Not for killing

[Too_Pure]

Guns were invented for killing.

I have guns in case I need to kill. I hope I never do. Not including hunting in this post...

I enjoy learning to use them properly and well. But just because I shoot thousands of rounds at paper and none at a person doesn't mean the gun was not meant to kill. It just means that as of today it hasn't had to, and just because something hasn't happened yet doesn't mean it never will.

I sincerely belive that trying to convince anyone, including yourself, that a handgun's primary purpose is anything other than to kill or incapacitate as quickly and efficiently as possible is not doing the Second Amendment cause any favors. Honesty is the best policy.

I do not have a gun in my pants for any other reason than to kill if it comes down to kill or be killed.

Shooting sports are derivative.

 

[scythefwd]

too_pure - I got a .22 revolver that might change your opinion re:

I sincerely belive that trying to convince anyone, including yourself, that a handgun's primary purpose is anything other than to kill or incapacitate as quickly and efficiently as possible is not doing the Second Amendment cause any favors.

 

[Justin]

I sincerely belive that trying to convince anyone, including yourself, that a handgun's primary purpose is anything other than to kill or incapacitate as quickly and efficiently as possible is not doing the Second Amendment cause any favors. Honesty is the best policy.

It's not an issue of "honesty" as you put it. If anything, the claim that guns are only useful for killing is the dishonest position, as very few firearms are ever used for the purpose of taking a life, and there are many uses for a firearm that are just as legitimate and do not involve killing someone.

I will, again, post the link to Eugene Volokh's takedown of this argument where he proves it to be wrong not only from a statistical standpoint, but also a moral one:

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

In order for your claim to be true, you have to argue that all other uses for handguns are false, and furthermore, prove that these guns are primarily used to take lives.

 

[CoRoMo]

...in order to get meat or enjoy hunting (or both).

...or for the trophy, or just killing animals that you prefer did not exist.

 

[Loosedhorse]

I have guns in case I need to kill.

I'm not sure when I would "need to kill." I might certainly need to stop an attacker. Your needs may be different.

...or for the trophy, or just killing animals that you prefer did not exist.

Fair enough. I would consider getting the trophy part of enjoying hunting, and pest control (how I interpreted your "just killing animals that you prefer did not exist") separate from hunting. But no matter: pest control and getting a trophy are both purposes for using a gun on an animal.

 

[Sky]

Maybe some just like the smell of gun powder in the morning mist. Cordite and coffee go well together IMO but alas there was one time when I even like the smell of jet fuel and napalm. Different strokes for different folks. I never even considered a weapon was used for anything other than practicing and getting well versed with the weapon so you would be a more competent shooter whether on paper or flesh.

 

[Too_Pure]

It's not an issue of "honesty" as you put it. If anything, the claim that guns are only useful for killing is the dishonest position, as very few firearms are ever used for the purpose of taking a life...

"Useful for..."
"Invented for..."

They are different.

This difference exists with other things, too. The race car analogy comes to mind.

Also, the useful purpose for a particular individual is important.

The projectile the gun is loaded with: I couldn't care less if any of my guns feed wadcutters. I've never even tried. I do care if they feed hollow points, made for killing.

Shooting sport is derivative.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Cosmoline]

They have always been designed to send a projectile of a particular size and mass downrange at a particular velocity without injuring the shooter.

Exactly. A firearm is made to contain a centerfire or rimfire metallic cartridge filled with chemical powder and detonate it by striking the primer or priming compound. It is also made to direct a projectile from that cartridge down a barrel, often imparting a spin to that projectile.

That's what it's designed for. Beyond that we enter the world of humans and human intentions. The firearm ends at the barrel. Trying to put desires, intentions and purposes onto the firearm is pointless and can be turned against us very easily. A firearm is a piece of technology, and can only be described as a piece of technology based on it's literal function.

handgun's primary purpose

Purpose? A handgun, itself, has no will desire or purpose. It is no more than what it is. The potential uses of the handgun, or any firearm, are up to the human users. And these are manifold.

The intent is the why.

The intent comes from the human user, not the firearm. Firearms have no intent. Nor can they answer questions such as "why".

 

[Too_Pure]

Exactly. A firearm is made to contain a centerfire or rimfire metallic cartridge filled with chemical powder and detonate it by striking the primer or priming compound. It is also made to direct a projectile from that cartridge down a barrel, often imparting a spin to that projectile.

That's what it's designed for. Beyond that we enter the world of humans and human intentions. The firearm ends at the barrel. Trying to put desires, intentions and purposes onto the firearm is pointless and can be turned against us very easily. A firearm is a piece of technology, and can only be described as a piece of technology based on it's literal function.



Purpose? A handgun, itself, has no will desire or purpose. It is no more than what it is. The potential uses of the handgun, or any firearm, are up to the human users. And these are manifold.



The intent comes from the human user, not the firearm. Firearms have no intent. Nor can they answer questions such as "why".

I disagree. I think the flaw in your argument is that you are describing the handgun as if it created itself. Handguns, and long guns for that matter, were invented to achieve something specific. All inventions are intended to achieve a result. All tools are an answer to a need.

 

[45_auto]

I sincerely belive that trying to convince anyone, including yourself, that a handgun's primary purpose is anything other than to kill or incapacitate as quickly and efficiently as possible is not doing the Second Amendment cause any favors. Honesty is the best policy.

You really believe that Bill Ruger designed his original .22 pistol for self-defense, and that self-defense is the primary purpose of the millions of them that people have purchased since 1949? Why is it chambered in .22 if it's primary purpose is to kill or incapacitate? You think Ruger and all those people who buy them are too stupid to know that there are other calibers better suited for that purpose?

Can you imagine the hilarity in the gun store when some poor idiot comes in and says "I need one of those Ruger MKIII .22's with the adjustable sights and 10" barrel for self defense"! Maybe the gun store owner would be nice enough to sell them a 14" .22 barrelled, single shot Thompson Contender pistol instead. I'm sure when it was originally designed in 1967 as the ultimate killing machine, the designers probably weren't aware of those new fangled repeating handguns or that any larger calibers existed.

Now that I think about it, that's probably why Beretta, Taurus, Ruger, and all those Italian manufacturer's designed new single-action revolvers awhile back. They realized that Sam Colt was right with his original six-shooter, it is the ultimate killing machine. The fact that hundreds of thousands of people wanted something to shoot at steel plates in cowboy action shooting had nothing to do with it.

And how about those Hammerli .22 short self-defense pistols like this one?

http://www.collectorsfirearms.com/admin/product_details.php?itemID=39338

Those designers really knew what they were doing, they put a weight under the barrel so you could beat your attacker with it when that .22 short pi$$ed him off!

 

[scythefwd]

cosmo - not the intent of an inanimate object but the intent of the designer, manufacturer, or owner, depending on the circumstance or what you are discussing.

 

[Too_Pure]

You really believe that Bill Ruger designed his original .22 pistol for self-defense, and that self-defense is the primary purpose of the millions of them that people have purchased since 1949?

No. Again, for the third time, it is derivative.

 

[BLACKHAWKNJ]

Always preferred Cold Steel myself, deadly, reliable, no moving parts to break or go wrong at the worst possible moment. And I did receive bayonet training in BCT.

 

[Too_Pure]

I'm not sure when I would "need to kill." I might certainly need to stop an attacker. Your needs may be different.

Hi. Just wanted to point out this relevant part of my post that you chose not to quote even though it speaks directly to, and partly contradicts what you are communicating in your response.

a handgun's primary purpose is... to kill or incapacitateas quickly and efficiently as possible...

Big, expanding, hollow point bullets are designed to make big holes in living targets to maximize blood loss and tissue trauma. If used properly they will incapacitate, at least.

 

[Too_Pure]

Always preferred Cold Steel myself, deadly, reliable, no moving parts to break or go wrong at the worst possible moment. And I did receive bayonet training in BCT.

But everyone knows that knives are made for spreading butter

 

[Cosmoline]

Handguns, and long guns for that matter, were invented to achieve something specific.

Now you're trying to guess the personal aspirations of the INVENTORS, most of whom are long since dead. We really don't know what they expected or hoped. Nor does it really matter. The firearm is simply a technical tool. It has no inherent purpose, no goal and no intent beyond the end of its barrel.

not the intent of an inanimate object but the intent of the designer, manufacturer, or owner, depending on the circumstance or what you are discussing.

All of which can be different, and can change over time. When I go to the range my purpose and intent is NOT to kill, but to put holes in paper or test loads. The ultimate goal may not even be to kill, but to achieve some other goal or just have fun.

 

[Skribs]

"Guns are only designed to propel a projectile..." guns are designed to punch holes, plain and simple. Those that are now curios/relics were originally designed to punch holes. Those that are used for plinking or competition punch holes in inanimate objects. Those that are used for hunting, war, crime, or defense punch holes in living objects. That's a fact.

All of my guns are for plinking and HD. Therefore, all of my guns are designed for killing (I know, I know "shoot to stop", but that's semantics), albeit in self defense. I do plan on designing a situation where I would need to do this, but should the need arise, my guns are there to keep me alive in a kill-or-be-killed situation.

 

[Cosmoline]

guns are designed to punch holes, plain and simple.

No, though some bullets are. Wadcutters, for example. The firearm ends at the muzzle. It will fire even if the projectile is designed to fragment the second it leaves the crown or if there's no projectile at all. Some can shoot rubber, lima beans and rock salt.

all of my guns are designed for killing

No aspect of any firearm's design extends beyond its barrel--except when there's a bayonet attached.

 

[Too_Pure]

Now you're describing the personal aspirations of the INVENTORS, most of whom are long long dead. We really don't know what they expected or hoped. Nor does it really matter. The firearm is simply a technical tool. It has no purpose, no goal and no intent beyond the end of its barrel.

I coudn't disagree more.

You also chose not to quote the more relvant part of my post, so I will just use that again as my counterpoint:

All inventions are intended to achieve a result. All tools are an answer to a need.

Guns were not invented in a vacuum.

 

[oldfool]

Justin already nailed it about six times in this thread (read his link referenced); I don't understand what people are arguing so vehemently about.

Parse the OP all you want; other than relatively few PETA people "a boy is a dog is a fish", antis preach that guns are for ONLY killing people, not just Bambi or lovable Disney lions. If it really was bambi or mr. trout on their mind, they would be begging for bans on hi-cap fishing hooks and cross bows.

I own 40 guns, some bought to kill bambi, some to kill pheasants, or brer bunny wabbit, etc.
But my 40 and the other 200-250 million guns in America must be good for a whole lot of something other, else there would not be anyone still breathing on this continent.

The reason I own so many 22 rimfire handguns ain't squirrel hunting; paintball guns are hard to hit golf balls with at 25-50 yards, and 22s make 'em up jump higher.
The one and only reason I own a 17HMR isn't about tree rats, it just makes me smile to see one ragged hole in paper, and it's the only thing I ever intend to shoot at with it. About as much as an old fat man can have sitting down.

Yes, I do wear a gun designed to kill people, that's why I wear it.
Because too many of those inconsiderate folks out there might try to kill me with a club or a knife... those other tools designed "only" for killing, you know.
Explain that club theory to a baseball fan.

PS
ok, ok, I confess... grasshoppers make great targets at 100 yards with a 17HMR, especially those 'trophy' hoppers

 

[gym]

Guns are just a tool it's the user that determines what use he will have for that tool. Explosives are routinlly used in mining in construction and for blowing up people. It's up to the user to determine the application. Same with a simple knife, you can use it to save a life, eat your dinner or kill somone with, the knife has no say. Only the user. Some people see fiearms as a sport, not as a killing tool, the application may vary, what it could be used for and what it is being used for differ. My carry guns are to stop a violent act, Not to wound or kill, just to stop it. Very few people are good enough to stop a violent act because they have a prconceived notion of what they would do. It's finished by then. The person may just surrender. The person may escape, we don't know that we only know that we better stop the attack by any means necessary, if killing is what transpires then so be it, but you don't go into it with the intention of killing, only ending the act.If the guy goes down and he's done, are you going to terminte him because you feel that is what the firearm was made for? The fact that you stopped it is enough.The law will take it from there. The gun is made so that it can kill not so it must. This is a no win "leading" scenario, like the chicken and egg. When is a fight finished? Guns were invented so man had a deterrent better than any other, if tomorrow a new better weapon came out man would want that, How many people drive their cars at 200 MPH because the speedometer goes up that high.You are the moderator of all things you control not the gun.

 

[Old krow]

\

I sincerely belive that trying to convince anyone, including yourself, that a handgun's primary purpose is anything other than to kill or incapacitate as quickly and efficiently as possible is not doing the Second Amendment cause any favors. Honesty is the best policy.

According to Glock the G34 and G35 are both designed for "competition."
STI makes several model that aren't designed to kill.
There are several rifles in the .50BMG caliber that are considered "anti-materiel."

It can be proven that not all guns, not all rifles, and not all hand guns were designed to kill anything.

It would be a far better argument to say that "x" ammunition is designed to do "this, that, or the other." A gun, any gun, is merely a vessel and catalyst for ammunition. All of my guns are made to fire ammunition, as were they all. Ammunition communicates intention or defines purpose better than any platform does.

 

[Owen Sparks]

Tools are things. Only actions should be crimes.

Murder is a crime.

Killing is sometimes unavoidable, necessary and can even be heroic when done to save lives.

 

[Loosedhorse]

No. Again, for the third time, it is derivative

Funny that re-repeating it didn't make it either truer or more convincing...but you did it anyway!

All inventions are intended to achieve a result. All tools are an answer to a need.

Sure: the need was survival. The method was securing food, or self-protection. The means was producing small holes at a distance.

 

[tyeo098]

It would be a far better argument to say that "x" ammunition is designed to do "this, that, or the other." A gun, any gun, is merely a vessel and catalyst for ammunition. All of my guns are made to fire ammunition, as were they all. Ammunition communicates intention or defines purpose better than any platform does.

You sir, are wise beyond your years.