Instruments of Death


PDA






klyph
January 4, 2013, 08:44 PM
After seeing so many of my fellow firearms owners concede the point that guns are "Designed for one thing only: to kill people" I have to point out the fallacy of this statement. America has hundreds of intercontinental ballistic missiles topped with nuclear warheads that make the bombs of Hiroshima and Nagasaki look like firecrackers. What were they designed for? What is their intended purpose? Did the designers and commissioners of these weapons build them with intent to wipe out most of humanity and bring about nuclear winter? If so, why aren't we all wearing radiation suits? Security personnel are issued firearms. If the sole purpose of this tool is to kill people, how do bank customers ever make it out alive? I grab a firearm every morning before heading out the door, yet I haven't killed a single person. Am I doing something wrong? Perhaps I am misusing this tool.
I hope this post illustrates a point that we all need to keep in mind when debating the purpose of firearms. They are primarily a deterrent to violence, not the source of it. I don't carry firearms with the intent to end life, but to preserve it. My firearms are not instruments of death, they are protectors of life.

If you enjoyed reading about "Instruments of Death" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
MachIVshooter
January 4, 2013, 08:52 PM
Arguing that guns aren't meant to kill is persnickety at best. That was the original design parameter, and aside from a few purpose-built paper punching units, firearms are still made to inflict lethal injury, be it a human or an animal.

If you use this argument, you will wind up looking a fool. Trust me.

Cesiumsponge
January 4, 2013, 08:59 PM
Some people just can't imagine needing to do great violence upon others to save a life. I wonder if they ever had anti-sword debates or anti-warhammer debates.

vamo
January 4, 2013, 09:07 PM
Sorry have to agree with the other replies when a gun is used it is used to kill people or animals or to practice killing people or animals. Arguing otherwise just makes our side look dumb. It is why the "for sporting purposes" argument will never be effective for us, we should really focus on the constitutional right angle.

General Geoff
January 4, 2013, 09:09 PM
Death is not the worst of evils.

Skribs
January 4, 2013, 09:11 PM
Cesium, I remember hearing about an article (wish I could find it) about the most dangerous weapon ever invented and how after its invention cities could be destroyed at will by enemy armies. I had thought it was an article from the 40s about the A-bomb...but it was from mellenia ago about the first siege weapons (they could break down city walls that were previously impenetrable). So yes, they had antis back then.

kwguy
January 4, 2013, 09:19 PM
Yes they did have anti's back then. IIRC, even old England had "arms control" laws pertaining to longbows and whatnot. It goes back a long time, and just speaks to human nature, and the wanting to control other people by taking away their means to protect their liberty.

Baba Louie
January 4, 2013, 09:35 PM
Semantics.
Are you a good witch or a bad witch? :confused:

Firearms project force. Force can and will injure and/or kill when used against living entities. Force. Designed to throw a chunk of lead accurately at high speed.

Pretty simple. If people want to argue designed to kill, let them. If people want to argue designed to protect, let them. Defense of self or home or country might very well require both concepts. bad witch and good witch.

Instruments of Death. I like that. :rolleyes:

gp911
January 4, 2013, 09:47 PM
I usually respond with "apparently my guns are malfunctioning because they haven't killed anybody."

PRM
January 4, 2013, 09:51 PM
Death is not the worst of evils - General Geoff

Well stated...

9MMare
January 4, 2013, 09:57 PM
Does fire insurance cause fires? Does earthquake insurance cause earthquakes?

Those are for 'protection.' A handgun is for protection (if you leave out the recreational aspects). Self-defense is very different from 'killing.' A handgun can perform that objective even when NOT used to kill.

BTW, I use SA revolvers all the time, yup, shoot them for their *intended* purpose...have NEVER even used real ammo in them and the intent of owing them has NEVER been to kill anything but balloons.

klyph
January 4, 2013, 10:01 PM
You miss my point entirely. The purpose of the tool is not defined by it's shape, but by the operator's implementation thereof. Obviously, an M4 sold to the military was designed to kill. A Monte Carlo built by Hendricks motorsports was designed to race at 200mph. An AR15 was built, marketed, and purchased legally for hunting, varminting, home defense and other legal purposes. A Monte Carlo sold to civilians was designed, marketed and purchased legally to drive the speed limit on public roads and transport humans. The nuclear weapon analogy demonstrates the effectiveness of weapons as a deterrent, the more advanced and capable the weapon, the greater the deterrent.
Some firearms are designed to kill, certainly. Some nuclear warheads were built to wipe out cities. Some firearms were designed to protect and deter violence. Some nuclear warheads were designed for the same reason.

SuperNaut
January 4, 2013, 10:15 PM
The design of a firearm is completely irrelevant, it means NOTHING without an operator. The greatest most efficiently designed scary triple lethal +20 vorpal 40 billion magnum with several shoulder things that go up is still just a hunk of steel without someone pulling the trigger.

This is probably the most invalid and stupid argument for gun control that exists. Do not even justify it with a serious response.

You should respond with something like "yeah, they should design a gun that shoots rainbows and cupcakes, criminals simply adore rainbows and cupcakes."

PowderMonkey
January 4, 2013, 10:29 PM
I like the new term the left is using 'killing power'.

From now on I am basing all future firearm purchase decisions on this hot new specification. I won't buy any firearm unless the killing power goes up to 11. Lol.

They make me shake my head in disbelief every time they open their yappers.

JellyJar
January 4, 2013, 10:37 PM
Sometimes in order to preserve and protect innocent human life it is necessary to either kill or at least be able to kill another person, a bad guy.

That gun that was designed to "kill" was actually designed to protect innocent people from criminals. That is a good thing!

M-Cameron
January 4, 2013, 10:44 PM
sure, some firearms are designed with the intent to kill people.....

im willing to bet when Mr. Mosin and Mr. Nagant sat down to design this....
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/16/Mosin_Nagant_series_of_rifles.jpg/300px-Mosin_Nagant_series_of_rifles.jpg
....that they had a pretty good idea that it was going to be used to kill someone..



just about every gun has the ability to kill someone.....but not all guns are designed to kill....

i have a hard time believing that when Mr. Anschutz sat down and designed these...
http://www.rifleman.org.uk/Images/Anschutz21st%20CenturyAd.jpg
....that he thought to himself, "man, thats one fine good killing machine"....



i really hate the "guns are DESIGNED to kill people" argument......at the end of the day, does it really make a difference what a tool is DESIGNED to do....?

hell, a YO-YO and the Frisbee were initially DESIGNED as weapons to kill people.......but if i had to choose between a yo-yo or a machete( a tool designed to clear brush, not kill people)....im going to take the machete.

Grey54956
January 4, 2013, 11:02 PM
Guns are designed to launch a projectile. The projectile they launch is designed to put holes in things. This can mean paper, old computer monitors, tasty animals, watermelons, milk jugs, soda cans, action figures, nasty animals, wood, clay discs, toilets, rusty car doors, ballistic gelatin, and a myriad of other things. On rare occasions, it might be necessary to put holes in people, too. For this purpose, the gun is often a sufficient tool. It is the user's intent that makes the gun dangerous.

larryh1108
January 4, 2013, 11:08 PM
Guns were made to kill. That is their function. If someone is threatening you and you wish to protect yourself, you shoot to kill. It is not a bad thing or an evil thing but it is the truth.

If you don't believe it then go read the caliber war threads. Read about the design of the latest, greatest SD ammo we can buy. They are designed and produced to penetrate and open up and do as much damage as possible. To deny that guns weren't made to kill is as silly as saying hammers weren't made to hammer things. Why do people get upset at the truth? I am as pro gun as anyone here but I will not pretend that guns were made to make holes in paper. (of course, some are). They were made to kill. That is why they were created. Accept that so we can move forward with protecting our rights. Saying it isn't so just makes us look silly, stupid and not serious. We lose credibility. We don't need anything to dilute our resolve.

jim243
January 4, 2013, 11:11 PM
What were they designed for? What is their intended purpose? Did the designers and commissioners of these weapons build them with intent to wipe out most of humanity

That is correct!

Jim

MarshallDodge
January 4, 2013, 11:22 PM
Sure guns can kill people but I have had access to a gun for over 30 years and have shot tens of thousands of rounds. Never once did any of the bullets kill an innocent human being.

I have shot at animals to kill them but it was either for food or because they were a varmint causing destruction to a food source.

I find guns to be very cool mechanical machines that are ingenious designs. They can be used to have fun, put food on the table, or improve my odds against an attacker. They were used to secure the freedom of the citizens of this country many years ago and if taken away, that freedom will go with them.

OptimusPrime
January 4, 2013, 11:56 PM
Klyph, the argument is not a good one to make. Of course weapons are designed to put holes in people/animals period. No way around it. Us good guys will make good choices and those bad guys will make bad choices. No other methods exist to ultimately stop a bad guy; that's the argument to make in my humble opinion.

Midnight Oil
January 5, 2013, 03:32 AM
The greatest most efficiently designed scary triple lethal +20 vorpal 40 billion magnum with several shoulder things that go up is still just a hunk of steel without someone pulling the trigger.

:p

on to the subject. time for some philosophy. arguing it's for taking life vs preserving life or vice versa is a waste of time. Some people look at a rock and think it's for throwing. others think it's for keeping as pets. while others maintain it's for collecting. a firearm is a firearm. you make it what it is. Just look at the whole d.i.y movement. things don't project its purpose to you. you as an individual are projecting your purpose onto it. i understand there are original intentions of the creator to serve a purpose, but once again, that is them projecting what they want onto a non sentient object! :D

caribou
January 5, 2013, 04:31 AM
The 2nd amendment to the Constitution is about arming the citizenry, an unorganized Militia (volenteers, not NG, the "oragnized Militia in US statute) and defending oneself and country.
Defending ones self and country means your are in Combat.
Its your natural Right to defend this counrty and yourself from enemys abroad and within.

The Milita is not to attack the Constitution, it is to protect it intact agains those who would pervet it.

The 2nd amandment is a Right, and it involves Combat, therefore your 30 round magizines, intended to be used to out fire and overwhel an Enemy in Combat is a Constitutionaly protected part of a modern small arm, in modern combat.

The Arms stated in the 2nd Amendment are for killing Men.

That is the harsh reality lost on too many.

Stand and fight or wear your chains lightly.

There hasnt been a moment in mankinds history when one group of people were not activly trying or actually have enslaved others for gain.

Removing your defense means you will be eaten like a dog without teeth...bark bark bark, no 30 round mag, NO bite.

We havent had a use for the 2nd Amendment because we pose such a threat to those who would enslave us all, buy the mear presence of the weapons through our history...........much like the crimes that have been stopped by the mear presence of the would be victem haveing a weapon, usually a gun.

The 2nd amendment and the gun it demands you own are like insurance and safe driveing, you have it , drive responsibly and havent had an accident, and pray you never use it.

jack404
January 5, 2013, 07:38 AM
try looking up nulla nulla , that too was designed as a killing weapon and used very effectively on people armed with the latest firearms available at the time

heres a pic of my deadly weapons , these have been used to kill in a tribal conflict , when the armed police (15) arrived , they where killed and their modern weapons taken it took 200 troops to capture the culprits , all 6 of them ...

these are weapons that out gunned , guns ....

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d9/Arrernte_Keulen_EthnM.jpg/893px-Arrernte_Keulen_EthnM.jpg

the botton one is thrown like a regular boomerang but parralel to the ground so it breaks your legs and allows the thrower to move in and finish you off , and they can fly with force for 100-150 meters depending on the skill of the thrower

it uses "ground effect" to fly so far , and was used for thousands of years before a russian scientist worked out you could do similar with air planes


we gonna ban wood next ??

herkyguy
January 5, 2013, 08:08 AM
semantics, but I would argue that firearms were seen as an offensive weapon when the Europeans first pieced them together. But this was at a time of sieges, so their defensive use was probably readily apparent. Death was not so much the objective as they were a tool designed to gain an advantage in defending one's kingdom, possessions, farm, etc....

I have no doubt that many of the first generation of firearms' owners enjoyed the benefit of their enemies simply thinking twice about attacking. This were the first to employ the "castle doctrine."

A gun is just as effective if it prevents an attack in the first place. So, i would argue that guns are designed to kill, but that is not their sole purpose.

Hokkmike
January 5, 2013, 08:38 AM
Killing is but one aspect of a gun's power.

larryh1108
January 5, 2013, 09:02 AM
Killing is but one aspect of a gun's power.

One aspect?
Sure.
It can also be used as a paper weight or boat anchor.
However, the question is what was it designed to do.
It was designed to kill.
Anything else it is used for is secondary to it's original intended purpose.

caribou
January 5, 2013, 09:09 AM
The Deterrent to violence aspect of owning a gun is the life of the 2nd Amendment. Its effective with out firing a shot. That is the Peacefull Blessing of the 2nd Amendment and every Citizen armed collectively trumps a statnding Army or Police state.

But to be an effective deterrent to violence it still must, indeed, be able to perform, to a modern standerd too.

when the Communists tryed to Coup yeltsin, and with helt the fuel that Yeltsins tanks needed, he loaded small arms into trucks and traded ID cards for AKs to men arriveing off the streets outside the "White House" gov building and they stormed the place, takeing it from the Communists who occupied it...maybe 92? I found that to be an interesting effect of haveing every man serve compulsivly in the military

klyph
January 5, 2013, 10:22 AM
However, the question is what was it designed to do. It was designed to kill. Anything else it is used for is secondary to it's original intended purpose.
You are confusing design capabilities with intended purpose. This is definitely a debate of semantics, but semantics are the basis of legislation, they matter.

2ifbyC
January 5, 2013, 10:41 AM
The premise that a gun was not designed to kill is a non sequitur. A gun however has many uses, but it is the user that controls the intent. A nuclear bomb has but one intent, i.e., mass destruction. You can argue that both are deterrents, but you would be not be wise to enter a debate that denies their prima facie design.

larryh1108
January 5, 2013, 11:48 AM
You are confusing design capabilities with intended purpose. This is definitely a debate of semantics, but semantics are the basis of legislation, they matter.

The design was for an efficient method to kill.
The intended purpose is to kill.
However it is used after the fact does not change what it was designed to do and what it was intended to be used for. It is semantics but let's call a spade a spade. When we play semantic games we are the ones who look silly just as the media looks silly calling all semi auto rifles assault weapons.

beatledog7
January 5, 2013, 12:29 PM
Another perspective:

The purpose of shooting a member of the opposing military force is not to kill him, but to convert him from a fighting asset to a logistical and economic liability for that opposing force. Sometimes the result of that conversion is the death of the soldier, but his death is not the goal. You don't win a war by killing more of their guys than they kill of yours but by making the other force unable or unwilling to continue fighting. That's how we won independence from Great Britain--not by killing scads of British troops, but by creating for Great Britain a logistical and economic (not to mention political) nightmare that the King was unwilling to perpetuate. Lots of dead guys in red uniforms was a factor, but not the decisive one.

The purpose of shooting an attacker in self defense or defense of another is to stop the attack. We are trained to shoot an attacker in body areas that are vital to his ability to continue his action, and sometimes doing that does result in death, but death is not the goal. Stopping the attack is the goal.

When we hunt, we shoot for a quick and humane kill. So in truth, the "killing machines" are the ones we use for hunting, the only legitimate aspect of firearms that is clearly and specifically about killing.

9MMare
January 5, 2013, 01:50 PM
The premise that a gun was not designed to kill is a non sequitur. A gun however has many uses, but it is the user that controls the intent. A nuclear bomb has but one intent, i.e., mass destruction. You can argue that both are deterrents, but you would be not be wise to enter a debate that denies their prima facie design.

OK. I have to say that this is the most cogent one, even tho it doesnt agree with mine.

My reason for getting into many of these discussions...and this was a new one for me....is to learn all the sides of the argument and if I pose a perspective....see how it gets countered so that I can develop a stronger argument in the future.

I'm going to say that really, this person has nailed it and I'd only be able to support uses secondary to design.

yokel
January 5, 2013, 02:38 PM
Indeed, the gun control and confiscation agenda is based on the view that ordinary citizens can not be trusted to use the physical power of arms responsibly; that they represent nothing more than a lethal menace. There is therefore need for a legal instrument that would ban the manufacture, transfer, accumulation, and use of all small arms and light weapons. But a people that can not be trusted with guns can not be trusted with the much more dangerous powers of self-government. Why should a people who can't be trusted to refrain from murder be trusted with the much more difficult and morally subtle task of choosing their leaders responsibly?

The gun control agenda is thus an implicit denial of the human capacity for self-government and is tyrannical in principle.

klyph
January 5, 2013, 02:42 PM
Cars are designed to be able drive over 100mph. Kitchen knives are designed to be able to decapitate a human. Nuclear fission was designed to cause mass destruction. Guns are designed to be able to kill living things at long range.
Cars are intended to to drive the speed limit. Kitchen knives are intended to debone a chicken. Nuclear fission is used to power the homes of millions. Guns are intended to be used for lawful purposes.
I'll concede the point of "designed to kill" that is indeed the major design parameter. I should have made a distinction between design capability and purpose. The purpose of most civilian owned firearms is not to kill people. Good discussion.

easyg
January 5, 2013, 03:23 PM
The purpose of most civilian owned firearms is not to kill people.
If you support the Constitutional 2nd Amendment, the purpose of civilian owned firearms is to overthrown the government should that government become tyrannical.

JohnBT
January 5, 2013, 03:40 PM
"Sorry have to agree with the other replies when a gun is used it is used to kill people or animals or to practice killing people or animals."


Or to shoot clays. Or to shoot bowling pins. Or to shoot sillywet. Or benchrest. Or tin cans for that matter.

There are lots of shooters who have no intention of ever hunting and who may have no interest at all in self defense. The evidence is clear unless you're living in denial.

1911 guy
January 5, 2013, 03:40 PM
Post #35 makes the distinction between capability and purpose.

As a man, father and husband, I have the capability to be a rapist, child abuser, wife beater, or quite frankly anything else the human body is capable of doing, rotten or good.

when do we all report for our mandatory vasectomies? After all, that is the design of the equipment. Amputate or hands and feet so we can't hit the kids or kick the dog?

Your car is more than capable of running over little old ladies in crosswalks. How ready are you to accept legislation barring you from owning anything more powerful than a bicycle?

When you make a pathetic argument for "reasonable" restriction, boil it down to principle. Forget all the emotional hype and hyperbole you've bought into. Then apply that principle evenly to all aspects of your life. Would you accept it? If not, the principle is flawed, and so is your argument.

B!ngo
January 5, 2013, 03:44 PM
Yes, this (below).
The OP had an array of inconsistencies in it, but ultimately does not provide a convincing position to anyone who can correctly and skillfully debate the issues.
I would add that, in addition to the Constitutional issue (which is a slippery slope because there is already a legal line in the sand affecting the scale of firearm that can be owned and that line can always be moved without explicitly violating the 2nd) that there is an argument to be made about the defensive, versus offensive need and value of firearms. The ratio of offense to defense is incredibly small. And though those instances are incredibly painful, is it fair, particularly in light of the 2nd, to preclude all americans who wish to defend themselves from doing so? Is it fair to require that everyone depend solely on government employees to keep them safe in an increasingly dangerous world with ever-shrinking funds to support such efforts?
What really has me confused here is, pragmatically, with all of the firearms, ammunition and magazines in circulation in the U.S., how will stopping the sale of firearms make people safer say, for the next 50 years. I don't hear anyone saying that banning of AR/AK's is a 50-year plan and that in the interim, they accept that there will be no change in risk. But isn't that simply the case?
B

Sorry have to agree with the other replies when a gun is used it is used to kill people or animals or to practice killing people or animals. Arguing otherwise just makes our side look dumb. It is why the "for sporting purposes" argument will never be effective for us, we should really focus on the constitutional right angle.

klyph
January 5, 2013, 04:57 PM
I'll concede the point of "designed to kill" that is indeed the major design parameter.
Allow me to add big caveat to this: some guns are designed to kill. However, the design purpose is irrelevant to it's implementation. The intent of the designer is irrelevant, the implementation of the operator is relevant. Guns serve many purposes other than killing people. The statement: "These guns are designed to kill people" may be technically correct, but it leaves out the fact that killing people is not the primary purpose of most civilian owned firearms.
I wonder if we listed the purposes we use firearms for, then listed them in order of most used instances, what would that list be? I would guess:
Target/recreational shooting
Hunting
law enforcement/self defense
Investment item
Homicide

I would love to see such a list with accurate numbers of each. It should prove that the original designed capability is very different from the widespread purpose.

larryh1108
January 5, 2013, 05:06 PM
We can certainly agree on this list. The actual use of firearms has nothing to do with the original, intended use. However, practicing to use it, whether target shooting or dry firing or practicing our draw, etc., are ways to be more proficient with it in case it is ever needed for it's original, intended use.

klyph
January 5, 2013, 05:12 PM
However, practicing to use it, whether target shooting or dry firing or practicing our draw, etc., are ways to be more proficient with it in case it is ever needed for it's original, intended use.
No, it's not, and we need to avoid blanket generalizations like this. Target shooters practice to be better target shooters. Hunters practice to more effectively put meat on the table. Some practice because it's just fun. Killing humans never enters into any of those reasons.

Doc7
January 5, 2013, 05:39 PM
Some people just can't imagine needing to do great violence upon others to save a life. I wonder if they ever had anti-sword debates or anti-warhammer debates.

LOL - had a friend confront me about why the hell I would ever want a gun capable of inflicting immediate severe blood pressure loss to a home intruder. "Why wouldn't you just shoot him in the leg???" At this point I understood the "gun control debate" was a futile conversation with this individual.

If you enjoyed reading about "Instruments of Death" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!