Guns, designed for killing?

[PhotonGuy]

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

If Im using a gun against a bad guy it would be more accurate to say "guns are for stopping." If I were to shoot a perpetrator I would not be shooting to kill I would be shooting to stop.

 

[K_Mac]

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

Sure you can. A gun is weapon that can be used for a variety of purposes. That does not mean it isn't a weapon.

This argument that guns are used for stopping and somehow that means they are not a tool for killing is not really valid either. Immediate incapacitation happens from massive blood loss or major damage to the central nervous system. It is the reason we are taught to aim for center mass. That gives one the best chance of stopping the violence. By all legal standards that is use of lethal force. Why? Because done properly death is a very real possibility. Trying to defend the use of a lethal weapon by claiming it isn't meant to be lethal has no merit.

 

[zukiphile]

Sure you can. A gun is weapon that can be used for a variety of purposes. That does not mean it isn't a weapon.

You could also say that a gun is a useful thing that can be used as a weapon. That doesn't mean it isn't useful for things other than a weapon.

Was my biathlon rifle ever a weapon even if it was never used as one?

This argument that guns are used for stopping and somehow that means they are not a tool for killing is not really valid either. Immediate incapacitation happens from massive blood loss or major damage to the central nervous system. It is the reason we are taught to aim for center mass. That gives one the best chance of stopping the violence. By all legal standards that is use of lethal force. Why? Because done properly death is a very real possibility. Trying to defend the use of a lethal weapon by claiming it isn't meant to be lethal has no merit.

It really does.

Lethal force isn't force with an intent to kill. That death is a possible result or collateral effect does not mean that death is the intended result of the act.

The distinction isn't merely academic. Where lethal force is used in self defense, a jury can get a sense of the purpose of a shooting in reaching a verdict. I recall a case in which the defendant stopped a large home invader with a 9mm loaded with FMJ range ammunition. The defendant had emptied a 15 round magazine from his Taurus before the invader stopped. The jury had a hard time accepting that a defensive use was present, and the defendant was convicted.

If the point of shooting someone where to kill him, bullets with toxic agents, say polomium 210, would be marketed with the lethality of the bullet front and center. CCI Blazer with polonium 210 - If your attacker doesn't die weeks later, your money back. They don't do that because the point of self-defense isn't punishment by death. It's quick incapacitation.

You aren't taught to shoot center of mass because it is more likely to kill, but because it is more likely to incapacitate quickly, when the incapacity is useful to you.

 

[44 AMP]

I don't recall anyone stating guns don't kill. I stated they were designed to launch a "rock" further and harder than you can throw it. I'm afraid I fell guilty to the same error as the antis with that statement, the error of leaving unsaid the part that "everyone knows".

Guns aren't designed to kill, they are designed to shoot. The better they do that, the better they are at killing. Or stopping, or anything else you use them for.

Skipping the steps inbetween (what the user does with it) is like saying your cheeseburger is designed to be feces. Skip the parts about its "designed" to be eaten, it's "designed" to taste good, its intent to provide enjoyable nourishment, none of that matters, since it always ends up as feces that MUST be what it was designed to do...

or so some would think if they had the intellectual integrity to follow their own logic about firearms in other parts of their lives.

I believe the argument "designed to kill" and especially the phrasing are intended to imply that the gun is somehow, evil. Things that kill are evil, a definition that goes back to the middle ages at least. Probably much further.

Ordinary folk believing that, was a benefit to the ruling class. Evil things were forfeit to the Crown, or the local representative. Wagon rolls over some commoner, its evil. the sherriff takes it. Somebody killed in your mill? forfeit to the crown, its evil, you can't keep it, etc.,

Make a thing evil, you can take it, (because in your responsible hands, its no longer evil) or you can ban it . Want a more modern application? Taking the dope dealers car, boat, house, money, etc. (and doing it BEFORE a conviction!)

Seizing the family car because daddy talked to a hooker who wasn't a hooker but a cop, etc. We do it all the time, every day, day in and day out and the masses approve, because they either don't really think it through, and/ or they believe it will never affect them.

One argument I have heard is "are the police designed to kill? They carry guns, after all..." and variations of that.

Face it, the anti gun zealot in danger is glad to see that "good guy with a gun", BECAUSE guns can kill, and they can save their precious ass. They do, however have an OCD problem thinking only police can be "good guys with guns".

 

[K_Mac]

Zukiphile your biathlon rifle is a weapon by definition in my view. Being useful for other things doesn't change that.

You are playing with my words counselor. I never said we trained to hit center mass with intent to kill, but that it gave us the best chance of immediate incapacitation. The reality is immediate incapacitation with a firearm generally requires serious damage, and that damage may be lethal. I'm not talking about shooting if avoidance or compliance will do. I'm not talking about using more force than required to stop the threat. I'm talking about the use of a lethal weapon to stop an unprovoked attack where I am reasonably afraid for my life.

In our efforts to assure folks that we are not blood thirsty vigilantes we cannot tell thinking people that a gun is not a lethal weapon, or that its use in a self defense encounter doesn't put the attacker's life at risk. Carrying a gun means we are willing to take another life to save our own or someone's in our charge. All of the rest is this is just conversation.

 

[PhotonGuy]

After reading through many of the posts on this thread and thinking it over myself I've come to this conclusion. We can argue back and forth whether or not guns are designed for killing until the cows come home but what matters more, in my opinion, is not what something is designed for but what its good and effective at. Sure, guns can be good at killing in the hands of somebody who is using them for that purpose but so can many other things. I myself have used guns to kill. I have shot and killed an alligator and I have shot and killed a hog and I've killed squirrels with airguns. I never have and hopefully never will be in a situation where I kill a person with a gun or by any other means. So I can tell you from my own experience that guns are very good and effective at killing if you're using them for that purpose.

However there are other things which can be just as good and effective or moreso then guns at killing. If somebody wants to kill the most people in the shortest amount of time airplanes have been shown to be more effective than guns at that. Airplanes are not designed to kill, I think we can all agree on that, yet they're better for that purpose if you want to kill the most people in the shortest time. Same thing with trucks loaded with explosive fertilizer. Even driving a truck into a crowd at high speed could kill more people in less time than using an AR semi automatic rifle or even a full automatic. So if you ask me, what's more important is what something is good at, not what its designed for.

 

[davidsog]

they say "Guns are only good for killing.

It is a fallacy to argue otherwise.

Guns are made for killing. Guns are a necessary tool man has developed because some things on God's Green Earth need killing if we are going to control our environment in order to remain safe as well as top the food chain.

While it is fun to shoot holes in paper at the end of the day it started as preparation for performing the intended design task of the gun....to kill.

That design purpose still stands on its own in its relevance today and does not require justification.

Food often does not just lay down on the plate. Food often runs away and can even fight back injuring the potential diner. It requires killing.

Depending on your location in the country, a walk in the woods can put you on the menu. To prevent ending up as Bear, Wolf, or Cougar poop ....killing might be required.

There are bad people in the world who want to do bad things to good people. Killing is often necessary to keep the bad people from doing bad things to good people because the bad people just won't stop no matter how nicely we ask.

The Supreme Court has already ruled that when the bad people come to do bad things, YOU are responsible for YOUR OWN defense.

Justices Rule Police Do Not Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect Someone

The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that the police did not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm, even a woman who had obtained a court-issued protective order against a violent husband making an arrest mandatory for a violation.

https://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/...ot-have-a-constitutional-duty-to-protect.html

 

[zukiphile]

they say "Guns are only good for killing.

It is a fallacy to argue otherwise.

Which fallacy?

Zukiphile your biathlon rifle is a weapon by definition in my view. Being useful for other things doesn't change that.

I've no quarrel with that. I believe you would also agree that it isn't only a weapon. While an epee is a weapon, it's also sporting equipment. That's also true of a baseball bat.

You are playing with my words counselor. I never said we trained to hit center mass with intent to kill, but that it gave us the best chance of immediate incapacitation. The reality is immediate incapacitation with a firearm generally requires serious damage, and that damage may be lethal. I'm not talking about shooting if avoidance or compliance will do. I'm not talking about using more force than required to stop the threat. I'm talking about the use of a lethal weapon to stop an unprovoked attack where I am reasonably afraid for my life.

Indeed. It's intended use is to stop an attack, not kill.

That's why I don't agree that,

Trying to defend the use of a lethal weapon by claiming it isn't meant to be lethal has no merit.

Emphasis added.

A use that is meant to be lethal is meant to kill. An intent to kill isn't present where one merely means to stop an attack. They are two different goals that may be pursued with the same result, but that doesn't make the intent the same even where one foresees the possibility of death.

In our efforts to assure folks that we are not blood thirsty vigilantes we cannot tell thinking people that a gun is not a lethal weapon,...

I wouldn't suggest arguing that a gun can't be a lethal weapon; even my biathlon rifle could be used to lethal effect.

If a gun is designed to shoot, and shooting to stop someone isn't the same thing as intending to kill him, then the idea that "guns are designed for killing" seem quite wobbly.

Carrying a gun means we are willing to take another life to save our own or someone's in our charge.

It could mean that. It could mean we are willing to use it to make people give us their wallets. It could mean we want to impress our friends with the newest neatest carry pistol. It could even mean that we intend to kill an innocent person to suit or own ends.

Yet none of those motives are reasonably attributable to the designer.

 

[JohnKSa]

]they say "Guns are only good for killing.

It is a fallacy to argue otherwise.

I know people who have owned and used guns all their lives and never used any of them to kill anything.

Clearly guns are good for things other than killing and it's not any kind of a fallacy to point that fact out.

One could argue that guns are MADE for killing, but that's certainly not true of all guns although it is clearly true of some. I have an old military rifle that was made to kill people. Although it was clearly never used for that purpose (it is in unissued condition) that was clearly the intent of the person who designed it and the people who manufactured it.

But there are other guns which were clearly not designed or manufactured for killing. That's not to say that they have no lethal potential, just that their design purpose has nothing to do with killing. This pistol, for example, was not designed for anything involving killing. It does have an intended use for which it is ideal--so it is an obvious example of a gun that is not only good for something other than killing, it is a gun that was not designed or intended for killing.

http://www.morini.ch/product_det.php?id=7

So, we see that the statement: "Guns are ONLY good for killing." is obviously false.

We also see that the statements: "Guns are made for killing." and "Guns are designed to kill." have counterexamples that prove that while many guns are made/designed to kill, others are clearly designed for other purposes having nothing to do with killing. So these two statements are false too.

It is clear that guns were originally designed for killing and the first guns were made only for that purpose. It was likely some time before recreational shooting other than hunting became a common use of firearms, but now, at least in some countries, recreational use, not even involving hunting, is now likely the most common use for firearms. To the point that there are many firearms designed and made exclusively for uses that have nothing to do with killing.

What could we say that is true? We can say the following:

1. Guns were, in the very beginning, designed and used exclusively for killing.

2. Many guns are designed for uses that can involve killing, either for military use, self-defense/LE use, or hunting use. However, that design intent does not constrain the owner to use the firearms for only those purposes and there are clearly common, legitimate, uses for these types of guns that do not involve killing.

3. Although it wasn't true in the very early history of firearm, now there are firearms not designed or manufactured or purchased for killing. They have purposes having nothing to do with killing and, although any gun is potentially lethal, most of this class of firearm would be an obviously poor choice for any type of application involving killing. They are typically slow to load, have low capacity, sights that are poorly adapted for hunting or self-defense or military use, too fragile for military or LE use, too unwieldy, or too heavy to carry, chambered in cartridges not generally considered suitable for military, LE or self-defense use and uncommon for hunting purposes, etc.

 

[Frank Ettin]

This subject comes up every so often and always winds up the same way.

Let's call this one done for now. Anyone who is disappointed that he didn't get his chance to make his point, just hand around for a few months; and this will come up again.