WP is discussing the AK-47 this Monday 11/27

[Macpherson]

A firearm is designed to hold and fire cartridges and launch projectiles from them. Only some firearms, with bayonets fixed, are actually designed to kill people. To claim that "firearms are designed to kill people" assumes that every bullet spent that doesn't kill a person is a *MISUSE* of that firearm. It is in itself Anti rhetoric, and you must disregard specific information about how firearms work in order to accept it.

If you go to any of the armed forces and ask them what the designed purpose of the small arms they issue to the troops is, you would quickly be cured of the notion that they aren't designed to kill people or animals. I am not an anti, but I also recognize the obvious fact that most firearms are designed to kill or maim, just like a sword or spear or bow. Their function, to propel a small piece of metal at high speed, has very little real utility outside of that realm, so firing them at targets or other objects in a safe manner is not "misusing" them, but using them in a manner that is legal.

 

[cbsbyte]

Dont be too sure. They're just P.O.'d at Bush. You idiots try another AWB...better move to a new country because you'll go another 10-12 years as minority, maybe even to independent candidates. Hopefully FOREVER.

What idiots are you talking about? Not everyone that does not agree with your irrational point of view on firearms is an anti. I know it is a challange for many Conservatives to understand why they lost the election but don't blame me for pointing out the obvious.

 

[Vic]

Pointless....

:banghead: Personally...I could care less who won or lost. I do care about my personal freedom and those who would try to deny/ legislate it away EG...Democrats (see communists). Socialist=communist...no difference. Liberal is a term that don't apply to Democrats because Democrats try to force their will on others hence NOT liberal. A true liberal could care less about what I own or what I do unless it directly affects other people's rights. I know this is way too complicated for you to comprehend.

 

[Samarkand]

Well, like MacPherson said, guns are arms. That's the specific category of tool they come under. The entire talk about "guns are tools designed to project small pieces of lead" actually leads you into the trap set by the antis. It's the same kind of postmodern semantic redefinition that leftists employ that so many here on the conservative side of the fence hate with a passion. A screwdriver may be a weapon. But no THR member would treat a screwdriver with the same extreme care for safety of others and self as he or she would towards the lowliest .22 rifle simply because the .22 is recognized as a potentially harmful weapon. The "firearms are lead projectors" argument makes the pro-gun side seem intellectually dishonest

Look, the problem isn't the "weapon" part of the charge that an AK-47 is a Weapon of Mass Destruction. It's the entire metaphor of small arms being so seriously, innately dangerous and destabilizing that you have to treat them like a nuclear weapon. AKA, something that the authorities have to lock up, track, and subject to restrictive international regulation. *That's* what you RKBA folks have to watch out for in this line of reasoning.

My own take on the situation is that, yes, the Kalashnikov and its clones allow third-world guerrillas and other ne'erdowells to kill each other much more easily. It's a rugged, relatively uncomplicated, and easily reproduced firearm that's nigh-perfect for tribal warriors whose former options were limited to spears and machetes. They're an enabling technology--just like the mass communications of the early 20th century like radio allowed demagogues allowed for an easier time to whip up hatred. That latter situation wouldn't have been helped by calling radio networks "weapons of mass hate dissemination" and requiring all wireless technology to be carefully controlled by an international protocol. The solution is the hard one: to stop the political and social forces that result in a bunch of Liberian maniacs waving AK's around gangster fashion in Monrovia.

A population armed with assault rifles and living a mature civil state looks like Switzerland. The same population after a violent collapse of a dictatorship and famine looks like Somalia. To paraphrase the NRA, guns don't kill societies, idiotic morons with brain-dead political instincts do.

 

[Ian]

Larry Kahaner, author of "AK-47: The Weapon that Changed the Face of War,"

I saw the book at a shop this past weekend, and flipped through it. It's not actually about the AK at all; it's a lament about the evils of warfare in general, based around the central theme of military forces using AKs.

I was disappointed. Even the chapter entitled "M16 Vs AK47: Part II" was an editorial about war in the middle east. Not a single side-by-side weapon evaluation or anything!

 

[Cosmoline]

I am not an anti, but I also recognize the obvious fact that most firearms are designed to kill or maim, just like a sword or spear or bow. Their function, to propel a small piece of metal at high speed, has very little real utility outside of that realm, so firing them at targets or other objects in a safe manner is not "misusing" them, but using them in a manner that is legal.

They are designed to hold a cartridge or powder charge, and typically (though not always) that cartridge or powder charge fires a projectile through the barrel of the firearm. There is no debating this point, it is absolute fact. To say the "gun is designed to kill" is political rhetoric. Now, it's true some firearms are designed to kill *AS SPEARS* or as clubs with steel buttplates. But otherwise, it is the thing we call a BULLET that does the killing. And if it's a rubber bullet it won't even do that.

A screwdriver may be a weapon. But no THR member would treat a screwdriver with the same extreme care for safety of others and self as he or she would towards the lowliest .22 rifle simply because the .22 is recognized as a potentially harmful weapon.

I'd treat a NAIL GUN the same way I treat a firearm. So does that make the nail gun a thing "desgined to kill a person"? It's absolute hogwash.

Firearms may be used as weapons, but it is not anything inherent to the firearm that makes them a weapon. It's what the HUMAN BEING does who controls it. In the same way, a car that is "designed to transport" may become a horrific and very effective weapon. The firearm qua firearm is simply a piece of steel and wood typically designed to hold a cartridge and fire a projectile. In order to be used as a weapon A HUMAN BEING MUST TAKE IT UP AND USE IT AS A WEAPON. It is the HUMAN who is using its design to kill. Any definition that avoids this absolute, central truth is error.

 

[44AMP]

Amazing, just amazing

The AK is a weapon of mass destruction. Who would have thought it?

Just one more instance of someone taking a recognised term and changing the accepted definition to suit their agenda.

That's how we got "assault weapons" in the first place. From the valid and well understood term "assault rifle", the enemy propagandists turned all military looking semi automatic rifles (and many handguns) into "assault weapons" which they said were bad.

Now they want to turn them into Weapons of Mass Destruction". Why? because it is a tremendously emotionally charged phrase, and there is a really tenous connection with destruction. This really cheapens the definition of WMDs. And it is really hard to argue for individual posession of a "Weapon of Mass Destruction".

As an aid to clear thinking and discussion, I submit that, the basic underlying difference between a gun and a WMD is that the WMD creates mass destruction by only firing once.

They are trying to lump all the violence in an area, and over time, and claim the AK is responsible, and therefore it should be considered a WMD.

Achieving the current state of "mass destruction" has required the AKs being fired literally millions of times. The same volume of death could be achieved with actual WMDs being "fired" only once, or a handful of times.

Release (fire) a chemical agent, and it is going to kill everyone it reaches until it is diluted enough by the environment to be non-lethal. Total numbers of dead depend on target density and the effectiveness of your delivery system. Totally indiscriminate with the effective zone.

Release (fire) a biological agent, and the effects are going to be similar to a chemical agent at first, but, biologicals can travel outside the targeted area, and their persistance can be orders of magnitude greater than chemicals. And then there is the whole question of mutation of the biological agent.
Totally indiscrininate, with a widely variable effective zone.

Release (fire) a nuclear weapon, and the results are well known. Totally indiscriminate within the targeted and the fallout zones.

All of the "destruction" caused by the AKs, and/or all other small arms is discriminate. Each round is aimed (in some sense) at the intended target. Area or individual, no matter the target, each shot is a concious act by the firer.

In other words, except for what is today called "colleteral damage", only people who are intentionally shot at get killed. Even though the numbers of individuals killed/wounded may be huge, this is not mass destruction.

 

[Samarkand]

>Firearms may be used as weapons, but it is not anything inherent to the >firearm that makes them a weapon.

A nail gun doesn't have sights for aiming a deadly projectile. A .22 pistol or rifle does. Same way that while a sword is as much a tool for other purposes as a pen-knife, the sword is much more suitable for cleaving apart an enemy in melee combat. Anything may be used as a weapon. It's just that certain things are inherently better at certain tasks than others. Firearms tend to be good at the projection of force by their nature. That is why, like bows and arrows, they were invented in the first place. Glossing over this fact is just giving in to an anti's hoplophobia.