The words sexy and assault rifle should never be used in the same sentence. Guns are necessary only as an evil, and should not be looked at as things of beauty, but rather as the ugly things they are.

An M16 serves one purpose, and one purpose only: to kill. Tell me that's sexy...

Demosthenes X

The words sexy and assault rifle should never be used in the same sentence.

Good thing she said "sexy" and "gun". That makes it all good. ;)

Guns don't kill people, people kill people.


We should be recognized as the ugly things we are.


A gun is nothing, it is just a tool. Terrorists use airplanes and cars, the next generation might use laser slingshots, some people use their own hands...


And yet, a gun is beautiful. Just like so many other inventions of man... without a gun, or any other type of weapon... a spear, bow and arrow, a sword... we would not have survived the obstacles that threatened mankind. A gun might represent death, it's purpose is to bring it about. But by doing so, it also brings life.


It is the person who carries the gun that makes it what it is.

And if that person happens to be nuts, then you're fucked.

So we shouldn't give one to Ren Janggar.

...Or any other member of this community.

Leia Organa Solo

Guns don't kill people, people kill people.

Please, stop before you embarrass yourself. Arguing that guns don't kill people is the most desperate redoubt of those clinging to an indefensible position.

Unlike airplanes or cars, guns serve one and only one purpose: to kill. Whether it be animals or humans, guns are designed to inflict death. They have no other useful purpose.

Yes, it takes a human to pull the trigger, but the fundamental truth of the matter is that the reason the gun exists is to kill. Not to transport people around the world.

Nowhere did I say, though, that guns are unnecessary. I do believe they do more harm than good, and the world would undoubtedly be better off where they never invented. The development of weapons leads not to an end to conflict, but simply an escalation of the means by which we kill one another. Were the gun never invented, and we were still fighting with swords and bows, we would likely never have seen the wholesale slaughter like we did in the two World Wars. The machine gun is largely to blame for many of the deaths, especially in the first World War.

Unfortunately, we cannot simply "uninvent" the gun. It is here to stay, and such is a necessary evil. "Our" side, as it were, must possess guns that we may defend ourselves from the "other" side, and frankly, I hope our guns are bigger.

But let's dismiss this idea that guns are something to be cherished or called sexy. They serve on purpose: to kill. And death, I think we can all agree, is not sexy.

Unless you're a necrophiliac.

I am an EMT. Over christmas, I responded to a call where an entire family degenerated into a large free for all knife fight with each other.


You'll have to excuse me if I am far less concerned with what inanimate object was used to inflict such horrors (because it doesn't really matter what the hell they use) than I am with how people could possibly do such a thing.


Guns or no guns, people are still going to hurt each other... a gun is just a shiny metal thing that serves no purpose until you load it. And even then it doesn't mean anything bad, although it is dangerous: people shoot recreationally all the time. Ever play duck hunt? How about a squirtgun battle?


If you really want to debate, try something more important like why people feel they have to use things to harm others. Why does our society seem to enjoy violence so much?


I agree that a gun is definitely a thing to be taken and handled with grave seriousness, but the post this discussion stemmed off of was only a sarcastic comment that has no real bearing on anything. So yes, of course we can dismiss the notion that guns are sexy objects of love that everyone should cherish. But that wasn't the notion I was trying to make in the first place, I was trying to point out that people who were taking the class lightly probably shouldn't have been taking it in the first place, especially when you're being taught to handle assault weapons.


So... I'm not sure why you just bothered to do all that heavy thinking or typing. Or for that matter, why I did as well.

Drayson is correct on almost all counts. The argument that "guns do not kill people, people kill people" is fundamentally flawed. People do kill people and guns also kill people.

There is a fundamental difference between an automobile, for example, and a weapon.

However...

and the world would undoubtedly be better off where they never invented.

I disagree and I think, Drayson, that if you examine that statement you too will disagree.

I think it is time we dropped the pretense and simplify the argument to exclude the spesfic reference to "guns" and instead generalize our debate and incorporate the word "weapon" as defined by Mirriam-Webster and Oxford.

Weapons exist to kill or harm people. Weapons require humans to operate them; they are unable to carry out the act on their own.

Let's observe facts.

The truth of your arguments is to be found somewhere between the two extremes. I might have mentioned it above.