Are weapons evil?
iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius
I used to be very pro-gun/weapons, then when I became Christian, I became less so. However, my official position for USA's gun laws is that anyone not on probation/parole/court conditions otherwise should be allowed to own any small arm they want and they should be able to be freely bought as any other commodity, I'm a bit libertarian in that regard, I also believe in legalization of drugs, too, so yeah. I don't believe my goal is terribly practical in today's society, as you'd need to legalize drugs to quell the gangs, that, and because not every other country on earth would do the same policy, USA would become a major arm smuggling exporter. And generally where arms are smuggled to, it's bad people breaking laws, it's usually not good people getting smuggled guns, as good people tend to follow laws even if they think they're silly.
However, I don't think they're a "good" thing, as they're made to be used for killing, really. This world unfortunately requires killing because of the evil in it, and what I as a Christian believe is the fallen state of mankind and sin of humanity. There are going to be people that commit evil actions for one reason or another, and someone needs to stop them, and weapons allow mankind to not be ruled on just strength alone.
Without weapons (which is impossible, as sticks, rocks, etc could be used as weapons) only the people with brute strength alone would rule. Weapons act as an equalizer, they allow you to be more powerful than your opponent if you lack physical strength to otherwise defeat them. So the advent of weapons, especially firearms, is kind of a good thing. A firearm, for example, is just as useful in the hands of a woman compared to a man. So with a firearm, a woman is just as powerful as a man, and a man can no longer overpower her. So main point, the "good" part about weapons is, they allow weaker parties to be even against otherwise stronger or more numerous parties. However, this can be flipped around, too, and a small group of people with lots of weaponry can rule over a large group without it. You don't really "win" really.
So, to summarize, I'd say weapons are made as a result of general human faultiness, and evil. So that would sort of make them evil if you think about it that way. They don't have to be evil, you can just think they're cool and collect them and whatever, and if you never do evil with them, well, hey, they're not evil in your hands anymore. It's almost a repurpose, turning the evil of weaponry's frown upside down if you would. On the same point, in USA, total homicides are around 15K people a year. In USA, there's 40-50K auto accident deaths a year. So without even intent to kill (usually) we manage to kill more people just driving places. Think about it, in your car, you have the opportunity to murder dozens of people everyday, just run up on the sidewalk and run people over, but you don't. Same with owning a gun or other weapon, just because you have the means to kill someone doesn't mean you're going to, because as I've pointed out "cars" manage to kill more people than weapons do in US, and they're not even intended for that purpose.
A lot is very much culture, too. People very much are "scared" of guns in today's society. It's understandable to a point. Guns are the modern weapons now. At the same time, show them a sword or knight suit or whatever from a thousand years ago, and they won't get the same emotional reaction, though both are meant for the same purpose. You no longer see people getting murdered with swords or whatever, so they become more museum pieces, of even things people think of as beautiful or romantic, but the history of them is just as bloody if not more so than firearms.
So yeah, I'd say necessary evil to sum it up easily, but it's a pretty complex issue.
As I have consequentialist ethics where the ends determine the ethics of the means, weapons are not even really a tool to achieve an ends but rather a tool to assist with a means: Weapons are not an action but using them for their intended purpose, always some type of physical pain and almost always to kill, is dependent on the situation.
Thus, if killing any amount of people achieves a good that outweighs the good that letting the people live would have caused, then killing is perfectly acceptable and actually a good dead. Now, with that said, there are basic guidelines that one should follow when one is not completely sure of the effect that killing a person would have on the greater good; this is normally the case: Use proper judgement, do not act on impulses, be aware of the consequences of one's actions and think carefully.
To summarize: I would certainly kill King Leopold if I had a time machine for he was a pedophile sadist who turned the Congo Free State into a living hell from a backward tribal area if I had a time machine; I would never kill Aśoka under any circumstances if I had a time machine for all the wonderful virtues he exemplified and the incredible kindness he showed for his people; I probably would not kill FDR because, while a leftist revolution could have liberated the USA from Jim Crow and made women equals to men, a Fascist Revolution could also have happened without his New Deal; and I probably would kill Waskar Inka because he was incompetent and largely led to the Inka defeat at the hands of the Spanish because of the Inka Civil War.
_________________
Learn the patterns of the past; consider what is not now; help what is not the past; plan for the future.
-Myself
Most assuredly not.
Weapons are tools intended to facilitate a human purpose. Is competitive shooting on a firing range evil? No, of course not. Is hunting evil? I think it is possible to believe that, but I certainly don't believe so. Is the use of firearms or tasers for the protection of the public peace evil? How about their use in warfare? (You can probably see where I am going here...)
A baseball bat is simply a baseball bat--whether it is used for hitting a home run, defending yourself against zombies, or committing an aggravated assault, it is nothing more than a tool.
It is the behavior of the actor that is subject to moral judgement, not the implement used by the actor to perform the action. I can use a hypodermic to administer life-saving drugs, or I can use it to inject a poison. The hypodermic is neutral in those actions--neither good nor evil. It is I who am subject to moral judgement.
_________________
--James
No. But then again this question is almost irrelevant to the gun discussion. You would have to argue whether Guns really do make things worse and that is different from claiming that they are evil. Things cannot be evil, but that doesn't really tell anything by itself.
_________________
.
All depends on use and context. A gun used to hunt meat provides nourishment. A gun used to deter a criminal act could save a life or property. Guns used in war can protect the country from foreign attack and or conquest. Guns used in a proper revolution can bring about justice.
ruveyn
Joker
Veteran
Joined: 19 Mar 2011
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,593
Location: North Carolina The Tar Heel State :)
Are Weapons evil?
"Anything that can be wielded in a fight may become a weapon, as a pitchfork, or a paving stone." "Funk & Wagnalls Standard Handbook of Synonyms & Prepositions" by James C. Fernald (1947), page 64.
Many paving stones are possessed by evil spirits, and some of those spirits may be NRA members, with a much greater proportion of "non-liberals" to "liberals".
The "killing" is often optional to the spirit, but evil spirits are frequently "dangerous" also by "accident" (as if "Satan didn't 'see it' coming too!"). With Universal Justice, the proposition is often made that every mortal "deserves" their fate, which is difficult to entertain, since there is no free will with choice.
Tadzio
"Weapons" is a broad term.
Are we talking everything up to and including WMD's or small arms as in handguns, rifles, & shotguns, et.....?
We've already discussed the gun control thingy to death in past dogfights here.
Joker
Veteran
Joined: 19 Mar 2011
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,593
Location: North Carolina The Tar Heel State :)
"Weapons" is a broad term.
Are we talking everything up to and including WMD's or small arms as in handguns, rifles, & shotguns, et.....?
We've already discussed the gun control thingy to death in past dogfights here.
Agreed he needs to be specific
Joker
Veteran
Joined: 19 Mar 2011
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,593
Location: North Carolina The Tar Heel State :)
Funny that you would use that particular example, the late Jeff Cooper (very influential firearms figure) was fond of a very similar analogy about scalpels. Pretty much sums up my feelings on the matter.
_________________
“The totally convinced and the totally stupid have too much in common for the resemblance to be accidental.”
-- Robert Anton Wilson
Similar Topics | |
---|---|
Russia & US Clash at UN Over Nuclear Weapons In Space |
24 Apr 2024, 7:34 pm |
Resident evil 7 VR |
22 Mar 2024, 4:56 pm |