Guns don't kill people..... shadowkeeper: I'm so sick of hearing about the gun problem. There is no gun problem. It's a people problem. Where I live, most people have guns. Last year we had to walk our kids to school for a week because of a bear that was hanging around town. I don't live in a remote area, we just live in an area that has a lot of wildlife. Even,occasionally, in the cities. I personally believe that the whole gun argument is bordering on stupidity. Does a fork or a spoon make you fat ??? We live in a sick, twisted society. Nothing is sacred anymore. That's the problem. A few years ago some guy walks into a convenience store and beats a beautiful young woman to death with a sledge hammer for 35 dollars. Should we ban hammers ? Look at all the murders committed with knives. Should we ban all knives ? Lets ban pointy sticks at the same time. If killing is what someone wants to do, they will do it. You take the guns and they will use a knife or a hammer or a rock if need be.... We don't need to fix the "gun problem" because it doesn't exist and it never has. We need to fix the people problem. CoIin:  And bottle-openers don't open beer bottles; people do  I misplaced mine the other day, however, and had to use my teeth on the entire case  Efficiency was somewhat compromised, and my dentist will have a fit, but where there's a will there's a way  CoIin: I'll leave the wisdom of gun control laws to my North American brethren who are directly affected by it. I would, however, like to comment on what I see as the inanity of the pro-gun lobbyists' slogan "Guns don't kill people; people do". Guns don't kill people, eh? Hmm, well consider this headline:- "Tsunami claims 2000 lives in Papua New Guinea" It seems that tsunamis can kill people. Why can't guns then?  Of course, while many would argue that the tsunami was the culprit, others might insist that drowning was the immediate cause of death, and some might point out that the tsunami was itself caused by a massive earthquake a few minutes prior. Perhaps then we should say "Tsunamis don't kill people; earthquakes do". But then again, I don't suppose earthquakes are "uncaused" either... "Pfft and meh and  " I hear you say. "That's not the same thing  . Human agency is not involved."Ok then. How about this headline:- "Fifteen killed in supermarket bomb blast" Apparently bombs can kill people too. So why not guns? I think the mistake we often make in dealing with issues like this is to assume that any given event has a single cause (when in fact it is the product of a causal chain), or that there can only be one valid explanation. { Why do you rob banks, Willie?  Because that's where the money is  }If you ask your car mechanic why the engine starts when you turn the key, he'll likely give you a macro-level explanation involving electricity and spark plugs and cylinders. A chemist or a physicist, on the other hand, might offer a micro-level explanation involving atoms and molecules and chemical reactions. Both explanations are perfectly legitimate, but one explanation may be more appropriate to one particular context. Or if I ask you "Why do you chew tobacco? ", clearly there is more than one possible answer. 1. Why do you CHEW tobacco? (as opposed to smoking it) 2. Why do you chew TOBACCO? (and not gum, say) 3. Why do YOU chew tobacco? ( Your wife just told me why she chews tobacco) So suppose Billy the Kid is shot and dies shortly thereafter. How then did he die? Let's ask a poet first...  : All men must die. Remember, dust we are, and unto dust we shall return... Ahem, let's ask the coroner instead...: A bullet punctured the heart, leading to a massive infarction, which in turn led to oxygen deprivation to the brain.... (or whatever  )Well, none of this is going to be of much interest to Billy's brother Ned who simply wants to know WHO killed his beloved sibling. Anyway, getting back to the original question  . Do guns kill people? Well, it depends who you ask, I suppose And where you ask. And when you ask...( @ ShadowKeeper - Sorry if this is a bit long. Just say the word and I'll zap it. Oh, and awesome photos by the way  ) (Edited by CoIin)  Stassi SUR: Comparing tsunamis, (a natural disaster), earthquakes (a natural disaster) to guns? huh? Really?  Ka0tic: In australia.. Milperra massacre - Two biker gangs, the Comanchero and the Bandidos, engaged in a shoot-out in a hotel car park, killing 7 people in 1984, including a bystander. Only one defendant was acquitted on the murder charges. Joseph Schwab - 1987, Schwab shot dead 5 people in and around the Kimberley region in Western Australia before being shot dead by police.[3] Hoddle Street massacre - Armed with two rifles and a shotgun, Julian Knight shot 7 people dead and wounded another 19 in 1987 before surrendering to authorities. Queen Street massacre - Armed with a sawn-off rifle, Frank Vitkovic roamed the Australia Post building killing 8 and wounding 5, also in 1987. When the weapon was finally wrestled from him, he committed suicide by jumping out of a nearby window. Surry Hills massacre - Paul Anthony Evers killed 5 people with a 12-gauge shotgun at a public housing precinct in Surry Hills in 1990 before surrendering to police.[4] Strathfield massacre - In 1991 Wade Frankum killed 7 people and wounded 6 others with a large knife and an SKS before turning the gun on himself when he realised he could not escape. Central Coast Massacre - Malcolm Baker killed 6 people and injured another with a shotgun in 1992 before being arrested by police. Port Arthur massacre - In 1996, armed with two semi-automatic rifles, Martin Bryant killed 35 people around Port Arthur and wounded 21 before being caught by police the next day following an overnight siege. "After the port arthur massacre,some of the strictest gun laws anywhere in the western world were bought into place" Monash University shooting - In October 2002, Huan Yun Xiang, a student, shot his classmates and teacher, killing two and injuring five. "after monash uni shooting even stricter gun laws were bought into place" Zero massacres since 2002 Thats 11 years and counting with no gun massacres.. Strict gun laws in this country at least have been proven to be affective.. Also id rather take on someone who had a sledge hammer,knife or a rock then someone with a loaded weapon who doesnt even have to be in my vacinity to take me out. (Edited by Ka0tic) CoIin: Ahem, I knew there would be a pfft and meh sooner or later Let me try another approach... The verb "to kill" in English can have several meanings. The two that concern us are:- (1). refers to "agent killing" or active killing - to commit homicide or animalicide (2). to cause death {Note that (1) is a subset of (2) } Within the ambit of meaning (1), only an agent (people, animals, ) can kill. If, however, we use meaning (2) then not only people and animals can kill, but so can drugs, tsunamis, bombs, guns, cigarettes, cancer and falling tortoises (see Aeschylus )The slogan "Guns do not kill people; people kill people" plays on an equivocation between kill (1) and kill (2). The first kill and the second kill in the slogan are not the same beast. What it really says is:- Guns don't kill (1) people; people kill (2) people In order to avoid the equivocation, let's substitute (1) and (2) into the original slogan. We get:- (3). Guns do not commit homicide; people commit homicide (4). Guns do not cause death; people cause death (3) is a a truism, as unenlightening as "guns don't commit adultery". (4) is clearly untrue. Guns DO cause death, and NOT ONLY people cause death. It's only in virtue of equivocation that the slogan gives the misleading impression of saying something significant. Once the equivocation is identified and removed, we end up with either a banal tautology ( "guns do not do things that guns are incapable of doing" ) or a false statement, as shown above. This equivocation will be obvious to speakers of certain other languages. In Chinese, for example, the verb "sha" (殺) is roughly equivalent to the English kill (1) but not kill (2). Thus in Chinese:- "John was sha-ed by Bill" - is quite legitimate (John 被 Bill 殺了 )"John was sha-ed by a heart attack/plane crash/tsunami/gun/bomb/etc" - is nonsense (John 被海嘯殺了  )I think we can all agree that guns do not commit homicide. I hope we can also all agree that guns most certainly CAN cause death. (Edited by CoIin)  calybonos: Getting back to Kaotic's example of Austraila, ( and I am not here to discredit it ) Guns are not perishable items. Which means that unless the stricter gun laws that were brought into place after 2002 included the removal of all the previously existing guns from the country, I doubt that those new laws could be attributed to the complete absense of any further "massacres". This is not to say that those laws were not without some effect, however, the fact remains that the percentage of guns that might have been introduced into society since the new laws are miniscule in comparison to those already out there,already available during those previous years when all of the "massacre" examples that were given happened. This brings us to the logical conclusion that there must be additional factors responsible for the decline in occurrences of gun related deaths, or a complete lack of any new "massacres". I am not against the good intentions of stricter gun laws, but I am also not under the illusion that gun laws, or any laws for that matter, are an 'end solution' to all people following them. I am, however, one of those crazy believers in the philosophy that as long as there are going to be guns available to the "bad guys", (and don't fool yourselves,they always will be) then I'm damn sure going to want to have the right to be able to bring a gun to a gun fight. (Edited by calybonos) fairgojustsaying: Caly guns are still out there, mostly on properties out bush, shooting clubs, collectors etc all had to be registered and stored properly. We still hear of people killed or maimed with guns but no massacres since 2002 We didn't and don't have the amount of weapons that some countries have. Their isn't a huge market here for selling them. No profitable gain for suppliers. Maybe that's the additional factor, the commercial gain or lack thereof. The guns that were out there previously, were rounded up and amnesties were offered and the weapons seized and/or handed in, were destroyed. The public on a whole in Australia welcomed the laws so cooperated, that's all.  OCD_OCD: Australia hasn't yet been invaded by Mexican drug cartels, militant islamic terrorists, or the Russian mob yet.  duncan124: It had something like a 80-99% tax and ' wage equality '. Where would anyone spend the money they got from crime? Yup, they still had a serious drug problem. Oh and look who claimed to have invaded there recently...the good old US of A! duncan124: Australia was a ' leftist ' economy where middle earners were taxed to stop them and people lived a very perscribed life with serious injustices. Where conformity is the norm violence wasn't usualy with guns. tbulb: Here's the problem with the gun vs sledge hammers/knives issue. Guns are designed for one purpose only: to kill something. Sledge hammers have other uses--and were not designed with the intention of killing people. duncan124: In Australia carrying a sledgehammer is intent to kill and in some parts have been banned. shadowkeeper: The point, obviously missed by some, is that taking away guns does not solve the problem that is faced by a society that glorifies murder. But in many places guns ARE tools. They help feed us, and they help protect us. And yes, it would be much easier to "take on" someone attacking you with a hammer or a knife. But if some freak randomly chose your house to break into, because he needed another hit of whatever drug of choice he prefers, and you were all that stood between him and your mother or sister or child....wouldn't you wish you had a gun ? duncan124: In sparsely populated country where you have only you to depend on guns and ammo were an option which you had to also buy before hand. In communities where people,food and money were closer together they were n't so much thought about. In UK towns and cities guns had to be considered and were often met. It was a job to tell some people that you did have to hide and wait till the gun had left your area. Perhaps in the future guns will keep hostile people apart as there will be fewer people for sometime. | Off Topic Chat Room Similar Conversations |
