El Tejon
Member
Guns are for fighting.
What are guns for?
- Thread starter Dave R
- Start date
- Status
BluesBear
member
simple answer
ENJOYMENT
Control Group
Member
Nothing is gained by pretending guns aren't designed to kill things. That was the motive for their development throughout all of history; every major innovation in firearm technology has been for the purpose of improving their ability to kill people or animals (mostly people). No matter how convenient it may seem to compare guns to cars, there's no getting around the fact that cars can kill people, but were designed to transport them, while guns can also kill people, but were designed to do so. Examples of individual guns clearly impractical for serious use against people or animals do not change this fact, just like rapiers with a lead blob on the tip do not change the fact that swords are weapons. The ever-popular "guns are just a tool for throwing bullets" argument is true as far as it goes, but denies the existence of weapons at all. By that logic, even the famed neutron bomb isn't designed for killing, just for emitting immense numbers of neutrons.
Any attempt to compare guns to cars insofar as their lethality is concerned just makes us sound disingenuous. Cars are intended to and do serve a clear non-lethal purpose. Not to mention that trying to deny that guns are for killing also invalidates the single most important purpose the 2nd has: defending the population against a tyrannical government. We can't have it both ways. If they're not for killing, then the 2nd is as irrelevant as the antis want to claim it is, and we're stuck trying to justify our right to have them with vaguely ridiculous assertions. Imagine trying to justify your right to own a car because of its potential for self-defense.
We must not play the justification game; it's a losing proposition for us. We have the right to own guns precisely because they can kill people, not in spite of it. Anything else is allowing the other side to frame the debate on their terms, which is a sure road to loss.
While people who claim that "guns are for killing" are right, and there's no percentage in arguing that point, people who claim that gun owners are, at best, killers-in-waiting need to be responded to with the whole list of recreational/sporting purposes that the vast majority of gun owners engage in to the almost complete exclusion of killing people.
But never let yourself get suckered into arguing that guns aren't for killing, because they are. You'll lose the argument because you're wrong, and you'll probably look somewhat ridiculous in the process. You can argue that some specific guns - perhaps the only ones you own - aren't for killing, but that's as far as it should be taken.
The difference between "what are guns for" and "what do you use guns for" is crucial, and I believe it's critical that everyone who wants to argue our side recognize it and embrace it.
Any attempt to compare guns to cars insofar as their lethality is concerned just makes us sound disingenuous. Cars are intended to and do serve a clear non-lethal purpose. Not to mention that trying to deny that guns are for killing also invalidates the single most important purpose the 2nd has: defending the population against a tyrannical government. We can't have it both ways. If they're not for killing, then the 2nd is as irrelevant as the antis want to claim it is, and we're stuck trying to justify our right to have them with vaguely ridiculous assertions. Imagine trying to justify your right to own a car because of its potential for self-defense.
We must not play the justification game; it's a losing proposition for us. We have the right to own guns precisely because they can kill people, not in spite of it. Anything else is allowing the other side to frame the debate on their terms, which is a sure road to loss.
While people who claim that "guns are for killing" are right, and there's no percentage in arguing that point, people who claim that gun owners are, at best, killers-in-waiting need to be responded to with the whole list of recreational/sporting purposes that the vast majority of gun owners engage in to the almost complete exclusion of killing people.
But never let yourself get suckered into arguing that guns aren't for killing, because they are. You'll lose the argument because you're wrong, and you'll probably look somewhat ridiculous in the process. You can argue that some specific guns - perhaps the only ones you own - aren't for killing, but that's as far as it should be taken.
The difference between "what are guns for" and "what do you use guns for" is crucial, and I believe it's critical that everyone who wants to argue our side recognize it and embrace it.
Relayer
Member
Well, I really don't care what someone thinks who wants to argue the point of the "what are they for", "what were they originally designed for" silliness. The losing proposition is that if you think you are going to rationally change (or even affect) the mind of a person like that, you're fooling yourself.
When you buy a gun, then you will determine what THAT gun is "for". One could buy a baseball bat that was designed for hitting a baseball, but purchase it specifically for the purpose of beating someone to death that night. At that point what it was designed for doesn't mean crap.
I won't waste my time trying to argue with such folks.
When you buy a gun, then you will determine what THAT gun is "for". One could buy a baseball bat that was designed for hitting a baseball, but purchase it specifically for the purpose of beating someone to death that night. At that point what it was designed for doesn't mean crap.
I won't waste my time trying to argue with such folks.
Some people have, I think, truly confused the original point of this thread. While the original primary intent of creating and improving firearms was for their use in warfare (to injure and kill the enemy) this is not, in my opinion, the crux of why this discussion was commenced. Remember the anti was attributed with, in essence, saying that guns only are for killing. This is absolutely incorrect. Their have been many guns throughout history that were developed for purposes other than killing. Sure guns were originally designed to be used to injure/kill, but oh isn't it wonderful how they have evolved. Some guns are used to punch holes in paper. Sure they can kill but their design is for use as target guns, not as defensive or offensive weapons. Other guns are designed primarily as plinkers. Some are specifically designed for certain kinds of target shooting. Other guns have built buildings by driving rivets, these would include pneumatic air guns (and remember air guns were originally designed to kill just like guns using gunpowder and they were used by the military forces of some countries in place of guns using gunpowder). Other guns drive nails. Some guns deliver vaccinations (is the primary purpose of a vaccination to kill or to preserve life).
Of course, even if the primary purpose of all guns was to injure or kill, can you tell me is there something wrong with that? There is nothing wrong in killing someone in self defense - is there? I do not see that there is. There is nothing wrong with firearms in the hands of righteous citizens. Sure bad guys can get guns and kill with them but; they also can get knives, poison, bombs, cars, propellants, flammable substances, rocks, clubs, chairs, bows & arrows, crossbows and bolts, electricity, shovels, rope, piano wire, vicious trained attack dogs, karate lessons, and then kill in essence with them among many other things. So what? Their using these items to commit heinous crimes of violence and death do nothing to make evil the objects they used. The evil intent comes from the user and the user alone. Firearms are inherently harmless. Bullets are inherently harmless. Leave them be and they will not harm you. It takes the user to pick them up, combine them correctly, act with them in a certain manner to finally harm someone with them. So I wonder what was the point of saying this:
As for me, I use guns for many things. I first and foremost use guns in my job as an LEO. I carry one for self defense and defense of others. In all of my 26 years in law enforcement I have never shot anyone while I was working. So what was the primary intent of my carrying a firearm. You could say it was for killing but that is incorrect. You could say it was for wounding and that would be closer to correct. Maybe it was for self defense via deterrence. Of course it is nice to know I could shoot to stop someone if I needed to. Note how I said shoot to stop. That is what we are trained to do. We are not trained to shoot to kill. Maybe the primary intent of firearms is to wound rather than to kill at least as far as men are concerned. Really though, the primary intent of their creation is not what this thread was about in the first place. It was about the statement that guns are only used to kill. This is not at all true as you should know.
The second most frequent reason I use them would be for self defense at all times. This though ties in with work as I usually carry a work authorized pistol with me. I have shot someone while off duty. I shot to stop, not to kill and; yes he stopped without dying as his accomplice also stopped. They were in the process of mugging me. I guess had I killed them it would have been a good or acceptable thing - just as it was a good thing that I realized when to stop shooting.
I also use firearms for target shooting, this would be the third most frequent reason I use them. I actually shoot them a whole lot more this way than I ever have done at work. (yes I have shot them while working but never shot anyone while working.) My children have only used guns for target shooting, with one exception. My son tried to kill something once with a gun. Yes we were on our first hunt together. He missed. Oh well he did fire one shot at a squirrel; let’s see now that was out of about 2 or 3 thousand shots at paper prior to that. I can definitely say his use of firearms is not primarily geared toward killing, nor is the use of firearms by him ONLY for killing.
The fourth most frequent reason I use them is for hunting.
The fifth most common reason I used them was to instill discipline into my children. Now don’t get all bent out of shape by imagining something that did not happen. By teaching them how to safely use firearms I instilled a great deal of discipline into them, the discipline of self control. Along with that discipline came respect for others, respect for life, respect for firearms, self confidence, responsibility, maturity, agility, dexterity and a realization that their father trusts them very much.
The sixth most frequent reason I use them is for collecting/trading and so on.
The overall reason I use them though is because of fun. That even can be construed to cover self defense type shootings. No self defense shooting in itself was not fun but; it sure allowed me to continue breathing and living and having fun. So if some believe that the primary intent of guns is to injure and kill, so what! If others believe that is all guns arused for, they are dead wrong. I have chosen to primarily use them for other purposes while keeping open the option of using them to defend others and myself from harm that would otherwise be caused by criminals. Despite all the semantics involved, certainly you can see that firearms are used for many other purposes than for killing. Don’t fool yourself into thinking that is all for which they are used or for which they are intended.
Best regards,
Glenn B
Of course, even if the primary purpose of all guns was to injure or kill, can you tell me is there something wrong with that? There is nothing wrong in killing someone in self defense - is there? I do not see that there is. There is nothing wrong with firearms in the hands of righteous citizens. Sure bad guys can get guns and kill with them but; they also can get knives, poison, bombs, cars, propellants, flammable substances, rocks, clubs, chairs, bows & arrows, crossbows and bolts, electricity, shovels, rope, piano wire, vicious trained attack dogs, karate lessons, and then kill in essence with them among many other things. So what? Their using these items to commit heinous crimes of violence and death do nothing to make evil the objects they used. The evil intent comes from the user and the user alone. Firearms are inherently harmless. Bullets are inherently harmless. Leave them be and they will not harm you. It takes the user to pick them up, combine them correctly, act with them in a certain manner to finally harm someone with them. So I wonder what was the point of saying this:
when no one in this forum expressed the sentiment that the original primary purpose of guns wa other than for killng? Even the anti had not expressed it. The primary purpose of this thread was in another direction. So who is fooling whom about what?
As for me, I use guns for many things. I first and foremost use guns in my job as an LEO. I carry one for self defense and defense of others. In all of my 26 years in law enforcement I have never shot anyone while I was working. So what was the primary intent of my carrying a firearm. You could say it was for killing but that is incorrect. You could say it was for wounding and that would be closer to correct. Maybe it was for self defense via deterrence. Of course it is nice to know I could shoot to stop someone if I needed to. Note how I said shoot to stop. That is what we are trained to do. We are not trained to shoot to kill. Maybe the primary intent of firearms is to wound rather than to kill at least as far as men are concerned. Really though, the primary intent of their creation is not what this thread was about in the first place. It was about the statement that guns are only used to kill. This is not at all true as you should know.
The second most frequent reason I use them would be for self defense at all times. This though ties in with work as I usually carry a work authorized pistol with me. I have shot someone while off duty. I shot to stop, not to kill and; yes he stopped without dying as his accomplice also stopped. They were in the process of mugging me. I guess had I killed them it would have been a good or acceptable thing - just as it was a good thing that I realized when to stop shooting.
I also use firearms for target shooting, this would be the third most frequent reason I use them. I actually shoot them a whole lot more this way than I ever have done at work. (yes I have shot them while working but never shot anyone while working.) My children have only used guns for target shooting, with one exception. My son tried to kill something once with a gun. Yes we were on our first hunt together. He missed. Oh well he did fire one shot at a squirrel; let’s see now that was out of about 2 or 3 thousand shots at paper prior to that. I can definitely say his use of firearms is not primarily geared toward killing, nor is the use of firearms by him ONLY for killing.
The fourth most frequent reason I use them is for hunting.
The fifth most common reason I used them was to instill discipline into my children. Now don’t get all bent out of shape by imagining something that did not happen. By teaching them how to safely use firearms I instilled a great deal of discipline into them, the discipline of self control. Along with that discipline came respect for others, respect for life, respect for firearms, self confidence, responsibility, maturity, agility, dexterity and a realization that their father trusts them very much.
The sixth most frequent reason I use them is for collecting/trading and so on.
The overall reason I use them though is because of fun. That even can be construed to cover self defense type shootings. No self defense shooting in itself was not fun but; it sure allowed me to continue breathing and living and having fun. So if some believe that the primary intent of guns is to injure and kill, so what! If others believe that is all guns arused for, they are dead wrong. I have chosen to primarily use them for other purposes while keeping open the option of using them to defend others and myself from harm that would otherwise be caused by criminals. Despite all the semantics involved, certainly you can see that firearms are used for many other purposes than for killing. Don’t fool yourself into thinking that is all for which they are used or for which they are intended.
Best regards,
Glenn B
Lots and lots of excellent examples of utilitarian secondary uses of guns have been previously detailed.
But without exception all of those secondary uses (unless I suppose someone used the barrel of the gun as a pry bar) are little more than fun ways of training to use the gun for it's primary purpose...Even if that same gun is never... ever... used for its primary purpose.
Which is...
Killing
It's that simple. It's what guns do. It's what they're for.
The ANTI is right...
Deal with it...
But without exception all of those secondary uses (unless I suppose someone used the barrel of the gun as a pry bar) are little more than fun ways of training to use the gun for it's primary purpose...Even if that same gun is never... ever... used for its primary purpose.
Which is...
Killing
It's that simple. It's what guns do. It's what they're for.
The ANTI is right...
Deal with it...
jefnvk
Member
A big plus one on that. Saying that they were made to do anything but destroy and kill, isn't doing anything to help. I say destroy, only because the first known use of guns in battle were giant cannons used in the siege of Constantinople, to destroy the walls that protected the wall of the city for thousands of years. Guns, BTW, brought those walls down in fifty-something days.
To try and erase that history does nothing to help us.
Yowza
Member
There is a big difference between "Guns were designed to kill" and "Guns are just for killing." The first is a boiled-down history lesson and the second implies that your intention is to kill just because you own or even possess a gun. If guns were just for killing, all of us here who own thousands of guns collectively would be killers. That line of thinking is what makes an anti wet his or her pants just seeing a gun.
All of my guns are capable of killing, sure. And they're all based on earlier technology that was arguably invented to make killing easier. But that doesn't mean they're "just for killing."
Rick
All of my guns are capable of killing, sure. And they're all based on earlier technology that was arguably invented to make killing easier. But that doesn't mean they're "just for killing."
Rick
mfree
Member
...and Diesel engines are just for stationary powerplants. That was their original purpose, yes?
The "just for" argument is a loser everytime. Original design? Maybe. But not "just for".
The "just for" argument is a loser everytime. Original design? Maybe. But not "just for".
BluesBear
member
That single line is the best thing said so far.
Bullets and other projectiles were designed to kill and destroy.
Guns were designed to launch these projectiles so therefore they were designed to facilitate killing and destruction.
It's like saying soldiers were trained for something other than killing.
Most soldiers will hopefully spend more time handing out food during a disaster relief response than they ever will in combat. But don't kid yourself.
Your tax dollars were spent training them to destroy an enemy.
Right now I have several large bags of empty plastic soda bottles that are in dire need of destruction.
Matthew748
Member
Guns are for getting rid of excess cash. I know that’s how it works for me.
I don't buy into the guns are for killing bit. Maybe that was the intention when they were invented, but that is to short sighted for me. If we applied the same type of analogy to computer technology, then computers would only be used by scientists to tackle huge mathematical computations.
I don't buy into the guns are for killing bit. Maybe that was the intention when they were invented, but that is to short sighted for me. If we applied the same type of analogy to computer technology, then computers would only be used by scientists to tackle huge mathematical computations.
BluesBear
member
Your computer analogy doesn't fly. Computers were designed to do many calculations extremely fast. Which is exactly what they still do.
Just because someone trys really hard to make something fit their personal definition of what they want it to be doesn't mean it will.
Just because someone trys really hard to make something fit their personal definition of what they want it to be doesn't mean it will.
The original question was:
"What do YOU ACTUALLY use your guns for?"
I doubt anyone here uses their guns only for killing. Maybe your .416 Rigby...I can't imagine shooting that for fun....but I'm sure some do.
I can agree that SOME guns were designed expressly for killing. But some were defintely not. Some of the tricked out long-range rifles I've seen are definitely not designed for hunting...And some sporting clays shotguns might be used for hunting, but they were expressly designed for sporting clays. The pic of the target pistol shown earlier is a gun that is NOT designed for killing.
What do I use my guns for?
-Punching paper
-Varmits
-hunting of various types
-CCW and home defense
-Plinking
-Collecting
But I never bought a gun just to kill something or someone. I think very few people here have actually bough a gun just to kill something or someone.
Now THAT'S a truthful answer!
"What do YOU ACTUALLY use your guns for?"
I doubt anyone here uses their guns only for killing. Maybe your .416 Rigby...I can't imagine shooting that for fun....but I'm sure some do.
I can agree that SOME guns were designed expressly for killing. But some were defintely not. Some of the tricked out long-range rifles I've seen are definitely not designed for hunting...And some sporting clays shotguns might be used for hunting, but they were expressly designed for sporting clays. The pic of the target pistol shown earlier is a gun that is NOT designed for killing.
What do I use my guns for?
-Punching paper
-Varmits
-hunting of various types
-CCW and home defense
-Plinking
-Collecting
But I never bought a gun just to kill something or someone. I think very few people here have actually bough a gun just to kill something or someone.
Now THAT'S a truthful answer!
B
boofus
Guest
Guns are complex matter to energy conversion devices.
They turn money into light, heat and noise.
They turn money into light, heat and noise.
Guy B. Meredith
Member
Guns were originally designed as weapons, but many are now designed specifically for recreation and no intent to transfer that skill to killing. It is strictly the skill for the sake of the skill.
Until next week when I pick up a Mossberg Persuader I can still brag that I have 5 firearms, none of which I intend to be a weapon. They are all for recreational use.
I keep a revolver nearby for home defense, not because my target practice is intended as training to shoot anything else but targets, but because I would feel stupid if I did not have it available for its secondary function if needed.
I rather imagine that baseball bats, cricket bats and golf clubs can trace their origin to war clubs. Then the club bearers competed in their skill with the clubs by hitting stones or what later became balls. They are now used for the sake of the skill itself and, though people do still kill others with them, the skill is developed with no thought of use as a weapon.
To say guns are just for killing is very much living in the past. That was their design, but is no longer necessarily their function.
Until next week when I pick up a Mossberg Persuader I can still brag that I have 5 firearms, none of which I intend to be a weapon. They are all for recreational use.
I keep a revolver nearby for home defense, not because my target practice is intended as training to shoot anything else but targets, but because I would feel stupid if I did not have it available for its secondary function if needed.
I rather imagine that baseball bats, cricket bats and golf clubs can trace their origin to war clubs. Then the club bearers competed in their skill with the clubs by hitting stones or what later became balls. They are now used for the sake of the skill itself and, though people do still kill others with them, the skill is developed with no thought of use as a weapon.
To say guns are just for killing is very much living in the past. That was their design, but is no longer necessarily their function.
Double Naught Spy
Sus Venator
I am surprised that so many folks do not understand the differences in design and intent or application. Guns are not designed to kill. Killing in an intent, not a design. Guns are design to launch a projectile down range in a controlled manner. Many types of weapons do similar things. Guns use barrels to effect the control of the projectile as the expanding gasses launch it.
Moreover, the earliest guns were NOT designed to kill and their intent was not to kill. They were cannons and their purpose was for firing into castle or fortification walls, battering them down. What made the cannon so effective is that shots could be impacted on the same approximate spot, time after time, thereby speeding the breakdown of the fortification wall. http://www.educ.um.edu.mt/militarymalta/html/guns.html
Guns are designed to launch projectiles down range in a controlled manner. Whether that is to kill an animal for food, kill an enemy, hit a target, or whatever is not a design parameter, but intent or application.
Moreover, the earliest guns were NOT designed to kill and their intent was not to kill. They were cannons and their purpose was for firing into castle or fortification walls, battering them down. What made the cannon so effective is that shots could be impacted on the same approximate spot, time after time, thereby speeding the breakdown of the fortification wall. http://www.educ.um.edu.mt/militarymalta/html/guns.html
Guns are designed to launch projectiles down range in a controlled manner. Whether that is to kill an animal for food, kill an enemy, hit a target, or whatever is not a design parameter, but intent or application.
An excellent explanation of the what and how of firearms. Unfortunately it ignores completely the why of firearms and the why is what the anti's focus on.
I think I made my personal POV concerning the why pretty clear in a previous post. Anyone else want to chime in and take a shot at the WHY?
- Status
