Categories
- Art (356)
- Other (3,632)
- Philosophy (2,814)
- Psychology (4,018)
- Society (1,010)
Recent Questions
- Why did everyone start to hate the Russians if the U.S. did the same thing in Afghanistan, Iraq?
- What needs to be corrected in the management of Russia first?
- Why did Blaise Pascal become a religious man at the end of his life?
- How do I know if a guy likes you?
- When they say "one generation", how many do they mean?
I will allow myself to express an opinion.
Of course, there are nuances, but these are just nuances.�
Guns don't kill. Melee weapons and cars, for example, don't kill you either. A huge number of people die in road accidents. Much more than from a gun. At least, if we are not talking about a World War.
A man kills. His negligence, too. Weapons are a high-risk vehicle, just like cars, so you should treat them accordingly.
And here is a strange personal example: if I decided to kill a person in anger, I would not even think about firearms. It is impersonal, emotionless, distanced. Like having sex with a sex doll.
First, (self)negligent homicide is a very common cause of death in the military. That is, where there are a lot of weapons, they still start “killing people”, in the sense that no one wanted to kill anyone, but nevertheless the murder happened.
Secondly, the effectiveness of the weapon is of great importance, that is, roughly speaking, how easy it is to kill someone with it. Thoughts of murder quite often visit a significant number of people, but if they have only a kitchen knife or shovel at hand, then they are much less attractive than if they have a kalash at hand. In this sense, “weapons kill”, because without them, the idea of killing would not have formed in the head in an executable plan. The ease of carrying out criminal thoughts corrupts people.
Third, it is related to the second, if a person has already decided to kill someone, then the probability of success is much higher if he has a professionally made weapon in his hands, and not a random object. It is one thing if a teenager who has gone to school with a knife flies into the school, but quite another-with an M16. Not to mention quarrels on domestic grounds, which without weapons in most cases end in black eyes and minor injuries.
On the other hand, it is necessary to recognize that if there are no wars, revolutions, etc., then the main part of murders is still the same everyday life, and most of the everyday life occurs with the use of random objects, not weapons. That is, we can't say that weapons mostly kill.
Two situations. General: you and someone had a very good fight on the street. You were insulted, insulted, humiliated, taking advantage of the fact that you are two heads shorter and you have half the muscle mass. You are shaking, you want to kill the bastard right now. Moreover, you know where he lives (in the house next door) and you know that he sits on this bench all day and you can almost always find him.
Situation one: you have a gun with you. A couple of seconds is enough to snatch and riddlethe freak at point-blank range.
Situation two: your gun is in the safe at home, and it's a two – hour one-way trip.
Q: When does a jerk have a better chance of staying alive, and does the fact that you have a gun on hand in one case and don't have one in the other affect this?
Yes, I agree, and here's why:
I've never seen or heard of a gun killing anyone without human involvement.
But for a person to kill another person without using a weapon-that's what I've heard about, and many times.
So it's not about the guns.
Yes, there are knives in every house-but only a few people kill with them-mostly they cook food. The fight against guns is a fight against freedom. Everyone has the right to self-defense and the protection of their family, to protect the foundations that they consider essential.