Quote:
Originally posted by Agamemnon+Sep 13 2004, 05:31 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Agamemnon @ Sep 13 2004, 05:31 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Cube Inmate@Sep 13 2004, 05:11 PM
Guns don't kill people...people kill people# 
|
I had to do a study in my lameo "Information Technology and Society" class, where we tried to figure out if Guns were inherently neutral or not. I mean, a gun is just a hunk of metal, with no desire to kill anyone. People technically DO kill people, placing the blame entirely in their hands.
Of course, a gun is only value-neutral (not bad or good) if no one knows what it does. If you don't know what a gun is, you can't shoot someone w/ it (or at least, you'd probably shoot yourself well before then). The gist is that if you make an object that already has a specific, well known use w/in society, then that object is no longer value-neutral, and, in fact, it is well known that guns _will_ be used to kill people, probably Americans.
Super-interesting debate though, I'm sure there are good arguments that suggest guns ARE value-neutral. Lets hear 'em
[/b][/quote]
Some would argue that in a society where guns are restricted, that knives and other such instruments might be used instead, perhaps giving a greater survival rate to the victims.
Restricting guns may not restrict the need to engage in violence, but the lethality of the event might be diminished.
Cowperson