Proper education.

No. Much fewer guns in private households. Which is possibly a result of proper education.

heh, cute. i think it's simply cultural. americans view guns as a way to solve problems, because they have been accepted as such pretty much since the country got started. other places, it's not like that.

I see it the same way.

Violence is a way to solve problems. It is often the best solution. Guns are simply a tool with which one can commit violence at range. However, it is just as easy to beat someone to death with a solid bronze bust of Golda Meir.

It is a problem that people don't observe basicly safety rules with firearms because there is a serious lack of education about them in some places. There is certainly a corelation between safety training and reduced risk of firearms accidents. By the same token there are countless heavy blunt object accidents because people aren't properly trained to deal with heavy blunt objects. No one ever talks about the children who are crushed to death by solid bronze busts of Golda Meir because heavy bronze busts are not such a controversial issue.

Purpose of a gun: Killing people.
Purpose of a bronze bust of Golda Meir: Showing ones reverence for Golda Meir.

I see a difference.

like hyzmarca said--bronze busts are not as controversial an issue. for instance, i would disagree with your statement that the purpose of guns is to kill people. that's simply their most controversial application. and even given that their purpose is to kill people, that's not necessarily the reason why someone would buy a gun. ask Raygun how many of his guns he's purchased in order to kill someone, or even with self-defense in mind.

I think in most cases hunting weapons can be clearly distinguished from others.

haha! that's what the Democrats said in 1994. they were quite incorrect.

My kids have an understanding about the danger inherent in all tools of violence, from fists to guns(I haven't discussed Golda Meir busts, but hopefully that falls under the purview of "don't hit your sister"). I prefer a two-pronged approach: educate and isolate. If one of my kids does find a gun at a friend's house, the education should hopefully stop him from shooting himself. Not having one in my house prevents my kids' friends from finding one and shooting themselves because they're uneducated.

Target shooting = killing paper targets.

The discovery that things can be used for something other than their purpose is not a new one.

~J

well, technically, the purpose of a gun is to propel a bullet through the air. this happens to be a handily effective way of killing things. people buy and design guns for several end purposes, and i think it's important to note those purposes rather than making blanket statements based on the purported basic purpose of all guns--which is what will happen.

No, that is the method of operation of a gun. Likewise, a sword's purpose is not to have a moderately sharp edge—its purpose is also to kill things. The sharp edge is, much like the propelled bullet, the means to that end.

You can do all sorts of other things with that means, but that doesn't change the purpose.

(Though I do understand what you're saying, and I do think that it's important that it be understood that "killing things" is an acceptable purpose, I believe it's very important that we not lose sight of that purpose.)

~J

except that, in the event, the statement is incorrect. a target pistol is not designed to kill things; it is very much designed for the express purpose of putting holes in paper targets. the purpose of a flaregun is to attract attention. what's the point of keeping in mind that "the purpose of guns is to kill things" if you're buying an antique black powder musket?

I'll carry on this discussion tomorrow. I think I had too much coffee today or something.

~J

heh. i've gotten maybe 6 hrs of sleep in the past 48; acquired a 2-litre of Mt Dew after not drinking soda for maybe a month straight.

anyway. the thing that worries me about statements like "the purpose of guns is to kill things" is that those sorts of statements lead to extreme viewpoints. "killing things is bad, therefore guns must be bad, therefore we should get rid of them." any upside to that statement--gun safety's the only upside that comes to mind--isn't, to me, worth the hassle and the stupidery of people who take the statement to its extremes.

Without killing things the human race would have died out long ago. Killing things, in the proper circumstances, is a necessity.

not to mention fun!

Out of curiosity, what credentials does everyone who's making these broad, sweeping comments about our anthropological history have? Because some of these comments sound kind of... unresearched?

I have no credentials whatsoever, but I think it's safe to say that if the first cave men hadn't killed predators and prey they wouldn't have lived long.

OK, the firearms discussion on this thread reminded me of something.

The firearms customization rules in CC were silly. Specifically, the "remove safety" thingie made utterly no sense.

Along with other things. But that one sticks in my mind.

That is all.