k_mac said: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.
44AMP said: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.
Last edited: