Guns, designed for killing?

[zukiphile]

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.

It has been suggested here that most ARs aren't purchased for hunting or sport.

The intent of a designer isn't an object; a conclusion about it will necessarily be a conclusion as to the specific designer's subjective intent and goals with each specific design.

The original question, the pertinent portion of which you correctly reproduce, is whether they are "designed to kill". It isn't qualified, and that kind of unqualified assertion is always going to have problems.

In the US, where most peoples' arms are commercial products, it's fair to conclude that most guns are designed to appeal to buyers. Taurus made a revolver that shot .410; it appeared to be designed to appeal to buyer who thought a little shot out of a revolver would be neat. Did someone at Taurus sit over a blank piece of paper thinking "I know what would be great at killing -- a bit of small shot from a revolver!"


Moving beyond the problems with the assertion, I believe 44AMP correctly identifies the subtext of the problemmatic assertion.

I suppose the logic is "all you can do with one is kill, and since killing is bad...

If the only purpose to which an object is put is itself illegitimate, then there is no harm, and may be real good, in banning the object itself. This is the sort of logic that brings a lot of scrutiny to drug paraphernalia vendors. Certainly, the paraphernalia is merely a tool, but it is a tool purchased for the buyers plan to do something wrong or illicit.

 

[K_Mac]

Zukiphile you make a good point that 44 correctly identifies the problematic assertion that all you can with a gun is kill, sporting use notwithstanding.

One may not like the assertion that guns were designed to kill. Then let's say that guns are weapons and that the ability to kill is inherently part of a firearm's pedigree. Of course some will argue that guns are not weapons, only tools...

 

[DaleA]

guns were designed to kill

You say that like it's a bad thing.

This isn't original. I think there's a comedian that uses it in their act. When the 'designed to kill' comment comes out realize you're not about to have a rational discussion with someone. The comment indicates their mind is made up already with an almost religious fervor that they are right and you have no possible way to defend your position.

 

[zukiphile]

My problems with the "designed for killing" language is that it is sloppy, unqualified and untrue, and relies on a fallacy for its force.

Then let's say that guns are weapons and that the ability to kill is inherently part of a firearm's pedigree.

That surely makes more sense, but it doesn't flow as well into"...so we should ban these evil items!".

 

[K_Mac]

Zukiphile your designers intent and goals when designing a gun are manifest by his or her choice, objectively.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

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.

This is the crux of the matter. When we (or someone) says, "Guns are/were designed for killing," does "guns" refer to the entire historical spectrum of "fire arms," or does it refer narrowly to the Hammerli 230 (.22 Short) Olympic pistol that your great uncle used in the 1968 Olympics?

I think it's disingenuous on our part to ignore that, overall, "fire arms" were developed to be used as weapons for killing while arguing that, because a select few firearms in comparatively recent years were specifically designed for competition, therefore it's not right to say that "guns were designed for killing."

They were (as an overall class or category of "tools") designed for killing. I have carry permits from six different states. I don't carry a sidearm because it's capable of making holes in a piece of paper. I carry it because it is capable of killing someone. I hope that I never have to use it for that purpose, but that is the reason I carry it. And that's not to say that I want to kill even an attacker, but the fact is that use of a firearm is legally considered to be lethal ("deadly') force in every state. Even if your intent is to "stop the threat," it has to be understood that stopping the threat may result in the death of the assailant. Even the Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church accepts this as a valid exception to the commandment "Thou shalt not kill" (which, as has been noted, is today often translated as "You shall not commit murder").

 

[Aguila Blanca]

Wait, you are saying that arguing semantics doesn't hold up and then argue semantics?????

Sometimes you have to fight fire with fire ...

 

[zukiphile]

I carry it because it is capable of killing someone.

I doubt that. I could be wrong about you, but I think you carry a sidearm so that you can shoot them if the need to stop them very quickly arises. They may die as a result, or not, but your motive for being prepared to shoot a person is not to cause his death.

The balance of your paragraph indicates that I am correct about your motive.

If you don't carry your sidearm to kill people, why attribute that motive to its designer?

I think it's disingenuous on our part to ignore that, overall, "fire arms" were developed to be used as weapons for killing while arguing that, because a select few firearms in comparatively recent years were specifically designed for competition, therefore it's not right to say that "guns were designed for killing."

Who was the 10/22 designed to kill? Wasn't the 50BMG designed as an anti-materiel device? I saw a photograph of what seemed to be an enormous gewehr 98 that was chambered in something like 50BMG. The inscription read that it was an anti-tank weapon, but was punishing to shoot; would it be a good choice if the goal were to just kill people?

I'd guess that giant gewehr killed fewer people than have baseball bats on St. Patrick's day...in Boston. What homicidal inventor gave us the baseball bat?

 

[44 AMP]

I saw a photograph of what seemed to be an enormous gewehr 98 that was chambered in something like 50BMG. The inscription read that it was an anti-tank weapon, but was punishing to shoot; would be a good choice if the goal were to just kill people?

That's the 13mm Mauser, and the goal was to kill WWI tanks. That round was the basis we used to develop our .50BMG cartridge.

All guns, all weapons, are tools. Any and everything you use to do something with is a tool. Sadly, so are some people...

Swords (large or small) are unique among hand weapons, because while they are very good at killing people, they aren't very good at much else, compared to other "tools". Bows, spears, axes, even clubs all kill people but are also useful for hunting, or woodcutting, or construction (a hammer is just a specialized club), guns let us throw a "rock" further and harder than we can do so by hand. That's all.

In Genesis, wasn't the first weapon a rock???

 

[Aguila Blanca]

Who was the 10/22 designed to kill? Wasn't the 50BMG designed as an anti-materiel device? I saw a photograph of what seemed to be an enormous gewehr 98 that was chambered in something like 50BMG. The inscription read that it was an anti-tank weapon, but was punishing to shoot; would it be a good choice if the goal were to just kill people?

Now you're falling into the trap of discussing the design of a couple of specific firearms as opposed to considering the entire genus fire arms. This is no different from singling out the Hammerli 230 and saying that because THIS gun was "designed" for putting holes in paper with exceptional repeatability, therefore guns were not designed to kill.

 

[zukiphile]

Sadly, so are some people...

I'm blushing.

Now you're falling into the trap of discussing the design of a couple of specific firearms as opposed to considering the entire genus fire arms.

It isn't a trap. Every firearm is a specific one, and no one has a general gun. If we are to consider the entire category of firearms, it includes the 10/22, Hammerli and big Gewehr, and a categorical assertion will have problems.

This is no different from singling out the Hammerli 230 and saying that because THIS gun was "designed" for putting holes in paper with exceptional repeatability, therefore guns were not designed to kill.

In the spirit of precision, I wouldn't contend that guns are not designed to kill.

I would contend that the assertion "guns are designed for killing" invites questions. Which guns? Which designers? The answers to these questions indicate that the unqualified assertion is false.

Perhaps more importantly, why would we focus on the designer's goals? Does the designer's intent determine the utility of his design?

...the weapon is the mind of man.

At least now we know what to outlaw.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

It isn't a trap. Every firearm is a specific one, and no one has a general gun. If we are to consider the entire category of firearms, it includes the 10/22, Hammerli and big Gewehr, and a categorical assertion will have problems.

But the reason this discussion comes up is that anti-gun people generalize that "guns are for killing." If/when we attempt to counter that assertion with a finely-nuanced discussion of "Well, maybe some guns were designed for killing -- once upon a time -- but MY guns certainly weren't designed for killing," we don't win the argument, we just look like we're being evasive and ducking to issue. And we look that way because we are. Especially if we use guns like a Hammerli 230 as our proof, but we're wearing a Glock or a 1911 or a SIG and we have an AR-15 or three in the gun safe at home.

Screwdrivers were invented and are designed for turning screws. The fact that some screwdrivers aren't used to turn screws doesn't change their genesis. The same is true for guns. Guns were invented to kill, and especially to kill people. The fact that the primary purpose of some firearms today isn't to kill people doesn't change the genesis of guns as a class of things.

When an anti-gun person complains that "guns are for killing," he/she is not thinking about Hammerly 230 Olympic competition pistols. He/she is thinking of AK-47s, AR-15s, and Glock "invisible to metal detector" pistols with thousand-round "clips." There's simply no point in trying to convince those people that guns aren't designed for killing when even we have to go through multiple pages of Internet debate to even try to justify why we can claim otherwise for a few, specific types of guns.

Why are we having this discussion? PhotonGuy made the initial post, so he should explain why he asked the question. I suspect that he asked it because he's looking for ammunition (pardon the term) to refute the anti-gun claim that guns are designed for killing. I respectfully submit that, since we can't come up with a simple way to absolutely refute that statement, we should not even attempt to refute it. We should accept it as true, and focus instead on how to explain to "those people" that guns are not inherently evil because of what they are, that the evil they should be worrying about is the evil people who use guns for evil purposes.

 

[TomNJVA]

In my mind the intent of the inventor, designer, or manufacturer of firearms is academic and irrelevant. What matters is the intent of the user.

My intent in purchasing my guns was strictly protection - protection of me, my family, and perhaps other innocent people if the occasion arises. The guns would achieve my intent by immediately stopping a serious and imminent threat. Killing might be the outcome, but is certainly not my intent.

The intent of other users might be for providing food through hunting, or pleasure through sport shooting. Even users in law enforcement usually do not intend to kill, but rather to protect themselves or others by quickly and efficiently stopping a threat.

There are over 300 million of these inanimate mechanisms floating around in the USA and if properly used they present no problems, indeed they are good. Only improper use is a problem. For that I don't blame the gun, only the user.

 

[zukiphile]

Screwdrivers were invented and are designed for turning screws. The fact that some screwdrivers aren't used to turn screws doesn't change their genesis. The same is true for guns. Guns were invented to kill, and especially to kill people. The fact that the primary purpose of some firearms today isn't to kill people doesn't change the genesis of guns as a class of things.

Why do you attribute a motive to an inventor/designer that you don't attribute to yourself as a user?

But the reason this discussion comes up is that anti-gun people generalize that "guns are for killing."

Adopting the error doesn't help to address the error. I think I know why they indulge the error, and it isn't innocent.

If/when we attempt to counter that assertion with a finely-nuanced discussion of "Well, maybe some guns were designed for killing -- once upon a time -- but MY guns certainly weren't designed for killing," we don't win the argument, we just look like we're being evasive and ducking to issue. And we look that way because we are.

It can't duck an issue to address it. I don't recommend the beauty school philosophy of polemics. I don't recommend the argument you suggest about your guns not being designed for killing.

In most settings, few things are more persuasive that actually being correct. If one focuses on what is true first, and then marshals those true observations in support of his position, he is likely to occupy the better position.


I contend that "guns are designed for killing" accomplishes a deception by conflating a potential result with something that they falsely believe inheres in the object. It reflects sloppy reasoning at best.

Why not just say "Guns can be lethal"? That certainly reflects one possible result of use, but it doesn't quite suggest an evil intent.

Why not say "Some modern firearms are optimized for stopping people immediately"? That seems to be the focus of defensive use literature, but "stopping people" doesn't sound all that bad.

Why not say "Firearms are often used to kill people"? That's true, but raises the question about how they are more often used by civilians and police for other purposes.

"Guns are designed to kill (people)" makes "guns" the subject rather than human behavior. "Designed" raises the concept of intent, and intent is central to criminal and moral culpability. "Kill(ing) people" is a problem noted in the prior century's greatest atrocities in which evil is present by the bucket load, and we've assigned both criminal and moral culpability.

The bumper sticker slogan is a shorthand that conveys that guns are a designed evil. Who wants more designed evil?

If the phrase is literally false and substantially deceptive, I wouldn't be so quick to concede its validity.

I respectfully submit that, since we can't come up with a simple way to absolutely refute that statement, we should not even attempt to refute it.

I once heard that "guns don't kill people..."

 

[Aguila Blanca]

It can't duck an issue to address it. I don't recommend the beauty school philosophy of polemics. I don't recommend the argument you suggest about your guns not being designed for killing.

I don't argue that my guns were not designed for killing. My position is that all guns, as a class of things, are inherently designed so as to be capable of killing. That's what guns are. I don't intend to kill anyone, but the guns I own can kill if I (or someone else) use them for that purpose.

We should not be arguing about the guns. Guns are inanimate objects. We should be discussing what can be done to alleviate the problem of people who want to kill other people.

Why not just say "Guns can be lethal"? That certainly reflects one possible result of use, but it doesn't quite suggest an evil intent.

Because the anti-gun people don't say "Guns can be lethal," they say "Guns are only good for killing."

I once heard that "guns don't kill people..."

I've heard that, too. "Guns don't kill people, people kill people."

Has that argument stopped a single anti-gun legislative initiative ... anywhere, ever? If not, then I respectfully submit that it's a rather poor counter argument.

 

[zukiphile]

I don't argue that my guns were not designed for killing.

I don't either,

I've heard that, too. "Guns don't kill people, people kill people."

Has that argument stopped a single anti-gun legislative initiative ... anywhere, ever? If not, then I respectfully submit that it's a rather poor counter argument.

I don't know whether it has played a role in stopping a single anti-gun initiative. It is simple, and unnuanced, so it avoids two of your objections to more detailed analysis. It also illustrates the salient different between a morally neutral object and a moral actor in just seven words. If explaining that illustrates the problem with neutral object restrictions, then it may be an important part of the conversations that inform public sentiment.


It's a problem when people weigh the truth or accuracy of a statement less than what sort of result the statement will elicit.

Why not just say "Guns can be lethal"? That certainly reflects one possible result of use, but it doesn't quite suggest an evil intent.

Because the anti-gun people don't say "Guns can be lethal," they say "Guns are only good for killing."

Why not say "Some modern firearms are optimized for stopping people immediately"? That seems to be the focus of defensive use literature, but "stopping people" doesn't sound all that bad.

Why not say "Firearms are often used to kill people"? That's true, but raises the question about how they are more often used by civilians and police for other purposes.

I'm sure that someone has asserted that they are only good for killing. My point above is that given so many more reasonable options, "guns are designed for killing" appears to indulge errors so profound that accepting it as true will have you building on those errors.

 

[K_Mac]

Zukiphile you make compelling points. My position is that all of my guns are weapons and by nature dangerous. It is also my position that weapons have always been developed and designed to kill, even if that is not the sole purpose for having one. These positions do not support the notion all guns are designed to kill and therefore evil. To paraphrase Forest Gump, "evil is as evil does." The fundamental right of free men to keep and bear arms is to give the ability to defend from threats foriegn and domestic. This is the argument I make to folks who question that right. Some tools are dangerous by necessity and design. So be it.

 

[PhotonGuy]

So farmers will be strictly licensed and controlled as in those countries. There may be even licensed varmint hunters you have to hire.

Will the licensed varmint hunters be available 24/7? They had better be since farmers shoot vermin at all sorts of odd hours. And besides what if the farmer lives in the middle of nowhere with no licensed varmint hunters nearby?

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

I believe cyanide is legal although regulated but obtainable with a license.

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

Absolutely not. I am just pointing out that even countries with the strictest gun control, you are allowed to keep guns in your house legally if you take the time and trouble of going through the necessary procedures. The only countries I can think of where you can't keep guns in your house are communist countries.

Anyway, as you talked about earlier with being required to keep guns at a sports club, hunting ground, ect instead of at home that would go against the fourth amendment in that the government cannot prevent citizens from keeping their own property in their own homes.

 

[PhotonGuy]

You are missing the point that the RKBA is postulated for guns as weapons, not a variant of a can of Raid.

Alright so guns are weapons, although much of that depends on use, you can't really argue against that.

 

[PhotonGuy]

Swords and knives were not developed as "tools," they were developed as weapons.

And a weapon is a type of tool. "Weapon" falls under the category of "tool."