Guns, designed for killing?

Status
Not open for further replies.
I don't know-it's either walk to school or carry a lunch
I would say in its initial design and use it was used to stop a threat
 
krunchnik said:
I don't know-it's either walk to school or carry a lunch
I would say in its initial design and use it was used to stop a threat
Click to expand...
And I would say that in its initial design it was used (and was intended to be used) AS the threat.
 
I see. Then I guess a knife is designed so that one can hold a sharpened piece of metal in one hand. Cutting rope (or skinning a deer killed with the metal slug that my rifle was designed to propel) is just an application of said design.
Click to expand...
The knife was designed to cut, now as to exactly what you cut with it, the air, a rope, a deer you just hunted, an assailant, those are all applications of the principle of cutting. Same thing with guns, they are designed to throw projectiles. Whether you're hitting paper targets, a deer, or a bad guy, those are applications.

I guess the creator of the first cannon/gun thought to himself, “Hmm. How can I get this piece of metal from over here to over there faster?” and not “you know, if I propel this slug of metal fast enough I bet it would kill that **** better than an arrow.”
Click to expand...
He probably thought of both, but the latter was an application he though of which he applied the principle of the former to.
 
Glenn E. Meyer said:
The Constitutional protection of the 2nd Amend. was based on the firearms as a weapon, to be used against human beings that were threatening the nation and its people.

All other recreational uses, which usually are derivative sporting applications from military usage or hunting - have no relevance in protecting the right.

If someone could take a bowling bowl to the top of a hotel and kill 50 and wound 500, there wouldn't be a bowling ball left in the country as its sporting use is irrelevant.

The attempt to defend gun ownership based on sport has failed in every country that has put in bans but where the gun owners bleated about sport.

The only industrial application I know is specialized guns used to blast scale out of blast furnances with very large gauge shells.
Click to expand...
Gotta agree with Glenn. We are fooling ourselves if we say otherwise. Guns were primarily designed to kill, some for people some for game. Target shooting was originally just practice for the guns real purpose, not sport. Have things changed some? Yes, when I was in the police academy we were taught that if we had to shoot it was to "stop the action" and the result would often be the death of the perp and we had to be able to accept that. Why do we train to shoot center mass? Certainly not to wound.

Swords and daggers were also designed as weapons, not tools. Sure your SAK or Buck 110 or whatever are primarily tools, but a sword? a 12" double edged dagger? Tools I thinks not.

Yes some, many guns are designed for target shooting, but they are not the ones you use for Self Defense. The 2nd Amendment recognizes our inalienable right to defend ourselves and that takes a gun designed to kill.
 
Our language is full of all kinds of subtle and not so subtle nuances, inferences and implications.

I don't care for the simplistic "guns are designed to kill". It denigrates the skill and the art that goes into creating a functional, efficient weapon. To some of us it also seems an attempt to denigrate the user, as well.

I suppose the logic is "all you can do with one is kill, and since killing is bad, someone who kills is bad..." or something like that. This mindset assumes killing is always bad, and completely ignores the fact that killing is necessary to survive.

Some hold that the commandment "Thou shalt not kill" is mistranslated, and should be read as "Thou shalt not murder".

And that problem with language. Murder is always killing , but killing isn't always murder.

so, how to respond to someone who claims "guns are designed to kill!"

???

How about,

That's right! And its a damn good thing, too!
 
I for one have no issues with accepting that firearms are designed to kill. We talk about it all the time, ft-lbs of energy on target, penetration, expansion, shock, whatever. In our current political climate, as occurred in our grandparents' era, we find it uncomfortable to discuss killing and death and owning the "tools of the trade". I have committed no crimes, so my owning of firearms is allowed under a universal right to own and use firearms. But with any great right come great responsibilities to use proper judgement and caution in the use and exercise of those rights.

So, are guns made for killing? They are a tool for firing projectiles. What about knives and axes? Bows? Cars? Fertilizers and pesticides? Application and design kinda go hand in hand. But I studied martial arts (the "arts of war" so to speak) for the better part of 3 decades without ever killing anyone, and I own and use firearms all the time without killing anyone or anything. Maybe mine are defective? I was taught in the USMC that a firearm is a tool, the weapon is the mind of man. Intent of the user has more to do with whether something is a "weapon" than its shape and design. Blaming inanimate objects for the conscious act of a person or group of people makes no sense.
 
If someone could take a bowling bowl to the top of a hotel and kill 50 and wound 500, there wouldn't be a bowling ball left in the country as its sporting use is irrelevant.
Click to expand...
I suppose that could be done if the bowling ball was hollowed out and filled in with some kind of explosive material, making the bowling ball into a bomb.
If that was done I seriously doubt there would be a whole song and dance about banning bowling balls.
Airplanes have been used to kill thousands of people, and there has been no song and dance about banning airplanes.
 
That's irrelevant to the discussion.

The bottom line is that the 'tool' folks are trying to make excuses for the existence of the firearm. That will never work. The right, as I said before, is because of their design and utility as a weapon. Training or sports variants are irrelevant to maintaining the right.

Making the tool argument in an RKBA debate makes you look like an idiot. It is one of the long list of things RKBA people say among themselves that have no force and are in fact counterproductive. A stupid first argument makes your later reasonable arguments tainted.

So it's for sports! I'm a sportsman. OK - Sportty - thus keep your guns locked up at the sports club, only to be used in supervised events. You maintain and clean them there. That is the way it's done in some countries.

I'm a hunter - so, same thing - check you guns out for the hunt. If you can't successfully hunt with a 5 round mag or even a single shot Ruger 1, you are a bozo and shouldn't hunt. Oops - kiss your MSSA good bye.

The whole MSR thing was a whine while on your knees to antigun folks. Also, if look at the number of ARs sold and the number of competitors with them - kind of a mismatch in numbers. They weren't bought for matches or shooting rocks at the 'ranch' by most folks who bought them.
 
Swords and daggers were also designed as weapons, not tools. Sure your SAK or Buck 110 or whatever are primarily tools, but a sword? a 12" double edged dagger? Tools I thinks not.
Click to expand...
The word "tool" is defined in the Merriam Webster Dictionary as, "a handheld device that aids in accomplishing a task," and in Wikipedia as, "an object used to extend the ability of an individual to modify features of the surrounding environment."
So knives, swords, and guns can all be called tools. Sure, swords, guns, and knives are often used as weapons but a weapon is a type of tool.
 
I'm a hunter - so, same thing - check you guns out for the hunt.
Click to expand...
What if Im a farmer and I need to keep a gun on my property for shooting vermin?
I know a fellow in Denmark whose a farmer and he has two shotguns that he keeps in his house.
Even in Japan, which has among the strictest gun control in the world, you can keep guns in your house under certain conditions, for instance if you're a farmer.
 
The mismatch in numbers is interesting.

I have several friends who hunt with bolt action rifles, who do not compete, who 'plink' with .22s, who bought AR-15-type rifles when the prices dropped after the 2016 election.

None of those new ARs have been fired.

People brought them over to show me what they'd bought, and have me show them how to disassemble and clean them.

They cleaned the new rifles, left some clean oil in the bore, and as far as I know they jut put them in their safes. One fellow asked me about scopes and I answered that he knew more about scopes than I do.

They bought those rifles because they wanted weapons that were not yet 'banned' but were in jeopardy of being so, in the future.

I read (probably here on TFL) that 10 million AR-15s had been sold since President Obama was elected. Does anyone have any real numbers or links where I might research the numbers?
 
So farmers will be strictly licensed and controlled as in those countries. There may be even licensed varmint hunters you have to hire.

There is no RKBA in that scenario. The gun is similar to cyanide licensed to an exterminator.

The rules to get a gun in Japan are fierce, want to live under that?

You are missing the point that the RKBA is postulated for guns as weapons, not a variant of a can of Raid.
 
Whether firearms have a sporting purpose cannot be irrelevant to the untruth of the assertion that guns are designed to kill. That arms are used frequently for sport, and in fact used far more frequently for sport than any other purpose, flatly contradicts any idea that their primary use is homicide. That millions of people bought ARs who didn't enter formal competitions does not reasonably suggest that they were bought for the purpose of killing anyone. If someone has an idea about whether a true observation is useful in a constitutional context, they can make the constitutional argument, but that doesn't bear on the issue of their use.

The 2d Am. does not tell you why people have the right; it merely tells you that they do have the right.

I bet this conversation could be improved if we didn't tell people they look like idiots when we don't accept their assertions.
 
PhotonGuy said:
The word "tool" is defined in the Merriam Webster Dictionary as, "a handheld device that aids in accomplishing a task," and in Wikipedia as, "an object used to extend the ability of an individual to modify features of the surrounding environment."
So knives, swords, and guns can all be called tools. Sure, swords, guns, and knives are often used as weapons but a weapon is a type of tool.
Click to expand...
You are arguing semantics. It doesn't hold up.

Swords and knives were not developed as "tools," they were developed as weapons. Over the course of many centuries, they have come to have numerous different sub-designs, but the underlying concept was "weapon." Dogs began as domesticated wolves, and over the course of many centuries have developed into the myriad of breeds we have and know today. That doesn't change the fact that the domestic dog originated as a wolf.

The same is true of guns ("fire arms"). The "fire arm" was developed by the Chinese as a weapon of war, for the purpose of killing the enemy. That was the origin of the species and, as Glenn commented, denying that reality makes us look foolish. The "fire arm" was not developed or conceived as a benign "tool," something that could be used for any of a number of purposes. Look at your definition of "tool." A tool is a "handheld device that aids in accomplishing a task." What task was the "fire arm" developed to accomplish? Let's be honest -- the "fire arm" was developed to accomplish the task of killing people from farther away than could be done using swords and lances.

That's the "what is" about guns. Are there some modern "fire arms" that were designed for a primary purpose other than killing people? Yes -- the most extreme examples perhaps being the very expensive and specialized guns used in Olympic competition. But to argue that those guns weren't designed for killing is like arguing that your wife's Toy Poodle isn't related to a wolf because Toy Poodles don't hunt wild prey.

An Olympic pistol can kill. A Crossman or Daisy BB gun can kill.

There is one area where the "it's a tool" argument has merit. That, IMHO, is not in trying to claim that guns were not designed for killing. Where the "it's a tool" argument has merit is in arguing that the gun should not be blamed for the crimes committed by the shooter.

A screwdriver is, for the most part, a rather specialized tool. It was designed to do a certain task -- to turn threaded pieces of metal so they will advance into whatever it is that you want to hold together. It's a tool, and turning screws is the task for which it was developed. But screwdrivers can be (and are) used for other purposes. Straight-blade screwdrivers are the implement of choice for prying the lids of paint cans. Screwdrivers get used as pry bars in all sorts of situations (often to the detriment of the screwdriver). Screwdrivers have also been used as stabbing weapons. But, just as we wouldn't (probably) say that screwdrivers were designed as stabbing weapons, we also shouldn't try to claim that guns were "designed" (which, in the broad context I think means the species "fire arm," not the Olympic target pistol specifically) as "tools" rather than as military weapons.
 
PhotonGuy said:
What if Im a farmer and I need to keep a gun on my property for shooting vermin?
I know a fellow in Denmark whose a farmer and he has two shotguns that he keeps in his house.
Even in Japan, which has among the strictest gun control in the world, you can keep guns in your house under certain conditions, for instance if you're a farmer.
Click to expand...
But those applications involve killing. You're trying to argue that guns aren't for killing.
 
I'm kinda scratching my head on this one. The answer is super simple: yes.

People have been inventing ways to kill (animals and other humans) since the dawn of time. Guns are simply a step in that process. Any attempt to deny that is delusion.

Some are saying, "Do all guns exist only to kill? No." But that wasn't the question. The question was, "Were guns designed for killing." Yes they were. Done.
 
AB said:
Swords and knives were not developed as "tools," they were developed as weapons. Over the course of many centuries, they have come to have numerous different sub-designs, but the underlying concept was "weapon." Dogs began as domesticated wolves, and over the course of many centuries have developed into the myriad of breeds we have and know today. That doesn't change the fact that the domestic dog originated as a wolf.
Click to expand...

Canids are wily predators and a danger to people!
Check_out_this_side_mom-600x447.jpg


In a martial context, the ultimate purpose to which arms are put is to impose one's will on a opponent through his incapacity or submission. A high death toll isn't itself a goal. If it were, we'd just wait around for our enemies to die of old age.

This topic generally involves use of the terms "design", "purpose", "intent" and "use" in ambiguous ways. Figuring out what we mean when we use them is more than half the battle.
 
Since the beginning of time man has used tools. Since that time tools have been designed and used as weapons. Even then though I imagine there were sporting contests to see who could throw a rock farther or more accurately for prizes and bragging rights. Clubs, blades and firearms have always been weapons. Their ability to kill and protect more effectively and efficiently is why they were developed. That has been true throughout history.

Zukiphile I don't think anyone is making the argument
that all, or even most guns are purchased with the intent to use them for killing. The question is were they designed to kill? The answer to that question is objectively yes. Trying to convince anyone that guns are just another tool is ineffective and makes us look disingenuous at best in my opinion.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top