Handguns

[Funkmasterr]

So other than a sticker on your door window (that people generally get when they get an alarm) what other way would someone know that you had a home alarm that would deter them from breaking in?

[miir]

So other than a sticker on your door window (that people generally get when they get an alarm) what other way would someone know that you had a home alarm that would deter them from breaking in?

I'm not trying to be an asshole... but are you really that ignorant?
Seriously.... have you never ever seen a home alarm system?
Maybe a picture on the internet?


Do you know what a motion sensor or a contact sensor looks like?
People who break into homes and businesses most certainly do.

Try to carry on that train of thought...

If you were to install a home security system, would you keep everything hidden or have it in plain view?

Do you see where I'm going with this?

[Boogahz]

Do you know what a motion sensor or a contact sensor looks like?
People who break into homes and businesses most certainly do.

The people who are "professional" enough to really pay attention to that type of thing in homes and businesses are also probably not the same people that you would encounter. They would gravitate toward properties that were not occupied, alarm or no alarm. The people who would break in to a home which is occupied are not always "professional." They are the same people that would probably do so while armed with (illegally "purchased") handguns.

[Kilmoll the Sexy]

So you are implying it makes it physically impossible to break into a house because it has an alarm. If someone threatens your life and tells you they are going to kill you, would you trust your life to only having an alarm system installed in yoru house?

Some of you live in a serious dream world. Do you comprehend at all that the people that are actually committing all these murders DON'T CARE even one shred of an iota about another law that would say they can't have a handgun? Here is a newflash: an extremely high majority of murders with handguns are committed by people that are not legally allowed to own them because of felony convictions. Boy....I guess outlawing those things would make one hell of a difference. I just can't believe the stupidity of some otherwise bright people. You disarm the law abiding people in this country and watch the crime soar to heights you never though possible.

You want to combat murders and crime with guns? Put these fuckers to death that commit them. No 25 years of appeals.....start eliminating them. DNA evidence puts them there, fry them. Then you can watch the crime stats start dropping.

[Al]

So where does it start? It never starts at a comprehensive ban on all firearms. If you want stricter laws against something as small as a handgun, what is the next step? When that doesn't work, where will we go? Ban knives?

What about automatic/assault weapons... why are you not crying out against the strict contronls on those types of weapons?

Automobiles kill several times more people a year than all violent crimes combined. Why not implement stricter laws regarding the issuance of drivers liscenses (like many nations, and a move that I would endorse as both sensible and intelligent)?

Enough with the fucking automobile straw-man argument.... why do pro-gun retard bring up automobiles in a gun control argument?




I stopped reading your post after you brought up automobile related deaths...

If you have to use a COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT comparison like that in your argument, there is no point in even discussing this with you.

I detest a comprehensive ban on anything that can in some rare situations become useful to the patriotic and upstanding citizens of this nation. I do not appreciate the fact that my government says I am not responsible enough to own an M-16 after not only allowing me, but ORDERING me to become proficient in the use and safety of one while in the military. I will not get into the fact that guns brought freedom (!) to this nation.

Why stop reading after the automobile bit? I was asking a question concerning why 10,000 deaths a year is causing an uproar when 50-60,000 deaths a year does not. I do not see the irrelevance. Automobiles are much more easily regulated, people don't get in an uproar about it, and it would save countless lives. Sure, pointless argument.

lol. How dare people link a weapon to death.

Death is not evil. It is a natural part of every life that has ever and will ever be on this planet. Using a gun to cause death in a human may be evil, but using a gun to end the life of a deer that you intend to eat isn't evil. Using a gun to reduce stress by working on your aim isn't evil. Using a gun to destroy an IED isn't evil. How dare you equate a perfectly useful inanimate object to an entirely human aspect?

In the absence of handguns, you think that the same number of crimes would be committed?

Short answer, yes. There may be less fatalities, but I do not believe that removing handguns from circulation would stop a reasonable number of violent crimes.

My bottom line is that I believe this is, and should continue to be, a free country. (Miir, you may stop reading here, a small tangent is coming up. You may pick up at the last paragraph if you so desire.) I do not fly anymore because I believe my civil rights are being violated by unnecessary searches. 1 person tried to blow up a plane with a bomb in his shoe and now every passenger that boards a plane in the United States has to remove his or her shoes so they can be sure there isn't a bomb in them? I can understand that chances cannot be taken, but can we be serious, please?

I should not be penalized because a tiny fraction of a miniscule percentage of a small portion of the population cannot behave. I have said before that I do not own a gun. I have also said before that I would lay my life on the line to defend an honest citizens right to own one. I stand by that, and I will till the day I die.

[miir]

So you are implying it makes it physically impossible to break into a house because it has an alarm.

Don't be such a retard.

[miir]

Why stop reading after the automobile bit? I was asking a question concerning why 10,000 deaths a year is causing an uproar when 50-60,000 deaths a year does not. I do not see the irrelevance. Automobiles are much more easily regulated, people don't get in an uproar about it, and it would save countless lives. Sure, pointless argument.

How many automobiles are owned by private citizens in the US?
How many handguns are owned by private citizens in the US?

How many incidents of vehicular homicide occur yearly in the US?
How many incidents of gun related homicide occur yearly in the US?



Now do you see the fallacy in your argument?

[Al]

Why stop reading after the automobile bit? I was asking a question concerning why 10,000 deaths a year is causing an uproar when 50-60,000 deaths a year does not. I do not see the irrelevance. Automobiles are much more easily regulated, people don't get in an uproar about it, and it would save countless lives. Sure, pointless argument.

How many automobiles are owned by private citizens in the US?
How many handguns are owned by private citizens in the US?

How many incidents of vehicular homicide occur yearly in the US?
How many incidents of gun related homicide occur yearly in the US?



Now do you see the fallacy in your argument?

As a percentage, how many handgun owners have an accidental shooting? What, maybe 5%? That's even stretching, probably closer to .5%.

As a percentage, how many vehicle owners have a vehicular accident? If it isn't over 90% then I need to move to your area.

I still don't see your reasoning.

[miir]

I still don't see your reasoning.

If you can't comprehend the difference between automobiles and guns then I guess there is no point in continuing this discussion.

[Al]

I still don't see your reasoning.

If you can't comprehend the difference between automobiles and guns then I guess there is no point in continuing this discussion.

You're right. Cars = guns. There can be no space for comparison when dealing with objects that are exactly the same. Miir = chimpanzee?

edit: I guess I should expand a bit... So what you're saying is it is OK to have an accident with a car and not OK to have an accident with a gun? Is that because everybody gets into a car accident from time to time? Or does it only qualify if it is a homicide? If everyone treated their car like a gun I guarantee there would be fewer accidents on the road. I guess I just don't understand where you are coming from...

[Funkmasterr]

I still don't see your reasoning.

If you can't comprehend the difference between automobiles and guns then I guess there is no point in continuing this discussion.

If you can't comprehend the difference between opinion and fact, then there certainly is no point in continuing the conversation.

[miir]

You're right. Cars = guns. There can be no space for comparison when dealing with objects that are exactly the same. Miir = chimpanzee?

edit: I guess I should expand a bit... So what you're saying is it is OK to have an accident with a car and not OK to have an accident with a gun? Is that because everybody gets into a car accident from time to time? Or does it only qualify if it is a homicide? If everyone treated their car like a gun I guarantee there would be fewer accidents on the road. I guess I just don't understand where you are coming from...

Guns are weapons.
The sole purpose for their creation was to kill things.

Automobiles are not weapons.
The sole purpose for their creation was for transportation.


There are hundreds of millions of automobiles being utilized for their intended use at any given moment in the USA.
There are very few guns being utilized for their intended use at any given moment..

A car transporting someone from point A to point B is performing its intended use.
A gun firing a deadly projectile at target is performing its intended use.

A gun sitting in a drawer or closet or in a holster is not being used... much like a car sitting in a driveway, a garage or parked on the street is not being used.

I'd imagine not very many people are injured or killed by a parked car.
Probably about the same number of people injured or killed by an unloaded gun.


The fatal accident ratio per hour of usage for automobiles is astronomically lower than the fatal accident ratio per hour of usage for guns.


Does any of that make any sense to you... or do you still think comparing guns to cars is not completely fucking retarded?

[miir]

If you can't comprehend the difference between opinion and fact, then there certainly is no point in continuing the conversation.

You bring up some very valid points.
I shall take those under consideration.

[miir]

If everyone treated their car like a gun I guarantee there would be fewer accidents on the road.

OK, let me run with that.



We can start by taking roughly 95% of all automobiles completely off the road.

Then we can limit automobile use to around 2 minutes per month...
It takes a split second to pull a trigger. I think I'm being extremely generous in estimating that the avergae gun owner fires their weapon about 250 times per month.

Then we can compare the number of deaths/homicides/accidents from automobiles and guns.



Sound reasonable?

[Al]

You're right. Cars = guns. There can be no space for comparison when dealing with objects that are exactly the same. Miir = chimpanzee?

edit: I guess I should expand a bit... So what you're saying is it is OK to have an accident with a car and not OK to have an accident with a gun? Is that because everybody gets into a car accident from time to time? Or does it only qualify if it is a homicide? If everyone treated their car like a gun I guarantee there would be fewer accidents on the road. I guess I just don't understand where you are coming from...

Guns are weapons.
The sole purpose for their creation was to kill things.

Automobiles are not weapons.
The sole purpose for their creation was for transportation.


There are hundreds of millions of automobiles being utilized for their intended use at any given moment in the USA.
There are very few guns being utilized for their intended use at any given moment..

A car transporting someone from point A to point B is performing its intended use.
A gun firing a deadly projectile at target is performing its intended use.

A gun sitting in a drawer or closet or in a holster is not being used... much like a car sitting in a driveway, a garage or parked on the street is not being used.

I'd imagine not very many people are injured or killed by a parked car.
Probably about the same number of people injured or killed by an unloaded gun.


The fatal accident ratio per hour of usage for automobiles is astronomically lower than the fatal accident ratio per hour of usage for guns.


Does any of that make any sense to you... or do you still think comparing guns to cars is not completely fucking retarded?

So guns are intended to invoke violence. Violence being something inherent to life, it seems only logical that humans would invent a tool that is capable of expanding on it. You would certainly be correct to state that a properly utilized firearm would be killing something every time it is used, unless it is being used for practicing in killing things. You would also be correct to state that motor vehicles are meant for transportation, and every time one is being used properly something is being transported safely.

Bah... I was going to expand, but maybe tomorrow. I have to get up for work in 4 hours and I am drunk and need some sleep.

[miir]

So guns are intended to invoke violence. Violence being something inherent to life, it seems only logical that humans would invent a tool that is capable of expanding on it

I'm not trying to be pilosophical.
I'm not discussing violence or human nature.

A gun is a device that fires a deadly projectile at a high rate of speed towards a designated target.

[Nick]

The gun = !car analogy is fucking retarded

[Sueven]

Sylvus, I suppose we are just talking past each other. I agree with you that, ideally, there's no reason to continue having handguns in society.

The sole purpose for their creation was to kill things.

I think that this is simply wrong. The sole purpose for guns is to fire a projectile. And not necessarily a deadly projectile-- the projectiles can be used to immobilize people (shoot for the knees!), cars (shoot for the tires!), or to shoot all sorts of non-living things (shoot for the brick wall!).

I think the difference is substantial, but I guess I can understand how others wouldn't think so.

[Nick]

I don't think the difference is substantial in the slightest, no offense but you just appear to be being overly persnickety for the sake of it.

[miir]

I think that this is simply wrong. The sole purpose for guns is to fire a projectile. And not necessarily a deadly projectile-- the projectiles can be used to immobilize people (shoot for the knees!), cars (shoot for the tires!), or to shoot all sorts of non-living things (shoot for the brick wall!).

Why the fuck can I not say something without it being taken out of context?




Guns were designed to fire a projectile at such a velocity to pierce flesh, enter the body and cause mortal injury.

If they had designed a weapon to simply immobilize, it would fire beanbags or something a little less lethal than a chunk of lead... and probably at a far slower velocity.

I'm pretty fucking sure automobiles were not around when guns were invented.

I'm also pretty fucking sure that guns were not designed for the purpose of shooting brick walls.


Guns were created for war.... to kill other humans.
That's not opinion or speculation.
That's historical fact.

[Funkmasterr]

I think that this is simply wrong. The sole purpose for guns is to fire a projectile. And not necessarily a deadly projectile-- the projectiles can be used to immobilize people (shoot for the knees!), cars (shoot for the tires!), or to shoot all sorts of non-living things (shoot for the brick wall!).

Why the fuck can I not say something without it being taken out of context?




Guns were designed to fire a projectile at such a velocity to pierce flesh, enter the body and cause mortal injury.

If they had designed a weapon to simply immobilize, it would fire beanbags or something a little less lethal than a chunk of lead... and probably at a far slower velocity.

I'm pretty fucking sure automobiles were not around when guns were invented.

I'm also pretty fucking sure that guns were not designed for the purpose of shooting brick walls.


Guns were created for war.... to kill other humans.
That's not opinion or speculation.
That's historical fact.

I am in awe of your vast sea of knowledge. What is tomorrow's lesson going to be?

[miir]

I am in awe of your vast sea of knowledge. What is tomorrow's lesson going to be?

Thanks again for the random non sequitor.
You're my special little stalker.

[Funkmasterr]

I don't stalk you - it's just that sometimes you arrogance wreaks so bad I can practically fucking smell it.

[miir]

I don't stalk you - it's just that sometimes you arrogance wreaks so bad I can practically fucking smell it.

I don't think wreak means what you think it means.

[Nick]

hahaha

[Zaelath]

I don't stalk you - it's just that sometimes you arrogance wreaks so bad I can practically fucking smell it.

Mr "I spit in your face to goad you into a position where I can pull my 9, nigga!" is going to talk about arrogance. Delightful.

Tomorrow, perhaps Pol Pot can give us a dissertation on benevolence.

[Sueven]

Guns were designed to fire a projectile at such a velocity to pierce flesh, enter the body and cause mortal injury.

If they had designed a weapon to simply immobilize, it would fire beanbags or something a little less lethal than a chunk of lead... and probably at a far slower velocity.

I'm pretty fucking sure automobiles were not around when guns were invented.

I'm also pretty fucking sure that guns were not designed for the purpose of shooting brick walls.

You did not say that guns were INVENTED to kill people, you said that guns are CREATED for the sole purpose of killing people. I understand that invent and create can be used synonymously, and I see now that this was the meaning you intended. Fair enough. I'm sure that you can also see that 'create' does not exclusively mean 'invent,' and in this context can also be taken to mean 'manufacture.' If one takes it to mean 'manufacture,' as I did, then your statement remains incorrect.

Of course, your point carries far less force when 'created' means 'invented' instead of 'manufactured.' Lots of things were invented for one reason and came to be used for another, and the purpose for which they were invented is generally held to be less relevant than the purpose for which they are manufactured and used. One of the reasons I interpreted what you said the way I did was in order to give you credit for making a worthwhile point.

I don't think the difference is substantial in the slightest, no offense but you just appear to be being overly persnickety for the sake of it.

That's fine, reasonable people can disagree. Personally, when a large portion of handgun owners own the guns simply for target/sport shooting, and the manufacturers of those handguns are aware that a substantial portion of their customer base purchases the handguns for this purpose, and the manufacturers intentionally produce more handguns than they would if they were selling only to those who wanted to kill people/things with them in order to satisfy this demand... well, in those circumstances, I'm not comfortable saying that they are manufactured solely for the purpose of killing people.

[Kilmoll the Sexy]

Some people will never get that the point is not the need to eliminate the tool, but eliminating the desire to use it to kill. Even in countries where handguns do not legally exist, there are murders, robbery, rapes, etc. They also manage to get handguns as well. The thing about most of the other countries that do not have as much handgun crime is they also do not have the ghetto/thug culture you see in the US. I would contend yet again that if you could eliminate the thug mindset from the inner cities that gun violence would drop by 75-80%.

[kyoukan]

So you're contending that handgun violence in the US has risen 75-80% since the early 90's when gangsta rap became popular?

[Sueven]

Blaming it on the existence of ghetto "culture" is pointless when the problem is the existence of the ghetto in the first place, not the culture that grows out of it.

[kyoukan]

they just all need to get up off their lazy asses and go to college and get sweet lower middle class IT jobs.

[Xatrei]

Blaming it on the existence of ghetto "culture" is pointless when the problem is the existence of the ghetto in the first place, not the culture that grows out of it.

This is a succinct version of what I started to post, but then I remembered who I was responding to, and then it seemed rather pointless to bother.

[Kilmoll the Sexy]

The ghetto existed mainly from segregation and the lack of adequate schooling. To say they do not have the same chance at education ow is a farce. It is the desire to be stupid that is causing the downfall now. It is not cool to be educated and work hard to make a living. It is easier to blame whitey for every problem and claim oppression than it is to actually attend school, try to learn something, then apply yourself to getting a scholarship or funding for college. Why would they want to do something like that when being a gangsta pays so well?

[kyoukan]

To say they do not have the same chance at education ow is a farce.

you are so fucking ignorant that I am actually ashamed that we are almost the same species. do you enjoy wallowing in such stupidity? do you sleep better at night because complex or rational thoughts are simply not able to penetrate your skull?

[Kwonryu DragonFist]

Hoping handguns and rifles become obsolete very soon and are replaced by stunguns/incapacitators.

[kyoukan]

I doubt stun guns will psychologically enhance kilmoll's penis size, so I doubt that is likely to happen.

[Kwonryu DragonFist]

Well, it'd be hilarious to see stungun drive-bys or gangmembers goin' at it with incapacitators, knocking each other out and then waking up after a while.

Phew! Up for another round? Nah, better go home instead, i'm pooped!

Got a burglar? Zap him with yer stunner, call the police and let them pick him up.

[Al]

To say they do not have the same chance at education ow is a farce.

you are so fucking ignorant that I am actually ashamed that we are almost the same species. do you enjoy wallowing in such stupidity? do you sleep better at night because complex or rational thoughts are simply not able to penetrate your skull?

I live in redneck, farm central Western NY and even here minorities have an equal shot in vitually every case. I have not seen one instance of racism excluding someone from something other than a keg party (and I left that party shortly afterwards).

The gun = !car analogy is fucking retarded

Maybe you don't have sarcasm in Ireland, which would be odd, seeing that every Irish descended person (including my entire family) I have ever met had sarcasm bred into them, but for the record, I was being facetious. Miir was proposing that I cannot tell the difference between a car and a gun, and while I wish I could drive a gun to work some days, I do know the difference. Maybe the Miir = chimpanzee comment didn't catch the way it was intended, as a play on the same sort of ignorance he was accusing me of.

[Xatrei]

This has little to do with race, and everything to do with economics. The "thug culture" you describe is a byproduct of the extremely depressed economic situations in which extremely poor people of all races live, and is manifested in several ways, not just "ghetto/thug" culture. As people gain wealth, they move out of what they perceive to be bad areas of town. As the people with higher income leave, businesses follow them to more fashionable areas, generally the suburbs and exoburbs. The poor areas decay and become more economically depressed over time as there is decreasing lack of both public and private investment. As this occurs, the tax base erodes, and the remaining population is subjected to increasing disadvantages. The school systems that are obliged to provide educational opportunity to them are left underfunded because most have insufficient tax bases to support services for their residents, and this isn't limited to just education. Police and fire services suffer greatly as does city planning, road maintenance and critical social programs. As the the streets become less safe, the infrastructure crumbles, education declines and the social safety net disappears, a real sense of hopelessness sets in to the disadvantaged communities. This is exacerbated in some areas, by the ghosts of the very real racial inequality that permeated much of our culture until very recently (and still does in some areas more than others). This cycle feeds on itself, and will continue until something is done to change it.

Meanwhile in the increasingly balkanized and insulated suburbs, the wealthy reap the benefits in the form of greater services and a higher quality of education funded by their tax dollars, increasing the gulf between the classes each generation. These middle and upper class residents grow increasingly apathetic to the plight of the poor because they don't have to see them every day in their perfect little cookie cutter suburban worlds, and they grow increasingly distrustful and fearful of the "thugs" over the hill and across the tracks. To say the current inner city issues exist simply because poor blacks decide that somehow it's easier to become a "thug" is disingenuous and shows a complete lack of understanding the larger issue.

[Boogahz]

That crackhead breaking into your house cares nothing for your definition of "real men."

And when was the last time a crackhead broke into your house?

Seriously, is your neighbourhood that bad that this is a regular occurence?

This actuallly HAS been an issue where I live. The crackhead (heroin addict is more likely tbh) would constantly try to force open doors to apartments in my area and would try to go in through 1st story balconies. Eventually he was found dead in the creek behind my place after a storm...but he didn't drown.

Now that the adrenaline rush has faded (after just over a week), I feel the need to add a little something to this...

My sister has finally been moved out of the project she lived in, in the ghetto. The last straw came on June 29th when three "men" broke into her apartment while only a few people were around. Two of the three were armed with handguns (doubtful that they had permits for them) and all had apparently been smoking (something that rimes with cot) before paying their visit. They were such men that they kept one of the guns pointed at my eleven year old niece rather than the adults. I actually laughed at them and told them to point the shit at me rather than the girl if they had the balls. Looking back at things, I know this probably was not the most intelligent thing to say, but I did not think they would actually do anything. They got away with about 200.00 in cash, and spare keys to my sister's apartment. We moved her out the next morning, so they could get nothing by entering the apartment again anyhow. She and her children live in a much better neighborhood, outside of the crappy school district she was "trapped" in before.

The main reason I brought up how my initial reaction was not a good one is the result of conversations with officers since then. They are wanted in connection with two other shootings that happened that night and a couple days later. They were even caught on tape arguing with someone at a convenience store prior to shooting the guy outside. I almost fell down once I heard this, as I thought about how antagonizing him might have led to something happening to my eldest niece. In the end, it did not. Thank goodness.

It shouldn't take much research to see how "good" the relationship between the Austin Police Department and the "ghetto" communities get along. APD is under federal review now due to shootings by officers. Having seen the reaction of this "community" to the officers which were attempting to help calm my niece and get information from us, I personally wanted to beat the shit out of them all. My sister was not actually home when it happened, but the "spectators" were saying crap like "white bitch got what was coming to her." I ended up getting escorted the looooong way to my car after the officers noticed that I was a bit "on edge." I am glad that they did that, because I probably would have been dead if I had done what I wanted during that adrenaline rush (I can no longer take on mobs of greater than 50 people).

Long story short, in this situation, a handgun in the home would have caused more harm than good. These were three men prepared to kill. They had no qualms killing at least one other person, and we were all in a rather small enclosed area. While I am sure that there are some situations in which a handgun might be used as a better deterrent when a home invasion takes place, this was not one of them.

[miir]

can no longer take on mobs of greater than 50 people

Maybe if you were a bard.

Sorry, just trying to add some levity to the situation.




Seriously though...
That's a horrible story and I'm glad all of you are OK.

[Boogahz]

can no longer take on mobs of greater than 50 people

Maybe if you were a bard.

Sorry, just trying to add some levity to the situation.




Seriously though...
That's a horrible story and I'm glad all of you are OK.

That's why I waited over a week to bring it up, even though Nick's comment actually came to mind while it was happening. I can make jokes about it now, after moving my family out of the area, but I am afraid of the effect it will have on my eleven year old niece.

[Boogahz]

Or you can just get dogs like this woman:

NASHVILLE, Tenn. -- Police said a mother and her family pets fought back a gunman who tried to rob her at her south Nashville home.

The incident happened on Martin Street, just a few blocks from the state fairgrounds around 10 p.m. Tuesday.

Ronda Hill said she, her 2-year-old son and her mother were walking inside their house when a man jumped a fence, pointed a gun at them and demanded their belongings.

Hill said her dogs then went after the intruder.

"When they attacked him, he dropped the gun, and I picked it up, and I fired at him. He then took off running," said Hill.

She said she fired the gun two times and is not sure if any of the bullets struck the robber.

Police are still searching for the intruder.

...then you can take the thief's gun.

[Braxter]

not very bright firing a gun at the dude when your dogs are on him and your kids are nearby, especially since she was evidently not that good of a shot (wtf did she have her eyes closed?). the dogs were seemingly taking care of the problem anyway. just pointing the gun at him would probably have been sufficient.

what's funny is if she *had* hit and killed her assailant, she would have seen a wrongful death suit by the family and perhaps criminal charges, the latter depending on how big a douche the local DA is.

[Fairweather Pure]

Or you can just get dogs like this woman:

I'd rather have dogs like Michael Vick!

Just kidding. I don't think dead dogs buried in shallow graves throughout my backyard would do me any good.

[Wulfran]

I'm also pretty fucking sure that guns were not designed for the purpose of shooting brick walls.

Actually the first guns were designed for just that purpose: they were siege weapons used to breach walls/gates of strongholds. Out with the catapult and trebuchet, in with the culverin. You're right in that they were designed as instruments of war. Just as you're right in that the intent of early single person fire arms was as a weapon: a replacement of the various assortment of bows (although realistically the Welsh longbow and its like had a better range, accuracy and rate of fire until rifling was introduced, bows took a lot longer to train troops to become proficient with). And sorry Sueven, shooting at knees and tires didn't come about until these military inventions were given to the use of law enforcement in jurisdictions where rustling and poaching weren't capital offenses.

[miir]

I'm pretty sure I was talking about guns, not cannons.


One of these is a gun.
One is a cannon.
Can you tell which is which?

[Boogahz]

Which is the X supposed to be?

[Sylvus]

No X's here.

[Wulfran]

I'm pretty sure I was talking about guns, not cannons.


One of these is a gun.
One is a cannon.
Can you tell which is which?

Well you and few others seemed to be pretty hung up on the whole "this was invented to do this" shit. I merely pointed out the original purpose of the device was exactly to blow holes in brick/stone walls. I actually agreed with you on the evolution of single person firearms. As you like to harp on Midnyte "READ THE WHOLE FUCKING THING, ASSHOLE".