Is everyone who uses a weapon for target practice secretly thinking about violence?

[ellisonz]

21. I suppose the question is then...

...if you think there is a use of for guns that is not the conditioning thereof. It's about the militarization of society - and this is hardly a new theme in the writings and thoughts of philosophers. Most people would agree that we still live yet, in a society, where the use of violence is promoted both in practice and in thought. The OP has actually done an incredible job of contradicting himself in regards to this argument, but really it is quite simple.

And the shoemaker was not allowed by us to be husbandman, or a weaver, a builder — in order that we might have our shoes well made; but to him and to every other worker was assigned one work for which he was by nature fitted, and at that he was to continue working all his life long and at no other; he was not to let opportunities slip, and then he would become a good workman.

Now nothing can be more important than that the work of a soldier should be well done. But is war an art so easily acquired that a man may be a warrior who is also a husbandman, or shoemaker, or other artisan; although no one in the world would be a good dice or draught player who merely took up the game as a recreation, and had not from his earliest years devoted himself to this and nothing else?

No tools will make a man a skilled workman, or master of defence, nor be of any use to him who has not learned how to handle them, and has never bestowed any attention upon them. How then will he who takes up a shield or other implement of war become a good fighter all in a day, whether with heavy-armed or any other kind of troops?
Yes, he [Glaucon] said, the tools which would teach men their own use would be beyond price.

Plato, The Republic, Book II.

I find the argument that denies that such training occurs to be rather narrow-sighted in its consideration. It's all about the metaphysics.