1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Instruments of Death

Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by klyph, Jan 4, 2013.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. klyph

    klyph Member

    May 18, 2012
    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.
  2. MachIVshooter

    MachIVshooter Member

    Aug 11, 2005
    Elbert County, CO
    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.
  3. Cesiumsponge

    Cesiumsponge Member

    Nov 6, 2004
    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.
  4. vamo

    vamo Member

    Mar 18, 2012
    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.
  5. General Geoff

    General Geoff Member

    Nov 28, 2006
    Allentown, Pennsylvania
    Death is not the worst of evils.
  6. Skribs

    Skribs Member

    Oct 29, 2010
    Lakewood, Washington
    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.
  7. kwguy

    kwguy Member

    Dec 17, 2012
    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.
  8. Baba Louie

    Baba Louie Member

    Dec 26, 2002
    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:
  9. gp911

    gp911 Member

    Oct 30, 2005
    I usually respond with "apparently my guns are malfunctioning because they haven't killed anybody."
  10. PRM

    PRM Member

    Apr 14, 2008
    Well stated...
  11. 9MMare

    9MMare Member

    Aug 24, 2009
    Outside Seattle, WA
    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.
  12. klyph

    klyph Member

    May 18, 2012
    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.
  13. SuperNaut

    SuperNaut Member

    Jun 19, 2006
    SLC, Utah
    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."
    Last edited: Jan 4, 2013
  14. PowderMonkey

    PowderMonkey Member

    Sep 16, 2010
    SE Ohio
    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.
  15. JellyJar

    JellyJar Member

    Aug 29, 2009
    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!
  16. M-Cameron

    M-Cameron member

    Oct 6, 2009
    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....
    ....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...
    ....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.
  17. Grey54956

    Grey54956 Member

    Jul 22, 2003
    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.
  18. larryh1108

    larryh1108 Member

    Aug 29, 2008
    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.
  19. jim243

    jim243 Member

    Sep 11, 2009
    That is correct!

  20. MarshallDodge

    MarshallDodge Member

    Nov 7, 2005
    Utah, USA
    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.
  21. OptimusPrime

    OptimusPrime Member

    Dec 9, 2012
    The Old Dominion
    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.
  22. Midnight Oil

    Midnight Oil Member

    Dec 27, 2012

    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
  23. caribou

    caribou Member

    Sep 12, 2008
    North West Alaska
    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.
  24. jack404

    jack404 Member

    Apr 7, 2009
    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 ....


    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 ??
    Last edited: Jan 5, 2013
  25. herkyguy

    herkyguy Member

    Jul 31, 2009
    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.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page