why did someone ever invent guns?

Post Reply New Topic

just why did someone ever invent such a terrible thing?

Because someone else would if they didn't. Better have the upper hand in the arms race. Se vis pacem, para bellum.

Blame the Chinese. They had about a 600 years head start before the National Rifle Association got going.

I think it was maybe to hunt for food. I read somewhere that the yo-yo is actually inspired by a weapon used in Malaysia, but I think it was used mainly for hunting as well.

But I'm not sure about guns being made only for that purpose originally, I guess I'll go look it up.

To kill things. Whether you agree with it or not, efficient killing is your answer.

I just looked it up, and it seems guns were first invented in China, which isn't a surprise since they invented gunpowder. Although the guns looked more like little cannons. And apparently they were used to shoot people.

Guns in Canada are mostly used for sport-shooting or hunting and not so much self-defense. Opinions about using guns as self-defense is mixed. Deaths by guns are uncommon.

Guns in the UK are used mainly for sport-shooting and people there know they're not living in Chicago during the 1920s, and generally frown upon using guns for self-defense except Ireland. Deaths by guns are uncommon.

The USA currently is the highest in gun ownership in the world. The 2nd amendment allows everyone to bear firearms even if they are a complete psychopath or just plain stupid. People collect guns just for the fun of it, they're easy to get because they're practically sold like candy, Hollywood movies and TV make shooting and killing look fun and exciting. Death by guns is ALL. THE. TIME.

Compared to the other countries I find it freaking hilarious when Americans say "If we outlaw guns then only outlaws will have guns."

This is true. There are countless illegal firearms. Far more than can ever be adequately confiscated. In other countries where firearms have not been as readily available for centuries as they have been here, there aren't nearly as many around. Even if gun production and sales were stopped tomorrow in the US, there'd still be so many weapons in the hands of different people that all you'd do is create a more volatile black market and more violence as a result.

And the only people who would suffer are those who do actually use their weapons for hunting and self defense. believe it or not there are still many Americans that rely on hunting as a means to help feed their families. Those are the only ones hurt, because they will not have the black market connections to acquire weapons and ammunition. But criminals will.

Guns are a symbol of self-reliance for many people. And this ethic alone is a very uncommon one today.

Guns are used to KILL. That makes them bad and ugly. End of story. There's a difference between giving someone something to think about as they recover in the hospital and ending a human life, which is permanent. Death is permanent. When I was a kid I was told that because of that everyone's life was a very precious thing. But I guess I was wrong well whatever who cares about what an autistic canuck thinks?

Yep. That is more or less what James Madison and George Mason offered in their drafting of the Bill of Rights based on the original text within the English Bill of Rights of 1689 which stated "That the Subjects which are Protestants may have Arms for their Defence suitable to their Conditions and as allowed by Law." Unfortunately, the pesky members of the 1st U.S. Congress (1789-1791) did a slight rewrite and came up with more elegant phrasing of "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The current language enjoys less of the royal reference to "subjects" and such, and treats the right as natural, or "God given," with all the attendant guarantees and protections, instead; Protestants or otherwise.

If so, perhaps you should advise Justin Trudeau to dismiss his armed security staffers.

^

Reagan had just as many of those black suits and it didn't stop him from getting shot. Guns are offensive weapons, not defensive. Common sense will keep you a 1000x safer than any offensive weapon.

Hehe! Once, when I was invited to greet some presidential candidates at a local airport, a gust of wind blew the "jacket folded over a Secret Service agent's bent forearm" to disclose that the staffer's arm was, in fact, completely relaxed and resting vertically with its hand holding an UZI variant. Yep, pretty neat disguise, but it made me aware that even the innocent-looking staffer can really be locked and loaded. So, the four obvious agents suddenly become surrounded by their invisible co-workers.

He's right—they're safer if the public doesn't have guns, so they can abuse it to their heart's content with no chance of retaliation, than if it does.

On one of my many political travels to Washington, D.C., I arrived after midnight at the apartment of a friend who later worked for the Clinton administration. When I noticed the morning's sunlight, a opened the blinds to see, in a kind of horror, that the apartment's living room was directly (and, I mean directly) across the narrow neighborhood road from the Reagan shooting site at the Washington Hilton Hotel. Only years later did I learn that Vice President George H.W. Bush's family members had business and social connections with John Hinckley's family members include a dinner between them the following evening. Hm. So, once again, I ask: If firearms are so terrible (and apparently useless), why do all world leaders spend so much money to surround themselves with terrible and useless security staffers?

Like everything else in society-- for the display. It's no different than an animal displaying in the wild: a display of strength may make the opponent back down without having to fight. But again, the guns don't actually prevent anything, if a person wants to harm you they will do it, whether you have a gun or not. The gun may make them second guess it, but if they have resolve it won't stop them. And for the upteenth million time, since I know where this is going next: I'm not anti-gun, it's just that a lot of the justification bandied about for their necessity is illogical and doesn't hold up to scrutiny.