As I said, most everyone that joins knows it's very unlikely that they will ever need to fire their pistol, so it would be a very poor incentive. Being an ******* and being able to bully people, for sure.

So because a gun was designed hundreds of years ago to defensively kill people/animals, gun owners 500 years later who enjoy firing guns at the range really have a deep desire, perhaps even on a subconscious level, to kill people?

Do you not think those police officers who emptied their clip on someone because they moved funny didn't like the idea of shooting people? And yes, many like bullying people too.

You're ridiculous saying any gun was designed to be used defensively. Shields are designed to be used defensively. Guns are designed to shoot people. Even on a gun range, most targets I have seen are shaped like a person.

I'm not going to comment on someone's psychological makeup on something I haven't even seen. Even if I had seen it, I don't put a lot of weight on my ability to discern someone's psychological being from a video, as my only training in that field was PSY101 in college which pretty much everyone takes.

That being said, I've seen some shootings where it just looks like a cop is scared of dying and is itchy because of this and incorrectly fires. Those people shouldn't be cops and if there's a few of them around, then a lot of bullets are going to go off because gunfire scares people and scared people will shoot - a domino effect. None of them should be cops and vetting needs to be much better.

Well, the impetus of invention of the gun was either for defense or offense. I'm not going to argue which, as it works very well in either case. A shield isn't going to do much good against 10 people with baseball bats, so certainly you can think of other things that can work defensively in that situation even if you think its main purpose is offense? A gun can be used defensively and a shield can be used offensively.

Range targets are shaped like a person because most rapists or home invaders are not shaped like a balloon. If you think range targets are shaped like a person because people who go to the range are just really itching to murder a person, I think you'd be surprised that this is not the case.

A gun can only be used defensively in the same way that a nuclear warhead can be used defensively.
It can be used in response to an attack, but it is still an offensive weapon. The only way it stops attacks is by killing (or seriously injuring) someone.

And I guess I would be surprised if I learned that, but neither of us will ever know for sure what evil lurks b in the hearts of man. I think most of those people would be thrilled if someone broke into their house whom they were then able to legally kill. I'm sure you disagree, so we're going to have to agree to disagree on something that is impossible for anyone to know for certain.

This narrow use seems... aspie?

Nuclear warheads? I think a fist is a more fair comparison. A fist can be used offensively or defensively.

This is weird. You're literally implying (basically flat-out said it, too) that anyone who owns a gun secretly wants to kill people.

I don't know, I've never blocked a punch with my fist...that seems pretty tough to do, and would hurt a lot more than blocking it with an open hand. I would definitely call a fist an offensive weapon as well.

And it is weird, I didn't think that was a secret. But not anyone / everyone. Lots. Probably most. Guns are made for killing people. I can't think of any other reason that some people have a gun fetish.

Much better to swing a kevlar shield at someone in the head - you know, that way you're not using an offensive weapon on someone.

I think your label of "gun fetish" is probably very broad - like pretty much anyone who owns a gun.

Couple of thoughts on this:

Guns are designed to kill people, of course. But just bc you shoot someone doesn't mean it was an offensive rather than a defensive act. When soldiers in foxholes are attacked by charging troops, and the shoot them, that is defensive fire. If a home invader comes at you and you shoot him that's a defensive shooting. But I don't really see the value of focusing on that semantic use.

Lots of people with a handgun at home likely dread the idea that may someday have to use it. In their cases the act of buying the gun was prob driven by fear rather than any hidden desire to shoot or kill someone.

But there is definitely a group of people who do, in fact, think about, talk about and likely dream about shooting a home invader. I've known some, and not all were military. I've known guys who have multiple guns out about the home, in the LR, Kitchen, bed room, so a gun is always within reach. They say a gun upstairs is useless if someone breaks in the front door.

I've known some cops like that. And some really ******* cops who seek confrontation. My brother is a retired cop. One thing he told me is that they are always told irt shooting decisions that "you have the right to come home at night". But inherent in that philosophy is if you're not sure, shoot. That is the underlying paradigm framing why people are killed after making the slightest movement. Not driven by a desire to kill someone but trained to shoot at the slightest ambiguous action. And all a cop ever had to say was "I feared for my life" and it was a free pass.

There are also the bully cops who relish the opportunity to instigate a violent encounter. But I believe this is a very small percentage.

So I believe most gun owners have no desire to kill anyone. They got them out of a desire to defend themselves. Then the middle group enjoys shooting guns, goes to the range, and prob doesn't desire to shoot anyone, but believe they will be comfortable doing it. (Most vastly underestimate how hard those situations really are). And then the last group, often cop or military wannabes, fantasize about shooting someone as long as they are legally protected in doing so.

Guns are offensive weapons and not defensive ones. I do not think that should be denied imo.

They fall under 'your best defense is a good offense' category, meaning they can land an offensive blow FIRST, or QUICKLY, in a way that will stop the others attack and thus by virtue of that provide 'defensive benefit'.


Similarly a football team offense that can grind out the clock and stay on the field is providing defense by virtue of their offense skill set. But it is an offense skill set. The ability to throw the ball, run the ball and move SLOWLY up the field is offense.

Bullets flying at someone are offense, but they force a person to take defense and thus buy you defensive protection. The bullets control the field and score touchdowns (hits), which result in defensive benefit. But it is by utilizing offense.

But as always there are enough definitions available that we can only agree to disagree if someone wants to hold to another definition.

Let's start a list of all-time greatest gun grabbers I'll go first--Ronald Reagan

If one person is attacking then the other person is _______?

Hint, it’s defending

WE all know why the whacko lefties won't say all lives matter?

roe v wade ring a bell.

I get most BLM followers are to stupid to understand this.

guess I made an incorrect assumption that 2+2'ers were smarter than that

Sure you can defend with offense, just as I explained above.

Offense, in fact, can be the best defense.

No, the issue is that the BLM movement was born out of a situation where black people felt like their lives didn't matter in this country. You may disagree with them, but they were just expressing that their lives did have value without suggesting that others did not.

I can imagine a child who is struggling academically with math who, upon being told to "study harder because math matters," responds with "are you saying English doesn't matter?" That is what this conversation feels like.

If one person is defending then they are defending from an attack. If one person is attacking then the person they are attacking is defending themselves from an attack

You can’t have two people leading each other in a dance and you can’t have two peoplle following one another. You need to have a leader and a follower and when you have an attacker then you have a defender.

So if someone used a kevlar shield to clink someone over the head and steal his wallet when he was unconscious, he was acting defensively to steal the wallet since a shield is strictly a defensive piece of gear?

When someone is shooting at you in your home, if you shoot back you are using the gun in self-defense. Both people can't be acting offensively.

Man, this reminds me of plant-based and Plant Based except a level or two worse since we ignore all reality because we simply don't like the concept of guns.

Sure but that does not change that an offensive weapon can be used in a defensive fight.

A shield is a defensive weapon, but it can be used for offense to and you saying 'but the guy was an attacker with the shield' does not mean he did not weaponize a defensive weapon for offense purposes.

Then it is being used defensively. Anything else is straight-up aspie.

Neither I nor anyone here said a gun couldn't be used to defend oneself. It is still an offensive weapon. You're fighting a strawman.

I also think using the term "aspie" as an insult is very offensive (in a different way, which is not in line with the rules of the forum.).

I'm letting the defense vs offense discussion go, since everyone, while disagreeing, is doing it in a nice way. But it seems to me at this point we are pole vaulting over a sidewalk crack.

Yes, you and QP are building a strawman and I'm fighting against it.

As far as I know, the inception of the gun was to be used as defense against attacking troops in war.

However, if I simply held firm and stated that a gun is only a defensive tool, I would sound very silly since it can be used offensively. And it is only the act, whether it be a shield used to assault someone out or a gun to assault someone, that defines what is offense and what is defense.

I didn't intend to use it as an insult; if it offended you, then I apologize.

Can we put this question of whether guns are defensive or offensive into the context from whence it came? Post #1667 said that part of the problem leading to BLM is that some people become cops because they're excited by the prospect of getting to shoot someone. Does it matter to that point whether the gun is offensive or defensive? If so, responding in that context seems more productive than the current discussion.

I deleted the rest of the gibberish.

Yes it does--and white conservatives have killed off far more white babies than any black people ever did. The numbers the boomers put up alone are staggering. Just as a side effect of growing up in America I happen to know quite a few conservative serial killers--you probably do too

If you took all the bad cops in the U.S., I would guess that a relatively small percentage are looking to instigate violent encounters on the reg, and only a tiny percentage are looking to kill someone. But the bad cops who enjoy exercising power but who are not especially disposed to violence still cause a lot of harm to police/community relations.

It is self-evident that people own guns for a variety of reasons, and often for multiple reasons. Like you, I have known a couple of people who openly fantasized about ending up in a situation where they could engage in a legally justified shooting.

Huh? Are you actually talking about abortion here? Seems like you are, but then the remainder is bizarre. You know many people who have either performed or gotten many abortions? That seems unlikely.
And boomers were not known for being conservative during their childbearing years.