why did someone ever invent guns?

Post Reply New Topic

Guns themselves are not bad. It's how people use them and what purpose they have to use them whether it makes it good or bad. Some people use them for self-defense and to protect others, which is actually good. However, other people tend to use guns to threaten others and kill them just to make examples of, which is really bad. And there are other people who use guns for hunting, which is neither good nor bad, but can be either depending on reason.

Display? Agreed. For most private firearm owners, though, displaying isn't the first choice. Concealed carry is the near-universal choice for them. I am one of the relative few who carries concealed or unconcealed depending on each situation. I admit that, for the same reason world leaders show some, if not all, of their defensive power, I see that law-enforcement officers carry unconcealed and it is actually a preventive measure, isn't it?

I care not about others' opinions about the Second Amendment and firearms. Hey, nobody is holding a gun to their heads to make them support ... um, guns. Hehe. I value all opinions. But, I disagree kindly when some anti-gun advocates resort to insults, especially when they come from gun-free nations. It is their right, of course, but it seems rude to me to tell the people of our nation to change our ways because others wish it were so.

Because it was God that made men, but Sam Colt that made them equal. Cliche, true, but has some truth to it, as there is no other weapon out there that negates the traditional advantages that bigger, stronger, meaner people have over everyone else, they're very egalitarian that way.

Very true. Gun control is the notion that Matthew Shepard tied to a fence post in the middle of a freezing Wyoming night, tortured and beaten to death, is morally superior to Matthew Shepard explaining to the local sheriff how his attackers got all those bullet holes.

Now, cue the mental gymnastics from the gun-control apologists!

Unfortunately, that kind of equalization is usually considered cowardly. There's something very deeply rooted in human nature that considers being bigger, stronger and meaner legitimate advantages, and the only ones, as long as you don't cross a few lines, like using them against a woman if you're a man, or against someone too old or too young. A fair fight seems to be one in which raw strength and hand-to-hand-combat training are allowed to prevail without much interference from anything more sophisticated and equalizing.

"Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun."

--Mau Dzdung

Actually big cannon type guns came first. Little hand held guns came latter.

The Chinese invented gun powder.

But when the stuff was introduced to Middle Ages Europe the warfare in Europe was all about finding ways to knock down castle walls. Catapaults, ballistas, and other wooden engines of war that exploited rope, or counter weights had long be divised to throw big rocks at castle walls. But the advantage remained with with castle defenders.

Then someone got the idea of putting black powder behind a big iron ball inside of a big iron tube closed at one end, and open the other. And lighting the powder at the closed end. The resulting explosion could hurl the big heavy iron ball at masonry more efficiently than these wood plus rope contraptions. And artillery was born. And castles (and with them feudalism) went into decline. Big huge cannon type guns took over siege warfare.

Big guns revolutized warfare, but small guns, though also used, barely impacted warfare because they were so inefficient at killing (game or enemy soldiers) because they were basically little hand held cannons- you lit the fuse and then aimed...or ...do I aim first...and THEN light the fuse...and then aim again...oh damn the target is gone.

Then somebody combined the gun barrel with the trigger mechanism of the crossbow so you could aim and ignite the powder at the same time-and invented the matchlock version of the modern gun trigger- so you could aim and fire with efficiency. the matchlock musket- the first efficient hand held firearm was born- and it quickly revolutionized warfare again.

Well, you could break those mores and use a gun as your main mode of conflict resolution to equalize. Downside to breaking those mores, though, is that if too many people do it you get an "inner-city" mentality of shoot first, ask later, and eventually, don't ask at all, just shoot. But yes, I find it humorous when the "large" try and physically intimidate-- I find it helpful to remind them that as large as they are, a .22 can still get lodged in their skull, so be careful who you threaten.

To lessen the weight of the emotional burden that killing something else leaves within you?

"Terrible" to YOU, cuz you're scared of 'em, maybe----but, to others: for food, sport, and most importantly, for defense.

How about "The best defense is a good offense" Killing your enemy is a pretty good defense.

If I recall correctly, the chinese first invented guns when the hordes of Genghis Khan were invading their country.
Necessity is the mother of invention, thats how most things are invented.
They still lost in the end tough.

Humanity has always engaged in war, from the smallest of tribes battling with sticks and stones for recourses to the impeding nuclear war we're going to end up in in the future.

As the technology has evolved, so has the body count.

The takeaway from all this is that most countries over-fund their military, giving the military continued access to such powerful weapons and vehicles.

50% of the U.S. national budget goes to the Defense forces, and you wonder why America's military is as dangerous as they are numerous.

But hey, even if the budgets of most militaries global was reduced, they'd still find a way to make do - look at most rebel groups and guerilla factions who have to make their weapons and vehicles on scratch.

But still, war would be far less dangerous and a much safer place if every military global had the budget most guerilla factions and rebel groups do.

The less powerful weapons, vehicles, etc. the less casualties war will cause.

I'm not saying war will end, we'd have soldiers fighting with fists and knives if all their vehicles and guns were taken away, but better that soldiers fight with these things instead of wide-scale nuclear bombs that can severely injure or kill entire cities, drone jets, missiles, etc.

As the quote goes...



We're screwed.

I couldn't have said it better, myself. Also, some guns are pretty spiffy to look at.

To kill things easier...

Then of course there are nukes/bombs meant to kill more things at once easier.

This.