ChatterBank4 mins ago
Guns
65 Answers
I believe that there is overwhelming evidence to confirm my view that the original purpose of making and carrying guns was to shoot and kill people, and that remains its primary function today.
I am not talking about the other uses of guns, for sport etc., my premise is that the gun was designed to kill, and that is what it is used for in the majority of times one is fired.
At least one AB'er fundamentally disagrees with my point of view, so I am interested to hear what anyone else thinks about it.
For those unfamiliar - please read this -
https:/
and note the absence of anything about 'targets' or similar. It cannot be reasonably argued that the Second Amendment is enshrined to allow citizens to carry and use guns, and they are not carrying them for 'target practice'
Thoughts?
I am not talking about the other uses of guns, for sport etc., my premise is that the gun was designed to kill, and that is what it is used for in the majority of times one is fired.
At least one AB'er fundamentally disagrees with my point of view, so I am interested to hear what anyone else thinks about it.
For those unfamiliar - please read this -
https:/
and note the absence of anything about 'targets' or similar. It cannot be reasonably argued that the Second Amendment is enshrined to allow citizens to carry and use guns, and they are not carrying them for 'target practice'
Thoughts?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by andy-hughes. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
A link to keep aside to avoid constant repetition and a mass flare up of RSI.
https:/
https:/
I think there is a mix-up in your logic process here....I have no idea what the motivation for inventing the gun was but I suspect that self defence against wild animals and hunting for the pot played a large part in it.
I suspect that globally, the majority of times that a gun, any gun capable fo firing live ammo, is fired it is for practice, sport or training.
But neither of those two arguments is relevant to the question of whether gun control would save innocent lives which, to me, is the crux of the matter.
I suspect that globally, the majority of times that a gun, any gun capable fo firing live ammo, is fired it is for practice, sport or training.
But neither of those two arguments is relevant to the question of whether gun control would save innocent lives which, to me, is the crux of the matter.
woofgang - // I think there is a mix-up in your logic process here....I have no idea what the motivation for inventing the gun was but I suspect that self defence against wild animals and hunting for the pot played a large part in it. //
Really? I have to disagree, but that is the entire thrust of my argument, so you would expect me to I am sure.
// I suspect that globally, the majority of times that a gun, any gun capable fo firing live ammo, is fired it is for practice, sport or training. //
OK, let's leave the 'sport' bit out - what do you imagine the people who are practising or training are practising or training for?
Centuries before guns were invented, Henry VIII mandated that every archer was to commit to a set number of hours practising with a longbow - shooting at targets.
Now I can't know what Henry was thinking, but I think it reasonable that he was thinking less about his archers being able to carry off a rosette here and there, and rather more about them being match fit when he next decided to go to war with anyone.
That's what weapons are for, that's what armies do.
Yes, these days, shooting with longbows is an Olympic sport, virtually computerised in terms of design and accuracy, but no-one would dream of suggesting that the original reason for designing and using a long bow was for 'target practice'.
But neither of those two arguments is relevant to the question of whether gun control would save innocent lives which, to me, is the crux of the matter.
Really? I have to disagree, but that is the entire thrust of my argument, so you would expect me to I am sure.
// I suspect that globally, the majority of times that a gun, any gun capable fo firing live ammo, is fired it is for practice, sport or training. //
OK, let's leave the 'sport' bit out - what do you imagine the people who are practising or training are practising or training for?
Centuries before guns were invented, Henry VIII mandated that every archer was to commit to a set number of hours practising with a longbow - shooting at targets.
Now I can't know what Henry was thinking, but I think it reasonable that he was thinking less about his archers being able to carry off a rosette here and there, and rather more about them being match fit when he next decided to go to war with anyone.
That's what weapons are for, that's what armies do.
Yes, these days, shooting with longbows is an Olympic sport, virtually computerised in terms of design and accuracy, but no-one would dream of suggesting that the original reason for designing and using a long bow was for 'target practice'.
But neither of those two arguments is relevant to the question of whether gun control would save innocent lives which, to me, is the crux of the matter.
"OK, let's leave the 'sport' bit out - what do you imagine the people who are practising or training are practising or training for? "
but this is what you said....it may not have been what you meant but its what you said
"I am not talking about the other uses of guns, for sport etc., my premise is that the gun was designed to kill, and that is what it is used for in the majority of times one is fired. "
and no, the long bow was not invented for target practice..... I suspect it was invented to hunt for the pot.
but this is what you said....it may not have been what you meant but its what you said
"I am not talking about the other uses of guns, for sport etc., my premise is that the gun was designed to kill, and that is what it is used for in the majority of times one is fired. "
and no, the long bow was not invented for target practice..... I suspect it was invented to hunt for the pot.
spicerack - // Carrying on from what Woof was saying, I believe the States with the tightest gun control laws have the highest incidence of gun crime,
And, as I said on the other thread, the perpetrator in that case was banned from owning a gun.
Oh, and I agree with most of what Woof said. //
That does not address my point, which is not about gun use, but the origins and reasons why guns were created in the first place.
And, as I said on the other thread, the perpetrator in that case was banned from owning a gun.
Oh, and I agree with most of what Woof said. //
That does not address my point, which is not about gun use, but the origins and reasons why guns were created in the first place.
When the second amendment was written, guns took three or four minutes to load, with the gunpowder and muskets. I don't think they had semi automatic assault rifles in mind 250 years ago.
The US need to take a good look at themselves, see their kids practicing school lockdowns as shooters are so commonplace, and and do something to control their weapons.
The US need to take a good look at themselves, see their kids practicing school lockdowns as shooters are so commonplace, and and do something to control their weapons.
woofgang - If you Google the word 'longbow' - you get this -
"In the British Isles the weapon was first recorded as being used by the Welsh in AD 633, when Offrid, the son of Edwin, king of Northumbria, was killed by an arrow shot from a Welsh longbow during a battle between the Welsh and the Mercians — more than five centuries before any record of its military use in England. "
"In the British Isles the weapon was first recorded as being used by the Welsh in AD 633, when Offrid, the son of Edwin, king of Northumbria, was killed by an arrow shot from a Welsh longbow during a battle between the Welsh and the Mercians — more than five centuries before any record of its military use in England. "
Mozz - // When the second amendment was written, guns took three or four minutes to load, with the gunpowder and muskets. I don't think they had semi automatic assault rifles in mind 250 years ago.
The US need to take a good look at themselves, see their kids practicing school lockdowns as shooters are so commonplace, and and do something to control their weapons. //
Again, my I draw your attention to the OP - this is not about gun use in modern America, I am asking if people agree that the gun was originally conceived as a weapon to kill people, rather than as a tool for recreational target shooting.
The US need to take a good look at themselves, see their kids practicing school lockdowns as shooters are so commonplace, and and do something to control their weapons. //
Again, my I draw your attention to the OP - this is not about gun use in modern America, I am asking if people agree that the gun was originally conceived as a weapon to kill people, rather than as a tool for recreational target shooting.
//I think you've got your Henry's mixed up, andy. //
no he hasn't spicerack. whilst guns existed long before Henry VIII, and rules concerning proficiency with the longbow likewise (without which Agincourt might have had a different outcome), it was Henry VIII who wrote it into law, in 1511. the reason for that was although guns were quite common by that time, longbows were still more effective both in set-up time and accuracy, but only in the hands of skilled bowmen.....
no he hasn't spicerack. whilst guns existed long before Henry VIII, and rules concerning proficiency with the longbow likewise (without which Agincourt might have had a different outcome), it was Henry VIII who wrote it into law, in 1511. the reason for that was although guns were quite common by that time, longbows were still more effective both in set-up time and accuracy, but only in the hands of skilled bowmen.....
"Question Author woofgang - If you Google the word 'longbow' - you get this -
"In the British Isles the weapon was first recorded as being used by the Welsh in AD 633, when Offrid, the son of Edwin, king of Northumbria, was killed by an arrow shot from a Welsh longbow during a battle between the Welsh and the Mercians — more than five centuries before any record of its military use in England. "
maybe because going out after animals for the pot is not considered worth recording?
"In the British Isles the weapon was first recorded as being used by the Welsh in AD 633, when Offrid, the son of Edwin, king of Northumbria, was killed by an arrow shot from a Welsh longbow during a battle between the Welsh and the Mercians — more than five centuries before any record of its military use in England. "
maybe because going out after animals for the pot is not considered worth recording?
Andy I don't think it (or any other tool capable of dealing death) was invented as a tool for recreation or practice...I think like the boomerang, the throwing stick, the sling, the bolas, they were developed for hunting for the pot.
but but that is totally irrelevant to any arguement for gun control....I do get that the NRA might be putting it up as an argument against gun control but surely a better response would be to argue that the argument is irrelevant? It doesn't matter one iota why guns were invented; only what they are used for NOW. Likewise the ratio of shots fired to kill to shots fored for other reasons is irrelevant.....what is relevant is that too many innocent people are being killed because guns are in the hands of people who cannot be trusted with them.
but but that is totally irrelevant to any arguement for gun control....I do get that the NRA might be putting it up as an argument against gun control but surely a better response would be to argue that the argument is irrelevant? It doesn't matter one iota why guns were invented; only what they are used for NOW. Likewise the ratio of shots fired to kill to shots fored for other reasons is irrelevant.....what is relevant is that too many innocent people are being killed because guns are in the hands of people who cannot be trusted with them.
I certainly don't disagree with your premise although they are also obviously useful for hunting. The USA thing is something that has a lot in common with religion when it comes to interpretation of the holy writ and promulgation of the "pro-gun" views there.
I would add that apart from the military (and their abolition would be a welcome thing) very few people genuinely need a gun for any lawful and/or justifiable practical reason. While I accept that the majority of gun owners do not intend to harm anyone, if guns were entirely removed from the planet there would be no ill effect at all. On a smaller scale, removing guns society by society would similarly do no harm. Conversely, there is plenty of harm done by the presence of guns so my attitude is to support, at the very least, radical restrictions on the access to guns.
I used to have a licence to keep guns but I got rid of mine and let the licences lapse. I don't miss any of that in the least.
I would add that apart from the military (and their abolition would be a welcome thing) very few people genuinely need a gun for any lawful and/or justifiable practical reason. While I accept that the majority of gun owners do not intend to harm anyone, if guns were entirely removed from the planet there would be no ill effect at all. On a smaller scale, removing guns society by society would similarly do no harm. Conversely, there is plenty of harm done by the presence of guns so my attitude is to support, at the very least, radical restrictions on the access to guns.
I used to have a licence to keep guns but I got rid of mine and let the licences lapse. I don't miss any of that in the least.
Latest Posts
ChatterBank26 mins ago
Crosswords43 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles52 mins ago
ChatterBank79 mins ago
News82 mins ago
