Were knives invented with the primary purpose of killing in mind? Right. At best, at fucking best, you could argue that the comparisons should be limited to inanimate objects that cannot act without human intervention.
Were they not? Cutting, destroying, that's not a knife's primary purpose for invention? Cavemen, hunting?
Then you've just allowed chainsaws and demolition equipment. Then shut your fucking cock hole already.
Yes, chainsaws and demolition equipment would make more sense to compare it to. Accidental deaths caused by such, would be a more valid comparison. Why is it when backed into a corner, you lash out? Maybe you can instead argue your point, like an adult, instead of being a complete fucktard. I guess that would take you remaining calm for 5 seconds.
Which in no way negates or stops the original point I made (which you disagreed with) that it was invented for killing people!!
Or was it invented to STOP killing people? Maybe the inventor was one of those folks who thought "Surely this weapon is so powerful that no one will DARE use it, and it will end all war!" Then his indentured apprentice said "Don't call me Shirley." And he shot the annoying little fuck.
I need to revisit this again. NO. Compare it to a tool with a purpose, lets do it shall we??? A saw- for cutting things up A hammer- for nailing things together A vice grip- for holding things steady whilst you work on them. A spanner- for tightening screws up A gun.......... ??????
Forbin man, you know i respect you and you know i do think that guns are cool but we both know full well that guns were not invented for self defence! Sure, they are used for that now, but that was not there original purpose. A few google searches on the originins of gun powder and when it was put to use in fire arms will confirm that for you.
It would be an interesting subject for a poll, especially vis-a-vis whether it happens more often in the boonies than in cities. 'cause any break-ins I know of in urban areas are usually high school kids waiting till there's no one home. In that instance, a gun won't save your HDTV, but a big dog might.
I'm allergic to dogs and they might scratch the tv to death. But I still keep a firing extinguisher, even though newer wiring doesn't usually short and start a fire. And I look both ways before crossing a street, even though motorists will usually hit the brakes or swerve to miss me (if they don't know who I am). Sure, tv's come and go, but you only get one liver, one spine, one life. Basing precautions on "usually" and "probably" is foolhardy.
^Well, as I say, I'd like to know the stats on break-ins when someone's at home vs. those when the house is empty.
As I stated in another thread, in 32 years, our Avon lady was robbed once of cash, trinkets, and candy by Ricky, and we all knew it was him. That was it.
Not to put words in your mouth, but are you somehow implying that if guns were illegal criminals would stop using them? Yes, guns are a tool that was originally designed to kill. Truth of the matter is, some people need killin'.
Ah. So you agree that criminals would continue to use guns if they were illegal. The only difference is that then their victims couldn't fight back.
No, didn't say that either. Are you hallucinating? And those deaths would still not make it into the idiotic statistic at the beginning of this thread, since none of those deaths would be "accidental".
Yeah, yeah, I know. But one cannot be in the Red Room without arguing. But gun powder's very first application was NOT mayhem, it was fireworks! Guns were indeed developed for warfare. But their defensive applications are just as valid today. We all know the stats that more crimes are prevented by the good guy showing a gun, than murders are committed with a gun. And their recreational uses these days are numerous. Appropos of nothing, I'm gonna point out that projectile weapons in general, going all the way back to the atl-atl, the spear and eventually the bow, were developed for hunting, not mayhem. But human nature is human nature, and eventually almost everything is turned into an anti-fellow-human weapon.
Meh. You'll find numerous studies to prove that or the opposite, depending on your inclination; the issue is too badly defined for unbiased results.
I bet the opposite results come from Harvard, or some other liberal college in a liberal state. Thing about the John Lott study was that he started out on the side of gun control, he started out to prove the pro-gunners wrong. But his own study made him change his mind!
Yeeessss!! It's all part of the plaaaan!! Nyahahahahahaaa!!! *Strokes mustache* Rosie O' Donnell was the first step! Nyaaahahahahahaaaaa!!! First the guns, then the cowboy hats, then pickup trucks!! Nyaaahahahahhaaaa!!!
Someone have a link to guns first being designed to kill people? Because I was under the impression that gunpowder was first used in cannon (that is, aside from fireworks), which were used to break down castle walls impenetrable by trebuchet or catapult. When it was firs put in guns, it was put in arbusques (sp?) which were impractical for military use, but well-suited to taking out bears and such. And if not, well then it could certainly be argued that they were developed to kill bad people, and it's only misuse or accident when they kill good people.
The first guns were big cannons designed to smash down fortifications. Killing anybody who might be in the way was kind of a bonus feature. Eventually smaller and smaller guns were developed, presumably for purposes of warfare. I have no evidence, just a feeling that hunting with firearms came later. They were not intended to kill "bad people." They were intended to kill "the enemy." That's a distinction which we, 500 years later, have no excuse for not making.
