Guns.
- Thread starter chicodude
- Start date
Slayed the indians.
That is, unless you like inidans.
That is, unless you like inidans.
What good has oil done for humanity? Sugar? Ticks? Automobiles? Loco? Religion?
You could apply this to anything, really.
You could apply this to anything, really.
Ticks? I hate those little buggers. I'm pretty sure we didn't invent those though.BurlyShirley said:
sugar, while promoting tooth decay and obesity, does make the medicine go down.BurlyShirley said:
I don't think you're going to get many serious replies to this.
Personally I think that guns should be done away with and we should go back to swords. I imagine that killing somone would be quite different if one had to look the other person in the eyes, and the other person had a chance to defend themselves. (Two things that using a gun can remove from the equation).
But then I don't own a gun and do own many swords (and other medieval implements of death and destruction).
Personally I think that guns should be done away with and we should go back to swords. I imagine that killing somone would be quite different if one had to look the other person in the eyes, and the other person had a chance to defend themselves. (Two things that using a gun can remove from the equation).
But then I don't own a gun and do own many swords (and other medieval implements of death and destruction).
Ciaran said:
Riiiight... and there was no shortage of slaughter back in 'the day' either.
Well sure its good for "a person" but some hippies ive met say its the main problem with the world. Natives died for it, eh?narlus said:
Ok, I thought you meant in terms of total value. In that case, Allied GUNS saved the lives of MILLIONS of jews in WW2. That good enough?chicodude said:
EDIT: Bitch!
I have a couple guns. A little Browing Buckmark .22lr target pistol and a 3030 rifle. I have only ever used them for target practice, I have no illusions that I would ever need them for personal protection. I like the gun laws they have in NY state where you need to have a license to own a handgun.
My hand cannon:
My hand cannon:
Hydrashocks are a excellent rounds.
I like the 165 grain rounds in my .45
I like the 165 grain rounds in my .45
I bought a S&W 9 mm about a year ago. Being Vermont, it's legal to carry. I have discovered that unless you are very discreet, it is regarded as impolite.
I have decided that the self-defense argument is, well, mythical. 99.99% of the time the weapon would be unavailable, no opportunity to use it without endangering bystanders, yada ya, and as an ordinary citizen you don't have the assigned role that a law enforcement person has covering them if they blow someone away.
Expensive ego toys.
I have decided that the self-defense argument is, well, mythical. 99.99% of the time the weapon would be unavailable, no opportunity to use it without endangering bystanders, yada ya, and as an ordinary citizen you don't have the assigned role that a law enforcement person has covering them if they blow someone away.
Expensive ego toys.
I think that some guns are cool. I got to play with some cool ones in the Army, but I wouldn't own one.
My wife owns one and was scared to death when she first moved "to the big city" from her little ass home town. After living here a while, she soon sold it to buy stuff for the baby.
I think the UK is a good example of how well a society can do when it's rare for someone to own or carry a gun. I never cared for the idea that everyone else has a gun, I should too.
My wife owns one and was scared to death when she first moved "to the big city" from her little ass home town. After living here a while, she soon sold it to buy stuff for the baby.
I think the UK is a good example of how well a society can do when it's rare for someone to own or carry a gun. I never cared for the idea that everyone else has a gun, I should too.
If I ever had kids the guns would probably get sold or locked away and disabled. Although I think it is important to have kids educated and trained on how to use them just in case they ever get their filthy paws on one they are less likely to do something stupid.
Westy said:
Best thing to do is take your kids to the range and shoot melons or milk just full of water with red dye in them. Show your kids what a round can do.
Then enroll them in a good hunter's safetly class and take it with them.
I'd still lock or get rid of the guns. Friend of mine used to break into his fathers guns safe and we would go shooting, did lots of stupid stuff. Same kid was a bad seed and stole a .45 from a neighbors basement, ended up selling it for weed. A classmate of mine also got shot playing with a gun he ripped off from his father's gun safe. Kids are smart, tricky and stupid all at the same time.N8 said:
People tend to miss the real key in this issue. There are no objects/things that do anything for humanity, period. It's what humanity does with the things to and for it's self. The correct question is "what has humanity done for the good of humanity". Weapons guns, knives, bow & arrows swords, spears,......) are just tools that are often times missused by people. Since people in general live in a state of irresponsible denial most of the time, tools take the blame for the bad choices that many make. Tools do not hurt people, the bad decisions of people do. Guns are tools!chicodude said:
Ciaran said:
Of course there is that who stand-off weapon thing called arrows...
Having that crazy murder/homicide at the postal center near my house hasn't really changed my opinion about guns. Crazy people shouldn't have them....unless its a squirt gun 
I like target shooting, but don't own any guns. Thats mainly because they are really expensive and I'd rather buy more bikes!
I like target shooting, but don't own any guns. Thats mainly because they are really expensive and I'd rather buy more bikes!
So you're trying to say that a bow and arrow is equivelent to a gun?N8 said:
No you're not saying that... I know what you are saying but actually bows and arrows weren't as common as a sword. Arrows cost too much to lose and so the average person would likely not have many, if any at all.
When you look at medieval battles (Say oh, fall of Rome to about 1650 which is where most historians end the age of the sword and begin the age of gunpowder) you see that while they had hundreds of archers there were always more foot soldiers armed with swords, and that those soldiers had a higher kill ratio to the archers.
And remember that the armies of the kings generally had better financing then your average person. Royal armies can afford to lose hundreds of arrows. Yes, swords were very expensive but they were often passed on from father to son, and a cheap sword will serve you better than a cheap bow and cheap arrows. Not to mention the fact that a sword is way more durable then a bow. (Although some of the most deadly warriors were the Mongols armed with bows shooting from a horse at full gallop. Effin aye!
)Again, I did not say that if the world was still using swords instead of firearms that the violence would lessen. I said that the dynamics of the violence would change. Whether that change in dynamic would lead to less violence is debatable.
As an interisting side note about this arrow thing... when crossbows were starting to really make an appearance in war many people were against them saying that they were too deadly and unethical even for war.
Changleen said:
you could prune with a gun if you were good 
I think the sword was designed with pretty much the same intent as most other weapons. Point is if you can throw rocks accurately they can be deadly, still it takes a human (or monkey) to pick one up and turn it into a weapon, otherwise it just sits were it is doing and hurting nobody and nothing. Maybe the real dangerous weapon is the human brain. Tools are tools just like rocks are rocks until a human decides to do something violent. The human brain is the real weapon all other things are just tools or objects with no destructive purpose.So swords are just another weapon designed to cause harm but weapons are tools or objects with no destructive purpose. Which one is itevilbob said:
Some tools are destructive but untill they get picked up and put to use they have about as much purpose as the rock just laying on the ground. The purpose of an object is part of the decision of a person not the objects choice. An object may by the nature of it's design or form of existance be a dangerous object but generally does nothing untill a person makes a decision that the purpose of that object is to be destructive at a given moment. The ultimate purpose of a given object to be destructive in a given moment does not exist untill a person chooses, there for the object just sit doing nothing. No we are not talking about acts of nature that happen beyound our control. This is maybe just my opinion based on my personal perspective of life, another's perspective may be different.syadasti said:So swords are just another weapon designed to cause harm but weapons are tools or objects with no destructive purpose. Which one is it
guns kill animals when your hungry. They also can shoot a bear thats charging you. of course people can buy food at the store, and hit a bear with pepper spray. But back in the day when most of western USA wasnt developed people lived off their guns
I think guns are generally dick enhancers for pathetic men but can see no real point in banning them. Regulate their use sure but getting rid of them would be as pointless as it would be impossible. The world would be better off with less guns no question. Of course the world would be better off without abortion and alcohol abuse but neither of these things will go away by banning abortions or prohibition. Drugs are the perfect example of the ludicrousness of the banning something to make things better arguement.
That having been said, these guys that have arsenals in their homes is something I can't understand. Why do you need so many? One handgun and one rifle should be the limit you're allowed. It would far lessen the chance of you gun nuts blowing your dicks off.
That having been said, these guys that have arsenals in their homes is something I can't understand. Why do you need so many? One handgun and one rifle should be the limit you're allowed. It would far lessen the chance of you gun nuts blowing your dicks off.
Mike, interesting thought...but it was also the longbow which ended the feudal era. I mean, normal people couldn't afford the armor and weapons and type of life you needed to train to use them...that was the decisive force on the field, and the exclusive realm of nobility. These nobles in could in turn outfit his people as infantry in various methods...and even still, sometimes your local milita/fyrd was sporting pitchforks and improvised spears/pikes when it appeared.Ciaran said:
The longbow gave your average Englishman the equivalent of an anti-tank missile, which he could own and train with relatively cheaply. I mean, let's look at Agincourt, right? And now the average yeoman is more important to the lords, as well as more of a threat...and then things change and we begin entering a more modern era. Guns continued the trend in some ways, and maybe changed it in others. (And now here we are...) Also look at what guns did to Japan's feudal structure.
Interesting note of a military invention totally inverting the power structure of society; might even have some lessons for us today in there vis a vis WMD.
As to guns...hmm. Think I'll decline to engage on this one for now.
MD
Dick enhancers? Maybe for some numb nuts who wants to think of themself as "hard" by buying a Glock. I own several rifles and handguns. When I was at college I was on a shooting team, now I'm a Marine and for obvious reasons, shoot frequently. I enjoy precision rifle marksmanship, as I find it to be relaxing and an amazingly good way to clear my head of the many things happening around me. I like to take my AR out and shoot silhouettes and engage targets under time limits. One of my favorite things to do is to take one of my shotguns out trap shooting. I shoot 3-500 rounds a month, and don't plan on changing that one bit. I think the only problem with some people is irresponsible use, which comes as a result of having no education in proper handling and safety techniques. I am a responsible gun owner and so are all of my friends that shoot. What's the problem with that?
Westy said:
I think that you're mostlycorrect. The longbow had a large (huge) impact but it was not the only thing that ended the feudal era (Nor was feudalism, a modern term, practiced by all european countries during that time period). The battle at Agincourt was the turning point that marked the very end, but don't forget that change had been a long time coming (and I think moreso in England than France). And the longbow had been around for at least 400 years before the English used it on the French . But you are right though... the English that day had the equivelant of an anti tank gun against the French. That was a brutal battle. The English shooting the horses, French knights drowning in mud. The English lost something like 500 men while the French lost something like 10,000.MikeD said:
What a slaughter! It pointedly marked the end of the complete dominance of the mounted knight. I agree with you, I just wanted to point out other factors as well.
For better info I would have to ask the Wife. She has her degree in medieval history and did her thesis on something along these lines. My main area of study is Irish medieval history, so basically all I want to do is kill English anyway.
Besides, none of this is happening. As my friend says, "It's all part of The Matrix which was started in 1066." When asked why he thinks the matrix came about in 1066 he replied, "Are you kidding me? The French beat the English!?!?! Never happen. The Matrix is the only reasonable explaination"
Are gun laws going to stop them, either?Changleen said:
That question is not as flip as it sounds...I've been interested in this for a while. It seems self-evident that criminals/people who own guns illegally won't be stopped by gun laws; however, the collary to this is: "Where do illegal/illegitimate guns come from?" I mean, SIG and Glock aren't selling them off the back dock of the factory to anyone. At some point, legally purchased firearms can become illegal.
This is commonly done through a 'straw purchase,' where a legal buyer purchases the gun and then resells it, most often in violation of law, or through the outright theft and resale of the gun.
But I've been unable to find anyone who can tell me what we can do about this; banning them at this point isn't going to help, as there are too many around already (nor do I really agree with that anyhow), and there's no one method of 'conversion' that's predominant or eminently preventable. Or so I'm told--I have little to no direct experience with this stuff.
Personally, I'm about to have a gun at home for the first time in my life or even my family's history; plus, I'll be carrying it even when I'm not at work. Doesn't worry me, as I'm very comfortable with guns, but I just never felt a reason to have one at home before. (I like to shoot, but didn't feel the need to spend my own money or using my own free time to do it very much.) Now that it's an occupational requirement, I'll do as it demands.
I would like to think of my wife as having some sort of protection at home, given that we're likely going to be moving to a relatively high-crime area, but I also fear her bringing a gun into any situation; it could too easily be used against her IMHO-she's not going to be well-trained enough to use it unhesitatingly or decisively. And a shotgun is probably too much for her to handle altogether. Maybe I'll just get her some OC spray or something, just in case. She can run really fast, at least.
MD
Edit: Those of you who think a gun is solely for killing obviously haven't seen the Simpsons episode where Homer buys a gun. (Featuring, of course, the best Simpsons line ever: "Waiting period?! But I'm angy now!!"