___________________

Short time TA, Long time Guver, Good time giver.

so, what youre saying is that firearms are qualitatively different from other forms of weapon technology- in the sense that there's an unheralded combination of destructive power with relative ease of use?

Isn't that concept more important when confined within the context of civilian society? Obviously in the military, the gun is one of the least destructive arms on the battlefield. Is it guns in general that are the problem, or their dissemination to the masses who lack the discipline and judgement necessary to gauge an appropriate time to use them (or not)?

Anyway, that was WAY too much for me at 9.30am :/

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN so, what youre saying is that firearms are qualitatively different from other forms of weapon technology- in the sense that there's an unheralded combination of destructive power with relative ease of use? Isn't that concept more important when confined within the context of civilian society? Obviously in the military, the gun is one of the least destructive arms on the battlefield. Is it guns in general that are the problem, or their dissemination to the masses who lack the discipline and judgement necessary to gauge an appropriate time to use them (or not)?

this, folks, is how you're supposed to resume a point.

___________________
When bread becomes toast, it can never go back to being bread again.

...





-tries to read it all-












-dies-

___________________
Ya dig where i'm comin' from baby?

quote:

Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On He really needed more lines in that movie. Or like, biting through golf clubs with metal teeth. Yeah, that'd do it.

It's all in the hips! It's all in the hips!

___________________
BA-DUM-TSS

quote:

ALFI - BOHICA - DJ MIX (Stream+Dropbox)

Well, there are too many ideas in one post, but... I'd say that guns are just tools, and it is natural to use a tool simply as you see fit.

However, I cannot disagree with you regarding our inherent animality. Because we're prone to error, the more powerful the tool, the more responsibility it requires. The way I see most gun owners, they see themselves as being somehow smarter than everyone else, even though we're all equally irrational when we're faced with a dangerous situation, and there's nothing we can count on other than our reflexes.

As for guns being extensions of our will/body, that's a popular line of thought nowadays, as computers are seen as extensions of our mind. A gun would, in that case, be an extension of our hand - I can't see how it could be more than a simple extension. If you're referring to the difference in might, a computer can do qualitatively lots of stuff we can't. That's why a gun is a tool: it helps us do things we can't do on our own.

Finally, because the range of points to comment on is just too wide, all I can say is that in spite of my different point of view, I agree with you regarding the fact that with guns, nothing really is gained.

Quite on the contrary.

___________________
Indiana Clones Upcoming Sets
[ I May Upload Something Someday ]

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN so, what youre saying is that firearms are qualitatively different from other forms of weapon technology- in the sense that there's an unheralded combination of destructive power with relative ease of use?

Yes. But it isn't just their efficiency, it is the fact that there is a culture behind their virility, a readiness to lash out and to utterly annihilate without regard. A gun is not just a tool to achieve a means, but a destructive master who empowers the weak to commit utterly irreversible acts of carnage. A rock... is just a rock. You can throw them at people and see their faces as they die, that last little twitch of pain as you bash them in the skull, the glazed look of both horror and disgust before complete neural failure. But a gun... people are only numbers when you are decimating them from afar.

quote:

Obviously in the military, the gun is one of the least destructive arms on the battlefield.

An excellent point and perhaps I should clarify that I in fact mean almost any ballistic weapon or equivalent when I say 'gun', but yes, civilian use is what I had in mind, although there is something to else to that...

quote:

Is it guns in general that are the problem, or their dissemination to the masses who lack the discipline and judgement necessary to gauge an appropriate time to use them (or not)?

And once more we're back to the will to utilize argument. Discipline and judgment are learned behaviours, sure, which is exactly why people would tend to argue that guns don't kill people; people kill people - they are saying it is the will to use a tool that must be held responsible, not the tool, itself. And logically, I would not disagree with this. A gun is a hunk of metal, useless unless somebody who knows how to use it picks it up and points it at something. In the hands of a skilled marksman, it is a device achieving its full purpose, but is it possible to make somebody more dead by expertise with the tool? Not really - point, fire, end a life. Is it that easy? I wouldn't presume as much, as I've never taken a shot at somebody before. But I think you get what I am saying here - it is a breach of genes in that your heredity, your sex, your humour and your ability to communicate with others is utterly irrelevant because you are suddenly a number, a casualty; you are no longer even an animal, you are a victim to invention, to somebody else's device and readiness to pull a trigger. This is a far, far leap from chucking a rock at somebody's head.

And I don't think that discipline or judgment are truly positive factors when applied to the military, especially not if you look at casualties and reports from American soldiers in Iraq. I'm not saying they're all bloodthirsty troops, killing everything that moves - but using your best judgment doesn't seem to matter when everybody but your side is dressed the same, looks the same, acts the same. American kids thrust into a conflict they did not choose are hardly a good example of any differentiation between civilian and military judgment, yet this seems to be the major pretense of almost every armed conflict I can think of. Need I even bring up Blackwater? I'm sort of tired of those guys. But likewise, terrorist factions will use their access to guns just as readily in an attempt to bring about change - and this is the ideological point I am trying to establish:

The same will that uses a weapon as a means towards some end seeks to consume it's ideaological opponent, it's enemy. Guns empower the otherwise weak ideologies by threat of destruction far more effectively than any other tool ever has before by placing the sole responsibility of physical annihilation in the hands of the individual, thereby consuming the identity of all who oppose this.

They are brute force neatly packed into a barrel. This is different, it has not always been this way. They are a device that not only empowers as any weapon would in regard to the helpless, but they are equally as dehumanizing. That is what sets them apart.

___________________
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

quote:

Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On Yes. But it isn't just their efficiency, it is the fact that there is a culture behind their virility, a readiness to lash out and to utterly annihilate without regard.

but isnt that culture socially-dependent? ie, the US might have said culture but its not evident here in the land of oz.

quote:

Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On although there is something to else to that...

i thought there would be

quote:

Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On And once more we're back to the will to utilize argument. Discipline and judgment are learned behaviours, sure, which is exactly why people would tend to argue that guns don't kill people; people kill people - they are saying it is the will to use a tool that must be held responsible, not the tool, itself. And logically, I would not disagree with this. A gun is a hunk of metal, useless unless somebody who knows how to use it picks it up and points it at something. In the hands of a skilled marksman, it is a device achieving its full purpose, but is it possible to make somebody more dead by expertise with the tool? Not really - point, fire, end a life. Is it that easy? I wouldn't presume as much, as I've never taken a shot at somebody before. But I think you get what I am saying here - it is a breach of genes in that your heredity, your sex, your humour and your ability to communicate with others is utterly irrelevant because you are suddenly a number, a casualty; you are no longer even an animal, you are a victim to invention, to somebody else's device and readiness to pull a trigger. This is a far, far leap from chucking a rock at somebody's head.

im not quite sure what youre saying here?

quote:

Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On And I don't think that discipline or judgment are truly positive factors when applied to the military, especially not if you look at casualties and reports from American soldiers in Iraq. I'm not saying they're all bloodthirsty troops, killing everything that moves - but using your best judgment doesn't seem to matter when everybody but your side is dressed the same, looks the same, acts the same.

but how does this tie-in with your general argument concerning advanced weapons? i would suggest that such issues have been a staple of armed conflict since the beginning of time, how does a gun in this instance, change the nature of warfare as to be notable? (asides from where you identified that now it is possible for children to go to war.)

do these new arms make armies behave any differently? i wouldn't have thought so.

the other point to note is that soldiers dont tend to kill people during peace time. ie how many civilians in the US have been shot and killed by your army? clearly a civilian's capacity to use weapons in their neighbourhood is qualitatively different from a soldier in occupied territory.

quote:

Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On The same will that uses a weapon as a means towards some end seeks to consume it's ideaological opponent, it's enemy. Guns empower the otherwise weak ideologies by threat of destruction far more effectively than any other tool ever has before by placing the sole responsibility of physical annihilation in the hands of the individual, thereby consuming the identity of all who oppose this.

im not sure i follow. its early, and im dumb.

___________________

i used to have this funny shirt with a picture of 2 guns crossing on it and it said, "guns don't kill people. people with moustaches kill people"

___________________

My soliloquy may be hard for some to swallow, but so is cod liver oil.

quote:

Originally posted by notelfreak man i can't believe i tried to come off as responsible in that other thread, i am so full of shit just don't tell anyone

quote:

Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On I'd just like to add at this point that, while much of what is considered human evolved from apes, there are some humans who simply did not evolve much at all or, in fact, reverted to an earlier, far more basic form of life.

yea no shit dude...how else would we have rednecks and thugs walking around? lol


oh and i have a question. do you feel that people with mental illnesses are less or more evolved?

___________________

My soliloquy may be hard for some to swallow, but so is cod liver oil.

quote:

Originally posted by notelfreak man i can't believe i tried to come off as responsible in that other thread, i am so full of shit just don't tell anyone

quote:

Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On Point-shoot-dead. We've formed an entire culture out of the fear of their use, yet perpetuate their existence at ever-increasing rates.

I disagree... I don't think we have a culture that fears the use of guns at all - in some odd twist guns have become synonymous with machismo and bravery. Clint Eastwood and Jack Bauer are heroes on tv because of their courage in using firearms. Gangs inculcate honor and pride in drive-by shootings. If anything, we live in a culture that doesn't fear guns enough. Parents keep loaded weapons in the closet with the safeties off in fear of a burglar... the way we use, celebrate, and proliferate guns throughout our society is anathema to any sort of fear (which, I might add, would be based on an accurate appraisal of what guns really represent - as you said, an unnatural and easy extension of human power).

Your point about Africa is interesting - child soldiers represent a concrete example of how drastic the danger of guns really are. A nine year old boy can lift a five pound AK-47 and kill without burning more than a few calories. In terms of physical exertion, killing a man with a gun is not all that different from simply wishing him dead - all you have to do is raise your arm and move your finger two centimeters.

That kind of power over fellow man is completely new in human society. Before the entree of guns into mainstream society, death required some premeditation and a little elbow grease. The proliferation of guns throughout society without fear shows the importance of trust - at any given moment a dozen permit-carrying citizens could put an end to your existence without breaking a sweat.

___________________