What Makes Guns so Awesome or Not Awesome to You?

[Zacharine]

Sure, because every confrontation is a mob war just waiting to happen. >_>

Of course not, but you have entered the territory of instantly lethal firepower. The potential for 'collateral damage'-victims and scattered brains is there.

I honestly have no idea what you're trying to say or where you're going with this. The only discernable meaning of the above sentence seems to be "guns are scary".

Rather that guns represent the pinnacle in a pyramid of force. Once you pull out a gun, you've hit Lethal Force Engaged. It is an indication that you are willing to kill, that there are no longer limitations on the consequences of your actions regarding the other person.

If by "bad stuff begins to happen" you mean "they force you to shoot them to defend yourself", then yes.

Nobody forces you to shoot anyone. You could run away, you could accept getting robbed, you could try fighting back with some other methods.

You are never, ever, forced to kill, not even when your own life is without a shadow of a doubt on the line and about to be snuffed out. Even then, a decision is involved.

You can never force people to kill. You can coerce, bribe, influence, threaten, all that. But never force, because the final decision lies always with the person about to kill.

This has no bearing on if the decision is moral or not. Only that in the purest sense of the wod, no forcing is involved as the option of not killing is always present.

However unfortunate that may be, I think we can agree that this is a more favorable outcome than allowing your assailant to continue on whatever course of action caused you to draw your weapon on them in the first place, such as trying to kill you, for instance...

Or trying to rob the 40 bucks in your wallet, whereupon, frightened as you are, you pull a gun and put lives on the line instead of giving those 40 bucks away.

Or, you know, trying running.

When people are frightened and threatened, they rarely think things trough and so prefer to go for the final solution first. If that solution is potential lethal force...

There is a difference between justifiable defence and excess of justifiable defense.

Way to boil down a billion different possible situations into one. There's a world of difference between, say, pulling a gun on a dozen assailants all of whom already have you at gunpoint (a suicidal choice, to be sure), and pulling a gun on a lone assailant armed with a knife who isn't yet within striking distance (a perfectly logical choice).

What a perfect way of nitpicking instead of looking at the substance of my post.

"unless you are already backed into a corner with absolutely nothing left to lose" This includes the continued existance of yourself and your family. I would have thought it self-evident. But for say... your credit cards, PS3 and 42" HD-tv? Are they really worth it to put lives on the line?

ANd if you are at gunpoint already, what have you done to make the situation like that, or what do they want from you to hold you at gunpoint?

If they want to kill you, what have you left to lose? If they want your money but nothing else, why would you pull out a gun?

It is all subjective. What are you willing to lose? At what point have you been pushed too far?

At what point, do you reach the line of potentially no return, when you have lost or are about to lose something you really, truly can't lose? I argue that before you reach the point, pulling out a gun is only going to escalate things and increase the amount of danger you are in.

Let me posit a scenario in which a gun might be used to prevent a crime and/or end a confrontation peacefully. You're at home in bed in the middle of the night, you hear a noise inside the house and suspect someone has broken in, you retrieve a handgun and a flashlight and go to investigate.

Wrong. If you almost certain that you're about to be robbed, you call the cops, lock the door to your bedroom and hunker down with that handgun. You don't go looking for a confrontation. Or do you value potentially taking a knife to your ribs over a few hundred bucks worth of electronics and jewellery, or more valuable but insured goods?

But okay, let's go with your scenario.

You locate the burglar, who hasn't noticed you. Your life isn't exactly on the line at this point -- you're not backed into a corner with absolutely nothing left to lose -- so what do you do? You could avoid them and call the police, but then what? In the best case scenario help is probably still several minutes away (worst case scenario, 30 minutes to an hour), and in that time the intruder could do any number of things. Most likely they would ransack your house for valuables, and flee at the first sign of trouble, but who's to say they won't violently attack you or other occupants of the house?

Sure, it's unlikely, but there's no way of knowing an intruder's intentions, and I for one have no faith in random criminals' characters. Instead, it seems to me that the most logical option is to flick the flashlight on and shine it in the intruder's eyes to temporarily blind them, while announcing that you have them at gunpoint and ordering them not to move. I foresee three possible outcomes in such a situation.

A: The intruder, having been caught off guard, submits and you detain them until police arrive.
B: The intruder flees.
C: The intruder attempts to draw a weapon or otherwise attack you, leaving you with no choice but to shoot them.

Only one of these outcomes involves the use of force, and by any sane standard it's the least likely one.

Or you can avoid the situation entirely by backing out once you confirm the burglar is there, lock down in a room with the rest of the people in the house and...

let the people trained for this kind of stuff deal with it instead of escalating things and going vigilante and putting yourself and potentially others (including the burglar and other occupants of the house)into increased amounts of danger?

Yes, they might flee. Then again, they might not. You cannot know. Are you willing to take the chance that you miss? That they are armed as well? That in the heat of adrenalin and being on edge, the sight of the gun makes them loose what little control they have and they incapacitate you and in fact kill you for making them frightened?

ALl for material goods that can be replaced?

And what if they think you are bluffing and charge at you?

Either you most certanly get killed or wounded, or you've just potentially become a killer.

For the intruder to pull a weapon on you when you already have them at gunpoint is a ridiculous gamble on their part that would most likely get them killed, and for what? To avoid an attempted burglary charge? If they did choose to call your bluff, they'd most likely do so in the way that's less likely to get them killed, by simply fleeing rather than trying to jump an armed opponent.

Possibly, but possibly not. In fact, it doesn't matter. Because before the situation is what it is, you've already backed yourself into a corner. If they do not flee, you have no choice but to take their assault or shoot them. They hold the card to your fate. Flee or not. Charge or not.

Poor choices either way, for both of you. This makes them desperate. Desperate people are not rational people. And unless you are trained in violent situations or extremely courageous, you will be desperate as well. ANd let's face it, few us are trained.

Desperation of varying degrees and poor choices all around, lethal force on the field. And you drove the situation into it by going for a confrontation with gun. Instead of simply allowing the situation to roll, trusting the cops to arrive early enough or track down the burglar later...

All to save a few material possessions.

I most certainly wouldn't consider it worth it.

Martial arts? Too bad if you're disabled, or injured, or simply haven't trained enough and lack the ability to use such methods effectively.

That is why I think self-defence courses ought to be offered more widely.

Disabled? Oh right mr. burglar, please what while I dig out my gun and make plenty of sound and noise jumping into my wheelchair from my bed and come after you. Oh right, mr. thief, please hold and do not step behind me while I dig out my gun instead of my wallet and please do not easily stab me for trying to kill you.

Injured? Please stay still mr. bad-person, while I aim with a single hand since my other one is broken. Please do not be disturbed by my hobbling on sticks and one leg while I try to deter you with a gun. Or please come into my bedroom where I cannot leave my bed without assistance.

If you are disabled or injured badly enough for it to count...

1. They are already out to kill you/rape you, in which case the situation can't get worse. They will come after you almost no matter what you do. This is the only situation where a gun can be beneficial. The problem is, people often misinterpret the following situations as this one and go for a gun.
2. They are unaware of your presence and thus unlikely to harm you. They just want Monny and Uncommon-level items. Pull out a gun, make them aware and suddenly the situation is worse.
3. They are aware of your presence but dismiss your threat value and only want some money& stuff. Pulling out a gun will change that: suddenly you are threat to be deal with or escaped from. The link between dealing with you and escaping is easy to make: they have no idea if you will shoot them in the back or not.
4. They are aware of your presence and begin to hike out. Pulling out a gun might stop that, forcing again a bad situation.

People kill, not guns. Guns simple make killing a whole lot easier and make people frightened, desperate and agitated. All this leads to bad decisions, regrets and people potentially dying or getting seriously hurt. When you have the easy option (via guns) of using lethal force, even when it isn't warranted you are far more likely to use that force. This goes both for criminals and civilians: When force is available, it tends to be used. Necessary or not.

Unless your life, that of your family's, or something equally priceless is already in the line, you are far better off by not escalating the situation.

 

[AgentNein]

they kill

as such "not awesome"

(I'm a pacifist)

Bet that's rough. What do you do when everyone around you decides they're not pacifist? Granted I suppose that's a "worst-case scenario", but still...

Guns are awesome because they have leverage. Even if you don't use them, they can still end a fight. Even if you don't have ammo, its still a big metal pole you can swat someone with. Note that I am not referring to pistols, I'd rather use something that could reliably penetrate a couple of heavy coats, or maybe a car door, or something that has both "dont F with me" presence and knockdown power, like a shotgun.

Best quality of them is something that amounts to calling a bet in poker: basically, bring one out for defense and you're saying "if you want to proceed with this stupidity, best be prepared to lose something important." Great way to stop fights before they ever get physical.

Lemme know how this works out for you. Because to me the gun is probably the least wanted escalation of a violent situation. In the heat of passion I can throw a punch and hit a guy, i never want to have the option of putting a bullet in them though. Lets say I use it for 'scare value'. My 'big stick'. What happens when they have a gun as well and are willing to use it as more than scare value? Escalation of an already nasty situation.

 

[Tharwen]

I like them as a test of physical skill, but the idea of their capability to make someone dead in a near-instant is horrifying to me.

The firepower that can be delivered is so devastating that decade-long conflicts of half-a-million men each going head to head on an open field are gone.

500000-man conflicts never existed, and we're nearly at a decade in Afghanistan anyway.

 

[WINDOWCLEAN2]

They are awsome because they are my rifles, there are many rifles like them but they are mine, with out my rifles i am nothing, without me my rifles are nothing

 

[Zacharine]

The firepower that can be delivered is so devastating that decade-long conflicts of half-a-million men each going head to head on an open field are gone.

500000-man conflicts never existed, and we're nearly at a decade in Afghanistan anyway.

Then you've never heard of the 30-years war.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirty_Years%27_War

The first world war. Total KIA, MIA and WIA: almost 40 million. It hammered the point home that previous strategies and tactics were no longer functional, that the way war is waged would need to change in front of modern weaponry.

 

[Tharwen]

The firepower that can be delivered is so devastating that decade-long conflicts of half-a-million men each going head to head on an open field are gone.

500000-man conflicts never existed, and we're nearly at a decade in Afghanistan anyway.

Then you've never heard of the 30-years war.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirty_Years%27_War

The first world war. Total KIA, MIA and WIA: almost 40 million. It hammered the point home that previous strategies and tactics were no longer functional, that the way war is waged would need to change in front of modern weaponry.

Sorry, I should have written 'battle', not 'conflict'. I was making a (perhaps overly pedantic) point about half a million people being a lot more than can easily fit onto one battlefield.

 

[Zacharine]

Sorry, I should have written 'battle', not 'conflict'. I was making a (perhaps overly pedantic) point about half a million people being a lot more than can easily fit onto one battlefield.

And I thought that much is a given But an understandable mistake and perhaps I should have been clearer as well. Or rather, not use an expression so intertwined with battles instead of conflicts.

 

[Woodsey]

Guns are made to kill people.

I fail to find anything awesome in that.

 

[aarontg]

I like guns when they are effective enouph, an example would be MW2. It sounds very small and pety but it can drastically change the overall feel of a weapon but I aslo like a cool looking reload sequence. this is probbly one of hose points where being a smooth process is ultimatly unfulfiling, I like how the character would sort of flip the empty clip out of the gun then flip another one in with all the subtle *Clicks* and *Clacks* of the process.

 

[Tuddle]

what makes guns awesome?
when they have strings on them of course!

It would be funny to see you perform on stage and security thinks it's an actual gun
and tackles you on stage.

 

[Souplex]

The invention of guns made it possible for those without chutzpa to defeat those with chutzpa. They defy the natural order of the universe. If man were meant to use guns, we wouldn't have chainsaws.
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.146207-Poll-Fun-control#3329136

 

[Pegghead]

Whether or not Bruce Campbell's holding it.

 

[KarumaK]

Guns are made to kill people.

I fail to find anything awesome in that.

Guns are made to kill anything that lives, that's why they come in various sizes.

I fail to find anything not awesome in that.

 

[Twad]

The only guns i like are those in games and paintball/airsoft guns. They are better because we can shoot at eachother without the "dying horribly" part, and with paintball/airsoft its harmless adrenaline-filled fun too, when you play with proper eye/face protection (kneepads helps too when playing outdoors)

As for real guns, i dont like them, and i dont/wont need them. And gun crimes here are mostly non-existant... and getting one for self-protection is pointless; why waste money and risk accidents to watch it gather dust in case someone MIGHT enter my home with me inside. Very, very unlikely.
Im pretty sure im more likely to get run over by a train than someone assaulting my home.

 

[Tharwen]

Sorry, I should have written 'battle', not 'conflict'. I was making a (perhaps overly pedantic) point about half a million people being a lot more than can easily fit onto one battlefield.

And I thought that much is a given But an understandable mistake and perhaps I should have been clearer as well. Or rather, not use an expression so intertwined with battles instead of conflicts.

*Offers handshake*

 

[Zacharine]

Sorry, I should have written 'battle', not 'conflict'. I was making a (perhaps overly pedantic) point about half a million people being a lot more than can easily fit onto one battlefield.

And I thought that much is a given But an understandable mistake and perhaps I should have been clearer as well. Or rather, not use an expression so intertwined with battles instead of conflicts.

*Offers handshake*

*Shakes hand, offers cookie.

 

[RobJameson]

Guns are not awesome to me for unromanticising (word?) combat.
There's nothing beautiful or skilful about killing someone with a gun in one-on-one combat.

So that's why they bother spending millions training special forces operatives right? Because there's absoloutely no skill in sniping/combat or any of the intricate nuances of gunfights. Ok, go up in a gunfight against an SAS soldier and see who wins.

People think that ancient warriors were these ubertrained zen masters when the vast majority were untrained rabble. Modern soldiers have the best training and training methods of all time and use the most complex weapons systems which require a lot of knowhow and experience to use.

 

[Jedoro]

Frankly, some people in the world just need some killing. With guns, it can pretty much be done without even being in harm's way.

I love the sound they make, too.

 

[Yunatwilight]

Hey, in real life the only reason I would even shoot a person or even an animal with a gun would be to directly preserve myself or my family (as in, "kill the guy who's trying to kill me right here right now" not "kill the guy my government says to").

But guns themselves are *awesome*, and if shooting paper targets or clay discs is wrong then I don't want to be right.