A thought just occured to me while I was reading Lord of the Rings. The ring can't be used for good, because it's the embodiment of evil will. All those who have come in contact with it are tempted and corrupted. Even when used for something noble, the power of the ring will simply corrupt the wearer to replace one evil with another. The power of the ring is too strong to be resisted, even for Sauron. The ring by itself can do nothing, but it embodies evil will, and as soon as it's wore again, it corrupts the will of the wearer and tempts him to exercise evil power.

So how does this relate to guns you ask? Well, we've discussed many times how guns are just tools. They can't just go shoot people by themselves. Someone has to use it to shoot someone. It's not as if the guns themselves are evil. While in reality we all know that guns are not so powerful that they can corrupt the will of the bearer. Playing devil's advocate here, can't it be argued that guns were created of evil origins, ie. weapons of war/created to kill. Therefore they embody evil, man's desire to kill, wage war upon his fellow man. Since their creation, they've bided their time, waiting for the slightest stir of murderous inclination in a willing host. To be used in a horrifying orgy of violence. So why aren't we sending all of our guns to be annialated in the crack of doom?

That just makes my head hurt.

Never try to watch anything on a higher intellectual plane than Sponge-Bob.

You really gotta watch out for those guns with foreign carvings. [:D]

Next time someone make you get rid of guns, say, I can't just get rid of it. It will tempt someone else. I must throw it into the crack of doom, where it was created.

That's only if you believe killing is bad.  Before someone jumps on me, please refrain before reading the rest of this.  While I hope to never take the life of another human being, I can see that sometimes taking a life may be necessary.  If someone is trying to murder me, then taking his life is justified in my eyes.

We had war and ill will long before gunpowder was invented, and if you outlaw guns we'll still have war and ill will.  It will just be brought out with rocks and machettes like we've seen in parts of Africa that have been disarmed.

What we're really talking about is human nature.  The rocks, machettes, swords, guns, and whatever other implements are just the tools with which burtality can be handed out.  But ultimately it's a human hand behind them.  Believe me, I've had the desire to club the hell out of someone before while holding a baseball bat.  Had I had a gun, I would likely not have had that feeling because I'm a lot more rational, clear thinking, and cautious when I have a gun because the consequences for not being so are too high.

Remember the Alamo, and God Bless Texas...

No I don't see guns as instruments of Evil. I see them as progress. Look back before the bronze age, we came up with better technology than sticks and stones so that we could overcome our enemies. Guns are the same thing just the current step in our technological growth. Look at all the growth and technology that came as a result of the second world war.

I just cant wait for the great things to come after the third.[peep]

I think some liberals would like to differ on that point. [:D]

I realize that evil, killing and warfare existed before guns. Then again, evil existed before the ring as well. I know there are other forms of evil other than murder/killing. But you can argue that the utility of killing is built into the guns. It is in their essence you might say. Killing won't stop with the destruction of guns. But due to the killing efficiency of guns, the power to kill as currently provided by guns will be diminished. Just as destroying the ring won't eliminate all evil, destroying guns won't stop all killing. What the destruction of the ring brought is the diminishing of the evil that has plagued the land, or the capacity for Sauron to do evil.

Exactly.  I have liberal friends who don't believe in war or fighting because they believe everyone can be reasoned with.



Bombs, nuclear and conventional, have the ability to kill far more people than guns do.  Had Klebold and Harris set off the bombs they brought with them the casualties at Columbine would have been much higher.  Suicide bombers in Israel hurt and kill many more people than palestinian gunmen do.  So, while a gun is a more efficient killing/maiming implement than a club, there are still many more efficient methods out there.

Also, your example states the ring could not be used for good in any way because ultimately it will corrupt the wearer, while a gun can.  That's why the problem is accepting that killing sometimes is a good thing.  I doubt you'd find a Holocaust era Jew who spent time in the camps who wouldn't think killing Hitler early on would have been a bad idea.

Remember the Alamo, and God Bless Texas...

Well the difference lies in whether you think the gun will corrupt the bearer. Perhaps given enough time, the gun will exercise its evil influence and inspire its owner (or ownee, however you'd like to see it) to violence. That seems to be the difference between conservative and liberal interpretation of guns.