English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

2006-12-14 19:06:59 · 7 answers · asked by xeronix 1 in Arts & Humanities History

7 answers

a hand......


your sister,
Ginger

2006-12-14 19:08:08 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

The evolution of weapons from the main primitive form; fists, stone knives, axes e.t.c, as much as intercontinental nuclear weapons follows an obtrusive vogue: The starting to be distance between the attacker and the sufferer. Strangling a fellow individual consisting of your individual arms is a much extra complicated job than making use of a sword, bow and arrow, gun and guided weapons. The mass killings which occurred in the previous century would not have been which you are able to think of to the folk of previous generations. How lots extra handy is it to ruin human lives from 50,000 ft or by making use of urgent a button on the different fringe of the international? A disconnection between the device used and the consequence it wreaks brought about by making use of this persevering with evolution in simple terms engenders added contempt for human life.

2016-10-14 23:52:07 · answer #2 · answered by ? 4 · 0 0

A weapon is a tool for defense or killing.
There are two major parts:
1) an interface, where the weapon fits to the body,
2) a force multiplier.
In the case of a knife, a handle to fit the hand, and a blade which focuses the applied force on a small area.
The weapon is a personal and physical amplifier, it takes a person's natural abilities and increases them,
to make it easier or possible to work their will.
It is a survival device - an advantage in natural selection.

2006-12-14 19:15:34 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1 1

My daughter was in a baton group and taught me how to twirl. What she taught me was really basic, just finger twirling. Not a whole lot of difference between that and how I played around with nunchucks. And not a whole lot of difference between those and taking a gun out for an afternoon of target practice. But you can inject a value judgement into this that ignores the fact that private ownership of weapons unsettles--and I mean REALLY unsettles--the predators among us. I believe that's a good thing, and that those who speak against private ownership of weapons would leave us vulnerable to predators. Whether they do this out of ignorance or because they are in the minority of predators that benefit from that is beside the point.

2006-12-14 19:44:31 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

This is actually a good question, but more suited for philosophy. I would say the lack of self-control is the problem. These days weapons can be dangerous. If people have drug problems, suicidal tendencies, domestic violence issues or mental illnesses, it could be dangerous for them to possess a weapon. It is also very glamourized. I am in favour of gun control and a ban on assault weapons.

2006-12-14 19:14:58 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

what I call a tiny weeny problem..the bigger the gun the smaller the weeny.

2006-12-14 19:09:52 · answer #6 · answered by Roxy 5 · 0 1

Guns don't kill people
stupid people with guns kill people!!

2006-12-14 22:35:59 · answer #7 · answered by JAMES R 3 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers