Yes. For me, the thing about guns is that guns make killing sanitary for the killer. Pull the trigger and the job is done. It used to be hard to kill a person, you really had to want to kill someone and fight for it. Then came stones, then came sharp sticks, and people had to get clever about it, suprise someone in order to cause death. Then the sword, then the cannon, then bombs, and all of a sudden you didn't even have to see the person you were killing. Guns are about instant satisfaction. I don't think many people realize that when you kill someone you also kill the spirit of those who cared and are the survivors.
They say hunting is a sport, well, as a hunter, it used to be when the hunter was on an even footing with the animal, it no longer is. Not with guns. The instant satisfaction factor can be addictive when it comes to killing, no longer is the need to eat considered. Trophy hunting these days is not honorable. I haven't taken a deer in about 10 years. I don't have to. I have killed vermin because they were intrusive upon my livelihood but the concept of killing for pleasure is something I don't think I could ever grasp. Not out of anger, not for retribution, not for money, but, having killed I wouldn't have a problem if the situation arose and opportunity knocked to take on a gunman who is shooting others with arbritrary glee and kill that person quickly.
2007-04-16 15:47:54
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
I hate to say it, but it's a phrase I've used before, and still enjoy. Is it cliched? Certainly. Does it even begin to encompass the entirety of the discussion about gun control and right to bear arms and problems with violence in our society? Definitely not. But it's a miniaturized phrase that sums up what I feel.
"Love the sinner, hate the sin." is a standpoint that addresses the same thing: a sin, or what someone thinks is a sin. "Guns don't kill people, people do." doesn't dicuss the morality of anything, merely the fact that an actor is necessary for something. At least, that's always the definition I've had.
So no, I'm not tired of it, but I do agree that it's overused.
2007-04-16 14:56:46
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
Guns do kill people. People with guns are far more succesful in their suicide attempts. Houses with guns have a higher rage murder rate. If someone attacks someone in a rage and there are no guns available they are likely to use their fists or a knife and the victim is more likely to survive. In houses that have guns, if someone gets to the rage killing level and guns are available they tend to go straight for the guns and the victims are more likely to die.
Guns are just more effective and efficient weapons. Saying guns don't kill people is like saying cars don't kill people, drunken drivers do. However the just plain fact of the matter is that there wouldn't be a drunk driver without the car. Drunken pedestrians are highly unlikely to kill someone should they stumble into one.
2007-04-16 14:59:00
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
well, I do hate guns. I will never own one. I can't totally agree or disagree with that statement. I don't think everyone should be allowed to own guns. and I don't think anyone but military should be able to have assault weapons. yes, most people are responsible gun owners, but there are too many "accidents" and too many loonies like the one who killed so many at VA Tech today (which hit a little closer to home, being originally from VA and my father and an uncle graduated from there). Along with a criminal background check I think there should be a psychological one as well. But, how much will that help? I really don't know the right answer. But I was disturbed that the biggest convention that we ever had here in St. Louis was the NRA convention this past weekend.
2007-04-16 14:52:36
·
answer #4
·
answered by redcatt63 6
·
1⤊
2⤋
it is so stupid!! i cannot understand that neither...
i mean, with an easy acces to guns massive killings are easier...i thought it was evident but in here i see that it may not be so for many people...
I live in spain and in here it is not easy for anyone to have a gun, almost impossible i would say (that is for the medium citizen)...i may be scared that someone in the street attacks me with a knife but at least that person has to get close...
If someone wants to kill he will kill, that is probably true but if this person has a gun he will kill 20 instead of 2 and he wont give the chance for anyone to fight fro hi/her life...just a shot from the distance and that is all... I am sadly amazaed many people from the u.s cannot see that...or look for an stupid excuse.
2007-04-16 14:50:51
·
answer #5
·
answered by alberto k 3
·
1⤊
0⤋
Yes 10 fold, but as much as I hate gun's I fear the people who do own them mite be our only protection in the near future with all the sleeper cells around the world. Seriously we all know somethings coming and I support trigger locks 100% but even the pacifist I am would like to be ready for the invasion we know is coming. By the way Thanks for everything GWB Puke!
2007-04-16 14:49:30
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
Well, it's true. A gun in the RIGHT hands kills no one, except in defense. If guns were unaccessible, the bad people would just find something else to use.
HOWEVER, this does not apply when a gun is not stored PROPERLY with a lock. An 8 year old accidentally discharging the weapon in to his sister's face is completely outside my point.
2007-04-16 14:48:03
·
answer #7
·
answered by Miakoda 5
·
1⤊
1⤋
Really its the bullets.
Maybe people should sue bullet manufacturers for deaths.
Maybe we should have a waiting period on bullets.
Maybe background checks.
How come guns and people take all the blame?
Bullets are the real culprit.
Maybe the bullet should serve the time.
2007-04-16 14:48:38
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
It's Truth. Romans could say, 'swords don't kill a man, people do'. and it would be just as true. A gun is a tool. Can be used for good or ill. Now, I'm a Liberally minded fellow, but I can't abide gun-control. I say we should arm the whole of our citizenry and then see if any sneeky extremists dare try to invade/attack our Homeland. That would kill the 'get them there before they come here' BS we've heard from Fundi-freaks in power. Terrorists should fear us, down to the last old lady.
2007-04-16 14:47:52
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
4⤋
yes it is an annoying phrase but none the less true. Some times when the truth is put in a so-overly-used cliche type phrase it gets on your nerves
2007-04-16 14:49:23
·
answer #10
·
answered by lala 3
·
0⤊
0⤋