"Mick isn't looking for an excuse, he's not that sort of man, it is just he, like many others, me included, cannot see the sense and reason behind anyone wanting to have a weapon that can kill another human being."
But many things can kill another human being, cars is the most common example, but kitchen knives, ice axes, cylinders of compressed air, and so on. I recall that the IRA used to make mortar bombs out of Calor Gas cylinders, for example.
Mans inhumanity to man is a part of the human condition, and creating a society where the occasional killer does not emerge will take far more than banning guns or any of the objects mentioned above. People kill each other with handy stones or their bare hands, and you can't legislate them away can you?? Singling out firearms is both disproportionate, and unfair on those of us who use them in a legal and peaceful manner.
"What people don't seem to realise is that when you shot someone it isnt like on the TV. These people don't appear in another episode or another TV show. People who are shot if they arn't unconscious are writhing around in agony. Once a bullett penetrates a body invariably it doesn't stay in one place, it will hit a bone and then go through to another part of the body. That is the affect it has on the person that has been shot. "
I'm not sure who you are addressing these comments to, but I will resist the temptation to accuse you of teaching me to suck eggs. Sporting shooters are in general far more aware of the consequences of shooting something than non shooters. Using myself as an example I have shot hundreds of Rabbits, pigeons, the occasional pheasant, and so on. I have seen the effects of firearms on living fleshmany times, and I have seen the effects of them on inanimate objects. (Which can be just as demonstrative.) Most adults are aware, or should be aware, of the fraility of human life, and of our mortality. Personally, I lost a parent, a friend, three grandparents, and a boy at school who used to kick the crap out of me, by the time I was 18. Like most adults, I am aware that if I shoot someone they do not get up and walk away. None of the animals I have ever hunted have ever come back to life either.
If you are not leveling this charge not against sports shooters, but against the urban youth who seem to want to equip themselves with a "blinging gat", then you may be right, but point me to a period in history where most young men were fully aware of the consequences of their actions, and of their own mortality. The young boys who marched off to WWI believed that they would 'give the Hun a drubbing and it would all be good fun. Home by Christmas, etc. etc.' I'm sure the young men at Agincourt believed the same thing! Again, we come back to eternal truths of the human psyche, and legislating against guns is not going to have any effect. Young men (teenagers) also tend to get into fights and punch each other and so on, again, these actions can have deadly consequences, but they do not consider those either. Perhaps a more sensible thing to do would be to look at why many inner city youths feel they need a gun to empower themselves. What is it about their lives that is so sad and empty that they feel that violence and crime are the only ways forward in life?
"What is the affect on the person doing the shooting? If ordinary everyday people were allowed to have guns (to defend themselves) what affect would it have on them knowing that they killed someone? You can call criminals scumbags, lowest of the low whatever you like, but when you shoot someone you just don't walk away from something like that like they do on TV. The person doing the shooting would probably be traumatised for the rest of their lives. Ask any motorist who has accidentally killed someone in an accident. They are haunted, and that was an accident. To stand in front of someone and pull the trigger knowing you will kill that person is not easy. The cinema and TV have tended to glorify guns, but it is the opposite, they are horrible, dangerous weapons. There should be tighter laws all round, we should not let ordinary people in the street have them and we should certainly put every endeavour into getting illegally held weapons off the street."
Firearms for self defense is not something that I would claim to be an expert on, but I would like to make a few points.
Firstly, ordinary people being armed and able to defend themselves with lethal force has been the norm throughout history until fairly recently. Even as late as the 1860's it was not uncommon for gentlemen to carry pocket pistols when travelling, to defend themselves against highwaymen. I am not saying that we should return to that state of affairs, but it is worth bearing in mind that the current, disarmed and defenceless, citizen, is the exception rather than the rule in the span of human civilization.
Secondly, evidence from America where the principle of Self defence with firearms is well established, and it is legal to have firearms for that purpose has shown several things. Firstly, the threat of armed intervention by citizens tends to reduce crime. Secondly, that in the majority of cases the firearm is merely presented to the criminal, and not discharged.
I don't know what percentage of people suffer psychological effects after being involved in an incident of this kind, but I will have a hunt around on the web. I would like to point out that in the case of a car accident, it was an accident, and the person killed is generally percieved as being innocent. In the case of a householder shooting an intruder, the householder has to conciously decide to shoot them first, and the shooting is, perhaps, morally justifiable, both of which factors would have an effect on the future state of mind of the individual concerned.
Please do not say that I am advocating a wholly armed society, I am just trying to put across the other side of the story. I do believe, however, that we should not simply rule out an armed society without giving it careful consideration. I would just briefly like to point out that away from the oft quoted American example, in Switzerland most houses contain a military rifle as part of the nations defence plans, and they have a low level of gun crime. (I couldn't comment on whether these facts are related.)
I agree that the cinema, 'gangsta' culture, and so forth, have tended to glorify guns and gun based violence, but this is a seperate issue to sporting shooters. Out of the sporting shooters that I have come across, I have never met any that view themselves in that kind of a way. I disagree that guns are "horrible dangerous weapons" as I have pointed out elsewhere, the idea that all guns are designed to kill people is patently false. I doubt you would charge all bows and arrows as being designed to kill people, but originally they were. Modern target and hunting rifles are often as far removed from military guns as modern target bows are from the Longbows of the middle ages. They are all capable of killing, but they are not designed with killing (people anyway) as their function.
"By the way, some of the bulletts in Dunblane were exploding bulletts. Imagine a tiny body of the child with an exploding bullett inside it. Hamilton was mad, yes, but he wasn't always like that, something made him go over the edge, and no one, absolutely no one, can say that in a given circumstance, that the same thing couldn't happen to them."
Unfortunately, in this last paragraph I feel that you have let yourself down with the use of imagery designed to tug at the heartstrings, and thus support your point through emotional blackmail. Your first lines about 'exploding bullets' don't appear to have any relevance to any particular point, you merely ask us to imagine a child being shot. You will forgive me for appearing callous in my following paragraph, but if we are to have a debate on this issue based on facts then I cannot let that rather unpleasant image disturb me too much, as it was clearly intended to.
Firstly, 'exploding bullets' I take it that by that you mean expanding ammunition. This is rather different. An exploding bullet is generally accepted to mean a bullet that contains an explosive which detonates on impact or shortly afterwards. These kind of bullets are generally only used in large calibre guns (For use against vehicles etc.) in the military context, and have never, as far as I know, been available to the public. An expanding bullet, on the other hand, usually has an exposed lead tip(bullets are usually coated in a hard alloy, like copper.) and/or a 'hollow point' arrangement. A few have tips made of a synthetic polymer. These bullets are outlawed in international conflicts, and were developed, (In handguns) for police use, as they will not penetrate a suspect and injure bystanders or hostages behind him, and if they miss their target and hit a wall or similiar they will tend to break up rather than cause dangerous ricochets. They also have the effect of causing more tissue damage to the target killing them more quickly, which is safer for the Police and less painful for the person shot. This kind of ammunition is now illegal for rifles (handguns are banned remember) except where it is needed for hunting. (It ensures more humane kills.) I can only presume that it was in use by handgun shooters before 1997 for its reduced richochet hazard. (Rifle bullets of this type tend to have been developed for hunting, and have different properties of expansion and penetration, depending on the kind of game they are to be used on, for example, thick skinned buffaloes or Alligators would require a different kind of bullet to Deer or Antelope.)
.
Reply With Quote)
