Poll: Poll: Have you ever shot a gun? (Also note which country you live in)
- Thread starter OpiateChicken
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I won't bother quoting all the people who quoted me, that would be unwieldy, so let me just address those who disagreed generally.
First, a correction. Despite various assumptions, I'm as wary as anyone should be about cars, and I realise that they kill more people than, well, anything else. Actually, I lost my half-sister to a car accident when I was 5, and she was like a second mother to me, so I know the danger well. Most people who get in a car with me joke that I'm a grandfather in a 21 year-old's body, because I'm terribly concerned about danger in the space around me, especially if other drivers nearby are doing risky things.
Second, let's get this really out of the way: guns are not a safety or protection tool. They do exactly the opposite. This is why America has much higher gun deaths than Australia or England. We have gun restrictions and regulations limiting it to only a few gun club members, who use them solely on the range or when hunting, and have permit screening to keep people who are off their rocker from ever really getting a rifle, and you guys often do not. If you really wanted "protection" you'd buy body armour and a riot shield, not a gun - those are made for killing, and that's what they do. Try blocking a sword with a gun and see how much it "protects" you. That's not what they're designed for.
Frankly, to many commentators looking in, your Constitution's Second Amendment has done a lot of damage to your society. The only time this would become useful is in the case of zombies, and for those of us not paranoid enough to carry a gun every day just to keep ourselves "safe" like Dick Cheney kept his mate safe, that's hardly a legitimate reason to own one.
Finally, pretending that guns, especially assault weapons, are just "tools" and saying that gun owners are at fault is a nonsensical red herring. Without guns, there would BE no gun owners. Ergo, without guns, there would BE no gun deaths. Yes, stabbings would become more common, but by removing the most efficient means to kill someone quickly and leave without much chance of dying themselves, you change the rules of violence significantly. You make it harder for criminals to do their job.
Loving guns is like loving cemeteries. You know where they'll take you, and where your life will really be in the meantime if you surround yourself with that tool - in a place of death, or a modern dungeon surrounded by instruments of pain and murder. Since most gun owners appear to be religious these days, I'll point out that even Jesus said it - "Those who draw the sword, die by the sword." That could apply to any weapon, so get rid of them before you do something stupid.
First, a correction. Despite various assumptions, I'm as wary as anyone should be about cars, and I realise that they kill more people than, well, anything else. Actually, I lost my half-sister to a car accident when I was 5, and she was like a second mother to me, so I know the danger well. Most people who get in a car with me joke that I'm a grandfather in a 21 year-old's body, because I'm terribly concerned about danger in the space around me, especially if other drivers nearby are doing risky things.
Second, let's get this really out of the way: guns are not a safety or protection tool. They do exactly the opposite. This is why America has much higher gun deaths than Australia or England. We have gun restrictions and regulations limiting it to only a few gun club members, who use them solely on the range or when hunting, and have permit screening to keep people who are off their rocker from ever really getting a rifle, and you guys often do not. If you really wanted "protection" you'd buy body armour and a riot shield, not a gun - those are made for killing, and that's what they do. Try blocking a sword with a gun and see how much it "protects" you. That's not what they're designed for.
Frankly, to many commentators looking in, your Constitution's Second Amendment has done a lot of damage to your society. The only time this would become useful is in the case of zombies, and for those of us not paranoid enough to carry a gun every day just to keep ourselves "safe" like Dick Cheney kept his mate safe, that's hardly a legitimate reason to own one.
Finally, pretending that guns, especially assault weapons, are just "tools" and saying that gun owners are at fault is a nonsensical red herring. Without guns, there would BE no gun owners. Ergo, without guns, there would BE no gun deaths. Yes, stabbings would become more common, but by removing the most efficient means to kill someone quickly and leave without much chance of dying themselves, you change the rules of violence significantly. You make it harder for criminals to do their job.
Loving guns is like loving cemeteries. You know where they'll take you, and where your life will really be in the meantime if you surround yourself with that tool - in a place of death, or a modern dungeon surrounded by instruments of pain and murder. Since most gun owners appear to be religious these days, I'll point out that even Jesus said it - "Those who draw the sword, die by the sword." That could apply to any weapon, so get rid of them before you do something stupid.
I've read and agree with pretty much all of what you say in that post, other than this last bit.Silva said:
I'm an English gun owner and for the most part I support our tight gun laws as although not being able to buy certain guns is frustrating, it's a small price to pay for increased safety in our society, decreased crime etc. However the last paragraph seems to imply that if you enjoy using guns, then you're someone obssesed with death and "instruments of murder" who is more than likely to end up dying at the hands of another gun owner or even get killed by their own gun. That makes no sense. You're judging an entire group of people (gun owners) with what seems to be very little support. Sure some gun owners are careless or violent people by nature, but many non-gun owners are too.
The people I go shooting with (and in fact every gun owner I've ever met in the UK) hold safety very highly indeed, both at the range and in the field, they store their guns sensibly, and as far as I can tell are not death obsessed psychos. They just enjoy busting some clays, hunting a few birds, and practicing their skills.
I was making a more esoteric point about the nature of what you are surrounding yourself with. You may disagree if you wish, but to me the reality of what guns are is very simple. They are designed to kill, and as such bear only aesthetic differences to, say, a spiked ball and chain or a guillotine.Wadders said:
Oh, and they're more efficient. More, not less. Which is why I wanted to point out that you're essentially living in a dungeon if you have guns prominently featured around the place, because that's what a dungeon was. Add a few bars to your window and a lock to your door, and voila. If someone wants it to be, and they're armed, it's an instant torture scene. People can do more than just kill with guns, that's the mad part about it.
I wasn't intending to so much generalise about gun owners, but about the environments that I believe that they are (often unconsciously) associating with. You can play safety up to the 'enth degree, and you always should with this sort of thing, but I do not for a second believe that it stops all potential accidents or abuses of the weapon from being able to occur. Or that it reduces the psychological effect owning one can have on people, especially if they have a weakness like alcohol or mental illness and feel the need to take control with the great power in their hands. (And all people do have such a weakness, at some level. If there is a 100% healthy person on Earth, I haven't met them.)
You might meet the loveliest people in the world on a gun testing range. The thing is that having such a power can potentially change them, and no matter what your intention, there is always that slight chance of an accident or malfunction. Or a small opening where a fantasy about killing your close relation who's been yelling at you can become reality because of the instantaneous nature of bullets.
You see where I was going with this now?
Yeah, kind of like that guy cryogaijin said, it's pretty much autoloader hanguns that are the danger category. Once you get into manual action rifles and shotguns, which is pretty much all we are allowed here in the UK, you're looking at an entirely different set of people (in general, I'm sure there's a bit of crossover).Wadders said:
Even in the criminal element there is a lot less gun use than the papers like to think. Without going into too much detail I have quite a bit of experience in that area and while I have seen illegal weapons in use (in a 'look, don't fuck with us, we're armed' sense, not actually fired) and for sale it's really only the stupid wannabe gangsta's that keep them on hand, anyone with half a brain would only search out a weapon if it's really needed. To quote an old friend of mine "We could have got ourselves a shooter and taken them out, but when you start that shit it never stops, better to just cut and run"
I am neither religious nor anti-religious. I have more space in my flat dedicated to my aquariums (I have appx 1k litres of aquariums) and books than I do to my arsenal. Raising tropical fish is hardly something you'd expect of someone in a "modern dungeon surrounded by instruments of pain and murder"
As I mentioned previously, any sort of intelligent debate on the subject of the US's firearms ownership needs to awknowledge and deal with the existant 300 MILLION guns already in civilian hands. Saying "if there were no guns there would be no gun crime!" is all fine and dandy, but that's like saying "If there were no people, there'd be no murders!"
Further, while the US leads the UK by a good margin in gun deaths, the UK leads the US by a good margin in stabbings, bombs, and IIRC poisonings. Guns don't randomly kill people. Sure, they make it easier, they make it less personal, but it takes a person to pull the trigger. Many of those people who pull the trigger in the US would switch to other weapons if denied guns. Or they'd simply obtain guns illegally.
You'll note that not once have I pulled out the "self defense" arguement that so many pro-gun people trot out. The fact of the matter is that many things contribute to your safety more than concealed carry. #1 is easy. Lock your freaking doors. Best home defense after that? Loud dog. After that? Security system, and nosy neighbors. A gun isn't really a protective measure; it is a conflict resolution measure. Once they're already ON your property and all other options are exhausted, they give you one last option.
And seriously here, what are guns if not tools? You act as if they're a talismanic object, with powers beyond those of normal tools. You Are Wrong. Any thoughts you have of them NOT being tools are incorrect. A firearm is a tool for accellerating a small chunk of metal to a velocity sufficient for it to act at a distance from the user. NOTHING more. Guns don't possess people and make them commit crimes. Guns don't sneak out of their safes and commit crimes. Guns don't make people angry and commit crimes.
Are they dangerous? Not just sitting around. They're only dangerous when someone picks them up. The problem is the PEOPLE, not the TOOL. Your argument boils down to "I don't trust my fellow man sufficiently to have access to such a powerful tool."
As I mentioned previously, any sort of intelligent debate on the subject of the US's firearms ownership needs to awknowledge and deal with the existant 300 MILLION guns already in civilian hands. Saying "if there were no guns there would be no gun crime!" is all fine and dandy, but that's like saying "If there were no people, there'd be no murders!"
Further, while the US leads the UK by a good margin in gun deaths, the UK leads the US by a good margin in stabbings, bombs, and IIRC poisonings. Guns don't randomly kill people. Sure, they make it easier, they make it less personal, but it takes a person to pull the trigger. Many of those people who pull the trigger in the US would switch to other weapons if denied guns. Or they'd simply obtain guns illegally.
You'll note that not once have I pulled out the "self defense" arguement that so many pro-gun people trot out. The fact of the matter is that many things contribute to your safety more than concealed carry. #1 is easy. Lock your freaking doors. Best home defense after that? Loud dog. After that? Security system, and nosy neighbors. A gun isn't really a protective measure; it is a conflict resolution measure. Once they're already ON your property and all other options are exhausted, they give you one last option.
And seriously here, what are guns if not tools? You act as if they're a talismanic object, with powers beyond those of normal tools. You Are Wrong. Any thoughts you have of them NOT being tools are incorrect. A firearm is a tool for accellerating a small chunk of metal to a velocity sufficient for it to act at a distance from the user. NOTHING more. Guns don't possess people and make them commit crimes. Guns don't sneak out of their safes and commit crimes. Guns don't make people angry and commit crimes.
Are they dangerous? Not just sitting around. They're only dangerous when someone picks them up. The problem is the PEOPLE, not the TOOL. Your argument boils down to "I don't trust my fellow man sufficiently to have access to such a powerful tool."
While I generally agree with you, I must point out that overall homicide rates are at least double in the US compared to the UK.Cryogaijin said:
EDIT:
Now, I don't think that that is all because of a difference in the gun laws and I certainly don't think that taking handguns out of civilian hands would change that, maybe after a very long period in which civilians would really be at the mercy of armed criminals, and of course I imagine policing it would be a major resources drain. In a country the size of the US with such a proliferation of weponry in private civilian hands, really I think putting in legislation to hopefully make sure that generally it's the more sensible people that own civilian weapons and hoping they can defend themselves makes sense over taking them all away and trying to employ enough cops to keep them all safe.
Anyway, thats my 2 pence on what is really a 2 cent problem.
As a former member of H.M. Armed Forces, I've fired an SA80 (great until it jams. Which it will), an LSW, a GPMG, and - for poops and giggles one day - an old AK-47. Favourite weapon ever fired, though, is an old hand-made over-and-under Beretta shotgun. Seemed so elegant, somehow, and those clay pigeons never saw it coming.
Yeah, I've shot my parents .22 semi-auto rifle, our 12 gauge (forgive my ignorance if I spelled that wrong) shotgun, our 9mm Car-arm pistol, my granpa's .45 WWII pistol, my dad's 8-shooter .22 revolver, and lastly our 30-6 pump action (if you can call it pump action.) From this I learned I'm a dirty rotten shot who won't last a minute in an infantry position and who's deathly afraid of pistols. Seriously, I wince every-time before I shoot our 9mm and crap my pants when I shoot our .45.
And if you haven't already figured it out, I'MA MURICAN! <(Note that I am trying to be a caricature) Texan to be specific.
Here's an interesting take on having guns written by a retired army Major seeing that this thread will inevitably devolve into the gun v. no guns argument: http://munchkinwrangler.wordpress.com/2007/03/23/why-the-gun-is-civilization/
And if you haven't already figured it out, I'MA MURICAN! <(Note that I am trying to be a caricature) Texan to be specific.
Here's an interesting take on having guns written by a retired army Major seeing that this thread will inevitably devolve into the gun v. no guns argument: http://munchkinwrangler.wordpress.com/2007/03/23/why-the-gun-is-civilization/
Canadian, fired a lot of different weapons.
Army side I've fired the following:
C7 rifle (M16)
C9 LMG (M249 SAW)
C6 GPMG (FN MAG)
C13 Fragmentation Grenade (M67) (I know this is stretching it as a "gun")
C3 105mm howitzer
More commonly-known names added in brackets because I know that Canadian designations are almost unknown outside the Canadian Forces.
Weapons I've trained on but not fired live:
Browning M2 HMG (aka a damn .50 cal)
Browning 9mm
Carl-Gustav 84mm
M72 SRAAW
Weapons I've fired live outside the military
Glock 17 9mm
Colt Anaconda (the ubiquitous .44 Magnum)
The final 2 were fired at a range operating in the West Edmonton Mall. You just pay for use of the range, and the ammo. They provide the pistols.
Army side I've fired the following:
C7 rifle (M16)
C9 LMG (M249 SAW)
C6 GPMG (FN MAG)
C13 Fragmentation Grenade (M67) (I know this is stretching it as a "gun")
C3 105mm howitzer
More commonly-known names added in brackets because I know that Canadian designations are almost unknown outside the Canadian Forces.
Weapons I've trained on but not fired live:
Browning M2 HMG (aka a damn .50 cal)
Browning 9mm
Carl-Gustav 84mm
M72 SRAAW
Weapons I've fired live outside the military
Glock 17 9mm
Colt Anaconda (the ubiquitous .44 Magnum)
The final 2 were fired at a range operating in the West Edmonton Mall. You just pay for use of the range, and the ammo. They provide the pistols.
yes, my parents own a few and I own 2. but the range is 42 miles away so I dont shoot them often, but mind you, im an excellent shot
No arguments there. Whether we're talking about military firearms designed to kill humans, or hunting guns for shooting game, what you say is true. They are tools made for the purpose of killing. Personally I find that easy to get over, and now I'm over it I can have fun using them for purposes other than killing. You apparently dont find that easy to get over. That's fair enough, everybody's different.Silva said:
I can't get my head around this sorry. You're suggesting that the the houses of gun owners are just a few short steps away from torture dungeons just because they have some firearms locked up someplace? My house bears litte resemblence to a prison, and my firearms are not in the view of the casual observer, in fact UK law dictates that they must be hidden from view, and in a safe.
Also, I doubt many potential tourturers would use a gun to torture someone, other than hitting them with it. They make lots of noise, you cant really control the amount of pain you cause someone beyond where you shoot them, and why use a gun when you can use other more established methods, like waterboarding or pulling fingernails out.
As you say, you can be safe as you like, but accidents may happen. However, that's what gun safety is all about: reducing the likelihood of accidents. Storing ammo seperately, only ever having a loaded gun pointing downrage etc. all of these things help reduce potential accidents from occuring. Things like this are easy to do, and once you get into the habit of being safe with a gun, its hard to forget. It's like drivin, you dont suddenly forget which way to drive around a roundabout.
However, the suggestion that when one buys a gun, deep seated psychological problems suddenly suddenly rise to the surface and manifest themselves as a gun crime are absurd. Firarms do not trigger the dangerous behaviour. The inclination is already there, guns jsut make it slightly easier. These kind of people can be prevented access to guns though. Now again, this is where the UK is different from the US as one must provide information of past mental health, criminal records, provide details of a referee who can vouch for your suitability, and be visited by a police firearms officer before you are even deemed worthy of owning a gun, again cutting down on the number of nut-jobs who want to own a gun.
In a way. You seem to think guns have a malevolent influence upon their users, and they they engourage gun owners to do things they would never do had they not come into contact with a firearm. I see no sense in this. If someone wanted to kill a relative, I dont see how a firearm would encourage them to do so any more than a sword or a mallet or anything else come to that.
OK, this chap has summed up my point far more eloquently, in far less space.
Bravo.Cryogaijin said:
Well shit, I didn't know they were going to come out with a .45! I should have waited a bit I guess.Pyode said:
This summer I need to buy 3 things
a couch for my dorm
a new computer at home
and a ruger mini 30 http://www.ruger.com/products/miniThirty/index.html
We clearly come from very different worlds, some of the things you say make no sense to me (why the constant reference to movies? What did I say to give you the impression i base my views solely based on films? Especially considering in previous posts I hinted that my views were forged out of first hand experience)jdun said:No wonder, you live in London. For a second I thought you were an American.Frankster said:
Anyway, in the USA the person that stand in front or back of you in a grocery line might be carrying a conceal weapon. It's not a big deal. I carry a conceal Glock 19 so does all my gun friends.
Wits won't save you from violent criminals. In the move maybe but not in real life. The cops won't save you either as you are well aware. The only person that is responsible for your own personal safety is you and I think we both agree on that.
Ever seen an elderly person beaten to death in a violent crime? It's not pretty. In the USA guns save millions of citizens from violent crimes. These people do not want to be victims of crimes. They refuse too sit down and get rape.
I've google home invasion.
http://www.google.com/search?q=home+invasion+family+die&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-USfficial&client=firefox-a
These people got their home invaded and was killed in the process. Beaten to death in most cases. In their home mind you. Where was there wits? Where was the cops? What would have save these people. A gun.
For example this elderly lady refused to be rape and kill in her own home. When the violent criminal broke down her door she start shooting. That save her life.
http://rpginn.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1202&Itemid=1
Another example is this rapist that just got out of jail and tried to rape the lady in her home. The only thing that prevented her from getting raped and than killed was a small caliber handgun.
http://www.brassfetcher.com/Sammie%20Fousts%20story.rtf
Here is another person minding his own business. Doing his job like any other day and violent criminals show up. He shot the criminal to protect himself. He refuse to be a victim. He defended himself four times.
http://rpginn.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1072&Itemid=39
Here is another person that refuse to become a victim.
http://rpginn.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=195&Itemid=39
More and more people especially female are arming themselves because the only thing that going to protect them isn't the cops or wits but a firearm.
Wits only work in the movies I'm afraid.
People in grocery line that may or may not have a gun IS a big deal, as mind blowing as that might sound to you. You and your gun toting friends might feel safe and in control, but I sure dont as i dont know these people with guns are responsible users.
As for siting down and refusing to be raped, you dont need a gun for that ¬¬ As others have said in this thread there are plenty of household items that can double as weapons, guns are made to kill and such extreme force is unnecessary in most cases.
Your home invasion argument also makes no sense to me and strikes me as fearmongering.
The links you show either have the attackers armed with guns (in which case you are actually arguing my point for me) or show the victim to have been stabbed while caught unaware (so a gun wouldnt have changed anything) or have the victims die to a fire (guns are useless in those situations).
Didnt check every single link but of those i saw, NONE has me thinking "yeah if only they had a gun", I dont see how you reached such an extreme conclusion. As others have said here, there are plenty of household items that double as weapons, why the need for WEAPONS designed to kill?
The other examples you give don't convince me at all, they in fact genuinely horrify me and more so the way you keep repeating "they refuse to be victims". So being unarmed is akin to being a walking victim? It sounds like your gun fixation is more to reassure yourself then, an impression confounded by your scaremongering justifications.
And in each case, I dont see why the gun cant have been replaced by something else, kitchen knife, powertools, etc.. Refusing to be a victim doesnt mean you need to have a gun at all.
Hell, I can use such ways too, and I feel they might even support my views more then they do yours.
Columbine school massacre, or ANY of those college/office shootouts you have over on the other side of the pond. All of that was possible only because weapons are so freely available.
What would you propose then? That all the students and teachers should have had their guns on them?
That everyone needs to be armed at all times?
I'm genuinely terrified of this world you envision.
More and more females carry guns with them? Just wow, isnt pepper spray enough anymore? So when usa girls go out to a nightclub they all have guns in their purses? I seriously hope they dont get too drunk then cos we certainly wouldnt want irresponsible or risky behavior when such lethal means are at their disposable.
Alcohol+high emotions+guns doesnt sound like a reassuring combo to me at all.
Another thing I'd like to comment on, further showing just how different our world views are.
You seem to think the police as worst then useless, and unreliable.
Maybe in your country, over here they do a decent job.
And what do you have against wits/intelligence getting you out of bad situations? What is so unbelievable about it? You don't want to hear about my life story, but quick thinking has saved my ass on a few occasions, sure a gun would have made it easy I guess, but then I would have had blood on my hands, thats assuming I would even have been able to pull the trigger.
Or I would be dead because the attacker had free access to a gun, instead the worst ive ever faced was knives.
I'd make some catty comment about how you should stop watching action films where the protagonists solve their problems by shooting stuff, but meh, its a shot in the dark, I have no clue if you do. Main impression I get from you is that of fear, that having a gun means you feel safe and in control. I can understand that, but its not healthy nor does it make the world a safer place ><
Like I said, the difference is aesthetics. But all you really need for a dungeon is torture, and people will hate that aquarium just as much as they might hate a dark room filled with guillotines. Guns make that kind of thing much easier to achieve, especially if you assume you have a house in an isolated area and they can fire a gun without attracting attention.Cryogaijin said:
My point extends to that, actually. It's called taking the guns from them using ordinary Police process. And yes, it would be extremely difficult and take several years to get rid of said 300 million, but I suspect that anyone sane enough would return their gun if the law changed. If they wouldn't, then they are exactly the type of person who should not have a gun because of how paranoid they are. My point still stands.
The UK may, but Australia is a different can of beans, and we are much less lax about our gun control than the UK is. It works in degrees.
My point is that it doesn't take as much as you think for the average person to feel like pulling a trigger, especially if they go anywhere near mind-altering substances in the mere presence of a firearm. Most people in Western countries have actually tried a hard drug, especially if you count cannabis, so the risk of accidents, or the willingness for people to slip closer to making them occur, is not to be underestimated.
Assuming they are there to kill you, which is a bit of a leap of faith.
They are not talismanic, but they have an amount of power, like the car, that people can easily abuse. And to me, the results that they can bring about are 100% negative compared to a pacifist lifestyle. I'm with Immanuel Kant on this one - it is morally correct to do whatever, if everyone did it, would make the world a better place. In this case, I call not carrying a gun a perfect example.
Yes, it does, and there is nothing wrong with that. I have reason not to trust my fellow man with guns. I don't need to list the billions killed by such weaponry in human history to point out why I don't trust my "fellow man" with the equipment.
You can't remove the people from the equation, except by killing them. You are pretending that I use guns as a straw man that deserves beating but cannot be removed (when it can, with enough effort, just like climate change), but your straw man is people, who cannot be changed at the core. You can't assume that everyone who owns a gun in your system is sane, let alone well-practised.
I've already pointed out that gun deaths are more numerous because when guns are allowed it creates a CULTURE of gun ownership, which in turn attracts both safe and unsafe people. I repeat, out of necessity: without guns there would BE no gun owners. There would be ordinary people not packing heat and not causing accidents or having a quick means of getting away with heinous crimes.
That is a win/win situation, and you cannot deny it. You'd lose a casual form of entertainment (gun clubs) to gain a massive sense of personal and national security. There is no feasible means of arguing against such a result. There are bad ways such a process could be engaged in, but assuming a well-implemented gun removal policy, you have not a single leg to stand on here, my friend.
Assuming casual use and firing only on objects, there is nothing wrong with guns here, but you can never assume it. Thus my opposition. But I'm impressed with your acceptance.Wadders said:
That's UK law, and I suppose it removes that problem almost entirely for you for the majority of time, but it's not the same in America or other places that are lax about gun ownership. But a gun locked up is still a gun if you unlock the safe, and it's not like without a Big Brother-style system people are going to know that you've unlocked it. And even if you're the only one who knows the combination, you might be a sane or insane person, and may abuse it however you please. The code only restricts the number of people who can abuse that gun, it doesn't stop those who have access.
I'm guessing you live in the city by this comment. Again, it's different depending on the person. If you live in a farming community and own a mile's worth of fields around your house, you can make any noise you want and people won't know. It's still open to extreme abuse.
You don't? Really. The many people who have died on roundabouts because they forgot might disagree with you. And the same applies here.
I wasn't making such a suggestion. I was merely suggesting the nature of the power that you're giving to someone when you give them a firearm, and that if people let it, it can go to their heads. Gang cultures are a perfect example of this egotistical style of gun empowerment, and of its negative impact.
Your regulations do much to help against this, absolutely - that's been one of my major points - but I contest that nothing will totally prevent accidents or abuse of the equipment except destroying the guns. If you can't remove, regulation is the next best thing, but it's a poor second in my view. Far better than nothing, but not enough to satisfy me.
Not exactly, I think that if one understands the nature of the tool it can go to their head. It's not an intrinsic problem with the tool per se, it relies on human interpretation of it, but such a level of interpretation could be reached on the first day holding a gun, which is why I assume it's part of the picture most of the time. If a gun's not locked up, it's possible for someone to let it go to their head. Fine if you're a target in a range, not so fine if you're the other person who happens to be there at the time.
You mention swords or mallets, and how they would encourage as much as a gun would. Well, that's the thing. I don't like those either. Not much more than I like guns. If I like them more, it's only slightly, because they're harder to kill with, less efficient, and therefore a lot less dangerous. They also won't usually stand up against an armed Police officer, so owning them is just far less of an ego boost for those who are prone to such easy influence.
I have shot a .22 pistol and a .22 rifle. Oh and don't forget about the BB gun! I live in Iowa.