This discussion is closed.
Vienna
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#61
Report 14 years ago
#61
(Original post by wiwarin_mir)
That does not mean that those legally own guns, more specifically hand guns, somehow have a different construction making them useful in house hold tasks.
I really dont understand the problem here.

Are guns used to shoot animals? Yes.
Are guns used to shoot humans? Yes.
Are guns used to shoot artificial targets? Yes.
Are guns used to fire aimlessly? Yes.
Are guns used to fire in the air? Yes.

All of these come under a wider use: They are used to fire at the target of the owners choice.

Of all the uses above, killing humans is the least frequent purpose, so im stuggling to see how you can define it as the primary one.

If you are asking how guns came about then obviously they were developed through warfare and for hunting, but does that sufficiently define their use today? No.
0
wiwarin_mir
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#62
Report Thread starter 14 years ago
#62
(Original post by vienna95)
I really dont understand the problem here.

Are guns used to shoot animals? Yes.
Are guns used to shoot humans? Yes.
Are guns used to shoot artificial targets? Yes.
Are guns used to fire aimlessly? Yes.
Are guns used to fire in the air? Yes.

All of these come under a wider use: They are used to fire at the target of the owners choice.

Of all the uses above, killing humans is the least frequent purpose, so im stuggling to see how you can define it as the primary one.

If you are asking how guns came about then obviously they were developed through warfare and for hunting, but does that sufficiently define their use today? No.
These are what they are used for today, especially in America and other countries with liberal gun laws, guns were not first designed to shoot at artifical targets.
0
Vienna
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#63
Report 14 years ago
#63
(Original post by wiwarin_mir)
These are what they are used for today. Guns were not first designed to shoot at artifical targets.
Does the initial use of guns invented some centuries ago, sufficiently define their use today?

Your question should have been "What were guns invented for?"
0
wiwarin_mir
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#64
Report Thread starter 14 years ago
#64
(Original post by vienna95)
Does the initial use of guns invented some centuries ago, sufficiently define their use today?

Your question should have been "What were guns invented for?"
It is still their primary use though. Do police in the US carry guns so they do a bit of target practice when they are bored? do people hunt artifical animals? of course they do not, they are used to kill or to injure someone.
0
Vienna
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#65
Report 14 years ago
#65
(Original post by wiwarin_mir)
It is still their primary use though.
Youre not demonstrating how. They are used to shoot humans yes, but,

i) This is not their only purpose, it comes under a wider use, which is to shoot a target of the handlers choice.
ii) They are used for other purposes, more often.

Do police in the US carry guns so they do a bit of target practice when they are bored? do people hunt artifical animals? of course they do not, they are used to kill or to injure someone.
Among other things, which you are not considering. What makes this particular use the primary one?
0
Jamie
Badges: 18
#66
Report 14 years ago
#66
(Original post by psychic_satori)
The British dictionary website I gave you uses the Cambridge University Press Advanced Learner's Dictionary.
hahahahahaha what the hell does that prove. One ickle sideline dictionary includes the word so all of a sudden its part of the language? hell no.
In my mind if it isn't in the oxford dictionary its still just a colloqualism. Why does this mean so much to you?
0
technik
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#67
Report 14 years ago
#67
(Original post by wiwarin_mir)
It is still their primary use though. Do police in the US carry guns so they do a bit of target practice when they are bored? do people hunt artifical animals? of course they do not, they are used to kill or to injure someone.
all police in NI are armed...do they go out and shoot people for the fun of it? no.

one use for guns is to injure or kill but there are other uses...it depends on the context.

a soldiers gun is probably going to be used to kill...
a police officers more likely for last resort defence or deterent...
an ordinary bloke on the street might own/licence one for shooting targets or clay pigeons...

the thread is titled "the primary use of guns". there is no primary use, as it depends on who the shooter is and what they are shooting at.

the internet we're all on at the moment was created as a military network at the beginning but that isnt its primary use anymore...
0
Jamie
Badges: 18
#68
Report 14 years ago
#68
(Original post by vienna95)
Youre not demonstrating how. They are used to shoot humans yes, but,

i) This is not their only purpose, it comes under a wider use, which is to shoot a target of the handlers choice.
ii) They are used for other purposes, more often.


Among other things, which you are not considering. What makes this particular use the primary one?
1) its was what they were created for
2) take every gun in the world and put them in a pile. How many of those guns do you think are used just for target practice, and how many for killing humans or animals.
3) there really is no acceptable reason to have handguns. For hunting rifles are much more useful. Even in leisure rifles are more used for leisure shooting (like clays). I personally hate the idea that someone can take offense to me from across the street, produce a piece of metal and end my life there and then.
0
fishpaste
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#69
Report 14 years ago
#69
Does it make sense to consider the ratio

"incidence of acceptable use : incidence of unacceptable use"

though as is being done here? It becomes a bit absurd at the extremes, if you could find a recreational use for nuclear warheads, you still wouldn't want them floating about your average neighbourhood, even if 'only rarely are nuclear warheads used for destructive means.'

I think it makes more sense to consider the ratio

"incidence of use beneficial to society : ratio of unacceptable use"

Knives are useful to society, and are rarely used unacceptably, so we're prepared to live with them, guns are rarely useful to society, and rarely used unacceptably.
0
technik
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#70
Report 14 years ago
#70
(Original post by fishpaste)
Does it make sense to consider the ratio

"incidence of acceptable use : incidence of unacceptable use"

though as is being done here? It becomes a bit absurd at the extremes, if you could find a recreational use for nuclear warheads, you still wouldn't want them floating about your average neighbourhood, even if 'only rarely are nuclear warheads used for destructive means.'

I think it makes more sense to consider the ratio

"incidence of use beneficial to society : ratio of unacceptable use"

Knives are useful to society, and are rarely used unacceptably, so we're prepared to live with them, guns are rarely useful to society, and rarely used unacceptably.
a nuclear weapon is a bit more destructive than a bullet
0
fishpaste
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#71
Report 14 years ago
#71
(Original post by technik)
a nuclear weapon is a bit more destructive than a bullet
hence my argument
0
LH
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#72
Report 14 years ago
#72
Fishing
0
Vienna
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#73
Report 14 years ago
#73
(Original post by foolfarian)
hahahahahaha what the hell does that prove.
"Is that even a word?"

It proves its a word.


In my mind if it isn't in the oxford dictionary its still just a colloqualism. Why does this mean so much to you?
Because you asked if it was a word, it evidently is.

edit: amusingly ironic that you neg rep me for being pedantic, despite my efforts to end this nonsense about whether or not you are happy with a word. pathetic.
0
Jamie
Badges: 18
#74
Report 14 years ago
#74
(Original post by fishpaste)
Does it make sense to consider the ratio

"incidence of acceptable use : incidence of unacceptable use"

though as is being done here? It becomes a bit absurd at the extremes, if you could find a recreational use for nuclear warheads, you still wouldn't want them floating about your average neighbourhood, even if 'only rarely are nuclear warheads used for destructive means.'

I think it makes more sense to consider the ratio

"incidence of use beneficial to society : ratio of unacceptable use"

Knives are useful to society, and are rarely used unacceptably, so we're prepared to live with them, guns are rarely useful to society, and rarely used unacceptably.
agree somewhat, but surely what you say backs my argument?
0
fishpaste
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#75
Report 14 years ago
#75
(Original post by foolfarian)
agree somewhat, but surely what you say backs my argument?
my position on the issue is, my common sense says I quite like living in a country which is relatively gun free and wouldn't want to give that up for some minor personal freedom, especially one I'd personally never use. yet this is at odds with my general respect for personal and economic freedom, a contradiction I don't know how to resolve. So basically, I haven't decided where I stand.
0
Vienna
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#76
Report 14 years ago
#76
(Original post by foolfarian)
2) take every gun in the world and put them in a pile. How many of those guns do you think are used just for target practice, and how many for killing humans or animals.
But killing animals equally comes under recreation which is allied with shooting at artificial targets, so Im not sure about the relevance of putting killing humans or animals together as a single use.
0
wiwarin_mir
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#77
Report Thread starter 14 years ago
#77
(Original post by vienna95)
But killing animals equally comes under recreation which is allied with shooting at artificial targets, so Im not sure about the relevance of putting killing humans or animals together as a single use.
But the animals are still alive, therefore it is still killing, as you pointed out. I did not say the primary use of guns was killing people, just killing, which would include animals.
0
Howard
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#78
Report 14 years ago
#78
(Original post by wiwarin_mir)
After having this discussion with someone on MSN I thought it might be an idea to see what the rest of you think.

Guns are designed to kill, unlike knifes for instance, they have no primary use ahead of killing, whether animal or Human. What do you think the primary use of guns?
The primary intention for how guns were to be used was of course killing in the battlefield. That's completely different from the primary use of guns today (certainly in the UK). I should imagine that the majority of guns left in the UK (after most other kinds were all confiscated by government) are shotguns these days and the majority of them are:

a) locked away in gun cabinets collecting dust
b) used for trap or skeet shoots
c) used to kill hares/pheasants etc
0
Vienna
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#79
Report 14 years ago
#79
(Original post by wiwarin_mir)
But the animals are still alive, therefore it is still killing, as you pointed out. I did not say the primary use of guns was killing people, just killing, which would include animals.
Yes, but this "use" doesnt seem to tell us much. It doesnt correctly define the primary use of a firearm in our society.
0
Jamie
Badges: 18
#80
Report 14 years ago
#80
(Original post by Howard)
The primary intention for how guns were to be used was of course killing in the battlefield. That's completely different from the primary use of guns today (certainly in the UK). I should imagine that the majority of guns left in the UK (after most other kinds were all confiscated by government) are shotguns these days and the majority of them are:

a) locked away in gun cabinets collecting dust
b) used for trap or skeet shoots
c) used to kill hares/pheasants etc
I think its important to differentiate between types of gun.
Handguns vs hunting rifles.
0
X
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

How has the start of this academic year been for you?

Loving it - gonna be a great year (139)
17.77%
It's just nice to be back! (211)
26.98%
Not great so far... (281)
35.93%
I want to drop out! (151)
19.31%

Watched Threads

View All