Shootings and gangs: black community leaders speak up

[mel_zoom]

iamaboringperson:

"Keep the guns, get rid of the weirdo's"

Are there any firearm fans that arent weirdos?

[mel_zoom]

X-ray:

"Depends what you mean by 'firearms fan.'"

Thats easy. Anybody who finds firearms exciting and fun for their own sake or feels that owning one makes them somehow cool or important. It doesnt.

A firearm is a tool that is solely the end result of people unable to get along.

[mel_zoom]

X-Ray:

I think you misunderstood me. All of the weapons you describe were designed with the sole objective of killing and maiming (and only maiming as a side effect of inefficiency).

It doesnt really matter if they have any other use as these will always be an afterthought. Guns, bows, swords, artillery, bombs, mines, take your pick. Not one of them has any intrinsic redeeming features of any kind. All these weapons are the end product of a species that is incapable of reason beyond a certain point and therefore must resort to violence to settle any dispute.

I see a gun and all I can see is a metallic incarnation of all that is base and wrong with the human race.

[mel_zoom]

X-Ray:

No thankyou but I would be interested in hearing what the attaction is supposed to be. I can see that marksmanship requires skill and a steady hand, but there are plenty of more constructive passtimes you can exercise those exact same skills and gain satisfaction from. Photography is a good example. Shooting at something to me seems to be the exact opposite application of the same skills - destroying something simply for the sake of doing it well.

Can you honestly look at a gun with full knowledge of its intended purpose, knowing how many lives it has ultimately cost and regard it as something positive and worthwhile? Can you admire it as a thing of beauty when you know how ugly its purpose?

[mel_zoom]

X-Ray:

"They haven't cost any lives, don't have an ugly purpose and are definitely worthwhile having."

Yes they have. Do you think they were manufactured by whatever company and made available soley to provide you and fellow enthusiasts with innocent entertainment?

Every gun made by armaments manufacturers is paid for by sales of these armaments to people that in turn use them to slaughter other people. Each new type of firearm designed and sold is done so to make this process easier and more efficient.

Unless your firearms are made by a company that never produces anything except "sporting" versions and never, ever sells them except to sportsmen, how can you dispute that?

If their ownership were legal would you add other weapons to your collection? Where would you draw the line - personally - on what would be acceptable to own?

Im sure that antipersonel landmines are technically well crafted and engineered too. Again if ownership were within the law would you like a few of those? If not why not?

[mel_zoom]

"Not one of my guns has taken a life or injured a human being!"

Why am I not surprised to hear you own more than one?

By buying them, are you not contributing to the profits of companies that thrive on making the process of killing people that much easier?

[mel_zoom]

X-ray:

"There isn't a substitute for the real thing. It is like substituting YOU for a sock...see what I mean?"

I must say its a relief to read youd rather copulate with your laundry as you havent a hope in hell of making that substitution.

[mel_zoom]

X-Ray:

"Okay, who did I kill with my firearms?"

I didnt once say you personally have killed anybody with your firearms only that your firearms have aided the killing of people financially. I am sorry if this concept is too abstract for you but I will try to explain.

Assuming your firearms were produced by any major armaments manufacturer, the money you paid for them has doubtlessly been used to produce more weapons that in turn have been used to kill people - in exact accordance with their intented purpose. Be honest: using their products to shoot at inanimate targets is a tiny sideshow for them but as with all manufacturers any sale is good and supports their main business. And that business is producing devices that are designed to kill. Whatever else they may be good for is not really their concern.

Is your personal amusement worth the price of supporting this?

The way you make it sound its the zenith of satisfaction.

Whatever did you do before you discovered the joy of shooting things?

[mel_zoom]

The day they design ladies shoes and nail files to be efficient, lethal weapons you can make that comparison.

For what its worth I dont hoard such things. Though I do have several pairs of shoes - Id be lying to say otherwise.

[mel_zoom]

Gun owners:

Here is a thought. Assume your gun was stolen in a robbery and then used to kill someone in a subsequent crime. Can you honestly say you played no part in making that weapon available to the killer (even in this opportunistic example)?

Where do the illegally owned firearms in the hands of criminals come from originally?

[mel_zoom]

So easy to absolve yourself once you look at it financially.

If someone knowingly donated money to a charity or bought goods from an organisation that used some of those funds to support groups that were into killing people - eg a terrorist organisation for example, would you condemn them for doing so?

Or would their other deeds put them morally in the black?

Wether you like it or not it is the same equation. The only difference is that armaments manufacturers can legally sell their wares but morally they are no better than anybody else that profiteers from conflict.

If a company produced something you liked - maybe some favourite snack or something - but it was wrecking the environment and getting away with it, would you consider giving up that product?

If you would on principle - even though you knew your abstinence would go pretty much unnoticed - why not apply this same rationale to owning firearms?

Your guns may only have made £9 profit for them. What of the ammunition you have to buy to use them?

[mel_zoom]

"If we could press a magic button and make them all turn into dust, that would be great. But then we as a nation would become subservient to the first group of chavs who armed themselves with a bunch of £4 axes bought legally from B&Q."

Id rather take my chances with someone holding an axe than a gun. One thing you fail to address in your argument is that the easier a weapon makes it to kill someone the cheaper life gets.

If you tried to kill someone with your bare hands your instincts fights against you. You know what you are doing is wrong and because it takes time you can stop before you actually do kill them.

Put a blade in your hand and it becomes slightly easier (physically) to kill but you still have to be close enough to the person to do it and it would generally not be a quick death. Again youd struggle to do it.

Put a gun in your hand and you can fell a person at a distance, often instantly. It is both easier physically and emotionally because you have become more abstracted from the reality of what you are doing.

The more sophisticated and efficient weapons get the less immediately responsible the user is made to feel and consequently the cheaper life gets.

For the criminal a gun gives him a quick way to stop a victim from struggling. Its easier for him to terrorize the victim because both he and the victim knows that the consequences are likely to be lethal. If the victim offered any serious resistance it is also easier to kill him.

Without any access to guns criminals would doubtless use knives - as indeed many do - but not all criminals who feel sufficiently "hard" with a gun would feel quite as formiddable armed only with a knife.

[mel_zoom]

X-ray:

""...One thing you fail to address in your argument is that the easier a weapon makes it to kill someone the cheaper life gets..."
----------------------------------------------------------
Maybe for you it does, but not for me.
Perhaps you were the type of citizen they were thinking of when they banned handguns here in the UK."

A very poor "argument" consistent with not even bothering to read the remainder of the post. Other than to attack me for disagreeing with your POV, how can you possibly conclude from my points I would ever have the slightest wish to own a gun?

Back to my point, are you seriously suggesting that criminals armed with firearms exercise more restraint than those that have to physically engage with their victim? A five foot weakling with a knife and any sense of self preservation would think twice about attempting to attack someone considerably larger and more powerful given there is considerable risk to himself.

The same person armed with a loaded gun complete with the ego boost its force multiplication brings would feel more confident.

shillard:

Im sorry but your entire argument is seriously flawed. Armament manufacturers directly profit out of armed conflict and produce items specifically designed to assist in waging of armed conflict.

The same is not true for the majority of the other organisations you mention even if people are accidentally killed as a by product of their activities.

Regarding my mx5, the comandeering of civilian manufacturing infrastructure during war is not something which you can blame on the company itself. Blame war and for that blame overly aggressive, unreasoning attitudes quick to escalate disagreements to violence. It sounds like you ought to be able to identify with that sentiment.

You can make a case for tobacco production - now the effects are known nobody can really say tobacco companies are helping anybody but themselves. However as you say, they did not design the cigarette as something intentionally lethal. The same is not true for arms manufacturers - the majority of their profits come from the design and sale of devices that are intentionally lethal.

[mel_zoom]

"Do you....

a) Shoot them."

That is not an option. I don't own a firearm and have absolutely no wish to do so. Even if I did, shooting someone, even in self defence, in the UK is likely to get me imprisoned.

[mel_zoom]

X-Ray:

"Mel I think you have serious misconceptions about the use of guns in crime, and guns vs knives vs axes etc from a tactical point of view. There isn't much I can do to help you see the reality of the situation because you obviously have no experience in this regard."

Wrong. I was attacked at knifepoint about 4 years ago. I resisted and I got away relativey unharmed You are doubtless thinking that he never intended to use it other than to intimidate me but you would be wrong again. He lunged with it several times aiming for my upper body.

I have no doubt that if he had a gun I would be dead - even if I managed to get away as before he could have shot me down as I fled.