America - The Official Thread

[PeterJB]

Again, because go-karts are not designed with the intent of causing harm to others. If you train a child how to operate a firearm, it's all fine and well if they're just shooting bottles off a wall, but eventually they may want to try more challenging targets such as animals, and which point they are then causing harm. Now I'm not saying they're then gonna start shooting people in the street, but I can't see why you would even entertain the idea of training your child how to use high-powered firearms like that unless you think their teacher and classmates need to be kept in line.

 

[Danoff]

Again, because go-karts are not designed with the intent of causing harm to others. If you train a child how to operate a firearm, it's all fine and well if they're just shooting bottles off a wall, but eventually they may want to try more challenging targets such as animals

No. Unrelated.

 

[Zenith]

Again, because go-karts are not designed with the intent of causing harm to others. If you train a child how to operate a firearm, it's all fine and well if they're just shooting bottles off a wall, but eventually they may want to try more challenging targets such as animals, and which point they are then causing harm. Now I'm not saying they're then gonna start shooting people in the street, but I can't see why you would even entertain the idea of training your child how to use high-powered firearms like that unless you think their teacher and classmates need to be kept in line.

That's funny, I've been shooting guns for decades and I've never killed anything with them.

Either my guns are defective or you have no idea what you're talking about.

 

[Joel]

There are people who buy guns to hunt with. There are people who buy guns to shoot targets with. There are people who buy guns to tinker with and hone their skills with. There are people who buy guns to defend their homes. There are people who buy guns for all of these purposes. No law abiding gun owner buys a gun to kill people.

I learned to shoot with a shotgun when I was 12, and I've shot many clay pigeons, paper targets, and one rabbit since then. I'm from the glorious utopia of Canada and not the supposed post apocalyptic wasteland that is modern America, so perhaps that's why I have shockingly never pointed a gun at a human. I know it's insane, but somehow I was able to learn to shoot without ever having the desire to shoot people.

I think cars should be regulated and nobody should be allowed to have more than 150hp unless they need a truck for work. Why would anyone need any more than 150hp? Anything more than that and it's a car that's just purpose built to race, exceed the speed limit, and break laws. I think it's really irresponsible that we let 16 year olds start driving Corollas, it's only a matter of time before they start wanting to buy sports cars and get into more exciting things like street racing. It's not like every driver will become an F1 driver, but we should be really careful about what kind of cars are legal because it's only a matter of time before people buy high powered cars that are purpose built for racing and high speeds.

 

[PeterJB]

Strange, I don't remember saying "Everyone who's given a gun is going to want to impulsively do a mass shooting I'm their local shopping mall". You're a safe, responsible gun owner, and that's great, you can have as many responsible gun owners as you like Iike, but it takes one madman with access to them and thirty people end up dead. Same with the car, cars are perfectly safe if driven by responsible, mature adults, but you would never let a nine year old behind the wheel of a car, even if they were supervised.

I don't blame the girl for this. I blame the parents for letting her use a high-powered gun like that in the first place, and I blame the instructor for lousy overseeing and not telling her what recoil is. He's dead, and she has to live with that for the rest of her life.

 

[Famine]

Strange, I don't remember saying "Everyone who's given a gun is going to want to impulsively do a mass shooting I'm their local shopping mall". You're a safe, responsible gun owner, and that's great, you can have as many responsible gun owners as you like, but it takes one madman with access to them and thirty people end up dead. Same with the car, cars are perfectly safe if driven by responsible, mature adults, but you would never let a nine year old behind the wheel of a car, even if they were supervised.

I'm curious if you know how we get 17/18 year old Formula 1 drivers...

Also you just argued against cordless electric hedgetrimmers.

 

[Dotini]

I propose all schoolchildren above the age of 7 receive a free 9mm Glock from their school district - providing they and their parents become members of the NRA and receive training. That way, anybody foolish enough to start trouble at a school would be gunned down in a hail of lead from a crossfire of children. This is an attainable vision of perfected society on Earth.

 

[Danoff]

Strange, I don't remember saying "Everyone who's given a gun is going to want to impulsively do a mass shooting I'm their local shopping mall".

The error you made with the line below was to imply that simply operating a gun can create an interest in hunting. That's about as true as operating a bow creates an interest in hunting, or operating a knife creates an interest in stabbing (animals... hunting).

If you train a child how to operate a firearm, it's all fine and well if they're just shooting bottles off a wall, but eventually they may want to try more challenging targets such as animals,

You see, I've spent plenty of time operating guns, bows, and knives. I used a knife just yesterday to cut a sandwich in half. I'll probably use one today. Occasionally I even use knives to slice meat. I rather enjoy putting an arrow on a target, and I like the satisfaction of hitting the little animated metal duck that goes around in circles. "Ting" goes the duck, and it folds backward indicating that I scored a hit. Then it comes back around to let me try again.

You see, with all of this time around guns, bows, and knives, I've never once developed the interest in using those weapons to go kill an animal. Not even a little. Not even a duck! Even when I'm using a knife to carve a piece of an animal on thanksgiving day, I still don't suddenly want to go stab a live turkey. Some people do want to hunt. They have their reasons, of course, because I'm sure hunting can be fun. But an interest in hunting is an entirely separate interest in an entirely separate activity. Sure maybe their interest in hunting causes them to train more with guns, but it's not a remotely similar interest when it comes to the nuts and bolts.

I like bowling. I throw the ball at the pins. Never once has that made me interested in trying to kill anything with a bowling ball.

 

[PeterJB]

I'm curious if you know how we get 17/18 year old Formula 1 drivers...

Also you just argued against cordless electric hedgetrimmers.

By not driving on public roads. To race professionally you still need a license, but that license doesn't grant you the privilege of driving on public roads where you can hurt other people, nor the skill and knowledge required to be a safe, law-abiding motorist. Racing drivers have access to safety equipment such as helmets and fireproof overalls not required in everyday cars because if you crash in a racing car there is a very real chance of injuring and/or killing yourself. If Formula 1 had the same safety features as everyday road-legal cars, there'd be a death at every race.

The error you made with the line below was to imply that simply operating a gun can create an interest in hunting. That's about as true as operating a bow creates an interest in hunting, or operating a knife creates an interest in stabbing (animals... hunting).

I can see now how that was implied. 👍

You see, I've spent plenty of time operating guns, bows, and knives. I used a knife just yesterday to cut a sandwich in half. I'll probably use one today. Occasionally I even use knives to slice meat. I rather enjoy putting an arrow on a target, and I like the satisfaction of hitting the little animated metal duck that goes around in circles. "Ting" goes the duck, and it folds backward indicating that I scored a hit. Then it comes back around to let me try again.

You see, with all of this time around guns, bows, and knives, I've never once developed the interest in using those weapons to go kill an animal. Not even a little. Not even a duck! Even when I'm using a knife to carve a piece of an animal on thanksgiving day, I still don't suddenly want to go stab a live turkey. Some people do want to hunt. They have their reasons, of course, because I'm sure hunting can be fun. But an interest in hunting is an entirely separate interest in an entirely separate activity. Sure maybe their interest in hunting causes them to train more with guns, but it's not a remotely similar interest when it comes to the nuts and bolts.

I like bowling. I throw the ball at the pins. Never once has that made me interested in trying to kill anything with a bowling ball.

Anything made of matter can be used as weapon, though in the vast majority of cases it would take a great deal of determination, effort and perseverance to successfully kill somebody. My main gripe with guns is that when in the wrong hands they can make this too easy, because that was their original design plan; to immobilise your opponent.

A bog standard kitchen knife is designed first and foremost as a culinary tool, and again they still require common sense and responsibility to be used carefully, especially with children. But mass stabbings are incredibly rare compared to mass shootings, and massacres with bowling balls and hedgetrimmers are virtually unheard of.

If parents are really desperate to give their children firearms, then give then something like a BB gun or an air rifle. Granted, those things can still hurt you if misused, but you'd have to really try in order to incapacitate or kill somebody with them.

 

[Famine]

By not driving on public roads.

So you would let a nine year old behind the wheel of a car, when fully supervised. Just not in a public place.

The girl in the incident was not in a public place. She was receiving firearms tuition on a private range, fully supervised... Turns out that the adult supervising her was the one who took some shortcuts in the training.

 

[PeterJB]

So you would let a nine year old behind the wheel of a car, when fully supervised. Just not in a public place.

The girl in the incident was not in a public place. She was receiving firearms tuition on a private range, fully supervised... Turns out that the adult supervising her was the one who took some shortcuts in the training.

In order to do so, at least at a competitive level, you need some form of license to show you are a competent driver. But that's besides the point, because a car or a go-kart is in no way comparable to a gun. Had she continued her training enthusiastically she very well could have eventually been using guns like that somewhere outside of that private firing range, and I cannot for the life of me see what use a fully-automatic Uzi, a standard issue weapon used in armed forces all around the world, is to a nine-year old girl.

 

[Famine]

In order to do so, at least at a competitive level, you need some form of license to show you are a competent driver.

I don't think she was competing at shooting?

But that's besides the point, because a car or a go-kart is in no way comparable to a gun.

Except it is.

It was, once upon a time, a specific tool for a specific job. Then it became something for the masses to use for leisure. Both require some training to be used effectively, both can be used very dangerously by the untrained or the criminal, but both are useful and indeed desireable for their uses.

Had she continued her training enthusiastically she very well could have eventually been using guns like that somewhere outside of that private firing range, and I cannot for the life of me see what use a fully-automatic Uzi, a standard issue weapon used in armed forces all around the world, is to a nine-year old girl.

A 1911 is a standard issue weapon used in armed forces all around the world too. They're about as tough to handle as a pair of socks. What does the military application have to do with how useful it would be to someone learning gun safety?

We've already established that the age of the participant is simply a distraction as you agreed when you said you wouldn't put a 9 year old behind the wheel of a car even if supervised and then said actually you would if it was on private property, just as the gun range was. She'd already fired it on semi-auto too - safely.

So now we're at the point where the only question is why the gun was set to fully auto so quickly with a shooter who was not experienced enough to handle burst fire recoil. And that's what everyone who's not focussed on the age of the shooter or GUNS is asking.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Turns out that the adult supervising her was the one who took some shortcuts in the training.

I'd be interested to know what those who've seen the video think of the instructor's body-positioning. To my mind (not much of place) he should have been to her right ready to get both hands down on her hand/wrist/weapon?

It appears that the recoil pushed the barrel up-and-across her left shoulder, he seemingly had nowhere to go.

 

[Exorcet]

Again, because go-karts are not designed with the intent of causing harm to others. If you train a child how to operate a firearm, it's all fine and well if they're just shooting bottles off a wall, but eventually they may want to try more challenging targets such as animals, and which point they are then causing harm. Now I'm not saying they're then gonna start shooting people in the street, but I can't see why you would even entertain the idea of training your child how to use high-powered firearms like that unless you think their teacher and classmates need to be kept in line.

You could replace "gun/firearm" with "car" at any point in this post.

As for why you're issue firearms training, it's potentially a useful skill. It's also entertaining. I don't really see anything that makes me double think the situation besides the instructor switching the gun to full auto after just one shot. From what I've seen, that's the only point where something went wrong.

 

[PeterJB]

It was, once upon a time, a specific tool for a specific job. Then it became something for the masses to use for leisure. Both require some training to be used effectively, both can be used very dangerously by the untrained or the criminal, but both are useful and indeed desireable for their uses.

A 1911 is a standard issue weapon used in armed forces all around the world too. They're about as tough to handle as a pair of socks. What does the military application have to do with how useful it would be to someone learning gun safety?

We've already established that the age of the participant is simply a distraction as you agreed when you said you wouldn't put a 9 year old behind the wheel of a car even if supervised and then said actually you would if it was on private property, just as the gun range was. She'd already fired it on semi-auto too - safely.

So now we're at the point where the only question is why the gun was set to fully auto so quickly with a shooter who was not experienced enough to handle burst fire recoil. And that's what everyone who's not focussed on the age of the shooter or GUNS is asking.

The difference is that the car was originally conceived as a transportation device superior to the horse-drawn carriage. The gun was designed as a weapon with the primary objective of immobilising one's opponent superior to the bow and arrow and the cross bow. A car is used almost entirely for its original purpose as a form of transportation, guns are used almost entirely for their original purpose as weapons.

My point about it being used in the Army is that it shows that it's no BB gun, and it is so widespread because of its effectiveness in combat.

Believe me I'm also wondering why he decided two shots was enough for her to be ready to use it at full power as well. But that was after I first thought, why the hell was she using a gun like that in the first place?

 

[Exorcet]

The difference is that the car was originally conceived as a transportation device superior to the horse-drawn carriage. The gun was designed as a weapon with the primary objective of immobilising one's opponent superior to the bow and arrow and the cross bow. A car is used almost entirely for its original purpose as a form of transportation, guns are used almost entirely for their original purpose as weapons.

None of this matters in the slightest. If someone is trying to hit you with their car, you have a problem. If someone is not trying to shoot you with a gun (and I'd wager that's what most guns are doing most of the time) you don't have a problem.

My point about it being used in the Army is that it shows that it's no BB gun, and it is so widespread because of its effectiveness in combat.

This doesn't factor in to civilian use of the gun though. That it is a military derived weapons doesn't automatically make it unsafe or threatening.

Believe me I'm also wondering why he decided two shots was enough for her to be ready to use it at full power as well. But that was after I first thought, why the hell was she using a gun like that in the first place?

If that is your reaction, it's fair enough. But what causes that reaction? She's nine, but that does not mean she can't operate a high powered weapon safely. This situation doesn't make me think the pairing a gun like this with someone her age is a problem. It's the particular circumstance that stands out. Had the instructor given her a less abrupt transition to full automatic mode, things could have turned out fairly mundane. I'd even say that would be an expected outcome.

 

[Zenith]

The difference is that the car was originally conceived as a transportation device superior to the horse-drawn carriage. The gun was designed as a weapon with the primary objective of immobilising one's opponent superior to the bow and arrow and the cross bow. A car is used almost entirely for its original purpose as a form of transportation, guns are used almost entirely for their original purpose as weapons.

If I had a dollar for every time somebody had tried this argument in this thread, I could buy a gun.

I've never used my guns as weapons. Most privately owned guns are never used as weapons. Are my guns defective or am I misusing them?

Or maybe you don't know what a weapon is. If I kill someone with a wrench is it a weapon or a tool? If I use a gun to shoot targets is it a weapon or a tool?

Answer: Weapon, tool respectively.

"Weapon" is a condition. A car can be a weapon, a gun can be a weapon, a wrench can be a weapon. Not all cars, guns, and wrenches are weapons just because other cars, guns, and wrenches are used as weapons.

 

[phillgt2002]

Answer: Weapon, tool respectively.

"Weapon" is a condition. A car can be a weapon, a gun can be a weapon, a wrench can be a weapon. Not all cars, guns, and wrenches are weapons just because other cars, guns, and wrenches are used as weapons.

There isn't exactly anything wrong with what he's saying. What @PeterJB is trying to get across is that guns as a tool are generally used to kill things human or anything animal form. Firing weapons at a shooting range should be listed as a form of entertainment. I'm not the most pro gun person out there, but I do think that owning a weapon for recreational use like the range would be a-lot of fun. But when you say something like a wrench; a wrench can be used to kill something but that isn't it's reason of invention. Guns were made with killing in mind, not wrenches.

 

[Zenith]

There isn't exactly anything wrong with what he's saying. What @PeterJB is trying to get across is that guns as a tool are generally used to kill things human or anything animal form. Firing weapons at a shooting range should be listed as a form of entertainment. I'm not the most pro gun person out there, but I do think that owning a weapon for recreational use like the range would be a-lot of fun. But when you say something like a wrench; a wrench can be used to kill something but that isn't it's reason of invention. Guns were made with killing in mind, not wrenches.

Nope. Original purpose is irrelevant. The internet was invented for military purposes. So was radar. Origin of invention does not magically become the purpose of every permutation of a concept.

If you want to derive a purpose for guns, it would "a device used to propel small objects at great speed using combustion"

Do you think this gun was made with killing in mind?

How about the guns I built? Did I build them with killing in mind? My gun hasn't killed anything.

 

[Danoff]

 

[phillgt2002]

How about the guns I built? Did I build them with killing in mind? My gun hasn't killed anything.

This is a phrase used by many pro gun people. I understand that the gun doesn't have a mind of it's own, it's the person that is controlling it. I could say the same thing for a wrench. Did I build a wrench with intentions of using it for killing? My wrench hasn't killed anything.. The main problem with gun culture and everyday Americans is that there are some who are comfortable with them around, and some who aren't. If you're walking around as a concealed carry, and someone notices that you have a holster, people would generally avoid you/ stigmatize you. You could walk up to someone with a gun in your hand and say that it's not going to do anything to them, but they still wouldn't feel comfortable. I could walk down the street with a wrench, and while I would have a wrench, no one would really bat an eye... why? Because wrenches aren't used to fight wars.

 

[FoolKiller]

you can have as many responsible gun owners as you like Iike, but it takes one madman with access to them and thirty people end up dead.

Is it the guns or the deaths that bother you most in this scenario?

 

[phillgt2002]

A flare gun.... I'm not talking about flare guns or things that shoot plastic, I'm talking about the things that are used to fight wars. Generally speaking, if you're walking around with a flare gun, I'm sure no one would want to bother you BECAUSE IT SHOOTS FLAMING PROJECTILES.. lol and they want to distance themselves from something or someone who could potentially cause harm to them. No, flare guns aren't used to fight wars, but basically the point that I'm trying to get across is that anything that is shaped as a gun that is in public is frowned upon by the general American public.

In that case I could come around and post this:

Tippman A-5... Paintball gun. It shoots projectiles. Do you think someone would be comfortable with me carrying that around in the streets. Sure, it doesn't have a hopper or a tank of gas on the back, but like I said, it still has the form of a gun.

 

[Zenith]

This is a phrase used by many pro gun people. I understand that the gun doesn't have a mind of it's own, it's the person that is controlling it. I could say the same thing for a wrench. Did I build a wrench with intentions of using it for killing? My wrench hasn't killed anything.. The main problem with gun culture and everyday Americans is that there are some who are comfortable with them around, and some who aren't. If you're walking around as a concealed carry, and someone notices that you have a holster, people would generally avoid you/ stigmatize you. You could walk up to someone with a gun in your hand and say that it's not going to do anything to them, but they still wouldn't feel comfortable. I could walk down the street with a wrench, and while I would have a wrench, no one would really bat an eye... why? Because wrenches aren't used to fight wars.

You just ignored 75% of my post. This is unfortunate because I could just copy and paste that part of my post and it would serve as a great counterpoint to your latest one.

I don't care if people are comfortable around guns. People being uncomfortable around guns doesn't mean that all guns are suddenly made with killing in mind. Comfort is completely irrelevant.

You tried to tell me that all guns guns, including my guns, were built with killing in mind. I've bought guns, I've built guns. In order to be right you need to prove that I built/bought my guns with the purpose of killing things. Good luck.

 

[phillgt2002]

You just ignored 75% of my post. This is unfortunate because I could just copy and paste that part of my post and it would serve as a great counterpoint to your latest one.

There isn't much for me to say. I'm looking at the question you asked and going off what you said with basically 'guns don't kill people, people do'...

I don't care if people are comfortable around guns. People being uncomfortable around guns doesn't mean that all guns are suddenly made with killing in mind. Comfort is completely irrelevant.

Comfort is completely relevant when it comes to teaching the general public about weapons. Why not educate the people who can't tell the difference? When a person sees something with a grip, barrel, sights, and a trigger, it's automatically looked at as bad. You continually say that all guns aren't made with killing in mind but you say that the comfort of the general public doesn't matter. This argument wouldn't really exist if the public were truly informed on the different types of guns/weapons there are, and their usage. For a person to be comfortable around something, they need to know how it works. Some religions denied the thoughts of a multiverse, why? Because they weren't comfortable with the fact that there were more world like planets and universes like ours. Education goes a long, long way.

You can post airsoft guns for all I care, but the truth is that guns are going to have the thought of killing attached to them for a very long time no matter what it's used for..

 

[Zenith]

There isn't much for me to say. I'm looking at the question you asked and going off what you said with basically 'guns don't kill people, people do'...

Nope. I was talking about how the original purpose of an invention does not define every permutation. This has nothing to do with "guns don't kill people blah blah blah"

Comfort is completely relevant when it comes to teaching the general public about weapons. Why not educate the people who can't tell the difference? When a person sees something with a grip, barrel, sights, and a trigger, it's automatically looked at as bad. You continually say that all guns aren't made with killing in mind but you say that the comfort of the general public doesn't matter. This argument wouldn't really exist if the public were truly informed on the different types of guns/weapons there are, and their usage. For a person to be comfortable around something, they need to know how it works. Some religions denied the thoughts of a multiverse, why? Because they weren't comfortable with the fact that there were more world like planets and universes like ours. Education goes a long, long way.

Neat speech. Completely irrelevant to the discussion.

We're not talking about teaching the public about guns. We're talking about Peter's assertion that guns are made to kill.

You can post airsoft guns for all I care, but the truth is that guns are going to have the thought of killing attached to them for a very long time no matter what it's used for..

People think guns are made for killing =\= guns are made for killing.

We're having a discussion about the latter. Why are you trying to switch it to the former?

 

[Omnis]

This is a phrase used by many pro gun people. I understand that the gun doesn't have a mind of it's own, it's the person that is controlling it. I could say the same thing for a wrench. Did I build a wrench with intentions of using it for killing? My wrench hasn't killed anything.. The main problem with gun culture and everyday Americans is that there are some who are comfortable with them around, and some who aren't. If you're walking around as a concealed carry, and someone notices that you have a holster, people would generally avoid you/ stigmatize you. You could walk up to someone with a gun in your hand and say that it's not going to do anything to them, but they still wouldn't feel comfortable. I could walk down the street with a wrench, and while I would have a wrench, no one would really bat an eye... why? Because wrenches aren't used to fight wars.

I could kill someone with a wrench. I could do it with my bare hands. Why are you uncomfortable that people can kill you? Everyone has always been able to kill you. Kindness is a virtue.

@Zenith, guns ARE made to kill. Well, either that or target practice. Technically, we could say bullets/cartridges are made to kill. Guns are made to use them.

Imagine if this were Game of Thrones and the Mountain and his goons came to town. Would anyone bat an eye if they could defend their farms with a firearm? But, no, they can't survive even after slashing his hamstring off.

 

[phillgt2002]

I could kill someone with a wrench. I could do it with my bare hands. Why are you uncomfortable that people can kill you? Everyone has always been able to kill you. Kindness is a virtue.

If anyone goes outside thinking that they're basically invincible from others, and other things (car crash, strange accident) then they aren't exactly looking at life correctly. I never said that I'm uncomfortable with living in a world where other people could potentially kill me, the general public doesn't want to go through their scheduled lives in constant fear of being killed by something or someone, so they try and ignore it. When someone is walking around with a gun or attempting to bash someone with a wrench, people around them will try to remove themselves from the situation, that situation is a trigger of dis-comfort and fear. That leads to what I said before.. Guns are shown all over the news.. shootings, incidents like the 9 year old and the UZI, and it causes a general fear. If someone were to witness a killing with a wrench as a weapon, a trigger would probably go off in their head if they were to see a wrench, basically causing a phobia and lead to avoidance of potential things that could bring that memory back to them, which leads to the saying that guns are weapons used for killing because gun related incidents are mainly seen on the news and internet. American public isn't going to stop being scared of guns. When there are more accounts of massacres through wrench, then maybe we could focus on wrenches and not guns.

 

[Exorcet]

I could kill someone with a wrench. I could do it with my bare hands. Why are you uncomfortable that people can kill you? Everyone has always been able to kill you. Kindness is a virtue.

@Zenith, guns ARE made to kill. Well, either that or target practice. Technically, we could say bullets/cartridges are made to kill. Guns are made to use them.

Imagine if this were Game of Thrones and the Mountain and his goons came to town. Would anyone bat an eye if they could defend their farms with a firearm? But, no, they can't survive even after slashing his hamstring off.

I've been to two shooting ranges for a considerable amount of time. They both had plenty of bullets. Killing was not allowed at either place. They're not meant to kill. At some point, people have intended them to cause harm. The original inventor may (I stress may) have intended them to cause harm. That's about as relevant to now as what people were eating on the third Wednesday in 6442 BC. Now, we have guns and bullets in production that are sold and used for whatever the owner wants to do with them. Just like pretty much all other products.

 

[Omnis]

If you don't think bullets are meant to kill, you're naive. Air pistols or lasers would be a lot cheaper and cleaner to shoot at the range if you just wanted to make sport of target practice. You train and shoot at a range with live ammo so that, god forbid you had to use lethal force in self-defense, you could efficiently eliminate a threat without missing and/or causing collateral damage.

When someone is walking around with a gun or attempting to bash someone with a wrench, people around them will try to remove themselves from the situation, that situation is a trigger of dis-comfort and fear. That leads to what I said before.. Guns are shown all over the news.. shootings, incidents like the 9 year old and the UZI, and it causes a general fear. If someone were to witness a killing with a wrench as a weapon, a trigger would probably go off in their head if they were to see a wrench, basically causing a phobia and lead to avoidance of potential things that could bring that memory back to them, which leads to the saying that guns are weapons used for killing because gun related incidents are mainly seen on the news and internet. American public isn't going to stop being scared of guns. When there are more accounts of massacres through wrench, then maybe we could focus on wrenches and not guns.

What if you can't remove yourself? You'd wish you had a longer wrench than the other guy. Any gun gives you sufficient force to meet any threat from one attacker, however.

The 9 year old and the Uzi was a case of negligence by the instructor-- he paid his life for it.

People should fear guns, because guns kill when used to that effect. They demand respect and care, but I don't think they should terrify people. When the public can be comfortable with the assumption that everyone is responsibly armed, they can be more wary of and better prepared for people that are behaving strangely or in a way that would jeopardize the safety of people in the area.