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]

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]

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

 

[Peter Clausen]

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

 

[Orin]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

People die??

 

[Morpheus uk]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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).

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]

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]

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

 

[revmdn]

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

 

[idolomantis]

ya... so this is pretty difficult.

 

[PhilinYuma]

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.