What is the "love" with weopons?

[gggman]

For the folks who are taking Loud Dogg to task about his grammar, take into account that English is not his native language. According to his profile, he is German, but living in Oregon.
Loud Dogg, all I can say to you is, you have a lot to learn. And you're only fifteen, so that's perfectly understandable.
I hope that you actually read all the responses on this thread with an open mind, and that you have the inteligence to comprehend them. People like guns for lots of different reasons, and some of us don't feel that we have to justify our fondness for guns to anyone.

 

[boofus]

What was that quote?

"Anyone who isn't a liberal when they're 20 is heartless. Anyone who doesn't become conservative by the time they are 30 is brainless."

 

[ExpatGator]

Q: What is the use of handguns?

A: Ask my niece, who is currently being stalked by her 225lb. violent, mouth breathing ex-boyfriend.

 

[Jim PHL]

From Harold Mayo (earlier post):

Do some research. Don't just listen to propoganda. I think you'll find that people on THIS board would encourage reading a wide variety of sources in your research. That's because we know that you'll find the truth. Ask at some place like DU or some other liberal board and you'd get directed ONLY to propoganda. Hell, at DU, you'd be banned immediately for asking your questions...for voicing an opinion. How's that for freedom of expression...?

This is key. The reasons quoted by gun banners are seldom based in fact. Find the truth for yourself, rather than fall in line with anyone, INCLUDING US HERE ON THE HIGH ROAD.

 

[Chip Dixon]

Loud Dogg,

I feel you have been subject to much propaganda. You ask, what is with the "love" with weapons? You seem to feel that there is a "gun culture" where people are obsessed with guns using them to kill. This is a lie often perpetrated by propaganda machines like HCI. What lies beneath the "gun culture" is a love of life and liberty. The polar opposite of the victim mentality expressed by groups like HCI. We will not lie down and let ourselves be mugged, robbed and raped. We will fight back against the terrors that make our streets unsafe and make the weak scared to walk the streets. We won't hide in our basements and let our freedoms be taken by a bunch of thugs. Gun control laws strike at that very basic right. They take the previously legal and common sense means of protecting oneself away from law abiding citizens. They make criminals feel safe going out and being criminals because only someone else who is breaking the law (or a cop, which they can usually spot a block away) will be able to stop them.

Handguns are the great equalizer. You can be a 90 lb girl, and with a handgun and proper training and mindset you can prevent yourself from being kidnapped, raped and murdered by a gang of psychopaths. No other tool can do this, and still be convenient enough to carry that it won't be left at home. Pepper spray and pocket knives don't quite fit the bill when your life is on the line and the odds are against you.

"Assault" weapons (as they have been branded by propagandists) are why no government would dare try to go straight out and enslave the american populace. They know they would have no chance. They are also the ideal weapon in a true SHTF scenario (natural disaster, riot, etc.). They are used in so few crimes that the statistics are insignificant.

Banning firearms of any type is counterproductive. It only takes them out of the hands of people who you should want to have them -- honest, law abiding citizens. Criminals don't care about laws. That's why they are criminals. With the millions upon millions of guns in this country, trying to confiscate them is truly impossible. And even if they all did disapear, guns are still made overseas. If we can't stop millions of pounds of heroin and coke from coming into the country, guns won't be any problem either. You can't take technological steps backwards. It is a pipe dream. Once you open the Pandora's box, it stays open.

You say "handguns are made to kill people". Handguns are meant to SAVE LIVES. That's why police are required to carry them in the USA. They don't have them to kill people. I'm sure you know that there are plenty of people just as honorable or moreso than the police. Why should they be disarmed? Don't you want as many good people out there to protect you as possible? Shouldn't you take responsibility for protecting your own life? Odds are that when you need a cop to be there to protect you, they won't be there. Having a handgun on your belt could save your life, or the life of those that you love. Life is irreplaceable, using lethal force to protect it is perfectly justifiable. Believing "it will never happen to me" is sheer ignorance of the world we live in.

Banning guns makes more people get hurt, it makes criminals more bold. I know this may be counterintuitive. However, facts are more important than theory. Take Washington D.C., for example. Having a handgun in D.C. is a felony. However, more people are killed with handguns in D.C. on average in ONE DAY than are killed in Vermont in a MONTH. In Vermont, you do not need a permit to carry a handgun, and it is very commonplace for people to carry guns on their person. No criminal in their right mind would pick Vermont as a place to do their "business" on a regular basis. They'd much rather go to D.C. where they'll be safe from gun-toting, law-abiding citizens. All they have to watch out for is other felons. Chicago is much the same way.

I know you may choke at the thought of everyone carrying guns. However, if everyone did, the world would be a much safer place.

 

[BHPshooter]

Loud Dogg: Let me address a couple of your questions. Firstly, the thought that "handguns are designed to KILL people." That is right, in a sense... A handgun is not intentionally designed to kill a person, it is designed to save the life of the person who owns it. The death of the person is often a side effect.

the major design point of a handgun is that it is portable -- you can have it with you. As such, it will always be handy when you meet a threat.

Ask yourself some questions -- Whose responsibility is it to see that you are safe? The Police? Can the Police guarantee your safety? Are they always going to be right behind you when something goes down? If so, then why is there crime?

The sad fact of the matter is that the Police are NOT there to protect you. The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that this is the case... they have even ruled that it is not required of them to respond to a 911 call.

You are responsible for your own safety. As such, whose life is more valuable to you? Yourself, or some scumbag trying to kill you, take your money to buy crack, and rape your girlfriend? Would you be willing to defend yourself and your loved ones, even if it means said scumbag will die?

That's a highly personal question, but the answer will define the type of person you are. Either you can stand up against unjust violence, or you can bend over and take it.

In America, we don't like to be pushed around. The precursor to the American flag was a banner with red-and-white stripes, a coiled snake, and the words "Don't Tread on Me." Many Americans take this to heart -- and that's why we stick by our defensive tools.

A gun is a tool. Remember: the thing that separates us from Monkeys is that we use tools. Robbing our toolbox (by banning guns) devalues humanship. It lowers us to the level of Monkeys.

I am no monkey. I own defensive tools, and I am ready, willing, and able to use them. It's a symbol of independence, and it's the most necessary safeguard to Liberty. I take that seriously.

Wes

 

[Derek Zeanah]

A few points here:

• There's a certain infatuation with firearms for what they are -- fine mechanical devices. It's no different than you'll find if you do a search for mechanical watch forums, or Leica camera forums (M6 and prior rangefinders only please -- keep that electronically timed shutter junk away from me ). Complex mechanical instruments that are designed well enough for your great grand-children to be able to enjoy make for awesome big-boy toys.
• Cops carry guns because they realise a simple fact that you apparently do not: sometimes people find themselves in a situation where the best choice you can make is to wound someone in a way that might kill them. Search the archives here and at www.thefiringline.com for some stories related by members (the most vivid off the top of my head is one where a member's wife woke up in bed to find a stranger on top of her telling her of the things he'd do to her before he killed her -- a .45 fixed that problem in a way little else would have been able to). As sad as it is to say, simetimes people need killing. It's always been that way, and still is today.
• Look around the world with a focus on the last century and you'll find a correlary: sometimes leaders and governments need killing. Especially those that begin to execute their citizens based on race, or religion. Historically, you'll find the harm here orders of magnitude greater than the harm caused by the private misuse of arms, and this leads to the argument that everyone should be armed in order to keep governments in check.

I know you don't want to believe this, but it's true. A frail person can easily fall victim to a stronger predator; a 3rd degree black-belt can easily fall to 5 toughs who want to bring baseball bats to a fight. The most effective way to defend yourself in those situations is with a firearm.

Likely? Not really, but Louis Freeh (assistant AG under Clinton) said you were more likely to be a victim of a violent crime than be involved in an auto accident. Do you wear a seatbelt? Why not prepare for a more likely threat?

 

[another okie]

It's a good thing there no were no guns in the days of Genghis Khan, or Attila the Hun, or Saladin. They might have hurt someone!

 

[Guy B. Meredith]

Firearms are not necessarily weapons. In my case they are not except in the sense that a baseball bat or kitchen knife may be put to use in self defense--not the normal use, but can fill in where needed. I have several firearms, but no weapons. It is all in the intent and use.

Firearms of all sorts are used for recreational purposes; marksmanship, history recreation, action shooting, trap, skeet and others. These sports are mentally and physicaly challenging, enjoyable and satisfying in and of themselves.

Firearms also provide enjoyment in the pure mechanics and in the challenge of putting together that ideal handbuilt ammunition, pushing both the machine and the ammunition to the extreme in terms of accuracy.

In all the above no violence, no wish for violence is involved.

Banning firearms will not reduce violence. Criminals and those inclined to violence will always have access to guns in the same way they have access to banned drugs or will use alternate means of committing violence. Banning firearms, drugs or anything else never denys criminals those items, it just denys those items to those that respect the law.

I shake my head at the number of times someone says that something should be controlled because it is already banned and a criminal is using it. Illogical. It is already banned but still in use by criminals.

 

[ctdonath]

"I do not love the bright sword for it's sharpness, nor the arrow for it's swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend."
- J.R.R.Tolkien

 

[BHPshooter]

"Anyone who isn't a liberal when they're 20 is heartless. Anyone who doesn't become conservative by the time they are 30 is brainless."

I guess that speaks volumes about me.

Wes, 20-year-old heartless libertarian.

 

[Zak Smith]

I now that this is not a place for a person that is against gun rights.

But please understand, that i want to know what the attraction is with weopons.
-what is the use for handguns?
-what is the use for assalt rifles?

You sound like my mom, about 5 years ago. Here's what I wrote to her:

> .not just designed 'to kill people' .

How did you come to this conclusion? Just curious.

Really, mom, be realistic here. If you want to use that criteria: Dad's .30-06 WAS LITERALLY DESIGNED FOR KILLING PEOPLE.

It's an old army rifle, right? -- now adapted for "sporting use" (e.g.: hunting). The modifications made to change from military configuration, as far as I know:

1 nice looking stock (dense walnut?)
2 shortened barrel to reduce weight and make it less-unwieldy (wait-a-minute.. that sounds like something you'd want if you were going to KILL PEOPLE)
3 add a nice leather sling
4 add a good scope
5 maybe re-bed the barrel for accuracy

It's just silly to decide "designed for murdering people" based on how the gun looks. "Oooh, the AR-15 looks EVIL -- must be made for going on a MURDEROUS RAMPAGE."

And it's silly to assume that a semi-automatic pistol in something larger than a .22 (e.g.: my .40 pistol) has no purpose except to kill people.

It's pretty easy to see that some of the features you might want if you are hunting or plinking in the forest are some of the same features someone in a military context might want: durability, light weight, short barrel (16" - 20"), accurate.

Basically, it comes down to these points:
1. a person is ultimately responsible for their actions
2. all guns are potentially lethal
3. any firearm can be used with evil intent.. dad's 20 gauge side-by-side shotgun, 7mm deer rifle, or a military M16
4. even though in america we don't have to justify our "wants" ("I want a car that can do 0-60 in 5 seconds, and can go 150 mph"), there are legitimate sporting reaons to want a firearm with some of the same features that military arms have

Now, onto another issue. "To murder" vs. "to kill." "To murder" someone is to kill them immorally (illegally). One of the things firearms can do (and have been designed for) is stop and/or kill people.

There are cases where using a firearm against another person is moral, in fact, it would be negligent to fail to use it to stop them: in defense of life or grave injury. Most states' laws explicitly spell this out.

In this situation, since the use *is* moral (and legal), then it does not matter what firearm is used.

The point is that if it is moral to use a .41 revolver to stop an escaped convict who has broken into your house with a knife about to rape and kill you, then it is just as moral to use a Colt .45 auto designed in 1911 for the army.

In short:
. Actions have moral implications, not objects
. Who are you to determine what's a legitimate "use" of a firearm, if I'm not hurting anyone else?
. Handguns and "assalt [sic] rifles" are particularly suited for self defense
. Handguns and semi-automatic rifles are particularly suited for certain types of shooting competition
. Molon labe.

-z

 

[EghtySx]

fun, fun, fun

Try going to a range and shooting sometime. Guns are very fun to shoot. I have shot my whole life, mostly shotguns. Some of the best times I had as a kid weren't even at a range or trapshoot but just "plinking". When we would go hunting and there was nothing to shoot we would sometimes just "prune trees". Not as fun as shooting birds, rabbits, etc. but still very fun and some of my most fond memories.

 

[MrMurphy]

Tolkien was right.

I was once a history major. On the History Channel, Tales of the Gun is quite right. To understand the gun is to understand history. Without muskets and the British Army, the majority of Europe would be speaking French. Without rifles and the US/British/Canadian armies, the majority of Europe would still be ruled by Nazi Germany.

Without firearms, the US would still be a colony.


The first thing the Nazis did to the Jews was to take away their guns. You know what happened after that. Russia did the same thing to their people (their farmers, etc). Guns are fine instruments, tools, heirlooms, and equalizers above all else.

Swords are fine instruments but take years of training to use well and not hurt yourself while doing it. Only fairly strong people make good swordswingers (ever seen a REAL swordsman? His forearms are huge). I am a medieval re-enactor and swordfighter, with both rattan, padded foam/PVC and live steel (i.e real sharp weapons), and with nearly five years experience, and a great deal of training, I'm still only average. This includes a year of Olympic style fencing.

You can give any average person two hours of instruction and they can defend themselves with a pistol (in a pinch, five minutes of instruction), with a good two day course at a shooting school they'll be okay with tactics and aiming etc.

Two or three days for a rifle, maybe a day of instruction for a shotgun. A 90 year old grannie with a .38 revolver can hold off two large young bad guys. She couldn't rely on the cops (trust me, they always show up too late...I used to be a news photographer).

I'm 26 years old, and have been shooting 20 years on and off, and ten years continously. I carry a pistol for self defence daily. In three years I've nearly needed to use it twice to defend myself against Very Bad People. The only reason I didn't is they saw I was armed and unafraid and ran for it. Having a shotgun, loaded and available at home kept my house from being invaded in California. I lived a mile from a sheriff's department and they still took 20 minutes to show up (the guy was long gone). This was in a very nice part of Los Angeles, 40+ miles from the bad areas. But bad guys don't just stay in bad areas.

I own a number of guns, and have owned many more that i traded or sold. Some I bought because they were fun to shoot. Most I bought because they filled a need. Whether for target practice, hunting, self or home defense, or "why the hell not?", some were also bought for their history (I have a World War Two Lee-Enfield No.4 Mk1 bolt action rifle that saw WW2 service, and is still in excellent condition......it's a keepsake, a historical artifact, and my very first rifle. It will never be sold, and handed down to my sons when I have some, or my daughters if I have no sons). My father has an Imperial German Army World War One Mauser G98 Ka, made in 1918, Danzig, that fulfills the same role (first rifle, historical artifact, and finely made precision instrument).

More people are killed by cars, swimming pools, blunt objects, meteorites, lightning strikes, and cigarette smoke than just about everything else. Guns can be used for crime, but far more are used for defense of good people. The old saying "God created man, but Sam Colt made them equal" is quite true.

A fifteen year old female friend of mine shot a man who was going to rape and kill her with a 9mm. She was aiming to wound (not good, she should have aimed center of mass) and he dived for her, taking a round in the left ventricle, killing him instantly. You know what? Nobody shed a tear, the guy had a rap sheet two pages long. She wasn't trying to kill him, but without that gun, she would be a murder statistic.

You can kill someone with just about anything. Yeah, banning guns would disarm all us good people and increase the number of run-by table-lampings and baseball-battings, and stabbing would drastically increase. Banning knives, lamps, bats and lumber would increase stranglings......

You get the picture. Don't ban the tool. Ban the idiot who uses it for a crime.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Quote:
-----------------------------------------------
but handguns are made to KILL PEOPLE. what else is the use?
------------------------------------------------

Handguns are made to DEFEND people. There are unassailable studies that show that handguns are used millions of times for defense -- and usually, not a shot is fired. A man or woman threatened with mugging or worse, draws a gun, and the attacker backs off.

Handguns are made for hunting -- I hunt with handguns all the time. I've killed everything from squirrels to deer with handguns, and hope someday to take a elk with my Coilt .45.

Handguns are made for recreation -- I've shot hundreds of thousands of rounds at paper and other targets.

Handguns are made for safety -- many a fisherman (myself incuded) carrys a handgun to deal with snakes.

Handguns are made for national security -- and skill with weapons is crucial to maintaining our indepenedence and way or life. The only time I've ever shot someone with a handgun was in battle. On at least one occasion, I won because I was the better shot, and had grown up with guns.

 

[Werewolf]

Guns are tools.

I could no more love a gun than a hammer or a fork or a shovel.

That said I do enjoy using guns for a number of purposes for which they are designed.

The challenge of putting little holes in paper very close together shot out of a gun is an enjoyable passtime.

Since I feel personally responsible for the safety of my family and myself I choos to own the best tools I can to insure that safety. Guns are among the best tools available for that job.

As for this:

Fact is, an armed citizenry is the greatest thing going. It ensures democracy and democracy IS the best form of government around bar none.

That is true only in so far as the armed citizenry is willing to use those arms. That will is long gone in the USA...

 

[Cameron Lamont]

hook... line... and sinker.

 

[Dave R]

Why I Carry A Gun

Here's why I carry a gun.

I like outdoor sports. Especially fly fishing for large trout. Have to get out in the boonies to do that.

I read several stories about people in the boonies that had been murdered or raped. Hmmm. Arizona. Florida. Yosemite, CA. Could it happen to me?

While fly-fishing about an hour from the nearest road, and probably 4 hours from the nearest law enforcement officer, or more, I had a run-in with some unsavory types.

Nothing happened. But I remember being aware that, if they had wanted something bad to happen, they could've made it happen. I could not have stopped it.

I didn't want to be in that position again, so I got a license to carry a concealed firearm.

Studied up on the issue, and learned that firearms interrupt/prevent anywhere from 800,000 to 2 million crimes a year. Depending on whose study you read. But the lowest number anyone who has studied the issue can come up with is 800,000 crimes prevented.

Also, 90% of the time a firearm is presented (drawn) by a victim, the weapon is not fired. The perpetrator wisely decides to leave immediately.

So I disagree completely with your statement that handguns were just designed to kill. Handguns were designed to PROTECT.

And they do that very well.

(And as I trained so I could use my handgun properly, I learned that they are fun to shoot in their own right.)

 

[Frohickey]

The 'love' with weapons is the same as the 'love' that people have for their car, or their stamp collection, or their home-entertainment system.

Heck, I know people that 'love' their computer system!

What good is a handgun? You say that hunting rifles are understandable, how about hunting handguns? How about handguns that can be carried in case you meet up with an angry bear, or a mountain lion, or a rattlesnake?

 

[Standing Wolf]

Shooting a hand gun well takes decades of time and effort. Any nitwit can point and click, but to keep ten shots in a three-inch circle at twenty-five yards takes a certain base level of skill—most people have it—and more single-minded determination than non-shooters can even begin to imagine.

It becomes almost an art form after a few years, almost a form of Zen after a few more.

 

[iapetus]

A few facts/statistics from the UK, where I live, and firearms are heavily restricted and difficult to aquire (legally).


In 1987, a madman by the name of Michael Ryan went on a shooting spree in the town of Hungerford, murdering 16 people. The weapons he used he owned legaly (a semi-automatic "assault" rifle - which were banned as a result -, and some handguns).

However, he also possessed two - completely prohibited - sub-machine guns. So even a total gun ban could not have prevented the murders.

(There is some info here)


In 1996, in Dunblane in Scotland, another madman (and legal gun owner) walked into a school and shot dead a number (12?) of children and teachers.

Could a gun ban have prevented that shooting? Maybe - if he had not just aquired a gun illegaly. But he could have easily killed as many people by driving a car into a bus queue.

After the Dunblane masacar, the government banned all handguns.

Since then, illegal gun ownership and criminal shootings have increased. Is this a result of the gun ban? Some say so, on the grounds that criminals now know that the law-abiding public are less likely to be armed. I don't know if that is actually true - I'm not sure if the general level of gun ownership was high enough to pose a significant risk to criminals (although perhaps the ban just made that clearer). What is clear though is that the ban has not stopped gun crime, nor prevented illegal ownership of firearms.

For example, "In the past 12 months there have been nearly 10,000 incidents involving firearms in England and Wales, and 97 gun-related murders. Government figures show that gun crime rose by 35% last year." (from Mothers Against Guns, who want to stop this by banning replica guns).

 

[stevelyn]

What is the love with weapons?

To get the right answer you have to understand the concepts of Freedom and Liberty. To understand Freedom and Liberty you have to learn some history and have a desire to live as you see fit without encroaching on others rights. Perhaps you should read the Federalist Papers and the Anti-Federalist Papers to understand what the founding father were trying to achieve and why. Then you need to look inside yourself to see if you are capable of functioning a free man in day to day life. Then you need to do further research to fill in the blanks you have questions on.
I have found those who have a problem with weapons are in a lot of cases people who are afraid of freedom and liberty. It requires too much effort and independent thinking on their part.

 

[Tom Bri]

I am 42. Some of my joints ache from old injuries. I am slim and not strong muscled. There are a lot of 15-year-olds out there who could beat me to a pulp if they so chose. And lets face it, teens are not known for good sense and quiet contemplation. Old guys like me need a gun just to keep the odds even.

Guns equalize power between the big, strong and ruthless, and the old, small, weak or peaceful people. I don't care how big and mean a guy is, if we both have guns we are equal in power. That is the origin of democracy.

Democracy (I mean human freedom in general, not just the dictionary definition) was very rare, and limited to small states like Swizerland, or single cities like old Athens, prior to the invention of guns. Since guns were invented there has been a steady and gradual change to more and more freedom. Countries that want to limit freedom always try to keep guns out of the common person's hands. Just common sense.

 

[itgoesboom]

LoudDogg,

America's facsination with weapons? Let's see.

American History.

It was American's ability to keep and bear arms against the British that allowed us to become our own country in the first place, and the reason why the 2nd amendment is in the constitution. This is something that you should learn in School here, even in Portland.

The 2nd amendment is not there to protect our rights to hunt. Nope. It is there, much like the rest of the Bill of Rights so that we can protect our country against the inevitable onslaught of a corrupt government. The writers of the constitution understood that without certain provisions, a Federal Government would take control away from the state and the people to which it belongs. It would become fat and corrupt.

This is also the reason why the 1st amendment was created. It was not for seperation of Church and State, as that is nowhere in the Constitution. It was created so that our Federal Govt couldn't prevent Americans from worshiping their own religion, as well as speak out for and against the Govt. Notice that in pre-invasion Iraq, nobody dared speak out against Saddam, even with the truth. He controlled the information. Very similar to N. Korea. N. Korea limits the information that its citizens can give out. This limits people from speaking against them, and realizing that there is a better way.

The freedom of speach is really so that when a leader becomes corrupt, we can speak out amongst ourselves, and rectify the situation. We have many different ways of doing that, from voting to impeachment.

But the framers of the Constitution also realized that an unarmed society would be defenseless against a corrupt government. In fact, this has been repeated time and time again in history. An unarmed populance can do nothing when a leader becomes a dictator.

So our fore-fathers wrote in the Bill of Rights, in their own language of the time, that we all have the right to bear arms. The same writers of the BOR also wrote in other places the reasons for this, so it would be perfectly clear to us.

Most of us realize that the one thing that protects America from herself, is the BOR, and specifically, the 1st and 2nd amendments. The 1st so that we can speak out against our Government, and the 2nd in case the Government doesn't listen.

If the Government were ever to try to remove the 2nd amendment, you can be sure that the 1st wouldn't be too far behind.

If you think that this is a far fetched conspiracy, just look at other nations during the 20th century. USSR, China, Korea, Nazi Germany, Cuba, Haiti, Iraq. The list could go on and on and on.

So this is probably the primary reason why we are so protective of our 2nd amendment rights.

Other reasons are also equally valid. Home defense, defense while out on the town, hunting, shooting games. They are all valuable reasons to have firearms.

Remember, the next time that you think that we don't need military rifles, remember it was our armed populance that prevented WWII from being fought on our soil. Instead, with a few exceptions, it was fought on others soil.

How do I come to that conclusion?

Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto - “You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass.â€

Welcome to The High Road. Ignore those who attack you for not understanding. You haven't been exposed to the reasons why firearm ownership is important....you have only been exposed half-truths (and many lies) regarding the perils of firearm ownership.

I.G.B.

 

[Carlos]

There are a bunch of Highroaders who shoot at some dump near Portland.

LMAO. Yes, the Infamous Dump (rock quarry) Gang.

Perhaps I should take the young man shooting? Would have to have some serious parental permission and/or a guardian present to play with me and the boys.

Loud: One time out shooting might/will make a believer of you. However, playing violent games and guns are two worlds apart - one is fantasy, the other is stark reality and responsibility.

Guns ain't no game.