Wording: Guns vs. Blasters - What's the big deal?!
To assign human motives/emotions/designations to weapons (sick killing machines) is simply ludicrous. A gun, and the bullets it fires, are tools, nothing more. If I hit someone in the head with a hammer, does that make a hammer a sick killing machine. Does it really make sense to blame the hammer? To assign such motives&designations is to partly absolve those who mis-use them of guilt.
Adrian
Adrian
“To achieve a World Government it is necessary to remove from their minds their individualism, their loyalty to family traditions, national patriotism and religious dogma.”…..Brock Adams, Director, United Nations Health Organisation.
-
- Posts: 1005
- Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2004 4:23 pm
- Location: Indianapolis (North Side)
- Contact:
Well, yes and no.Adrian wrote:To assign human motives/emotions/designations to weapons (sick killing machines) is simply ludicrous. A gun, and the bullets it fires, are tools, nothing more. If I hit someone in the head with a hammer, does that make a hammer a sick killing machine. Does it really make sense to blame the hammer? To assign such motives&designations is to partly absolve those who mis-use them of guilt.
Adrian
Guns, as far as I know, were built and designed in order to kill things (not necessarily other people, but things). They were built as weapons. Using another device (i.e. a hammer) as a weapon is still different than using a device that is a weapon (i.e. a sword). Of course, if you use a weapon for non-combat things (maybe using a sword to cut watermelon or something), that's ok, but that doesn't take away from the initial purpose for why the device was created.
Of course, it is the user who should be blamed for an action. At the same time, some things make it easier for others to use or mis-use them, hence the dislike for them. All things being equal, it is still harder to kill someone with a sword than it is to kill someone using a gun. That said, the sword or the gun didn't kill... the person using it killed. Unfortunately, for many, they cannot distinguish between the device and the person, laying blame on both (and, at times, more on the device). For sake of companies trying to sell things, they still must attempt to appease the mass public.
Makes sense? Well, not really. But neither does much of humanity, either...
*sigh*
:: Leave NO one dry! :: iSoaker.com .:
Lets put it this way. I can lay a gun out in pieces on a table. None of those pieces can assemble themselves. The assembled gun cannot load itself, chamber a round, or fire itself at anyone or anything without human intervension at each step along the way. It is a totally inanimate object. To consider a perfectly useful tool (albeit a tool used for taking life, and most of the time not even used for that when in civilian hands) sick just because someone might use it in a sick way... *shakes head*
Adrian
Adrian
“To achieve a World Government it is necessary to remove from their minds their individualism, their loyalty to family traditions, national patriotism and religious dogma.”…..Brock Adams, Director, United Nations Health Organisation.
I agree that that gun, itself, is not "sick" though it has the potential to be used in a "sick" way. I also agree in that many other things can also be used in "sick" ways. All I wanted to say is that the origin of gun or other weapon creation is different than that of other items that may also be used as weapons by people (i.e. a baseball bat was meant for playing baseball, but can be used/misused as a blunt clubbing device). The "sickness" is in the action by a person. However, many fail to differentiate between people's actions and the objects they use.
:: Leave NO one dry! :: iSoaker.com .:
-
- Posts: 1005
- Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2004 4:23 pm
- Location: Indianapolis (North Side)
- Contact:
-
- Posts: 314
- Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2004 10:52 pm
- Location: Under There...
- Contact:
The big difference is that iSoaker's views are a little more objective, and Adrian's views are a little more subjective.
They're not really arguing though. They're basically just saying what their views are.
I have no problem with making guns hard to obtain, but I'm against the banning of assault weapons. People can find all sorts of ways of killing other people, and this will continue for as long as humanity exists. Whatever weaponry we may use, this one factor will always stay the same. The masses tend to blame this human instinct on the weaponry people use rather than on the humanity that's behind the tool. Does it lack reason? Of course it does.
Edited By Space_Cowboy on 1091761524
They're not really arguing though. They're basically just saying what their views are.
I have no problem with making guns hard to obtain, but I'm against the banning of assault weapons. People can find all sorts of ways of killing other people, and this will continue for as long as humanity exists. Whatever weaponry we may use, this one factor will always stay the same. The masses tend to blame this human instinct on the weaponry people use rather than on the humanity that's behind the tool. Does it lack reason? Of course it does.
Edited By Space_Cowboy on 1091761524
With a name like Manhole Mayhem, it has to be good...
Guns were made to protect farmers animals from wild animals. Too many people got them. Untill they realised that it could be used for more things than protecting animals. It could protect them , but people got carried away and killed other people for no reason. Finally guns were restricted to only to be used by authorised people. Still people steal guns and kill , and the weapon is blamed more than the person. So some parents don't like Super Soakers or water guns because it reminds them of people getting hurt. Which is why I find it easier to call them squirt guns. Which makes it sound safer. So basically call them something safe infront of your parents and whatever you like in other places.
I am one with the water
- Field Marshal Yang
- Posts: 376
- Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2004 9:45 pm
- Location: Setauket, NY
- Contact:
Originally, the first guns such as the arquebus were created as "mini-cannons". Primitive cannons, which were built before the first guns, were intented as weapons of war, or basically to kill people. However, they were meant to be handled by armies, nor private civilians. And that's were the right to own a weapon for defense comes in. Before the founding of the United States, it was unusual for private civilians to own guns unless they were given special privleges by a government. Let us discuss this right as part of this thread. I'm sure it will stir up a lot of debates.
Edited By Field Marshal Yang on 1091928807
Edited By Field Marshal Yang on 1091928807
Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fate of Human Societies, by Jared Diamond
Ahh...Yang, you bring up an interesting point. Guns weren't to be handled by commoners before the founding of the US, but other modern military equipment was. After the battle of Agincourt (I think that's what it was) where English peasants killed hundreds of nobles with the Welsh longbow, human rights suddenly become something ordinary people had. English law required that people train twice a month with the longbow. They even cut off a king's head when he tried to interfere with their rights.
Basically, when the people are armed, they have rights. When they're not, those rights hang only by a thread.
Adrian
Basically, when the people are armed, they have rights. When they're not, those rights hang only by a thread.
Adrian
“To achieve a World Government it is necessary to remove from their minds their individualism, their loyalty to family traditions, national patriotism and religious dogma.”…..Brock Adams, Director, United Nations Health Organisation.
- Field Marshal Yang
- Posts: 376
- Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2004 9:45 pm
- Location: Setauket, NY
- Contact:
Wasn't the Magna Carta (guaranteed human rights) created before the battle of Agincourt? The battle of Agincourt was fought in 1415, at the height of the Hundred's Year with France. The Magna Carta was created in the 1200s, before the war began. Perhaps it's the longbow trained that started after the battle.
Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fate of Human Societies, by Jared Diamond
- Field Marshal Yang
- Posts: 376
- Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2004 9:45 pm
- Location: Setauket, NY
- Contact:
There's probably some dime-store squirt pistol called the "Super Squirt Pistol". The world won't some to an end and neither will the list of dime-store squirt pistols.trekkie00 wrote:I just heard someone call them "super squirt guns". SUPER SQUIRT GUNS! :O
What is this world coming to?
Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fate of Human Societies, by Jared Diamond
Well, humans are certanly a dumb race (sorry if offended, it's true).isoaker_com wrote:Adrian wrote:To assign human motives/emotions/designations to weapons (sick killing machines) is simply ludicrous. A gun, and the bullets it fires, are tools, nothing more. If I hit someone in the head with a hammer, does that make a hammer a sick killing machine. Does it really make sense to blame the hammer? To assign such motives&designations is to partly absolve those who mis-use them of guilt.
Adrian
Well, yes and no.
Guns, as far as I know, were built and designed in order to kill things (not necessarily other people, but things). They were built as weapons. Using another device (i.e. a hammer) as a weapon is still different than using a device that is a weapon (i.e. a sword). Of course, if you use a weapon for non-combat things (maybe using a sword to cut watermelon or something), that's ok, but that doesn't take away from the initial purpose for why the device was created.
Of course, it is the user who should be blamed for an action. At the same time, some things make it easier for others to use or mis-use them, hence the dislike for them. All things being equal, it is still harder to kill someone with a sword than it is to kill someone using a gun. That said, the sword or the gun didn't kill... the person using it killed. Unfortunately, for many, they cannot distinguish between the device and the person, laying blame on both (and, at times, more on the device). For sake of companies trying to sell things, they still must attempt to appease the mass public.
Makes sense? Well, not really. But neither does much of humanity, either...
*sigh*
" The only thing about humans that is comprehenseable is that their uncomprehenseable"- Albert Enstine(sp?), considered to be the smartest man who ever lived.
-
- Posts: 1005
- Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2004 4:23 pm
- Location: Indianapolis (North Side)
- Contact:
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 73 guests