# Do guns kill people or people kill people or if it's really the bullet, or the impact or damage to specific organs



## Morpheus uk (Dec 12, 2008)

So this`ll be a little debate, i just got home from exams early so im bored so decided to take this opportunity lol

I say its the gun, as the gun fires the bullet and there far more types of guns than bullets i would imagine :lol:


----------



## Katnapper (Dec 12, 2008)

It's none of those, Morpheus! It's too small of a tank and bad water quality...


----------



## Peter Clausen (Dec 12, 2008)

I was supposed to be in bed like 3 hours ago and now I'm just sitting here laughing out loud! :lol:


----------



## Orin (Dec 12, 2008)

Morpheus uk said:


> So this`ll be a little debate, i just got home from exams early so im bored so decided to take this opportunity lolI say its the gun, as the gun fires the bullet and there far more types of guns than bullets i would imagine :lol:


 I say it's the bullet since it contains the gunpowder, the gun has no kick. However, bad water quality caused by the lack of surface area for growth of bacteria required for ammonia and nitrite removal in a small aquarium could do it too.


----------



## cloud jaguar (Dec 12, 2008)

This is a simple question of causation. Assuming the person fired the gun of their free will, the shooter is the proximate cause since it was forseeable that shooting the gun could result in someone being shot. However, the bullet was the cause in fact since it actually did the damage.


----------



## hibiscusmile (Dec 12, 2008)

No all wrong, wrong, wrong, people kill people, and whatever u water people are smoking, don't pass it on to me  . I mean the gun is just the vehical which is used like a hammer, a hammer does not jump up and go smash, smash, smash on someones head, the arm or digit that holds it does it. When Lizzy gave her mother or father 40 wacks, the axe was not on trial, Lizzy Bordon was! How's the ditty go?

Lizzy Bordon picked up an axe, and gave her mother fourty wacks.....


----------



## PhilinYuma (Dec 12, 2008)

Well Morpheus,

As a 99 yr old Englishman, you probably saw action in WWII. I am much younger, but I saw action in the Kenya Emergency, and a sergeant major explained this issue of causality in simple terms that even I could understand. Most of us had never seen action, and our first casualties caused the usual reaction, so he made sure that we knew where Our Duty lay.

Briefly, he pointed out that while "The Yanks" put great stock in having their soldiers wounded and even gave them a medal for it, Her Majesty's Army frowned on this practice, because it was expensive and created a lot of paper work. Therefore, no soldier was to get himself wounded or killed without specific orders from his commanding officer. "Do I make myself crystal clear?"

So both the necessary and efficient cause of death from a gun shot is not the shooter, the gun or the bullet, or even secondary infection, but the poor sod who carelessly allows himself to be shot.

Hope this helps.


----------



## kamakiri (Dec 12, 2008)

1. Shooter

2. Gun/bullet owner - not always the shooter

3. Government allowing personal use of firearms

All of the above...in that order.

#2 and #3 provide the crime of opportunity. People can't kill with guns unless they are around and available.


----------



## rosenkrieger (Dec 12, 2008)

Personally, I feel that banning guns won't do anything except raise crime rates. Criminals intent on committing gun crimes will still be able to (how many of them actually buy their guns legally in the first place?). Since they know that the average law-abiding citizen won't be armed, they'll be more willing to pick just random people to attack. Not to mention we have this thing called the second ammendment that allows us to keep and bear arms in the event that we may need them (to defend ourselves, etc).

I feel this sums it up quite well (i wish i could just embed this):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gmp9Ei_bUpI


----------



## The_Asa (Dec 12, 2008)

People die??


----------



## Morpheus uk (Dec 12, 2008)

PhilinYuma said:


> Well Morpheus,As a 99 yr old Englishman, you probably saw action in WWII. I am much younger, but I saw action in the Kenya Emergency, and a sergeant major explained this issue of causality in simple terms that even I could understand. Most of us had never seen action, and our first casualties caused the usual reaction, so he made sure that we knew where Our Duty lay.
> 
> Briefly, he pointed out that while "The Yanks" put great stock in having their soldiers wounded and even gave them a medal for it, Her Majesty's Army frowned on this practice, because it was expensive and created a lot of paper work. Therefore, no soldier was to get himself wounded or killed without specific orders from his commanding officer. "Do I make myself crystal clear?"
> 
> ...


Well, 16 year old Englishman, and i have seen plenty of action in WWII as a matter of fact, all of which was in Call of duty 5 :lol:


----------



## kamakiri (Dec 12, 2008)

RosenKrieger said:


> Personally, I feel that banning guns won't do anything except raise crime rates.


Ironically, I do agree about banning being ineffective. Imagine trying to ban handguns in Los Angeles. The problem was allowing them in the first place. Amnesty programs seem to work pretty well though.

But please don't get me wrong...I do believe in supporting the 2nd amendment. I'd love everyone who hunts or sport shoots to have rifles. I like to shoot too, and have my 'expert' qualification on M-16 and M-60. Semi-autos that are easy to convert to full auto and handguns are what concern me.


----------



## Rick (Dec 12, 2008)

Not a topic I thought would show up here. Guns do not kill people, people kill people. None of my many guns have ever escaped from the safe and went out on a killing spree.

Gun control does not work. Look at places like Chicago and D.C. Some of the highest crime rates involving guns in the country but yet guns are banned there! Gun control only affects the law abiding citizens and not the criminals. For some reason some people cannot seem to figure this out. If you want to ban guns because they kill people you should go ahead and ban cars too since cars kill many more people than guns. :angry:


----------



## shorty (Dec 12, 2008)

RosenKrieger said:


> Personally, I feel that banning guns won't do anything except raise crime rates. Criminals intent on committing gun crimes will still be able to (how many of them actually buy their guns legally in the first place?). Since they know that the average law-abiding citizen won't be armed, they'll be more willing to pick just random people to attack. Not to mention we have this thing called the second ammendment that allows us to keep and bear arms in the event that we may need them (to defend ourselves, etc).





Rick said:


> Not a topic I thought would show up here. Guns do not kill people, people kill people. None of my many guns have ever escaped from the safe and went out on a killing spree. Gun control does not work. Look at places like Chicago and D.C. Some of the highest crime rates involving guns in the country but yet guns are banned there! Gun control only affects the law abiding citizens and not the criminals. For some reason some people cannot seem to figure this out. If you want to ban guns because they kill people you should go ahead and ban cars too since cars kill many more people than guns. :angry:


I completely agree with both of you. Gun control is about as pointless as the war on drugs, or the war on terrorism. Not to mention it's completely unconstitutional to take away our right to bear arms. Then again, it doesn't really appear that our government has too much of a problem stripping our rights or raping the constitution. It's also very true that taking away guns only effects law abiding citizens. If guns were taken from the law abiding people, then they couldn't defend themselves from the people that don't obey the laws. If you make laws to ban guns, people will still buy them just like when alcohol was illegal and drugs now. I can personally testify to how easy it is to buy illegal things and get away with it. So, no guns do not kill people, it's the people behind them. Like Rick said, my guns also have never left the cabinet to go on a rampage.


----------



## Rick (Dec 12, 2008)

shorty said:


> I completely agree with both of you. Gun control is about as pointless as the war on drugs, or the war on terrorism. Not to mention it's completely unconstitutional to take away our right to bear arms. Then again, it doesn't really appear that our government has too much of a problem stripping our rights or raping the constitution. It's also very true that taking away guns only effects law abiding citizens. If guns were taken from the law abiding people, then they couldn't defend themselves from the people that don't obey the laws. If you make laws to ban guns, people will still buy them just like when alcohol was illegal and drugs now. I can personally testify to how easy it is to buy illegal things and get away with it. So, no guns do not kill people, it's the people behind them. Like Rick said, my guns also have never left the cabinet to go on a rampage.


Being a veteran of the war on terror I find your comment about the GWOT to be a bit disturbing. It needs to be done. Other than that I agree with you.


----------



## idolomantis (Dec 12, 2008)

i say people, a gun can't fire itself.


----------



## revmdn (Dec 12, 2008)

If people didn't kill each other with guns then it would be some other weapon.


----------



## idolomantis (Dec 12, 2008)

ya... so this is pretty difficult.


----------



## PhilinYuma (Dec 13, 2008)

Rick said:


> Being a veteran of the war on terror I find your comment about the GWOT to be a bit disturbing. It needs to be done.


Rick:

As a veteran (combat infantryman, nbw platoon staff sergeant) of the KE, father of two volunteers who saw active duty in the US Army and Navy, one in Desert Storm, Great Uncle of an army dog handler, a sergeant on her third tour in Iraq, son of an NFS officer in WWII and grandson of an infantryman in WWI, I think that we all put our lives in forfeit simply to further the goals of our several governments, goals that had little or nothing to do with the soldiers in the field, goals which are now largely forgotten.

But you state your view with admirable civility, Rick, so I shall agree to differ with you. Those who scream the loudest about such things tend never to have seen combat. Those who most fervently proclaim our right to bear arms "for self defense" have seldom looked another man in the face and killed him with a gun or combat knife. I doubt that anyone of us who has done so with any regularity spent much time pondering about whether the gun or the bullet or the knife killed him. We did.


----------



## Rick (Dec 13, 2008)

PhilinYuma said:


> Rick:As a veteran (combat infantryman, nbw platoon staff sergeant) of the KE, father of two volunteers who saw active duty in the US Army and Navy, one in Desert Storm, Great Uncle of an army dog handler, a sergeant on her third tour in Iraq, son of an NFS officer in WWII and grandson of an infantryman in WWI, I think that we all put our lives in forfeit simply to further the goals of our several governments, goals that had little or nothing to do with the soldiers in the field, goals which are now largely forgotten.
> 
> But you state your view with admirable civility, Rick, so I shall agree to differ with you. Those who scream the loudest about such things tend never to have seen combat. Those who most fervently proclaim our right to bear arms "for self defense" have seldom looked another man in the face and killed him with a gun or combat knife. I doubt that anyone of us who has done so with any regularity spent much time pondering about whether the gun or the bullet or the knife killed him. We did.


Thanks for your service Phil. Maybe it is due to my just getting out of bed that I am not exactly sure if you agree of disagree with me.


----------



## hibiscusmile (Dec 13, 2008)

yea, I didn't get it either, Rick, like I said earlier people are the problem and if not a gun, then a knife, and some with bare hands, and if Looks could kill, well, I won't finish that one.


----------



## Headspace (Dec 13, 2008)

> Those who most fervently proclaim our right to bear arms "for self defense" have seldom looked another man in the face and killed him with a gun or combat knife. I doubt that anyone of us who has done so with any regularity spent much time pondering about whether the gun or the bullet or the knife killed him. We did.


Thank you for your service, Phil.

You bring up a very interesting point, regarding how people view self defense (at least when it comes to doing so at the level of lethal force) in our society, particularly the United States but even in the UK, from which our laws about self defense are derived.

It is important to point out a few things. Bringing up first and foremost that I'm not a lawyer, this isn't legal advice, etc:

1. Self defense laws have very little to do with guns, specifically, although their application often involves their use. This is why by and large the US and UK share similar "castle doctrine" laws being derived from the original British common law, yet their laws regarding who can own firearms are much different in most jurisdictions.

2. People who buy guns for self defense often, and probably most of the time, do not know the laws pertaining to (1) and ought to educate themselves, because it is critically important to the entire issue of self defense, and certainly more important than actually having a gun in the first place.

3. Whether or not you have a gun is pretty far down the list of what will determine your survival.

Now, before I continue, let me say that I've been involved in the shooting sports for awhile now, so I'm going to be biased to the RKBA side of things. I even went and became an NRA instructor so that I could teach the basic pistol course and have some level of credibility when I introduce new people to the hobby. Living in a state with onerous gun laws, I'm not convinced they really accomplish anything other than get certain politicians elected (which if you examine the issue, was the likely goal in the first place). Not that one doesn't have to obey the laws in their state--it's absolutely a requirement--but I am not convinced that they're having an appreciable effect WRT violent crime.

Even still, whether or not anyone can effectively become safer by being armed depends more on the person's level of education WRT self defense and the law, as well as their mindset, and not what kind of gun they have or what caliber it is. A person without the proper mindset has the capability to endanger not only himself, but others, even to that level which he thinks he is attempting to protect himself or his family. People who advocate for RKBA for self defense need to understand that proper education and training is the first step to being effective in this area, and thus, should seek out resources to that effect in tandem with seeking out a firearm for that purpose if they so choose.

This doesn't even touch on the issue of safety around guns, but statistically that's not a huge problem in the US despite it being harped on by the media. Most shootings are intentional, whether it is a matter of people doing it to each other, or themselves. It's still incredibly important for anyone who plans to be around firearms, and it must be practiced religiously, because such a person is not only responsible for their own safety, but the safety of those around them and those who would use them as a "role model" for proper handling of firearms.


----------



## PhilinYuma (Dec 13, 2008)

Rick, Hibiscusmile:

Last night at about midnight, a friend and forum member, seeing that I was still on line. sent me a message saying "Go to bed!" (Gracias,Mijah!) I thought that she was concerned for my advanced years, but perhaps she was as confused by my post as you were.

So briefly:

I was impressed by your temperance, Rick, in advocating the need for the "GWOT" ("It needs to be done.") when so many advocates of the war (and some of its opponents, too!) present their case so stridently.

I do not think that it is a job that needs to be done, certainly not when it means invading sovereign countries on the basis of fabricated intelligence. I would add that American history like that of many other countries (Brits will/should remember "Jenkin's Ear") is filled with causi belli, from the sinking of the USS Maine to the Gulf of Tonkin, that were falsified stories cynically devised to push a reluctant country into war; remember the "domino theory"?

I listed my family's military service to show not our "patriotism" but the fact that we have all been involved in combats which begin to seem less and less relevant as the years go by. I have never heard any of us complain about what we did, but none of us, except, perhaps Audra, who is still in combat, believe that our participation in those conflicts ever affected the course of humanity. My and my father's and grandfather's enemies are now allies. America's enemies in Iraq and Afghanistan were our allies just a few years ago. And so it goes.

Finally I suggested that, philosophy aside, when we shoot another man dead, for what ever reason, it isn't the gun or the bullet that kills him, we do.


----------



## Rick (Dec 13, 2008)

PhilinYuma said:


> Rick, Hibiscusmile:Last night at about midnight, a friend and forum member, seeing that I was still on line. sent me a message saying "Go to bed!" (Gracias,Mijah!) I thought that she was concerned for my advanced years, but perhaps she was as confused by my post as you were.
> 
> So briefly:
> 
> ...


Thanks for the clarification Phil. When you say invading sovereign countries on the basis of fabricated intelligence I assume you mean Iraq and I would like to point out that not too much was fabricated as the media would have people believe. I am closely associated with certain members of our military that know for a fact many of the so called fabricated intelligence was factual. Saddam had WMD and that should not be a surprise as he has used them in the past. There was also a link between him and AQ contrarary to popular belief.

Do I think we should have invaded Iraq before we finished our business in Afghanistan? No. AQ is in Iraq and that is a fact. We cannot ever let our guard down because these are people who hate us and everything we stand for. This goes for our British friends too. We must track them down and destroy them wherever they may be. I just with they would let our boys take the gloves off. It saddens me that some feel this is not a job that needs to be done. My how quickly we forget as a country. I was in the military on 9/11 obviously and that day was very eye opening for me and to see our military go from a peacetime Army to an Army at war pretty much overnight was quite the experience. Yes, some things could have been handled differently but then again hindsight is always 20/20. Anyways, I am getting off topic. B)


----------



## Kruszakus (Dec 13, 2008)

Someone here is being snide, hehehe


----------



## PhilinYuma (Dec 13, 2008)

Kruszakus said:


> Someone here is being snide, hehehe


I don't think so, Kruszakus:

Just two adults presenting opposing arguments and disagreeing without calling into question their mothers' morality or the size of each others mantids.


----------



## Kruszakus (Dec 14, 2008)

PhilinYuma said:


> I don't think so, Kruszakus:Just two adults presenting opposing arguments and disagreeing without calling into question their mothers' morality or the size of each others mantids.


Well, but this thread is a bit idiomatic, you know - I'd actually say that its purpose it's to heckle the person whose words were paraphrazed in the topic.

And the snide bit was just my little refference to an old chat room argument


----------



## idolomantis (Dec 14, 2008)

The people kill the people with guns.


----------



## Rick (Dec 14, 2008)

PhilinYuma said:


> I don't think so, Kruszakus:Just two adults presenting opposing arguments and disagreeing without calling into question their mothers' morality or the size of each others mantids.


Mine are bigger.


----------



## Morpheus uk (Dec 14, 2008)

I stated this thread cause i came home from exams early and was bored out of my mind, saw the sentance "someone might aswell start a topic "Do guns kill people or people kill people or if it's really the bullet, or the impact or damage to specific organs"

So i thought what the heck ^^


----------



## Katnapper (Dec 14, 2008)

And I still say you're all wrong.... it's ...  well, nevermind. Hehe


----------



## idolomantis (Dec 14, 2008)

Katnapper said:


> And I still say you're all wrong.... it's ...  well, nevermind. Hehe


LOL you don't know yourself


----------



## PhilinYuma (Dec 14, 2008)

Rick said:


> Mine are bigger.


Yeah? Well let me tell you mate, you probably measure yours in centimeters. I use inches!!


----------



## Katnapper (Dec 14, 2008)

idolomantis said:


> LOL you don't know yourself


I hate trying to answer these "chicken or the egg" questions! :wacko: So yes... I'll plead ignorance.


----------



## hibiscusmile (Dec 14, 2008)

Rick said:


> Mine are bigger.


Wrong again, mine are!!!! ok, u win....



Morpheus uk said:


> I stated this thread cause i came home from exams early and was bored out of my mind, saw the sentance "someone might aswell start a topic "Do guns kill people or people kill people or if it's really the bullet, or the impact or damage to specific organs"So i thought what the heck ^^


Next time, hit the books a bit more, please.  

And I totatly agree with u Rick, Thats why we lock our doors at night, and when we get in our cars, and hide our money in our shoes ( I don't do that!) because we are not safe anywhere. It's bad enough we have to worry about what country is doing what, but it is getting to be where eyes in the back of our heads are needed to. I do feel that everyone who is CAPABLE AND INTELLIGENT to a normal degree should have firearms and know how to use them, Meaning capable and intelligent is not leaving it around where children or the mentatly challanged can get to them, and they are not for the faint of heart, (if you don't intent to use it don't carry it, it will only be taken and used on you).


----------



## PhilinYuma (Dec 14, 2008)

hibiscusmile said:


> Wrong again, mine are!!!! ok, u win....Next time, hit the books a bit more, please.
> 
> And I totatly agree with u Rick, Thats why we lock our doors at night, and when we get in our cars, and hide our money in our shoes ( I don't do that!) because we are not safe anywhere. It's bad enough we have to worry about what country is doing what, but it is getting to be where eyes in the back of our heads are needed to. I do feel that everyone who is CAPABLE AND INTELLIGENT to a normal degree should have firearms and know how to use them, Meaning capable and intelligent is not leaving it around where children or the mentatly challanged can get to them, and they are not for the faint of heart, (if you don't intent to use it don't carry it, it will only be taken and used on you).


Do you have a CWL, Rebecca, or carry it on your hip?


----------



## hibiscusmile (Dec 14, 2008)

I used to carry on hip, and when pregnant, shoulder holster, now where ever I want it!


----------



## nasty bugger (Dec 29, 2008)

It's people's attitudes that kill people, the guns just make it final, and unreversible.


----------

