pop 0 #101 January 2, 2008 Quote Quote I'll take taht as "I dont have proof either" No, it's called "you can't disprove an emotional response". How about a non emotional response....can I get one of those? 7 ounce wonders, music and dogs that are not into beer Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #102 January 2, 2008 Quote Quote Quote I'll take taht as "I dont have proof either" No, it's called "you can't disprove an emotional response". How about a non emotional response....can I get one of those? You already got it, above. Do you need me to state it again?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pop 0 #103 January 2, 2008 Quote Quote Quote Quote I'll take taht as "I dont have proof either" No, it's called "you can't disprove an emotional response". How about a non emotional response....can I get one of those? You already got it, above. Do you need me to state it again? You are right. DJL in post #95 did have a good non-emotional response.7 ounce wonders, music and dogs that are not into beer Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #104 January 2, 2008 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote I'll take taht as "I dont have proof either" No, it's called "you can't disprove an emotional response". How about a non emotional response....can I get one of those? You already got it, above. Do you need me to state it again? You are right. DJL in post #95 did have a good non-emotional response. Oh, please.... *rolls eyes* I tell ya what, Mike - you find ANY proof that shows that shows guns were designed to kill and I'll cede you the point. I'll make the point again - if guns were designed for killing, then there's millions that are broken because they've never killed anyone/anything....including mine. Get past the Brady/VPC kneejerk emotional ploys and we can debate.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #105 January 2, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote RIIGGHHT - I bet some Chinese military dude a millenium ago thought "lets invent something to propel stuff at high velocity". And just incidentally, as a by-product, they used it to kill their enemies. They also used it to make firecrackers, which are used in all sorts of celebrations. Guns are used to make firecrackers? I was thinking the exact same thing when I read that. when you realize that the word we're looking for is gunpowder, not guns, it might make more sense to you. Guns don't propel anything, not now, and not 1000 years ago. When you realize we are talking about guns, and not gunpowder you will catch up to the rest of us. No, we are talking about what the Chinese invented a thousand years ago - do we need to ask the moderator to separate this from the main thread so you can keep up? --- Gunpowder Gunpowder was invented in China c. 1000 A.D. and probably spread to Europe during the Mongol expansion of 1200-1300 A.D., but this has not been proven. The use of gunpowder in Europe was first recorded in 1313. Europeans used gunpowder for cannons, while the Chinese used it primarily for firecrackers. Despite such early knowledge of explosives and their use, China did not pursue the development of weaponry as did the West; ironically, it was through the use of cannons and guns that the Europeans were able to dominate China in the mid-to late-1800s. http://afe.easia.columbia.edu/song/readings/inventions_ques.htm#gunpowder Other immediately visible sources suggest that the use of rockets for fighting came into the picture early on, yet the initial discovery was accidental (pursuit of alchemy) and then used for entertainment purposes. This is contrary to the initial claim made in this thread. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pop 0 #106 January 2, 2008 Quotedo we need to ask the moderator to separate this from the main thread so you can keep up? wow...you took the words right out of my mouth...i was going to ask you the same thing. This thread is about guns,...not gun powder. The gun propels the bullet. The powder is the agent that allows for that to happen. You fire a gun (pull a trigger), there is a low explosion, and the bullet is propelled. I love how gun owners always want to get technical. Example a gun doesn’t kill, but propels lead. Yeah ok...and my car doesn’t take me from A to B. I only use it for its for its fuel combustion. Gun owners always forget to add why someone wants to propel the lead. People kill and guns are used to kill. Everything else about guns is secondary. By the way…you have awesome copy and paste skills. Chicks dig guys with skills. Edited to add: Guns were designed to be used to kill...gun powder wasnt. We are talking about guns in here. Keep up.7 ounce wonders, music and dogs that are not into beer Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,682 #107 January 2, 2008 The gun was invented in China. Cannon are known to have been used as artillery pieces by the Chinese as early as 1128. The oldest known gun was found in the early 1970s at Pan-la-ch'eng-tzu village, Manchuria, and dated to (around) 1290 A.D.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #108 January 2, 2008 Quote The gun was invented in China. The first known gun was found in the early 1970s at Pan-la-ch'eng-tzu village, Manchuria, and dated to (around) 1290 A.D. That would be 300-600 years after gunpower was invented, and 300 years after your claim. It's quite clear that it was not invented for military application, and was underutilized by the Chinese for that intent. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #109 January 2, 2008 Quote wow...you took the words right out of my mouth...i was going to ask you the same thing. This thread is about guns,...not gun powder. when someone talks about what the Chinese invented a thousand years ago, they're talking about gunpowder. Or writing very poorly. Doesn't matter what the subject was prior. And you shouldn't talk about gun people being technical...talk about kettles. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pop 0 #110 January 2, 2008 QuoteQuote The gun was invented in China. The first known gun was found in the early 1970s at Pan-la-ch'eng-tzu village, Manchuria, and dated to (around) 1290 A.D. That would be 300-600 years after gunpower was invented, and 300 years after your claim. It's quite clear that it was not invented for military application, and was underutilized by the Chinese for that intent. You are right...gun powder was not designed for military application...guns were. I dont believe you average citizen should have access to things like guns, bombs, grenades, tanks, rockets, nuclear weaponry, chemcial agents, and guns (again). If you dont feel safe, wear a bullet proof vcest. Unlike guns, they were designed to save lives.7 ounce wonders, music and dogs that are not into beer Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #111 January 2, 2008 QuoteIf you dont feel safe, wear a bullet proof vcest. Unlike guns, they were designed to save lives. Or to take lives - vests can and have been viewed as an offesive weapon as they give the attacker an advantage against small arms response. Proving once again that labelling tools with their nature and purpose is really more about semantics. Suddenly I fee the urge to get a rifle. 7 guns isn't enough for one man. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pop 0 #112 January 2, 2008 Quote vests can and have been viewed as an offesive weapon Yeah...ok...I have heard two things now in this thread....Guns were designed to save lives, and bullet proof vests are offensive weapons.....LMAO7 ounce wonders, music and dogs that are not into beer Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,682 #113 January 2, 2008 QuoteQuote The gun was invented in China. The first known gun was found in the early 1970s at Pan-la-ch'eng-tzu village, Manchuria, and dated to (around) 1290 A.D. That would be 300-600 years after gunpower was invented, and 300 years after your claim. It's quite clear that it was not invented for military application, and was underutilized by the Chinese for that intent. Cannons are guns and are known to have been used well before that (interesting that you DELETED that reference), and do YOU know the exact date of the invention of the gun? Nitpicking over the unknowable just makes you look silly.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pirana 0 #114 January 2, 2008 QuoteBullets do not knock any animal down, muscular and nervous systems do. Animals do not die from gunshot wounds. They die from infrasdtructure and/or operating systems failure. This has gotten entirely too silly." . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #115 January 2, 2008 Quote People kill and guns are used to kill. Everything else about guns is secondary. Well, that's a bit better...you're starting to get the idea that use != design. QuoteEdited to add: Guns were designed to be used to kill...gun powder wasnt. We are talking about guns in here. Keep up. Still having a bit of trouble separating use from design...but you're getting there. Good job, young padawan.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pop 0 #116 January 2, 2008 Quote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In Reply To -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Edited to add: Guns were designed to be used to kill...gun powder wasnt. We are talking about guns in here. Keep up. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Still having a bit of trouble separating use from design...but you're getting there. Good job, young padawan. No Mike..guns are used for what they are designed to do (end life)...everything else about guns, such as target shooting, is secondary. (yes, there are guns made specifically for sport, but that's not what the Chinese designed guns for.7 ounce wonders, music and dogs that are not into beer Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #117 January 2, 2008 QuoteQuote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In Reply To -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Edited to add: Guns were designed to be used to kill...gun powder wasnt. We are talking about guns in here. Keep up. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Still having a bit of trouble separating use from design...but you're getting there. Good job, young padawan. No Mike..guns are used for what they are designed to do (end life)...everything else about guns, such as target shooting, is secondary. (yes, there are guns made specifically for sport, but that's not what the Chinese designed guns for. Then it should be VERY easy to find hard PROOF of that, should it not? I recall a study showing something like a 15-20% mortality rate for handgun shootings, if I recall correctly. For something that was "designed to kill", that's a pretty shoddy showing. Knives were designed to disembowel enemies in battle....every other use of them, from cutting tape to cutting dinner, is secondary. Yes, there are knives made specifically for buttering bread, but that's not what knives were designed for. FACTUALLY disprove the above. You can't, because it's a plea to emotion. You're starting to do better, with realizing it is the USE of a tool that is important.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pop 0 #118 January 2, 2008 Mike, this is where you and i disagree. It's not just the use of the tool, but the tool itself as well. Remember you can "use" just about any "tool" to kill. But not every "tool" is speciifcally designed to do a good job at killing.7 ounce wonders, music and dogs that are not into beer Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #119 January 2, 2008 Gunpowder was invented in China c. 1000 A.D. and probably spread to Europe during the Mongol expansion of 1200-1300 A.D., but this has not been proven. The use of gunpowder in Europe was first recorded in 1313. Europeans used gunpowder for cannons, while the Chinese used it primarily for firecrackers. Despite such early knowledge of explosives and their use, China did not pursue the development of weaponry as did the West; ironically, it was through the use of cannons and guns that the Europeans were able to dominate China in the mid-to late-1800s. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DJL 232 #120 January 2, 2008 Quote I tell ya what, Mike - you find ANY proof that shows that shows guns were designed to kill and I'll cede you the point. I'll make the point again - if guns were designed for killing, then there's millions that are broken because they've never killed anyone/anything....including mine. I'm reminded of that scene in Airplane. (See 2:08) "Johnny, what can you make of this?" "I can make a hat, a broach, a pterodactyll!!!" Basically, you're entirely ignoring the point of the device...but for my entertainment at least."I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Butters 0 #121 January 2, 2008 Scenario 1: A person attacks you with a gun, you do not defend yourself, the person kills you. Scenario 2: A person attacks you, you do defend yourself with a gun, you kill the person. Does it matter if the gun was designed to be used to kill or does it matter who uses a gun to kill and why?"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #122 January 2, 2008 QuoteQuote I tell ya what, Mike - you find ANY proof that shows that shows guns were designed to kill and I'll cede you the point. I'll make the point again - if guns were designed for killing, then there's millions that are broken because they've never killed anyone/anything....including mine. I'm reminded of that scene in Airplane. (See 2:08) "Johnny, what can you make of this?" "I can make a hat, a broach, a pterodactyll!!!" Basically, you're entirely ignoring the point of the device...but for my entertainment at least. I'm not "ignoring the point of the device" at all. Mike and yourself are arguing that use=design (and specifically bad use). You conveniently forget that guns are used up to 2 million times a year (by some estimates) to PREVENT crime and SAVE lives. Based on the above, it seems that you could equally say that "guns are designed to save lives". If you wish to debate the use, then let's do so. If you want to infer that they were "designed to kill", then you're going to have to come up with hard proof - anything less is an argument from emotion.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pop 0 #123 January 2, 2008 QuoteScenario 1: A person attacks you with a gun, you do not defend yourself, the person kills you. Scenario 2: A person attacks you, you do defend yourself with a gun, you kill the person. Does it matter if the gun was designed to be used to kill or does it matter who uses a gun to kill and why? The more legal guns there are, the more legal guns are stolen, the more find their way to the criminals. The bigger the supply, the cheaper the guns become, the easier and cheaper they are to acquire for criminals. Keep in mind supply and demand from Eco 101. Less guns, equals less guns stolen, equals less guns on the market, equals higher prices. Guns for criminals become more expensive. Legal guns have been known to be part of accidents that have killed or injured people, including kids. Legal guns have been known to escalate situations that could have been simply deal with words. A person is more likely to attempt suicide with a gun in the house. Our society embraces guns, and we have the highest murder rate in the world. It's not just the availability of guns, but the attitude we have about them. We love them, and we die from them (look at USA gun murder rate.) And i am not talking about just guns. I’m talking about all warfare material. There is no good reason why your average Joe needs to have access to guns, tanks, bombs, etc. Instead of guns, people should buy insurance in case their materialistic things get stolen. And there are bullet proof vests for those fearing everyday they will be shot at.7 ounce wonders, music and dogs that are not into beer Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pop 0 #124 January 2, 2008 Quote you wish to debate the use, then let's do so. If you want to infer that they were "designed to kill", then you're going to have to come up with hard proof - anything less is an argument from emotion. That's funny. I asked to proove that guns are made to save lives, and you are now the third person to answer me with a "no...you show proof". Hey...I asked first.7 ounce wonders, music and dogs that are not into beer Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #125 January 2, 2008 QuoteThe more legal guns there are, the more legal guns are stolen, the more find their way to the criminals. The bigger the supply, the cheaper the guns become, the easier and cheaper they are to acquire for criminals. Keep in mind supply and demand from Eco 101. Less guns, equals less guns stolen, equals less guns on the market, equals higher prices. Guns for criminals become more expensive. So why are gun prices in California skyrocketing? The supply is only increasing, right? And with 300M guns, how are any of us still alive? That's way more than there used to be. Trying to use simplistic supply and demand to explain anything about crime is asking for trouble. It's pretty clear that gun supply is a extremely minor factor in US crime over the past century. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
