The Things That Store Clerks Say...

[Werewolf]

I would argue that a 50 cal. rifle is for long range shooting regardless of what the target is. Its primary function would not be killing. I can think of much easy, more efficient ways of killing someone than to shoot at them from 800 yds away.

Except that way you won't get the same psychological effect and subsequent decrease in unit morale that you get from killing a guy from 800 yards.

It is extremely stressful on a military and probably even terrorist units when their guys just drop dead and no one knows from where the bullet came and when the next one will drop the next unlucky guy.

Snipers exist in armies for a reason.

 

[Brian Dale]

Everyone's invited to come out of the closet.

Modern guns were and are designed for killing people. More specifically, they were designed to kill men...healthy, fit, armed young men...soldiers. That's the standard to which they were designed, and it's been true since {ETA: shortly after - thanks, ishida} the invention of firearms. Every other use of firearms is a secondary use.

I hope to only ever use guns for those secondary purposes: target shooting, hunting and games. Not against criminals, not against enemy soldiers invading my country, and for damned sure not against my own government. Period.

That doesn't change that their origin is in armed combat.

Good people will need weapons for as long as men are capable of evil.

With all of our discussion of the Second Amendment and its importance, it is self-deceit to the point of recklessness to pretend that guns are not for killing human beings.

The task, as I see it, is to ensure that the bullets never need fly.

 

[Eleven Mike]

Brian, I see the point you're trying to make, but you're going pretty far over-board. Not all people-killing guns are intended for military use. Some are specifically intended for civilians who carry concealed, and won't be shooting at any soldiers. Not all of the death-dealing guns are intended for killing people. Lots of animals getting killed, you know. Some guns are designed specifically for target competition on inanimate objects.

 

[leadcounsel]

Regarding the argument that guns are tools made for killing - I would argue that guns are made for several purposes. One of the primary intentions is for killing at long and short range.

HOWEVER, I would say that an equally important purpose is that of deterrance. The army with the most qualified guns has a built in insurance policy against attack. And a close secondary purpose is target shooting in preparation for killing or deterrance. To say they are designed to kill is overly simplistic.

1) More bullets are spent practicing shooting than killing. Therefore it is a valid argument that guns are designed for target shooting and practice;

2) It would be impossible to quantify, but I theorize that more lives are saved in the history of the world through deterrance of firearms than have ever been lost from someone with a firearm. Think of all the wars, conflicts, etc. where people have died from guns. Now think of all the billions of people who live in peace and harmony because of private, military and police ownership of guns. Guns are built as a deterrance to killing.

 

[Brian Dale]

Brian, I see the point you're trying to make, but you're going pretty far over-board.

Eleven Mike, you're absolutely right. I did so on purpose because there's an elephant in the room.

...HOWEVER, I would say that an equally important purpose is that of deterrence... {and so forth; the whole post is excellent}

Without question. That's the only purpose that I ever hope to use them for with regard to humans (except, I hope, to get more points at matches than some of my fellow humans and to win prizes, in the future). Their capacity to kill is what makes them work to deter. If ICBMs had been tipped during the Cold War with parachute-equipped loads of gumballs and cotton candy, their deterrent effect would probably not have been the same. Again, I overstate the point because it's important.

We don't need to dwell on the point because it's not pleasant and it isn't appropriate to constantly yak about it. Still, it doesn't serve us to deny that guns, like our country, were born in fire.

Edited to add: I agree that the clerk's statement was tacky. It would have been better to say something along the lines of, "They were developed for use against enemy soldiers and their equipment, but now they make fine target rifles."

 

[leadcounsel]

If ICBMs had been tipped during the Cold War with parachute-equipped loads of gumballs and cotton candy, their deterrent effect would probably not have been the same.

I think your analogy makes my point for me. The super powers continued making ICBMs long after we had enough to obliterate the world several times over. It was irrational and the only reason to continue such a costly (in terms of dollars and threat) arms race was deterrance.

If you were making ICBMs to actually attack the other nation and survive the 'war' you would make enough ICBMs to get the job done and then invest the rest of the money on huge underground cities and air and water purification to survive the war. In reality, that wasn't the case.

The same is true with guns. Guns are designed to kill but in the same breath designed to deter.

 

[Eleven Mike]

They're not made to deter. They may be carried or brandished to deter. But they (at least some of them) were made to hurt/kill. That is why they deter.

 

[Brian Dale]

I think that the three of us are writing the same things with slightly different emphasis and phrasing.

 

[Seancass]

wow, this thread is so entertaining, talking about the funny things clerks say.

 

[Eleven Mike]

I think that the three of us are writing the same things with slightly different emphasis and phrasing.

And I think the two of you are trying to say what I am saying, yet not succeeding.

wow, this thread is so entertaining, talking about the funny things clerks say.

Huh? Who was talking about that?

 

[retgarr]

the thread is certainly drifting...

 

[-v-]

3 wonderful gems today from a Big Box Store:

"a hit in the pinky with a .45 will kill a BG dead, while a 9mm in the chest will over-penetrate and kill a baby behind the BG"
I really want to say that he was joking or shooting the bull, or that this is an exaggeration on my part, but this is near verbatim what he told me and he seemed very serious in this statement. Truth be told, I was so dumbfounded I didn't even know how to respond...

"The FN Five-Seven will pierce a Level IV plate"
I kindly reminded the clerk at this point that a Level IV plate is rated to STOP a 30.06 AP round, which is traveling a heckuva lot faster, is heavier, and is harder then the SS190 ballistic-tipped (See: Blue PLASTIC) ammo that he showed me.

"accuracy in defensive shooting doesn't matter, just point in the general direction and pull the trigger!"
No wonder he wants the biggest hole possible from a round, when you're spraying and praying, you want every advantage you can get to compensate for your non-existent accuracy. I was almost tempted to ask if he held the gun side-ways while doing so...

 

[saspic]

My guns are made to initiate and contain an ignition designed to propel a projectile along a repeatable trajectory. (Thanks to whoever first said that)

If god forbid, I ever have to kill someone, that is precisely what would happen. I would kill them. I might use a gun.
I don't see how a gun is different from a knife or a hammer. "Ah," you say, "but the knife and hammer have other uses." Well, I'd reckon about 99.x% of guns will not, in fact kill people, so unless they are broken, guns must have other purposes, too.

As to the O.P., the gun shop clerk probably shouldn't have scared off the lady that way. We need as many mainstream folks as possible on our side.

 

[Brian Dale]

"a hit in your pinky with a .45 will kill a BG dead..."

Wow. It used to take a .44 Magnum to do that in gun shop tales.

Inflation strikes again.

 

[moooose102]

probably 1/2 of these "clerks" are lucky to know a rifle caliber from a handgun caliber. and the only thing they can "help" you is by repeating what somebody else has said about a particular cartridge. if they dont mix up the "information" with something else. sometimes, you get a good one, who actually shoots, and they can be quite helpful. but from what i have seen, its about a 50/50 shot. so, how lucky do you feel?

 

[-v-]

Wow. It used to take a .44 Magnum to do that in gun shop tales.

Inflation strikes again.

Seems more like deflation, since a .44 mag is undoubtedly more powerful then a .45 ACP. I bet given enough time we might whittle it down to .32 ACP, .25 ACP, or even .22 MAG, after all it has MAGNUM in its name!

 

[Brian Dale]

I was thinking "inflation" from the standpoint of the mythic power of a particular cartridge, the .45 ACP in this instance. Since it's all tongue in cheek, I'll just sing:
"I say po-tay-to; you say po-tah-to..."

 

[drgrenthum]

Looking at the above posts brought back a memory.

About a year ago my father-in-law who is a gun nut (maybe just a nut) gave me his ruger 10/22 and told me not to take a 22 lr too lightly, that if i hit someone in the pinky with a hollowpoint they can die from the shock.

He used to be a state trooper as well, hmmmm, make syou think where do people learn this stuff from.

 

[Bennett Prescott]

If you shot me in the pinky with a .22 I'd be pretty shocked indeed.

 

[SaMx]

technically it's possible they could be hit in the pinky and die from shock, but it seems pretty unlikely.

 

[JohnKSa]

Modern guns were and are designed for killing people. More specifically, they were designed to kill men...healthy, fit, armed young men...soldiers. That's the standard to which they were designed, and it's been true since {ETA: shortly after - thanks, ishida} the invention of firearms. Every other use of firearms is a secondary use.

Many guns have nothing to do with killing people or even self-defense or hunting. They were not designed for it and would be miserably inappropriate for those tasks.

Here's one example:

Here's another:

SOME guns are clearly designed for killing, but many are not.

I'm not averse to calling guns weapons when it's appropriate but I'm against calling them ALL weapons just to make a point. That's as silly as studiously avoiding the term completely as if doing so will change reality.

 

[Brian Dale]

John, when I was a kid, I thought I'd like to have a Pardini Free Pistol mounted on a table in the living room when I grew up, as a sort of working sculpture.

On the other hand, that rifle's ugly on a platter.

 

[Weimadog]

Brian Dale
Senior Member
Modern guns were and are designed for killing people. More specifically, they were designed to kill men...healthy, fit, armed young men...soldiers. That's the standard to which they were designed, and it's been true since {ETA: shortly after - thanks, ishida} the invention of firearms. Every other use of firearms is a secondary use.

No, the guns and ammunition I have are not designed for the primary purpose of killing people. If they were designed to kill people, they would be designed a lot differently.

Ammunition designed to kill (as opposed to stop) could easily be made more lethal than what is commonly sold for self-defense purpose. Ammunition meant to kill could contain poison, or a virus. It could be made of a material invisible to x-rays, to thwart medical treatment. It could be made to explode after impact.

I just don't see self-defense ammunition for sale which is designed primarily to kill. No, I wouldn't buy it if it were available.

In an attempt to keep this thread from drifting too much, sometimes gun store clerks just don't say anything to me. Not a good idea if you want to sell stuff. I think every customer should be greeted, or acknowledged when they are in a retail store.

 

[Brian Dale]

Fair enough, Weimadog.

 

[Seenterman]

JohnKSa what the hell type of gun is in that bottom picture? ITs big fat shiney and looks like an assault telescope