Guns are designed to destroy, period.


PDA






olivedrab
October 10, 2006, 09:37 AM
I've heard it more than a few times. My response is, "Well, so are jackhammers, but you don't see too many crimes committed with those."


I want to know what everybody's response is for this statement.

If you enjoyed reading about "Guns are designed to destroy, period." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
carterbeauford
October 10, 2006, 09:41 AM
If they seem intelligent enough to respond to rational thought, I explain a gun is just a tool. More often than not they are not worth responding to.

Sometimes I advise them on the legality of full auto weapons, that gets some interesting reactions...

0007
October 10, 2006, 09:44 AM
Well, umm, yeah, and your point is???

ChopperKen
October 10, 2006, 09:47 AM
I would say "No, They are designed to propel a small object(Usually lead) at high velocity, Where it goes and if it destroys anything is up to the person using the Gun...

Keith Wheeler
October 10, 2006, 09:52 AM
So are kitchen knives.

geekWithA.45
October 10, 2006, 09:54 AM
Yes, they are designed to destroy.

In case you haven't noticed, some things need to be destroyed, often in haste.

Of course, _thats_ the bit that makes them squirm, and go "yeah but..."

mnrivrat
October 10, 2006, 09:56 AM
And women are designed to have children , but that's not all they can do, and it takes some personal involvement to make it happen. ;)

knuckles
October 10, 2006, 09:57 AM
olivedrab - welcome to The High Road. Please besure that you are not a troll. Many times new signups with less than a few posts that come here posing questions like that turn out to be trolls. Don't let that happen to you... ;)

Henry Bowman
October 10, 2006, 09:57 AM
Some things (including people) need to be stopped and often that can only be accomplished by them being destroyed. Often the need for destruction is extremely urgent. When that need arises, nothing else will do the job as well. When a person without this tool needs one, they usually call someone with the tool (LEO), if they have the opportunity to do so, and then hope that it arrives in time. Too often, they do not have the opportunity or time to wait.

TallPine
October 10, 2006, 09:58 AM
Well, yeah they are - but that's not always such a bad thing, such as when you kill a deer for meat, or stop a bad guy from harming your family.

For that matter, a garden hoe is used to destroy weeds, and an eraser is used to destroy pencil marks.

Keith Wheeler
October 10, 2006, 09:59 AM
Chainsaw. Heck, any saw.

jfh
October 10, 2006, 10:00 AM
If you want to lead them in...

"Yup. But I should point out that your analytical model is faulty; you haven't closely examined your a priori assumptions."

Maybe we ought to make this a thread into a coherent, reasoned, carefully-built set of responses for that sort of simple-minded thinking.

olivedrab
October 10, 2006, 10:01 AM
thanks,
I'm no troll, even though some people say I sort of resemble someone who spends their time under a bridge:)

dragongoddess
October 10, 2006, 10:02 AM
IS it me or am I wrong. It seems that a large number of people with less than 5 posts come in and ask questions such as the one in this post. It's as if they are trying to pick a fight. IS the OP a Troll. I don't troll anti sites so why should they troll here. Just curious.

FilJos
October 10, 2006, 10:10 AM
"No, it is just your narrow-minded perception that they are designed to destroy. If you are willing to be more open-minded you will see that they are actually designed to CREATE... small caliber holes."

deadin
October 10, 2006, 10:12 AM
Guns are designed to destroy, period.

Another answer to those that spout the above is to tell them that if they can come up with something else that will consistently poke holes within a 1" or less circle at 100 yds, ring a gong at 1000, knock over bowling pins, etc.,etc.(add whatever your sport/use is), you might consider looking at it as a substitute for your guns.
:evil: :D

Dean

taliv
October 10, 2006, 10:14 AM
jackhammers, while difficult to conceal, would likely be an effective crime deterrent.

highlander 5
October 10, 2006, 10:19 AM
I realize that this is in the realm of fantasy but in the various slasher films ie
"Friday the 13th " "Nightmare on Elm Street" they have used every concievable and I might add creative way to kill someone except 1........ firearms :what: :what: :what:

22-rimfire
October 10, 2006, 10:20 AM
What kind of guns? Air guns? Cap guns? Paintball guns? Dart guns?

Guns are designed to activate and propel a projectile down a tube. Where that projectile goes is up to the person who pulls the trigger and the laws of physics. The word destroy has nothing to do with it.

MatthewVanitas
October 10, 2006, 10:23 AM
Also good to ask such people: what about archery? Are bows and arrows made to destroy?

-MV

Justin
October 10, 2006, 10:27 AM
A gun is not a weapon. A gun is a tool, and nothing more.

It is a tool designed to initiate and contain a rapid gas expansion for the purposes of driving a malleable alloy pellet along a repeatable trajectory.

And that, Gentle Readers, is the only thing a gun is designed to do.

-Lawdog (http://thelawdogfiles.blogspot.com/)

Deanimator
October 10, 2006, 10:47 AM
My response: "Some people need to be destroyed, Rheinhardt Hydrich for instance... or perhaps you condemn the Jews who rose up against the Nazis in Warsaw and Sobibor for 'escalating the violence'..."

default
October 10, 2006, 10:50 AM
Did everyone in fact read the first post, and not just the thread title before responding? Why has anyone brought up the word "troll"? olivedrab has given an example of a weak anti argument and one way to counter it, and solicited other responses. What's the problem?

M2 Carbine
October 10, 2006, 10:57 AM
Guns are designed to destroy, period.

And dynamite was designed to blow up things.

And women are designed to be prostitutes.


It's all in how you use the equipment that makes all the difference in the world.

grimjaw
October 10, 2006, 10:58 AM
Guns are designed to destroy, period.

"That's right, and I'm glad your hard earned tax dollars go towards purchasing and maintaining millions of them every year for our military. Thanks, citizen!"

". . . and I thought it was just nuclear missles and bombs that did that."

"There are many cases when we find a use for a thing that it wasn't designed to do. In the computer industry we sometimes call that hacking. I'm hacking my guns and use them to deplete third world countries of stores of surplus ammunition that might otherwise be used in senseless wars. I'm doing it for the children. Your thanks are not necessary."

What is the point of a statement like that? What is the folllowup argument? Cars, boats and planes were designed to get us from place to place and they've been used to destroy.

jm

knuckles
October 10, 2006, 11:36 AM
Did everyone in fact read the first post, and not just the thread title before responding? Why has anyone brought up the word "troll"? olivedrab has given an example of a weak anti argument and one way to counter it, and solicited other responses. What's the problem?

Well for my part I was just checking. One way anti's would troll here would be to make a statement like that one just to see what type of response they got. olivedrab responded back 'I'm no troll' and that's good enough for me.

shermacman
October 10, 2006, 11:48 AM
olivedrab
I'm no troll, even though some people say I sort of resemble someone who spends their time under a bridge

Welcome from under the bridge! Guns create things too: democracy, freedom, safety.

ceetee
October 10, 2006, 12:02 PM
jackhammers, while difficult to conceal, would likely be an effective crime deterrent.

"Halt! Or I'll..... I'll..... I'll tear up some sidewalk..." :neener:



My response is "Guns are finely crafted pieces of equipment made up of components created as carefully as jewelry. They're fun for recreation, and all kinds of zen thinking excercises. They also happen to be adequate for self-defense, if you practice enough, and choose your gun wisely..."

strat81
October 10, 2006, 12:19 PM
Depending on you point of view, guns are for defense, much like a butcher knife is for cooking. If either of those items is used for an unjustified attack, it is not the fault of the object, inventor, or manufacturer. You could also argue that guns are for the legal hunting of animals, much like a fishing rod or crossbow.

No one ever mentions "knife control" in this country. What about cars? People are intentionally run over but no one is trying to ban cars.

olivedrab
October 10, 2006, 12:26 PM
I can see how people would misinterpret me as a troll. The truth is, I am currently in my final year of college, and I am posting between classes.

Need more proof?

I have been the member of the United Stated Army for 3 years now. 21 series.
I am the proud owner of a Springfield Armory Milspec 1911a1, a 1955 K31 w/ tag, a Hungarian Hi-power clone, and one very hurting wallet.

Thanks for all the responses, now I have more "ammo" to use in the fight to enlighten. Pardon the bad pun.

MD_Willington
October 10, 2006, 12:26 PM
I shot steel on Sunday all I destroyed was the 400+/- bullets that hit the steel and a bit of turf from the bullets that missed :neener:

TestPilot
October 10, 2006, 12:34 PM
Some things need to be destroyed.

Axman
October 10, 2006, 12:52 PM
Guns are made for the same purpose as a pool skimmer, to rid the world of scum! :evil: J/K (...or am I?!?!?!)

Guns can also save your life, feed you family (No, not by robbing the liquor store to get the money for food, although some use the tools for the trade.), relieve stress and a host of other purposes.

Echo Tango
October 10, 2006, 12:57 PM
jackhammers, while difficult to conceal, would likely be an effective crime deterrent.


Sadly this is not the case anymore, now that they have created the swiss mini-jackhammer™, it can pass through metal detectors with ease and can knock buildings down with its power, I'm getting one in Nov.

ctdonath
October 10, 2006, 01:01 PM
Yes, guns are designed to kill.
Guns are fundamentally (sporting modifications aside) designed as tools to inflict injury or death.

There. I said it. No apologies.

Now explain why police carry them.
Now explain why soldiers carry them.
Fact is, I have 'em for the same reasons.

Some people, due to their extremely dangerous behavior, need to be injured or killed - that being the only viable way to stop their behavior. RIGHT NOW.
That's life. Don't like it? Tough. That's reality. Legislation & platitudes won't make it go away.
Sometimes "its him or me" is a choice one has to make.
Don't try to take away that choice, or the tools to facilitate that choice, from me. If you do, you distain my life and are my enemy.

shermacman
October 10, 2006, 01:09 PM
Other things that were designed to kill:

Penicillin
Nonoxynol

Alex45ACP
October 10, 2006, 01:41 PM
Guns are designed to destroy, period.

Which is exactly why it's suicidal to allow them to be concentrated in the hands of government. Open a history book.

quatin
October 10, 2006, 01:44 PM
Nothing wrong with destroying stuff if it doesn't harm (physically, economically..) anyone.

btsyshsbnd
October 10, 2006, 01:50 PM
someone told me that pistols were only designed to kill. I used the penicillin argument their response was but penicillin was used to kill bad things that could hurt you. then before I could give the ovious answer you could see in her face that she suddenly got it. she said, never mind

jooos
October 10, 2006, 01:55 PM
I think I’d have to rely on my old favorite, “Opinions are like...You and well, everyone has one.”

:evil:

MinScout
October 10, 2006, 02:39 PM
"The rifle is a weapon. Let there be no mistake about that. It is a tool of power, and thus dependent completely upon the moral stature of its user. It is equally useful in securing meat for the table, destroying group enemies on the battlefield, and resisting tyranny......... Naturally, it may be used by evil men for evil purposes, but there are more good men than evil, and while the latter cannot be persuaded to the path of righteousness by propaganda, they certainly be corrected by good men with guns."

From the late great Jeff Cooper in his book, The Art Of the The Rifle. His wisdom will be missed.

vynx
October 10, 2006, 03:01 PM
NOPE WRONG

they are not meant to destroy - pistols and revolvers are meant for defense which saves a family, saves a future, etc.

Rifles & shotguns are meant to defend and assault to save, to feed, to protect, etc. all GOOD things

Saving and protecting is not destroying it is stoping a robber, arsonist, thief, rapist, murder from destroying - isn't that why police carry guns to save not to destroy are you saving police are destroyers SHAME on you! You can also bring in the UN forces or any type of force that the liberals like.

This is what I tell the moroons who use the guns are only mean to destroy bull!

SoCalShooter
October 10, 2006, 03:11 PM
Guns are destructive just like condoms.

Axman
October 10, 2006, 04:23 PM
Great, now the anti's will want gun condoms! I know a gun is a tool but... :)

iocane
October 10, 2006, 04:34 PM
Only counter to a gun is another gun. To ban guns is to send people out with guns to take away other peoples guns. If anti-gun nuts really beleived their own lies the ATF would be trying to peacefully talk people into not owning guns instead of waving around machine guns.

Jim PHL
October 10, 2006, 04:35 PM
Guns are designed to destroy, period.

"Then all mine are broken."

Mr White
October 10, 2006, 04:48 PM
No. Guns are designed to propel a projectile downrange at a very high velocity. They are sometimes used by people to destroy. Sometimes people use them to destroy things or people that need to be destroyed, somethines people use them to destroy things or people that should not be destroyed.

ETXhiker
October 10, 2006, 04:49 PM
Very often, a gun is used to PRESERVE something, like freedom, physical safety, personal property, etc. When a 90 year old grandma pulls a gun on the burgler coming in her window and he runs away, nothing is destroyed but his desire to victimize old people. Just a tool. Period.

XavierBreath
October 10, 2006, 05:14 PM
Your premise is a fallacy.

Guns are not designed to destroy.

Guns are designed to accurately launch small projectiles at what the person who weilds the gun would like to shoot.

Claiming a gun destroys imparts the responsibility for destruction on an inantimate object. A gun can not destroy any more than a crowbar and a wrecking ball can destroy. It is the person who weilds it that destroys.

Low-Sci
October 10, 2006, 05:23 PM
Guns are designed to destroy. And acting as if that's always a bad thing is completely naive. Sometimes, destruction needs to be threatened or carried out in order to ensure that we ourselves or that which is dear to us is not destroyed instead.

PlayboyPenguin
October 10, 2006, 05:25 PM
I will agree with that statement if they clarify it by adding bank accounts and in some cases relationships (as when the other leaves when one empties the bank accounts on firearms and ammo). :)

ctdonath
October 10, 2006, 10:38 PM
Guns are tools designed to facilitate certain destructive activities.
Certain destructive activites are needed to facilitate constructive activities.

Breakfast involves breaking eggs, killing pigs, crushing oranges, subjecting them to damaging temperatures, etc.
Nobody (but PETA types) objects because that destruction is needed to provide for continuing your life.

Guns are, fundamentally, designed for damaging people. Sometimes that's the only way to stop those people from killing us.

Funny how that whole Disneyesque "circle of life" kinda glosses over the "X destroys Y to survive" thing.

Green Lantern
October 10, 2006, 11:01 PM
Not quite the same, but my favorite reply to "guns are only deisgned to KILL" is.....

"Mine must be defective then...it hasn't killed ANYone!" :(

oldfart
October 11, 2006, 12:36 AM
The absolute truth is that guns are designed to destroy. Mine don't... at least they haven't since I got them so maybe they're defective. On the other hand, baseball bats are designed to play games with. Yet from time to time we hear of people being beaten to death with one.
So which is worse: A weapon used to play games or a toy used to cause harm?
:confused:

Travis Lee
October 11, 2006, 01:01 AM
This whole discussion always bugs me.
The whole "it's a TOOL," argument is disingenuous.

I've heard that in NRA official classes they will not even use the word, "weapon."

I think if you carry a firearm, you had better not forget for a moment, that it is a weapon.

I don't hunt, but I have been hunted by my fellow man.
Under that circumstance I do not need a belt sander or a socket set, I need a WEAPON.

--Travis--

evan price
October 11, 2006, 02:32 AM
I think Budd Dwyer understood exactly what guns were intended for.

EvisceratorSrB
October 11, 2006, 02:40 AM
Destroying things is fun... period! :neener:

History Prof
October 11, 2006, 03:41 AM
IS it me or am I wrong. It seems that a large number of people with less than 5 posts come in and ask questions such as the one in this post. It's as if they are trying to pick a fight. IS the OP a Troll. I don't troll anti sites so why should they troll here. Just curious.I don't get the impression that the OP is a troll. As to why the come here, I can tell you from years of hanging around liberals (higher ed types) that they can't resist causing trouble. To many liberals, conservatives are an "oddity" to be poked and prodded. They isolate themselves amongst themselves and believe that everyone in their little world is one of them. They gasp when they learn that someone with an education is a conservative. I can't remember how many of my fellow students in my PhD program stopped talking to me when I began talking politics.

So, to them, this board is full of uneducated rednecks, and they wanna stir the pot just to see how stupid we really are. When confronted with a polite reasonable argument, they just leave because they can't handle the fact that their stirring didn't work. That, and there are plenty of other pro-RKBA web sites that don't have the same attitude THR does, and the *DO* manage to stir a hornet's nest. That is why I like THR. No hornets here.

Zen21Tao
October 11, 2006, 03:49 AM
Also good to ask such people: what about archery? Are bows and arrows made to destroy?


I actually used this as a response to a Liberal gun-grabber telling me (at a gun show) guns were designed to kill. His respone to me was "yes but guns are a quicker more efficent way to kill many more things". :banghead:

Rem700SD
October 11, 2006, 03:59 AM
I would say that explosives only destroy, but it's in that destruction that we can work, create and build. By destroying impediments to freedom and tyranny(criminal in the act) we are building the ground work for society.

Cosmoline
October 11, 2006, 04:00 AM
Firearms are designed to secure and ignite a shell containing a chemical compound that turns from a solid to a gas very quickly. Much of the time, these shells contain projectiles which the firearm launches and stabilizes by passing through a barrel.

Anything else, and you have to look to the design of the human mind.

1911 guy
October 11, 2006, 09:13 AM
Go to your favorite "gun game" venue and tell me how many of those you'd take to the sandbox. S&W makes a very nice .22 caliber target pistol. It was designed from the ground up as a target/plinker gun.

The concept of the gun was indeed to kill and destroy, but the hammer we all use to hang family pictures evolved from one caveman braining another with a rock.

An item in one's hand does not determine that persons morality, it's the other way around. If the argument starter can't grasp that, they're mentally and morally hosed anyway. Save your words for someone intelligent.

antsi
October 11, 2006, 09:27 AM
-quote-----
Some things need to be destroyed.
-----------

Agree. Same response to the whine; "guns are designed to kill."

Reply: "Yes, and some things need to be killed."

It's a diversion to talk about sporting uses of guns. Just about all the gun sports are simulations of some form of killing, or some kind of firearm skills related to killing.

Killing something to eat is appropriate. Killing someone who's trying to kill you or your family is appropriate. What's the problem?

deadin
October 11, 2006, 10:33 AM
Not all guns are designed to destroy or kill.

1911 Guy,
There’s no use in trying to advance that argument here. You will just be shouted down by those that can’t (or won’t) admit that there is any use for a firearm other than “killing” (pardon me, “stopping”) in self defense or imposing their will on another.
When I was growing up firearms were just another part of life, now, to some, they seem to be a way of life. I don’t know if there were all that many totally one-dimensional “gun-zealots” back then and this is a new phenomenon brought on by paranoia fed by overcrowding. (See Calhoun’s study on rats), or maybe this is nothing new and only the availability of the Internet has allowed this philosophy to come out of the closet.
I feel that I fall into the category that sees firearms as something that are used for sporting and collecting and also can be used for defense. Others see them as primarily as defense with some use in the sporting/collecting area.
Then there are those that see them as useful only for defense and/or intimidation.

Somehow I just can’t imagine that my Hammerli M162 was designed as a “weapon” meant to “destroy” things.

Dean

oldfart
October 11, 2006, 12:30 PM
Dean, your Hammerli was most certainly NOT designed as a weapon. But the bamboo tube wrapped with wire, loaded with crude gunpowder and rocks, then ignited by a Chinese soldier with a glowing coal just as certainly WAS. All firearms from that day to this have, as their original purpose, death and destruction of an enemy. For those of us who use our weapons for sport and play, this idea requires a stretch of our thinking processes.
I have an acquaintance who owns a small "wiener dog" that does nothing but eat, crap and sleep. Aside from the company it gives her, it's totally useless. But it shares a common ancestor with the Pit Bull - the wolf, and if it is poked, prodded or otherwise angered, it will react just like the Pit Bull, by biting.
Your Hammerli has the same ancestors as my Mauser and thus has many of the same characteristics. What we choose to do with these guns is the crux of the matter. As I pointed out earlier, a baseball bat is a toy that can be used as a weapon. That we choose to use weapons as toys is a measure of our humanity.

antsi
October 11, 2006, 12:32 PM
---quote-----
Somehow I just can’t imagine that my Hammerli M162 was designed as a “weapon” meant to “destroy” things.
-------------

That's not exactly my point.

If I'm thinking correctly about your Hammerli, it's designed for marksmanship competition. Most marksmanship competitions are designed to develop, simulate, or test skills related to combat or hunting.

Personally, I don't see anything wrong with that.

You can't get away from the basic fact that the primary purpose of firearms is to kill and/or incapacitate (whether for the purpose of feeding oneself or defending oneself or one's country). Marksmanship skills and competitions are mostly about developing and testing skills related to those basic two purposes. It's true that the development and testing of these kind of skills is enjoyable, challenging, and rewarding enough to be an end to itself, but that doesn't change the basic nature of the tool or the skills involved in its use.

I particularly don't think it is a helpful position when debating anti-gun people or objecting to anti-gun policies to reply that there are some firearms that are more adapted to competition than to hunting or defense. It's not a helpful reply because it lends support to their notions of wanting to ban certain firearms that have lethal potential.

If you go down that path of saying "I should be allowed to keep my Hammerli because it's designed for fun with targets and isn't very well adapted for killing," the anti's are going to come back with a policy of taking away your Hammerli and giving you a BB gun instead. They'll say "You can still have fun with the BB gun, and it's even less well adapted for killing."

Phil DeGraves
October 11, 2006, 12:52 PM
Guns are an anti-personnel device. Handguns are designed as a defensive tool to use when one comes under an unanticipated attack upon ones person that may result in death or serious bodily harm. Only a fool or a criminal (which is the same thing) would attack with a handgun when long guns are available. It is their ability to be used to destroy that makes them useful.

Phil DeGraves
October 11, 2006, 12:53 PM
the same as swords and knives and axes before them. Can they be used for other things? Sure!

atblis
October 11, 2006, 12:53 PM
"Guns are intended for killing people."

my reply (similar to others above).

"No. The're good for killing lots of things. Not just people"

ctdonath
October 11, 2006, 02:46 PM
The difference between "weapons" and "game guns" is pretty minor. Small optimizations for game purposes detracts little from the primary design as a combat tool.

No, I wouldn't want a "race gun" were I "in the sandbox". Then again, I'd far rather have that race gun there than a sharp stick.

Many games (gun and otherwise) are simply derivatives, fun abstractions, of killing things. The core purpose is still there, if glossed over.

Mr Kablammo
October 11, 2006, 03:04 PM
A gun is a tool. It is a hard heart that destroys. People were massacreing each other long before guns were around. If someone tells you that guns are 'for destruction' then take him/her shooting. Once they shoot a gun without the feeling that the gun is making him/her go berserk it is a conversion experience.

deadin
October 11, 2006, 03:48 PM
If you go down that path of saying "I should be allowed to keep my Hammerli because it's designed for fun with targets and isn't very well adapted for killing," the anti's are going to come back with a policy of taking away your Hammerli and giving you a BB gun instead. They'll say "You can still have fun with the BB gun, and it's even less well adapted for killing."

Careful where you are going with this. If the antis were to show up on my doorstep with a BB gun for my Hammerli, would you stand behind me even to the point of giving up your Glock or whatever?

antsi
October 11, 2006, 04:34 PM
----------quote-----------
Careful where you are going with this. If the antis were to show up on my doorstep with a BB gun for my Hammerli, would you stand behind me even to the point of giving up your Glock or whatever?
---------------------------

Either you are missing my point, or I am missing your point, or both.

Let me try again:

I maintain that the primary purpose of firearms is to kill and/or incapacitate, for the purpose of hunting and/or defense. Firearms competitions are generally designed to simulate or test skills related to hunting and/or defense. Such competitions are a secondary purpose for firearms. I believe that hunting, defense, and competition are ALL legitimate purposes for owning and using firearms and we should defend our interest in firearms and our right to own them on this basis.

In my earlier post, I was warning AGAINST people defending their rights and interest in firearms by pointing out how their guns are more adapted for competition than for combat or hunting. I think it is a BAD IDEA to argue that we should be allowed to keep this gun or that gun because it has specialized features for competition. I think this opens up the door for anti's to ban many kinds of firearms and restrict ownership to air rifles and bb guns (and eventually ban those too, as they have in England, by arguing that they can be adapted to criminal purposes).

I am NOT in favor of legislation to take away your Hammerli and replace it with a BB gun. I'm not willing to give up my Glock or whatever, either. We both have the right to both these kinds of guns, whether be it for competition or for lawful self-defense. That's why I think it is a dangerous and misguided tactic to respond to the anti's by saying "well, I should be allowed to keep my Hammerli because it's not ideally suited for combat." That argument plays into their hands and will eventually lead to the banning of all guns from civilian ownership.

Archie
October 11, 2006, 04:50 PM
"It is impossible to defeat an ignorant man in an argument."
- William Gibbs McAdoo

Usually the nitwit who makes such a pronouncement about firearms is too lacking in knowledge to engage in discussion. Sad but true.

Axman
October 11, 2006, 05:13 PM
Just tell them, "I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed man!!!"

Cosmoline
October 11, 2006, 05:16 PM
primary purpose of firearms

Firearms are chunks of steel and wood. They have no purpose of their own. Purpose requires a mind, and it's the human who provides that.

For example--if you fire blanks out of your firearm to scare birds off a field or start a race, are you MISUSING the firearm or going against its PURPOSE? You see the absurdity of trying to impose any "purpose" to a firearm. The firearm holds the shell, and allows a user to ignite a primer. It may also launch a projectile. But the firearm ENDS AT THE BARREL. Its design does not extend beyond that point. Nor can a firearm operate itself.

antsi
October 11, 2006, 08:08 PM
-----------quote----------
Firearms are chunks of steel and wood. They have no purpose of their own. Purpose requires a mind, and it's the human who provides that.
--------------------------

What about the human being who designed them?

Tools - including firearms - are designed and made with a specific purpose or purposes in mind.

I'm going hunting next month. I'm taking a rifle with me. Hopefully I will get a chance to shoot and kill a deer with it. It isn't just an accident that the rifle is a uniquely well adapted tool for this purpose. Its designer had just that use in mind, and everything about it is adapted to that task. This was true before I ever picked up the rifle.

It is not the case that the rifle was an amorphous blob, just sitting there, that suddenly became an efficient deer killing tool because I had that thought. That thought was built into it from the beginning. That thought was what shaped it and determined its form and function. Everything about the rifle reflects that purpose.

I could also use the rifle to pound nails into a two by four. This would not be the purpose the rifle was designed for, even if that's what I happened to have in mind at the time. It would be a very poor tool for the job, because that wasn't the thought that shaped its design and construction. And even if I did successfully drive the nail, it would seem a very silly thing to say "the intended purpose of this rifle is to drive nails into two by fours."

Thorn001
October 11, 2006, 08:54 PM
I disagree with the idea that guns are made to destroy. They are tools plain and simple. It is the mind behind them that controls what they are used for. In the hands of law enforcement, they preserve the peace and protect lives. In the hands of our military they defend our freedoms from outside agressors. In the hands of law abiding civilians, they protect life and property, put food on the table, provide hours of enjoyment, and are used to teach responsibility etc.
Although in the hands of criminals, they are used to steal, destroy, murder, etc.

If guns are made only to destroy, than so are knives, scissors, axes, matches, etc.

greener
October 11, 2006, 09:00 PM
For all the semi-science about propelling projectiles of some type by rapid oxidation of some material, guns have, and have since their invention, one primary purpose: to kill or destroy. That's the purpose whether the projectile is 16" in diameter or .17" in diameter. When I took my artillery unit to the field, we practiced the primary purpose of 155mm howitzers, .50 caliber machine guns, 7.62 caliber guns, .223" caliber, .45 caliber, 9mm and so forth. Are you telling me that there is something different in the 1911 I carried "under arms" and the 1911 I take to the range?

The fact that I own and use "guns" for purposes other than going out and committing murder and mayhem is totally beside the point. What am I practicing when I go to the range other than being better at using the gun for it's intended purpose, whether I ever use one for that purpose or not. I didn't buy my .22's for the purpose of killing, but I am not dissuaded by any argument that their root purpose is just that.

The fact that guns primary purpose is death and destruction, doesn't in any way make them inherently evil. As said, ad nauseum, tain't the gun that does bad things, its the person using the gun. I'm not ashamed that I own them, carry them, and, if necessary, am willing to use them for their intended purpose.

deadin
October 11, 2006, 09:03 PM
Antsi,
I understand your point but what I ‘m having trouble with is your insistence on assigning relative values to a firearms use. You contend that the primary purpose of a firearm is to kill or incapicitate. Any other use is merely secondary.
I am very uncomfortable that, in your world, if firearms “triage” were to occur, my Hammerli would be one of the first to go because it is just an unimportant, secondary segment of the firearm world and your Glock is much more important because it is used for killing/incapicitating, SD, etc..
A firearm is a firearm and whatever the owner chooses to use it for is no more, or less, legitimate than any other use. Therefore, trying to assign a “what a firearm is really meant for” label is not only biased, it is counterproductive.

cassandrasdaddy
October 11, 2006, 09:04 PM
My wife is pretty anti. she daid much the same about pistols .That they were only for killing people.My reply was that she was part right, that i chose to see it as making sure that god forbid we're in a bad spot that the one killed is not her, myslef or our kid. When i brought the kid into it the lil light went on over her head i think she got it then

10-Ring
October 11, 2006, 09:16 PM
I very rarely address comments to confront like that one. It's an invitation to argue with someone who doesn't intend to change their minds or even listen...why waste your breath? :scrutiny:

Atticus
October 11, 2006, 09:26 PM
What LawDog said.

A good reply- "And you were designed to deplete oxygen, food and water and to create feces...so go away."

antsi
October 11, 2006, 09:46 PM
Deadin,

I don't support banning any kind of guns. I'm not triaging anything.

The reason I say that hunting and/or defense is the primary purpose of firearms is that these are the underlying reasons they were invented in the first place. Target shooting came about as a subsidiary to these original purposes. If firearms couldn't be used for killing things, I very seriously doubt that there would be a lot of target shooting going on today. Hunting and defending oneself are life-and-death necessities (or at least can be, under certain circumstances). Target shooting is purely recreational, unless from the standpoint of preparation for defense and/or hunting. Therefore, I do consider target shooting to be a secondary, less important purpose of firearms and firearms ownership. Although I have myself competed in high power rifle and enjoyed many hundreds of rounds of skeet shooting, those purposes aren't as important as defending myself and my family, nor as important as the ability to hunt for food might become should our social-economic structure change and food be not so easy to obtain as it is now.

Again, target shooting, hunting, and defense are ALL legitimate reasons for owning guns. NONE of these purposes should be infringed.

If we defend our right to keep and bear arms on the basis of all legitimate purposes - including defense, hunting, and recreation - then we don't have to do any "triaging" or choose which guns will be banned. If we defend our right to keep and bear arms on the basis that target guns aren't very well suited for killing, then we DO have to triage and we WILL face the prospect of gun bans. Worse yet, the first guns to be banned will be those that are best adapted for the most important life-and-death purposes.

ctdonath
October 11, 2006, 10:01 PM
Tools are designed for a purpose. There may be variations on that purpose, and what the tool actually does can be coldly & clinically & mechanically described. One may come to enjoy a class of tools because using them may be fun (regardless of whether fun use matches the originating purpose), because one admires the quality & artistry in some tools, because one enjoys making such tools, etc. One rarely encounters a class of tools which, while marvelous at doing some mechanical action, has no initiating application.

Hence the problem some here have with responses of the kind "guns merely throw a piece of lead with a certain amount of accuracy and energy". Ok, it does that. Why does one go thru such trouble to build a machine to do that? Fun, art, sport, etc. may be the dominant actual use, but the core purpose - which many cannot bring themselves to acknowledge - remains.

crazed_ss
October 11, 2006, 10:12 PM
Guns are weapons IMO.. they're for making stuff die. They can be used for sport and recreation, but I think their primary use is to be used as a weapon. In the Marines, we always referred to our issue rifles as "Weapons"

I do not believe weapons arent inherently evil though. It depends on the person wielding it.
The fact that guns are for making things die is not necessarily a bad thing. Murder is wrong, but killing is not necessarily wrong

XLMiguel
October 11, 2006, 10:46 PM
A gun is just a tool, it's application is up to the user.

Assault is a behavior, not a device.

Look up the definition of "deterrence".

If you enjoyed reading about "Guns are designed to destroy, period." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!