A firearm's purpose is....

[GEM]

The discussion posted by the OP is naive psychologically. People categorize objects according to the core conceptual description of an object. That contains its properties and usages. The core of the gun is as a weapon and not a tool or sporting instrument. That is does this by launching a projectile is not the core conceptualization.

Trying to say this to try the failed 'excuse' defense of some gun folks for gun ownership. It will not work. The legal definitions of what constitutes a firearm are really irrelevant as Frank pointed out to the real world of public opinion.

Last, as said many times, the 2nd Amend. exists to protect the ability to have a lethal weapon and not a projectile launcher. The shooting sports are irrelevant to protecting gun rights. They are derivative of their weapons usage. Now some guns may have evolved for them in a manner not optimal for lethal usage. So what!

I had some UK gun magazines from before their bans and they mocked the IDPA and IPSC humanoid targets as showing crazy American lethal intent. They later tried to defend their guns as for sports. Since they were used lethally in the UK, that really didn't work as they had constitutional protection of their lethal concept and core usage.

Same thing happened in Australia. Australian men are supposed to have a 'sport'. The gun folks argued that they shouldn't lose their manly sport. They did.

If someone managed to killed all the folks at Las Vegas, Sutherland and Parkland with a bowling bowl, you'd bet there would be controls on them. We have legal controls in some places on selling spray paint to control graffiti.

The idea of a gun as not being a weapon in core and protected usage is just some useless choir delusion.

 

[Ru4real]

The discussion posted by the OP is naive psychologically.
...
The legal definitions of what constitutes a firearm are really irrelevant ...

Good to know we have a psychologist among us.

Curious - were did you go to college for your psyc degree?

The legal definition of a firearm matters.

 

[Danoobie]

"description" and "purpose" are two totally different things. Related, but different. You covered "description" very well, Ru4real, but IMO
"purpose" has a lot to do with any given individual's needs and usages of a given firearm. Generally speaking, my sidearm's purpose
is pest control, and God forbid, if ever really needed, self defense. My rifle's purpose is hunting. Some of my pistol's sole purpose is
target shooting, if you get my drift. Somebody else might view my very same guns with their own, totally different purpose, owing to
their differing need.

 

[Frank Ettin]

....The legal definition of a firearm matters.

It matters only for the legal purposes for which it has been defined.

So the definitions of firearm, destructive device, and antique firearm, for example, as set out in the Gun Control Act of 1968 (i. e., 18 USC 921) help us understand the meaning and application of the various statutes that comprise the GCA. But while a device which satisfies the GCA definition of an antique firearm might not be subject to certain GCA rules relating to transfer or shipping of firearms, that doesn't mean that it's necessarily not a firearm for the purposes of various state laws relating to the possession, carrying, transporting, or use of firearms or dangerous weapons.

Nor can the legal definition of firearm be expected to affect a person's view that a firearm is a weapon. Indeed, it doesn't affect my view that a firearm is a weapon, nor, as he so succinctly outlined in post 26, does it affect GEM's perception. That a firearm might be defined in more neutral or benign terms for regulatory purposes means nothing.

 

[Zoogster]

Ru4real what you are getting is responses from people with a lot of experience in the firearm political realm, who understand and have seen time and time again that the angle of firearm protection or ownership defended through non weapon uses as a path towards certain failure. The closest legal systems to ours are many of the commonwealth nations such as England and Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and numerous other parts of the world have lost their ability to own them like we can. Canada has a lot of open space and wilderness and less firearm rights than we do. Large parts of Australia were the same when they passed their bans. Both Canada and Australia have more animals that will eat you in the form of grizzly and polar bears and crocodiles, and venomous animals. Both have more rural places with low population density that is typically more tolerant of firearm freedoms. Both have more places to shoot or hunt in remote locations that wouldn't disturb other people. Both had large groups of hunters and sportsmen adamantly defending their recreational activities.

Guns are weapons, and nobody is going to care how hard it is for you to use them for recreation if they are weighing your ability to hunt or target shoot vs the harm caused by criminal use of firearms. Governments also prefer their civilians disarmed because it makes them easier to manage with their own armed groups, and have always been inclined to disarm and consolidate power. When the only people well armed are those carrying out the will of the government it acts as a force multiplier.
The only defense that carries legal, moral, and philosophical weight is defending them as weapons, as they were constitutionally protected.
Our ability to enjoy them for purposes beyond use as weapons is solely based on our ability to own them as weapons.
It is the equality of young and old, healthy and disabled, male and female, weak and strong, and the check on tyranny from invasion or our own government that has provided the grounds upon which people have held onto our rights.
How much fun you have with them doesn't even compare, and arguments trying to define them according to that lead to the failures we have witnessed around the world.

 

[Ru4real]

The function of a firearm is to launch bullets.
The function of a bow is to launch arrows.
The function of a car is to transport.
The function of a bat is to swing at baseballs.

Function is a design property. When things don't function they are broke. A broken firing pin in a gun prevents function which is to launch bullets, for example.

All 4 of these items mentioned have more than one purpose as chosen by the user. All 4 of these items have been and will continue to be used as weapons, a user chosen purpose.

One of the items above, for sure, is always referred to in opinion (not fact) as a weapon indicating an assumption (not fact) has already been made about it's user's past deeds. A weapons function is to hurt and kill people and animals otherwise cowards wouldn't choose to drive a truck into a crowd.

The second amendment guarantees me the right to a gun regardless of your "weapon opinion".

 

[Ru4real]

My previous post is analogous to "assult weapon" ban.

The left picks the words. My point is don't buy their BS words. We can pick our own.

 

[Frank Ettin]

....The second amendment guarantees me the right to a gun regardless of your "weapon opinion".

And your opinion on that point is irrelevant and inapposite.

The Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms. "Arms" means:

• Oxford Dictionary:

  1 Weapons; armaments....

  
  
• Merriam-Websters On-line:

  1a : a means (such as a weapon) of offense or defense; especially : firearm

  
  
• Cambridge Dictionary:

  weapons and explosives used in fighting wars

So actually the Second Amendment protects a right to weapons. It protects a right to a gun because a gun is useful as a weapon.

And people are trying to limit, regulate, or do away with the right to a gun because it is a weapon. No sophistry on your part will convince them (or many of us here) that the value of possessing a gun is not because of its utility as a weapon.

 

[Frank Ettin]

My previous post is analogous to "assult weapon" ban.

The left picks the words. My point is don't buy their BS words. We can pick our own.

Feel free to pick whatever words you like. But no one has to accept your choice.

 

[GEM]

The view of function expressed above is simply useless in current gun debates and the comparison of cars and guns shows basic misunderstanding of how folks judge functions. Trying to a gun is somehow a ‘nice’ tool that is misused in a way that is not its primary designed purpose is an example of the cognitive dissonance of some in the gun world to try to deal with the factor that their so-called tool is to be lethal. It is also an attempt to be clever but it is easily seen through. Before someone says a particular gun wasn’t designed as a lethal instrument, such as a biathlon rifle, that is trivial as that type of gun is a training evolution from a lethal military scenario.
Some in the gun world try excuses,such as MSR or ‘tool, to hoodwink antis or deny it to themselves. By now you know what I think of that strategy or emotional ploy.

 

[Danoobie]

Once again, "function" vs "purpose". Assuming we are not going to assign them
uniform synonym meaning. Are we dealing with either in objective or subjective terms?

 

[MedWheeler]

Ru4real writes:

Weapons by definition hurt and kill people and animals..

I thought our argument was that they don't, as they are inanimate objects ("Guns don't kill people. People kill people.")

 

[Sav .250]

Is to do what ever the owner has in mind......................

 

[GEM]

Useless debate if you think it will preserve gun rights. How many times does that have to be said? Some gun folks think it is clever. It is laughable.

 

[Ru4real]

Ru4real writes:



I thought our argument was that they don't, as they are inanimate objects ("Guns don't kill people. People kill people.")

Good catch, thank you. I've changed my post to now say...

A weapons function is to hurt and kill people and animals otherwise cowards wouldn't choose to drive a truck into a crowd.

 

[Ru4real]

Is to do what ever the owner has in mind......................

Exactly and well said!

A fiream is an arm described by 2nd amenment that launches bullets by explosion.

A bow is an arm described by 2nd amenment that launches arrows.

Either or both can be used as a weapon to hurt and kill. Or not, depending on user choice.

 

[Ru4real]

Useless debate if you think it will preserve gun rights. How many times does that have to be said? Some gun folks think it is clever. It is laughable.

Preserving gun rights is a popularity contest. A popular argument will gurantee enough people and enough states will never agree to amend.

 

[Madcap_Magician]

I was tired of hearing a gun's purpose is to kill, because I knew better. I believed a firearm's function was to launch a projectile, and that's all. Shooting paper is not a failure of gun function, so I thought.

I don't understand where you are going with this. A firearm's function is to launch a projectile, yes. But to what end is the function? Firearms were not invented for the purpose of simply launching projectiles into the air. The projectiles were meant to be launched through the air at people. And shortly thereafter, at animals. Virtually all of the recreational uses of firearms derive from their purpose as weapons for war or hunting.

 

[Frank Ettin]

Going in circles.