Not for killing

[jlmer]

I've been reading the "Newbie" section and find that a lot of people that doesn't own guns but are on this forum are of the mindset that a gun is for killing. Not so!
I've owned guns most of my life and used to hunt animals but have since decided I'd rather hunt them with a camera instead of taking their life for a trophy. My family also likes to target shoot but never have I ever wanted or thought about shooting another human.
To own a gun does not mean you are automatically in a "killers" club and are planning a war, etc. although owning a firearm does give you a certain feeling of security a non-gun owner will never have.
The people that want to ban guns are feeding others that gun owners are a suspicious bunch that are secretly plotting to start WWIII or plotting against his neighbor. No, but this gun owner may be the one to come to his neighbors aid should the occasion arise.
So, if you're thinking about owning a gun please buy one, you'll find you can have a lot of fun with it, once you learn to use it properly, and you won't be considered a subhuman, subversive citizen nor will you have to kill anything or anyone.

 

[CoRoMo]

Most of my guns are for killing, and they are quite good at it.

 

[tyeo098]

Owning a gun makes you a killer the same way owning a car makes you a Nascar driver.

 

[Carl N. Brown]

The Library Journal review of the 1960s anti-gun skreed Carl Bakal's "No Right to Bear Arms" took exception to the claim that guns were made only to put a bullet in a living body in order to kill, by pointing out that many guns are designed and made for target shooting and non-hunting sports.

I would point out that javelin, discus, fencing foil, bow and arrow, etc. were designed as weapons, but are more likely to be owned and used for sport than used as weapons. The letter I got from ATF FTB on my Mauser C96 stated that an original C96 with shoulder stock was more likely to owned as a collectors item than as a weapon, and would be treated as a Title I pistol and not as a Title II short barrel rifle. The ATF Curio & Relic List recognizes that a lot of firearms are not owned as weapons, but as curios and collectibles.

So the "not for killing" reflects the reason and intent of millions of US gun owners.

The worst recent local murderer used knife and baseball bat to kill three people, so to me the anti-gun obsession with guns and people who own guns misses the problem with crime and violence: the criminal.

 

[mortablunt]

I agree with the OP. Do not give the antigunners any sort of power or reason to think that we are a cancerous lot. A gun is a multipurpose tool that also has the incidental ability to kill. Let's think of some uses for guns...

Handguns

Paperweight
Hammer
Prop
Sport
Antique
Collectible
Art
Symbol
Starter
History

Longarms

Cane
Hammer
Key
Opener
History
Art
Decoration
Sport
Conversation
Exercise

Of course, the popular military derivative guns were designed to kill, but are also well suited to purposes other than slaying.

 

[scythefwd]

Every one of my rifles were designed to either kill or train people to kill.
My cva optima elite... still waiting to draw blood... bought to hunt with and designed to be hunted with
My M1 - designed as a weapon of war... may not have ever seen war
My Mossberg M44us(a) - designed to be a training rifle for the army

My BHP - was a military gun from the start, I have a civilian version but the gun was designed for war
My cz rami - designed with the role of ccw in mind...bought with ccw in mind

my only 2 which don't meet that designed to kill criteria are my Heritage arm rough rider... and it's taken several snakes, it has killed and my Ruger six single .32 H&R...

Don't kid yourself, the original design of most common weapons is not for sport. Rifles designed from the start to be target rifles are a very small percentage of firearms.

Now owning a gun that was designed to kill and being a killer yourself are two wholly separate and distinct things. Many people purchase rifles that were designed with hunting in mind just to punch paper with them... and there isn't anything wrong with it.

 

[bigalexe]

Owning a gun makes you a killer the same way owning a car makes you a Nascar driver.

DANG! I shoulda told the judge that I was practicing for NASCAR!

On a more serious note... Guns are for killing plain and simple. My shotgun is designed to kill, kill well, and also kill repeatedly and reliably. It's designed to kill Deer, quail, pheasant, duck, and whatever else needs killing. My Rifle .22lr is designed to kill small game, or to train someone to kill with a bigger gun.

The hang up is that the person behind the trigger needs to have a mindset to know when to kill.

 

[LHRGunslinger]

Mortablunt you forgot Security Blanket.

 

[mortablunt]

LHRGunslinger I was making a note of listing the purposes which did not involve the possibility of killing.

 

[Justin]

To claim that guns are only useful for killing is logically and factually incorrect.

The vast majority of firearms owned in the United States are used for purposes other than killing.

Claiming that guns are useful only for killing means that you have to completely and totally dismiss all of the other purposes guns are used for, e.g. recreational target shooting, plinking, collecting historical relics.

Furthermore, all of these purposes are completely and utterly equal, as purpose can only be given to an object by the person who owns it.


Eugene Volokh, who is one of the foremost scholars on the Second Amendment has a short but thought-provoking essay on this exact subject that can be read here:

http://volokh.com/2002_04_21_volokh_archive.html#75659421


The trope that "guns are only made for killing" is a personal pet peeve of mine, especially when so many gun owners mistakenly believe that to be the case. One only needs to apply some basic logic to the statement to see that it's erroneous.

 

[henschman]

While it is true that not all guns are designed for the purpose of killing people, I would never concede the moral point by agreeing that killing people is somehow a less legitimate reason for gun ownership than other reasons. There are plenty of situations in which killing people is right and necessary. In fact, if you believe the guys who wrote the Constitution and Bill of Rights, the most pressing reason for protecting the right to bear arms is so individuals can protect their liberties against anyone who would try to deny them, including their own government.

Most of my guns are guns that are suitable for these "Second Amendment Purposes." I actually believe that these 2A guns are the most "legitimate" and "necessary" type of firearms of all, constitutionally speaking. Of course I like to do other things with them, such as punch paper at the range, take them to classes, maybe a competition here and there, and maybe take them out hunting for deer or hogs occcasionally; but most of that is geared toward training in order to be ready in case (god forbid) it should ever be necessary to use them for their intended 2A purposes.

I think there is a big difference between paranoia and being responsible, prepared, and vigilant against threats to one's liberty. the latter are simply the duties of all free men if they wish to remain that way.

 

[scythefwd]

Justin - to say that a gun wasn't made for killing is to assign intent to the manufacturer. To determine what the manufacture intended for the gun, look at the way they marketed it. If it was built for a military or police contract.... that pretty much ends it. That is the only way to determine the purpose for which a gun was built. Only the manufacturers intent is relevant there.

On the other hand, the purpose for which you own a gun very well can have nothing to do with killing. That is your intent for the gun. Unless you had the gun custom made for you, special order, or designed the gun yourself assigning your purpose for owning the gun to the purpose of the manufacturer is folly.

I don't think anyone has stated that you cannot own a gun for any purpose other than killing. I have heard them say that the original intent of the manufacturer or designer was killing whether it be animal or man. I'll repeat, the intent of the designer is what the gun was designed for... the current owners intent doesn't come into play. The intent of the manufacturer is what the gun was made for (profit, let's be honest here), the intent of the current owner matters not. What the gun current exists for is solely up to the current owner, the intent of the manufacturer and designer be damned.

A good example - My M1 was designed for war, it's a once a year shooter and dust collector with some possible collectors value now. What it is now has nothing to do with what it was designed for.

My Rough Rider - Based on the build quality and price point I have to assume it was intended as a plinking gun or as a first gun to learn on. I could be wrong with that assumption. It's my snake killer. Again, what I use it for is quite probably at odds for what it was originally intended.

 

[Justin]

The point isn't that guns can't be used to kill, or even that some are kept for that purpose.

The point is that all purposes that don't involve initiating force are equally valid.

You would certainly get no disagreement from me about the need to understand the context of when a gun is used to kill, as certainly there are legitimate uses of force (personal protection, protection of family members) and uses that are fundamentally not legitimate at all (murder, muggings, etc.)

 

[Justin]

Justin - to say that a gun wasn't made for killing is to assign intent to the manufacturer. To determine what the manufacture intended for the gun, look at the way they marketed it. If it was built for a military or police contract.... that pretty much ends it. That is the only way to determine the purpose for which a gun was built. Only the manufacturers intent is relevant there.

Why is the manufacturer's stated purpose somehow more legitimate than that of the end user?

For example, if I use an AR15 to compete in 3 gun, or someone uses an AR15 to hunt coyotes, or a father uses an AR15 to teach his son the basics of marksmanship, are all of those applications less purposeful than using the gun to fight a war simply because it was originally developed in a military context?

 

[Loosedhorse]

Don't kid yourself, the original design of most common weapons is not for sport.

Sigh. Is hunting not sport?

When antigunners use the word "kill," they specifically mean kill human beings; hunters who agree with the "killing" idea typically mean killing animals, and yet look like they support the antis' viewpoint. That's despite the fact that "killing" is not the "purpose" in hunting: typically the purpose is sport (I have had great days hunting when I didn't get a shot), or getting meat. (Some antis, of course, are just as horrified by the killing of animals in hunting as by the murder of humans).

And of course, look how many guns are designed to kill people: concealed weapons, handguns, Saturday night specials, assault weapons, sniper rifles. And don't forget that .50s are designed to bring down planeloads of children.

Always love these "original purpose" and "original design" ideas.

What was the purpose of the first person to build a firearm? Probably to make money. Want was the purpose of the guy who made the second (better) firearm? To make more money than the first guy.

What was the purpose of the guy buying the first firearm? Probably survival. That may have entailed better ability to hunt, and/or better ability to defend himself from raiders. Of course, eventually the raiders got firearms, too. For survival, in making them more efficient raiders.

Evolution sociologists talk about "ultimate" and "proximate" goals--it's not an either/or but a continuum. Analogous to strategic and tactical. What's the ultimate goal of any tool: increase survival. What's the strategy for doing that with a firearm? Might be securing food or other resources (hunting, raiding, etc.), or for defending the same; and for defending life.

A mid-level goal maybe killing of an animal (all ethical hunters strive for a clean kill), but even when used against humans in warfare, killing is perhaps the third-best goal. First-best, guns can be used to convince your opponent that he should withdraw with no shots fired (For a little local history, look up Boston's "Evacuation Day").

Second-best, wound/incapacitate your enemy, as the wounded will often take more enemy resources than the dead (and that also goes to hurting their ability and will to fight on). Lastly, there is killing the enemy.

The most proximate (lowest level) goal of someone shooting a firearm is to put a hole in something at distance with as much precision as available.

So let's see: the goal of the folks inventing firearms is to make money. The goal of those first using them is survival. The guns are actually designed for making holes at distance. And mixed in there are intermediate goals of obtaining food by hunting and killing game; and killing an opponent in a confrontation IF no other action will accomplish what you need to get done.

And from this all, I am supposed to conclude that the primary purpose of a gun is to kill, and that that is what they were designed for?

:banghead:

to say that a gun wasn't made for killing is to assign intent to the manufacturer. To determine what the manufacture intended for the gun, look at the way they marketed it. If it was built for a military or police contract.... that pretty much ends it

To say that is WAS made for killing is also assigning intent. Most manufacurers make guns...to make money! And your implication that police obtain guns in order to kill? I think many would say that their primary purpose is to apply necessary force to effect arrests and protect themselves and the public.

Warfare? Is a sniper's goal to shoot a single person (likely his proximate goal), or to allow a single soldier to pin down and halt the advance of a large force (tactical goal), or to allow other resources to be organized and applied elsewhere or at a different time (the strategic goal)? And aren't the tactical and strategic goals met even if he happens to just wound his targets? If those goals are achievable even if no one dies, then how can we say the "real" purpose is to kill?

I believe you are confusing a firearm's ability to allow the user to kill, with this unclear notion of "primary purpose," however we come to define that.

 

[scythefwd]

Why is the manufacturer's purpose somehow more legitimate than that of the end user?

I never said it was. But to be correct, the reason a gun was made has nothing to do with the reason it is owned. Both reasons for it's existence are perfectly valid.

It's no different than a hammer. It was designed to drive nails. It was made to drive nails and make a profit. It's being used to prop up a wobbly table. My use is no less valid, but it doesn't change the fact that the hammer was designed to drive nails.

I'll gladly say there are some rifles that weren't designed for killing but designed for target.

For example, if I use an AR15 to compete in 3 gun, or someone uses an AR15 to hunt coyotes, or a father uses an AR15 to teach his son the basics of marksmanship, are all of those applications less purposeful than using the gun to fight a war simply because it was originally developed in a military context?

Did you assemble the AR yourself? If so, your intent for assembling it is why it was made. If you bought it from a manufacturer that lists it as a target gun, then that is why it was made. If the manufacturer lists it as a hunting gun, that is why it was made. Stoner designed the gun to be used for killing though. Again, your reason for owning it is NOT the designers intent. Unless you made the gun (I'll even include assembling it in this), your intent for owning it is NOT the intent of the maker UNLESS it was made on your commission, specifically for you.

No, those uses aren't any less legitmate, but they aren't why the gun was designed or made (which they could have separate reasons for that as the designer isn't the maker usually).

It looks, to me at least, that you can't seem to separate the intent of the owner from the intent of the weapon designer or the weapon maker. They are usually separate. If you are discussing why you own the gun, only your intent matters. That is perfectly valid in context. If you are talking why the gun was made, your intent for owning it is irrelevant in contest.

I'll repeat myself here. The purpose of a guns existence is why the current owner has the gun. That is what the OP is talking about here.

The way I usually hear it phrased is guns are only made to kill. The reason the gun was made, usually profit, is up to the manufacturer.

 

[gym]

Guns are made to fire a projectile. Where that projectile goes is up to the person firing the gun. It's the decision of the human as to where he wants to place that bullet, not the guns idea. It is an inanimate object, like a knife or a car, or a match.

Many things can kill, if that was the intent of the operator. To say that they are made to kill is just what some decided that they, may do that, with them. I also think that saying you got a gun to kill people with, or just leaving out "what you meant", "only", is feeding into the anti's argument, that everyone who has a gun is a killer.

In the shotgun post above, yes it can be used to kill, or prevent a killing, or provide food, we know that the food we eat comes from somewhere, so to kill for food is misleading when put in the context of killing without distinguishing the difference in what you are planning to kill. Self defense is a given, Anything can be used as a deadly weapon in that case from a thumb tack, to your SUV.

My Carry guns are made for self defense, not to kill people, if a person dies as a result of trying to kill me then so be it, but it's not open ended, you don't buy a Glock as an offensive weapon, it's a defensive weapon. It's there to protect you and yours from sick or crazy people who *are* trying to kill you. No one here *I hope* buys a gun, a "civilian" with the intent of killing someone just because it was designed to be a combat weapon initially, unless they are in jeopardy and have no other option. They buy it to survive an attack, and stop a threat.

Many people just enjoy target shooting,, and spend thousands of dollars on optics and special parts to accurize their rifles, this is as far from killing as you can get.

 

[fehhkk]

Guns don't kill by themselves. The human pulling the trigger, does the killing.

 

[Justin]

It's no different than a hammer. It was designed to drive nails. It was made to drive nails and make a profit. It's being used to prop up a wobbly table. My use is no less valid, but it doesn't change the fact that the hammer was designed to drive nails.

The first hammers were designed to be used as weapons. Using them to pound nails came much later. The fact that hammers made for a good weapon doesn't mean that using one to drive nails is somehow a lesser purpose.

Did you assemble the AR yourself? If so, your intent for assembling it is why it was made. If you bought it from a manufacturer that lists it as a target gun, then that is why it was made. If the manufacturer lists it as a hunting gun, that is why it was made. Stoner designed the gun to be used for killing though. Again, your reason for owning it is NOT the designers intent. Unless you made the gun (I'll even include assembling it in this), your intent for owning it is NOT the intent of the maker UNLESS it was made on your commission, specifically for you.

Whether I assembled the gun myself or not is really not relevant. But let's set that aside and pretend that it is for a minute.

I've heard of High Power competitors using as-issued military M16 rifles. I've acted as a Range Officer at matches where police officers competed with their issued service guns.

When I started shooting 3 Gun, I ran a bone-stock Rock River entry carbine.

When the above guns are used for those purposes, of what matter is the designer's intent? In what way are those applications of those particular firearms somehow less purposeful as a result?

And, furthermore, why should current public policy be dictated based on presumptions of what a manufacturer may or may not have intended for the firearm or device that they sell?

It looks, to me at least, that you can't seem to separate the intent of the owner from the intent of the weapon designer or the weapon maker. They are usually separate. If you are discussing why you own the gun, only your intent matters. That is perfectly valid in context. If you are talking why the gun was made, your intent for owning it is irrelevant in contest.

I'm perfectly capable of doing so. My point is that the designer's intent is, quite frankly, completely irrelevant.

The reason the gun was made, usually profit, is up to the manufacturer.

To me, this basically says "unless you use this gun for exactly the reasons stated in the marketing materials, you are misusing it." That's a pretty narrow conceptual view, and one that leads to some pretty dark places.

 

[Flynt]

What about clay shooting and guns that are designed specifically for busting clay -- not even shooting live birds?

 

[TexasRifleman]

Guns are tools. They are only as useful, or as dangerous, as the human holding them.

Cain killed Able with a rock, he didn't need a high capacity magazine and a polymer handgun he could sneak through metal detectors (typical anti nonsense). If he hadn't been able to pass the background check for a rock he would have used a stick.

This is the biggest problem with arguing gun control with anti's. They have a fundamental belief that you can alter human behavior by controlling access to tools.

It just doesn't work that way. Humans are the killers, not the guns. This causes the anti to have to look internally, and they fear that above all else.

 

[303tom]

Guns don`t kill people, husbands who come home early do !

 

[gamestalker]

One of my primary reasons for carrying is to preserve a life, rather than take one. But if someone has got to go, it should be the deadly perpetrator and not an innocent law abiding citizen. Every time I walk out the door I feel the tremendous degree of responsibility that goes with carrying and knowing that I might have to actually use my weapon today. Along with that thought is my prayer's to keep myself, and other's, safe form harms way, and that my Lord, God , and Savior Jesus Christ, keep his hand upon me in guidance and protection, A-Men!
I take the responsibility very seriously, and having been in life threatening situations multiple times over the last 40 some years, I know the odds are not good because evil doesn't take a day off!
No, I'm not a cop!

"When seconds count, the police are only minutes away!"

 

[tyeo098]

Whoa easy there guys.

No gun was ever designed to kill.

A firearm is simply a tool that can deliver a piece of mass will sufficient veliocity to very long distances accurately.

The same way a hammer is designed to impact a large amount of force over a small area.

The only things 'designed to kill' are things like neuroagents, biotoxins, etc. Designed as their only purpose is to end human life.

 

[Fishslayer]

I agree with the OP. Do not give the antigunners any sort of power or reason to think that we are a cancerous lot. A gun is a multipurpose tool that also has the incidental ability to kill. Let's think of some uses for guns...

Handguns

Paperweight

I have one of those. I'm not really fond of it...

My guns are primarily for punching holes in evil paper. I hope they never have to get around to that other purpose...