Designed to kill

Armoredman, is that a VZ-58?

Pistol grips aid in aiming so yes, they do make it better at killing.
Click to expand...

For the M16 and AKM type guns, the pistol grip is an integral part of the design. For a fun experiment, take it off and try aiming the rifle. Without the pistol grip, it's awkward and difficult. They're not meant to be held like traditional rifles.

The argument has been made that they make it easier to rapid-fire from the hip, but I have never seen any mention in any form of military training to use the gun that way.
 
Well, the couple of guys it took to take care of wounded men certainly works against the US, we do it.

And some firearms are specifically competition sporting guns and would make poor defensive or combat arms so no, not all firearms are designed to kill.

As for pistol grips and shooting from the hip. During MOUT, (Military operations in Urban Terrain) training at Ft. hood in about 1990, I witnessed our instructors use M16-A1s very effectively (MILES Gear), firing down hallways and stairwells without exposing their bodies to direct return fire. It's much easier to do with a pistol grip then a traditional stock. So not from the hip but the weapon held so as to fire around corners.

It is also much easier to fire a rifle that has a pistol grip one handed then it is a standard stock so a wounded soldier may still be able to fight as needed one handed. Less effectively yes, but perhaps still to telling effect.
 
The argument has been made that they make it easier to rapid-fire from the hip, but I have never seen any mention in any form of military training to use the gun that way.
Click to expand...

When I saw that Feinstein said that I almost lost it. The pistol grip is most definitely not made for that, and firing from the hip isn't even an advantage because it is far less accurate.

Anyways, should any of this matter? Is this simply a matter of firearms being in the right or wrong hands? If one design is more deadly than another, is it worth the safety from a few men to restrict the rights of many men?

P.S. For the record, I'm just sparking conversation; I already have a well-cemented opinion on this.
 
Designed to Kill, eh?

They certainly can do that, just as David's piece of leather sling and a rock (with Gods help too of course) helped slay the Philistine Goliath. So slings too are designed to "Project Force" as Frank stated, albeit for offensive or defensive reasons. (or target practice)

David's sling and rock, your or my firearm. One and the same in concept only ours can reach out a bit farther throwing smaller rocks quickly.

So when presented with this (ahem) logic, one could ask of the protaganist, is that why Cops carry guns? To Kill? Or to defend their lives? Or, like the military, to Project Force for a common cause? Intent.

Or all of the above? There is no one answer fits all, except for Ettin's stated Force Projection. (first thing I thought of when I read the thread title, so great minds think alike I suppose, tho mine ain't great for much)
 
That is a piece of false roundabout logic. Let me say it again. Most guns were invented because one day some guy had an idea that boiled down to "Hmmm, we a gun more effective than the ones our enemies use".
 
One of the arguments frequently fielded by people with an anti gun rights agenda is that "assault weapons" were designed to bring about maximum carnage in the least amount of time possible. After thinking about it for a long while, I came to the conclusion that I have never seen a gun slogan that read, "For when you need a kill." or "More time. More destruction." In fact, most are quite the opposite, GLOCK has "Perfection", Sig has "To hell and back", and FNH has "Distinct Advantage".

Most of these simply imply reliability, accuracy, or just being better than the competition. I don't think that when a gun designer sits down the only thing running through his head is how he can better kill people. I would imagine that they think about reliability, accuracy, durability, ergonomics, compactness, and versatility.

I certainly know that when I buy a gun, those are the qualities I am looking for. Anybody else have thoughts on this?
Click to expand...

Your question is thought provoking, Shep, . . . but I always prefer to look at the "end result" before I determine if something is good or bad, . . . for ME, and for mine.

On August 6, 1945, . . . thousands of people lost their lives because of one little "Fat boy" bomb.

Ask any survivor of Guam, Okinawa, Tarawa, or Pearl Harbor, . . . especially those who were slated to be on the mainland invasion, . . . they'll probably tell you that nuclear bombs are pretty cool.

AR's are pretty cool, . . . M14's are pretty cool, . . . M1's are pretty cool, . . . M1 carbines are pretty cool, . . . Mini 14's are pretty cool, . . . when they are used to protect ME and mine.

Protection from aggression is the sole reason for having nuclear weaponry, . . . and it goes down the scale from there. Having a better weapon system than the enemy, offers that person the advantage, . . . and to the enemy, . . . disadvantage.

The words used by the anti's to defame, disrespect, defile, and denigrate a weapon system are simply put: bumper sticker lingo and sound bytes to get the attention of the low information voter, or person of interest.

The best example of that was the "representative" in Colorado who proudly proclaimed her part in adding the magazine ban to their recently passed anti gun legislation. She was so far down the information trail that she thought that a magazine was indeed the bullets themselves, . . . and finally, once those "high capacity" magazines were shot up, . . . that the dange would be over.

She was all over her high horse of competence, knowledge, information, capability, . . . and was too stupid to know or understand that 30 round magazines can be reloaded. Those are the people who make up those phrases, bumper stickers, and sound bytes.

May God bless,
Dwight
 
They're designed to last first and foremost, the killing part is no different than a wood stocked Remington.

In an unfortunate way the firearms we have that are built to last and last through tens of thousands of target rounds and that can handle harsh environments are derived directly from proven military hardware.

The unfortunate part is that form-follows-function and these "assault" firearms we have just appear unsavory to the anti crowd.

I showed my Mom a picture of a AR-10 and a Remington 750 and asked her what the functional differences really were and if any were necessary for storming a elementary school.
She was a little surprised to find out they both shot identical ammo and the differences were mostly cosmetic as a result of the AR being built to last and was able to mount accessories.
She had also always thought the AR's are "machine guns". Explaining the differences between semi auto and full auto took much of the steam out of her dislike of the military variants.
 
A firearm is built to expel a soft metal slug through a metal tube by the action of expanding gases. Where that slug may go is completely up to the operator.
 
So when presented with this (ahem) logic, one could ask of the protaganist, is that why Cops carry guns? To Kill? Or to defend their lives? Or, like the military, to Project Force for a common cause? Intent.
Click to expand...

Interesting point. I think that perhaps much of society is incapable of separating killing from murdering. Even though a firearm is capable of killing, there are no features that specify its use as a tool of murder, or even self defense. Furthermore, there are many justified, if unfortunate, reasons to use a gun in self defense.

This is where the line in the sand is drawn between the two perceptions of firearms. While both parties acknowledge its ability to kill, one person may envision a murderer using a gun for his evil deeds, while another person may imagine an otherwise defenseless man/woman protecting themselves or others from aggressors.

Also, killing is not necessarily the primary objective of a law enforcement officer, militant, or even a civilian. Few people want to kill another person, but when your life is on the line, the quickest way to save yourself is to quickly incapacitate the target. This is simply defined by the target being incapable, or unwilling to fight back.

Lastly, I still believe that a designer isn't thinking about how to best kill someone when they are assembling a weapon. I think that the priority is likely the safety, well-being, and comfort of the shooter. This is especially true for military arms.
 
If comfort and safety were priorities over killing power we would issue the troops fun noodles instead of rifles. Those things are important and certainly do play a role in gun design, but they take a backseat to the main objective of providing a combat worthy firearm. A rifle can be the most comfortable gun ever invented but if it doesn't shoot it is just about worthless
 
Peter J Kolikas....

I'd highly suggest any TFLers who want to learn more about modern US military small arms & their real world use by active duty US armed forces & working armed professionals(mercs, PMCs, PMs/SAD, etc) read a few articles by Peter J Kolikas(check spelling).
He was a retired combat arms soldier(US Army) who wrote at length about small arms(rifles, handguns, shotguns, sniper rifles, etc) for SoF(Soldier of Fortune magazine.
Some of the weapons or information may be dated but the concepts are the same.

Carrying or "humping" ;) a battle rifle in the field & using it in combat is a lot different than a gun club range or shop.

CF
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top