Firearms were NOT designed to kill

[Plinkerton]

Firearms are designed to protect the life of the user.

By KILLING the enemy. Period. End of argument.

Okay, so they were designed to protect the user. What is it about their design that allows them to be used to protect the user?

Well, they fire a projectile.

Oh, that's interesting. How does a flying projectile help to protect the user?

Well, the projectile will fly thru the air, and hit the thing that is threatening the user.

Oh. What happens when it hits the threatening thing?

Well, it will most likely MAIM or KILL the threat.

I see. So, the gun is designed to protect the user, by KILLING or MAIMING an opposing threat?

YES!

 

[Archangel]

Firearms are designed to protect the life of the user.

By KILLING the enemy. Period. End of argument.

No, not end of argument. They protect the life of the user by killing. That's the end of the argument.



I'm not saying that killing is not part of a gun's design. It's just not the end purpose of it's design.

Either you look at the microscopic mechanical process of the gun, which ends when the bullet leaves the barrel (in which killing does not even enter into the equation), or you look at the macroscopic process of winning a war, defeating an enemy, defending your person, or defending your liberty, in which case killing is a step, a mechanism, but not the end purpose.

 

[BamBam-31]

Okay, we all agree that the individual, not the tool, is responsible for his or her actions, correct? If Joe Somebody went out and shot someone, we should judge his actions based on, among other things, his intent. We should not hold the gun responsible in any way, as it is an inanimate object.

We also all agree that it doesn't matter what the designer's original intent was, a tool can be used for whatever it's owner wishes. Again, the individual's willful decision to use the tool to whatever purpose is what matters, not the tool's original design intent.

So why, then, are we arguing whether or not guns were designed to kill? Anti's, of course, want to bait you into some slippery slope where if you admit "Guns were designed to kill," then "Guns should all be banned." But this does not follow. If it does, then I don't see it. Someone please explain to me how I can conclude "Guns should be banned" from "Guns were designed to kill." The most important factor, personal accountability, is completely removed.

When we say "Guns were designed to kill," we're describing it from an engineering standpoint. No more, no less. When an Anti says "Guns were designed to kill," they're hoping to attach a moral (or immoral, rather) value to guns so they can judge (and therefore control) an inanimate object. As pointed out earlier, the end result of banning inanimate objects goes counter to their original goal. Again, that's because they want to avoid blaming the individual by blaming the tool. Faulty reasoning. Won't work.

So why are we debating whether or not guns were designed to kill?

 

[R.H. Lee]

Next time you're arguing with an anti, ask him when and if he ever has to call 911 because some felon broke into his house and is holding his wife/kids hostage, he will request the cops come unarmed.

 

[roscoe]

Firearms are designed to protect the life of the user.

What about hunting rifles? What about sniper rifles? These are designed to kill but really are not for self-defense.

 

[Archangel]

So why are we debating whether or not guns were designed to kill?

Me, mainly because it's a slow day at work, and I wanted to exercise the brain cells.

But also because, as cosmoline said, "guns are designed to kill" seems to be at the center of most anti's arguments for gun control. So we should analyze and understand that reasoning to better be able to counter it when debating an anti.

I think what we've seen so far is not so much that it's a design issue, it's that anti's think all killing is universally bad. Based on that, I'd counter the "guns are desgned to kill" argument with the question "So why do cops need them?"

 

[Archangel]

What about hunting rifles? What about sniper rifles? These are designed to kill but really are not for self-defense.

Not for self defense, no. But in both cases, killing is still a proximate purpose to a greater ultimate purpose, such as obtaining food, or demoralizing the enemy.

 

[R.H. Lee]

What about hunting rifles? What about sniper rifles? These are designed to kill but really are not for self-defense.

Oh, I don't know. Peter Capstick, raising his .416 Rigby against a charging cape buffalo, or Carlos Hathcock, actively engaged in combat might disagree with you.

 

[BamBam-31]

But also because, as cosmoline said, "guns are designed to kill" seems to be at the center of most anti's arguments for gun control. So we should analyze and understand that reasoning to better be able to counter it when debating an anti.

Now we're getting somewhere. The problem with arguing semantics is too often it becomes its own "end purpose." Forest for the trees.

So again I ask: How does an Anti go from "Guns are designed to kill" to "Guns should be banned?" I don't see how you can.

It's not that I don't understand what you're saying, it's not that I don't understand what the Anti's are saying. All I'm saying is the line of reasoning isn't there. As you said, they often view any kind of killing as fundamentally evil, so any tool designed to that end must in turn be evil. Of course, this kind of "argument" is rooted in emotion, not reason. And you can't really reason against emotion.

If reason ruled the day, it would not matter that "Guns are designed to kill," which they are. The individual would be responsible for his or her actions. What tools were used would be of little consequence. But that's a big if.

 

[Nick1911]

So again I ask: How does an Anti go from "Guns are designed to kill" to "Guns should be banned?" I don't see how you can.

Easy:

"Guns are designed to kill" ---> "Killing is wrong and evil" ---> "Anything designed to kill, thus must be wrong and evil; seeing as it's root function is something evil"

Easy as 1-2-3

Nick

 

[JohnKSa]

Who says killing is wrong?

That's utter foolishness.

The state sanctions killing in the form of hunting licenses... Every person who eats meat or wears leather sanctions the killing of animals. Every person who buys insecticide or a flyswatter is admitting that they are killers.

Oh, we're talking about killing humans? Not much difference there...

The government kills criminals using the death penalty. The government pays a large group of people called the military who are on occasion told to kill people.

Our laws state clearly that one citizen killing another is justifiable in many cases.

Oh, but morality holds to a higher standard than the law? Right...

The bible makes it plain that killing in defense of life is not punishable. On at least one occasion, a king was punished for NOT completely exterminating a group of people--women and children included.

But we're more enlightened now, right?

Didn't the Dalai Lama make the statement that it would be reasonable to shoot back at a person who began shooting at you?

MURDER is wrong.

Killing is sometimes murder, but not always. Killing in self defense is not murder, killing during war is not murder--executions are not murder.

When killing is NOT murder, it's also not illegal or even immoral.

Cosmoline,

You allowed your opponents to define killing--they did it improperly and now you have to somehow convince them that guns aren't meant to kill in order to defend your position.

Take a step back and define killing PROPERLY and then you won't be forced to continue in this twisted line of reasoning.

 

[RJ357]

Personally, if my life is going to depend on a gun, I would prefer one that was not designed for knocking over bowling pins. I certainly expect it to be designed (along with the ammo) to do sufficient damage.

 

[BluesBear]

I have said this before.

The firearm was NOT designed to kill.

Firearms were designed to launch projectiles. Many of the first firearms were made to fire the same "shot" that had been used in catapaults.

Firearms were designed to launch projectiles. Now, I'll grant you that some projectiles are designed with the possibility of being lethal but not all.

Case in point. Modern military tactics run along the reasoning that it takes more of you enemy's manpower and resources to treat wounded soldiers than it does to deal with deceased ones. Twentieth Century tactics were based on inflicting the most number of casualties possible which is not always the highest number of fatalities.

We all know that the number of people killed in a war is far less than the number of people wounded. A soldier shoots to stop his enemy from being able to shoot at him.

If killing were the main objective in war we would be doing it differently.

Firearms were not designed to kill!
Firearms were designed to launch projectiles. Military small arms projectiles are designed to wound. Hunting projectiles are designed to kill.

Guns don't kill people. BULLETS kill people.

 

[MaterDei]

jamz

Well said.

 

[Highland Ranger]

Military small arms projectiles are designed to wound.

Military small arms projectiles are designed to wound.

That's why they use FMJ bullets . . . . . better to wound than kill. Stops the fight and sucks up enemy resources caring for the wounded.

 

[cooch]

<sigh>

Well if we're going to follow this non sequitor.......
Would you give guns to people who spend their time practicing to kill people?

If killing is evil, then training to kill people is evil.

Which means that policemen should be banned.

 

[trapperjohn]

That's why they use FMJ bullets . . . . . better to wound than kill. Stops the fight and sucks up enemy resources caring for the wounded.

No, they use FMJ because of international treaty. It was felt the use of expanding bullets was too cruel.

Dictionary definition of GUN:
A weapon consisting of a metal tube from which a projectile is fired at high velocity into a relatively flat trajectory.


Yes it does launch projectile, but it is first and foremost a weapon.
Now, what are weapons used for? punching paper? punching rocks? Making noise?

 

[Kaylee]

I think the whole "designed only to launch a projectile" is a semantic argument. Silly really, on the same level as a child saying "but.. but... you only said I couldn't touch the cookie jar, not the cookies inside.. and so I really did what you said."

If firearms were ONLY designed to "launch a projectile" then we'd not have sights, scopes, all manner of ergonomic features, select-fire, yadda-yadda-yadda. If "launching a projectile" were the only aim, a bottle rocket would suffice. Even if I only wanted to "launch a projectile as an exercise in hitting a target" I'd own an air rifle, not a .45 ACP or a 7.62x39 or a .30-06.

Some (not all, obviously) firearms are designed as WEAPONS. If they weren't good tools for killing things, they'd make lousy implements of defense and the hunt. And as already noted, sometimes killing things is necessary.. even killing other human beings.

That's the philisophical answer. The realpolitik answer is that if one tries the semantic argument on an anti, I suspect their credibility will be flushed, for exactly those reasons listed above. Whether you buy the argument or not, that IS what your debating partner will think.

And hey, in this one instance.. they'd be right.

-K

 

[GEM]

When you actually try to track down the wound business to a real source, not a third hand gun book quoting another third hand story from some third hand expert, you really can't find it.

I went through this with a bunch of experts and we didn't find it as an original statement in official doctrine manuals or documents. If someone had it, I would like to see it. Not a secondary source!

There are guns not designed to kill - IIRC, special guns are designed to blast off the plaque of some kind of metal forging processes, like in steel mills or something like that. I forget the details. But that isn't what we are talking about.

The raison d'etre of the 2nd is to have instruments of lethal force. As stated so well above and by me previously, , you look like a fool. The core of American gun rights is the use as a weapon and not sports.

Kerry is a hunter as was Clinton. They always say that they are not against the sportsman or hunter. That' s not the issue at all.