Hokkmike
Member
Killing is but one aspect of a gun's power.
Instruments of Death
- Thread starter klyph
- Start date
- Status
larryh1108
Member
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
Member
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
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
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
Member
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
Member
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.
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
Member
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
Member
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2007
- Messages
- 1,235
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.
The gun control agenda is thus an implicit denial of the human capacity for self-government and is tyrannical in principle.
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.
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
Member
If you support the Constitutional 2nd Amendment, the purpose of civilian owned firearms is to overthrown the government should that government become tyrannical.
JohnBT
Member
"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.
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
Member
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.
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.
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
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
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
Member
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.
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
Member
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.
- Status
