Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Chilek9
Guns most certainly are tools. They are an inanimate object designed for different purposes (despite what others would say). Many are designed for target shooting and target competition, some for hunting, and, yes, some for killing. There are many implements that were designed for one thing and later made into a weapon (the nunchaku of Japan for instance). What makes a weapon a weapon is the intent of the user. Police can charge someone for using a weapon when they use a beer bottle. Why? Because of the INTENT of the user and the capability of the "weapon."
|
You can't build a house, dig a hole, or cut wood with a gun. Guns were invented as a means to injure or kill. They are destructive, not constructive. How many people go hunting within the city limits of San Francisco?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Chilek9
"Guns represent cowardly combat." Interesting phrase, may I inquire as to your line of thinking with that? As a law enforcement officer, I have always viewed it as the last line of defense of life. During my time in the military, I viewed it, and myself, as the instrument of government policy. I don't view a firearm as a representative of anything. It is a tool that follows the intent of the user and nothing else. Guns are the modern equivalent of bows and arrows, there is nothing "sneaky" about their use and it sure served our purposes when we needed to put Hitler out of business or hold Joe Stalin at bay.
|
As someone who has been shot, and who has seen others shot, I understand guns pretty well. They are easy to use projectile weapons intended to keep your enemy at a distance, injure or kill quickly and easily, and need little dicipline to use. Compare that with other hand weapons. Compare that with a sword or bow and arrow. When you can kill someone who has spent his or her life dedicated to combat with little or no effort or training, that's cowardly. I believe the same about bombs, missles, and other military technology.