Are guns cowardly???

I think it's a Macho thing. The guy with the biggest gun wins? hehe

[Edited on 11-4-2004 by Sapphire]

guns ain't cowardly, through my eyes, when used in self-defense, but i do have a problem with those who use them to impose fear and dominion over others...simply put, guns don't kill people, it's the one who bore the knowledge of the gun who bestowed upon someone else who then built the gun, introduced it to man, which then the alpha male picked up the gun, pointed it at his peers and demaned obedience, that kills people .

Guns cowardly!?! What a strange comment! If you and I were going to battle to the death then I would sure as hell choose a gun over a knife; it is just safer for the user. So if safer is seen as cowardly then is wreckless seen as heroic?

Originally posted by Jonna
Guns cowardly!?! What a strange comment! If you and I were going to battle to the death then I would sure as hell choose a gun over a knife; it is just safer for the user. So if safer is seen as cowardly then is wreckless seen as heroic?

So what if you had a gun and i had no weapon i asked you to put your gun down and fight me like a man .Would you?

Originally posted by drunk

So what if you had a gun and i had no weapon i asked you to put your gun down and fight me like a man .Would you?

Sorry, I know your asking Jonna, But I wanted to butt in. LOL To me it think it depends on what we are fighting for. Are bar fight, something like that, sure I'll fight hand to hand. Ussally thats not life or death. For sure if I thought you might kill me with your hands, I would not. If I thought you would hurt my family I would not.

well, i guess it depends. martial arts combined with any hand to hand weapons seems to have that cool finesse feel to it, like coolwhip on strawberries, oh yeah! i just wouldn't have any respect for say some hilbilly who could blow away... bruce lee for example, may his glory rest in peace. though if its dirty harry or the good, the bad, and the ugly style, then its just darn funny.

Originally posted by SpittinCobra

Originally posted by drunk

So what if you had a gun and i had no weapon i asked you to put your gun down and fight me like a man .Would you?

Sorry, I know your asking Jonna, But I wanted to butt in. LOL To me it think it depends on what we are fighting for. Are bar fight, something like that, sure I'll fight hand to hand. Ussally thats not life or death. For sure if I thought you might kill me with your hands, I would not. If I thought you would hurt my family I would not.

Exactly! Are we talking about the extreme of survival (war)? Because if we are then who is to say that once I place my gun down to 'play fair' that the other person does not just pull another gun out from behind them and shoot me dead. The purpose of war is one of two sides: dominance or survival. And if you want to survive in either then you can not hold a loaded gun in one hand, your morality in the other and expect to get by without getting yourself killed along with those that you are protecting.

The reason that it maybe so difficult for some to understand is that, for most, it is not our current reality and is not seen as a morally acceptable choice. However if something along the lines of armagedon comes along and our reality changes dramaticly, then I would not play dice with the lives of the ones that I am protecting as well as myself by clinging onto the idea that others are going to play along with the old rules in a new world.

You seem to be missing the point Jonna, it is cowardly to use a gun when used wrongly, in situation of war, that is a totally different world.

There are rules of engagement to go by to ensure no wrong deaths. But that all gets blown out of the water when fighting against cowardly guerillas.

Shattered OUT...

O.K sorry i meant like if you were a leader of a street gang and it bolied down to a 1 on 1 fight and some of your gang memebers were watching would you put down your gun and fist fight?

[Edited on 12-4-2004 by drunk]

Originally posted by drunk
O.K sorry i meant like if you were a leader of a street gang and it bolied down to a 1 on 1 fight and some of your gang memebers were watching would you put down your gun and fist fight?

[Edited on 12-4-2004 by drunk]

I still think that If i thought he was going to kill me, with his hands, I would Pop his punk a...

Originally posted by SpittinCobra

Originally posted by drunk
O.K sorry i meant like if you were a leader of a street gang and it bolied down to a 1 on 1 fight and some of your gang memebers were watching would you put down your gun and fist fight?

[Edited on 12-4-2004 by drunk]

I still think that If i thought he was going to kill me, with his hands, I would Pop his punk a...

With a gun??

If i thought he was going to kill me, with his hands, YES I would use a gun on him. Coward or not, I am alive. Period

Originally posted by ShatteredSkies
You seem to be missing the point Jonna, it is cowardly to use a gun when used wrongly, in situation of war, that is a totally different world.

Define wrongly. Is it wrong to kill another living thing no matter what the reason? If so then all gun deaths are wrong as are all killings.

There are rules of engagement to go by to ensure no wrong deaths. But that all gets blown out of the water when fighting against cowardly guerillas.

Are they not fighting for a reason? Who decides whose reasons are valid and whose are not? Is it right that the US has killed civilians in the current war? By definition these killings are considered murder, but you would never hear anyone in the US administration ever refer to it as such because that is the view point by which the morality of the situation is defined.

Originally posted by SpittinCobra
If i thought he was going to kill me, with his hands, YES I would use a gun on him. Coward or not, I am alive. Period

Point taken but in his dying mind you are coward.But then again he'l be dead who cares?

Are they not fighting for a reason? Who decides whose reasons are valid and whose are not? Is it right that the US has killed civilians in the current war? By definition these killings are considered murder, but you would never hear anyone in the US administration ever refer to it as such because that is the view point by which the morality of the situation is defined.

The person who decides which reasons are valid is the victor.

The civilian casualties in the war, would be termed as collateral damage. That is what the government is referring to when they say that. It is an inevitablilty of war.

Drunk, whats funny, I dont even own a gun. I would have to get one off the streets to have one. To much trouble.

Originally posted by SpittinCobra
If i thought he was going to kill me, with his hands, YES I would use a gun on him. Coward or not, I am alive. Period

And that is exactly the point! If you were ill and needed medication to kill a virus in your body would you use that drug to get better or would you be strong and let your natural defences battle against it and possibly die because you didn't want to be weak and use an alternative option? It is not really all that different.

If a person 4 times my size and strength dressed in armour wants to kill me then should I 'fight fair/morally' with the same devices (fists) as him or should I put a bullet in his head before he tears mine off? Some say that one of choices is cowardly, but I believe that the other choice is incompedent not to take advantage of a leverage when your survival is on the line.

Cobra> i own a gun an air gun that is but what use is that!!?

Originally posted by drunk
Cobra> i own a gun an air gun that is but what use is that!!?

Lol it still sends perjectiles out.

Originally posted by Jonna

Originally posted by ShatteredSkies
You seem to be missing the point Jonna, it is cowardly to use a gun when used wrongly, in situation of war, that is a totally different world.

Define wrongly. Is it wrong to kill another living thing no matter what the reason? If so then all gun deaths are wrong as are all killings.

There are rules of engagement to go by to ensure no wrong deaths. But that all gets blown out of the water when fighting against cowardly guerillas.

Are they not fighting for a reason? Who decides whose reasons are valid and whose are not? Is it right that the US has killed civilians in the current war? By definition these killings are considered murder, but you would never hear anyone in the US administration ever refer to it as such because that is the view point by which the morality of the situation is defined.

Jonna don't make a simple concept so complicated, you want to know, ok I will elaborate.

In some sense it is needful for there to be guns and the so called 'wrongly killed' deaths, the reason is that in this world of limitations, there must be regulation on life and life itself, meaning all.

Guns have been created by mankind for manythings, but the main objective of weaponry would be to control the number of people's lives on hand, everyone at some point dies in their lifetime, god gave us the curse to die and guns only deliver us quicker to our forsaken doom.

With this in thought, there is no such thing as wrongly killed, for it would be to control life, and if people were immortal, then and only then can deaths by guns be accused as wrong, there is no innocence in a world, as long as there is hate, there is no innocence.

Innocent civilians at death in American wars?? I say to you this, are they really innocent, if they were there because they chose to be, can you say they are really innocent at heart? I'am purely sure that atleast all of civilians that are killed in the wars America is involved in, that they have done something wrong in their lives, be it cursing out another person, or getting into fights and enflicting pain, so for you see as long as people are who they are there is no innocence, only people.

And in this world there are two kinds of people, people with the power to take life and do, and those who chose not to.

Shattered OUT...