had a short knife? Would the man with the spear automatically be the killer just by virtue of the longer weapon? How does "distance" play a part?

Baron Max

 

Nope, not me. I'd let the bad guy hit me with the hammer first. If the blow didn't kill me, then I'd get up and stick the cold steel blade into his guts ...but I'd ask his permission nicely first, of course.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Baron Max

 

If I war, I want every advantage. Range, power, etc., there's no point to limit your capabilities.

If I had to kill, I would like to kill with brute force, if given a chance, but would not be willing to risk my life for it.

Basically, it would be wonderful to give the enemy an equal chance, but it would be just as wonderful to handle the conflict at a level of conversation; so if the adversary resorts to violence, I'd pull no punches.

Then again, if the purpose of the fight is not to kill the enemy completely (like only killing the soldiers of a nation during the war), it is just as important to beat the enemy on his own ground as it is to prove your supermacy in giving support for the troops.

As such, the advance of science inevitably brings more powerful methods of killing people. The essence of the question is "is it right to give more power to people?".

And it might not be; but it doesn't change what people do. It just changes the scale they do it in. And makes mistakes more noticable (hence easier to remove).

 

As surprising as this must sound (insert-sarcasm-here) but i love to shoot guns and take aim at small birds and things of that nature.

Guns are fun, historic and cool.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I like using my guns to kill innocent forrest creatures.

I also love waving them around and shooting hysterically into the air whilst drinking bourbon.

 

Why has no one mentioned the fact that all modern democracies(and a few republics

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

)...indeed ALL modern governments are founded from the barrel of a gun. Either the government had 'em(China, Russia, Nazi Germany) or the people had 'em (U.S, Canada -don't kid yourself I still have arifle so do many canucks, Europeans-citizen armies of the French Revolution-era gave power to the emacipation of the serfs credo).

Nicholas, you figure they cast away feudalism just for shits and giggles? They cast it away because it took 4 weeks to train a peasant how to kill a life long trained knight, with a GUN.

Personally, I'd like to do away with kevlar and armored cars. The politicians are getting kinda uppity these days.

 

Six dead after US shooting spree
Tuesday, 13 February 2007, 06:36 GMT: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/6356071.stm

A gunman has opened fire in a crowded shopping centre in the US state of Utah, killing five people, police say.
The man was cornered by police at the Trolley Square Mall in Salt Lake City and was killed. It is thought he was shot by an off-duty police officer.

Three people were critically injured and one is in a serious condition, officials said.

One shopper reported hearing "shot after shot after shot" as she and others hid during the shoot-out.

Authorities in the US said the gunman began shooting at about 1845 (0145 GMT).

The man, thought to be in his 20s and wearing a trench coat, reportedly fired randomly at passers-by, apparently using a pump-action shotgun, sending people scrambling for cover.

Witnesses said 20 shots were fired and said police eventually forced the gunman into a children's clothing store. They also reported seeing a pile of bodies.

Two of the critically injured are men, aged 16 and 50, a University Hospital spokesperson said.

Antique store owner Barrett Dodds, 29, said he saw a man in a trench coat exchanging fire with a police officer.

He said: "I saw the cops go in the store. I saw the shooter go down."

Shopper Barb McKeown, 60, who was in another antique shop, said two frantic women ran in and reported gunshots.

"Then we heard shot after shot after shot - loud, loud, loud," she said.

Streets outside the centre were blocked, as police swarmed around the scene.

Police searched stores for hours afterwards for shocked shoppers and employees who were still hiding.

Meanwhile, in a separate incident, at least four have people died after a shooting incident in the US city of Philadelphia on Monday.

Reports said a lone gunman opened fire on at least four people before turning the weapon on himself. At least three of those shot were killed, while a fourth was admitted to hospital.

The shooting occurred at Philadelphia's Navy Yard, a complex which has been converted to offices.

Local reports claimed the shooting happened during a board meeting for one of the businesses there.

 

I don't understand why these people don't go about it intelligently. If you want to go out with a bang do it properly. Drive a van filled with explosives into a busy market and push the switch.

That matrix stuff is so passe.