Firearms were NOT designed to kill

Status
Not open for further replies.
I think you're mixing up the motives of the designers with the actual design of the firearm. If motives of the designers are the key element, what about a rifle designed by someone who wanted to sell it for Olympic target practice? Is such a rifle no longer "designed to kill"? We all know that there's little practical difference between a competition level .308 with one of those fancy stocks and an "evil" looking AR-10. Either can be used as lethal force.

So clearly, the motives of the desginers can't be the determining factor.
 
I've just got to chime in on this one!!

First of all, guns were designed to kill. If you look at the origins of the gun, you'll quickly see that the Europeans adopted the powder used by the Chinese to make cannons and matchlocks that were used in battle. Unlike the bow or the knight, shooting an earlier firearm was something that required little training and could be done by the masses to annihilate the manor-born calvary. The whole purpose of those early weapons was to turn the tide of battle....just another peak in the eternal arms race.

Now, once firearms became more refined, they were soon used my market hunters to provide meat to the cities. And they were used by the rich for sport hunting. That's still killing.

On a similar note, nitroglycerin (dynomite) was developed not as an aid to build bridges and make the world a better place, but to kill in such a grotesque way that war would be too horrible to continue. Of course, Nobel's hopes and dreams of a world without war didn't pan out and, while we can now build bridges and dig tunnels a little easier, we also have lots of bombs whose lineage can be traced back to those early explosives.

And finally, the idea that killing is a bad thing is ludicrous and not worth arguing over. Killing, harsh as it may sound, is just an act. It is no different than eating or sleeping in that it is simply something that we as humans do. It is the reason and/or motivation for killing that makes all the difference.

Example: Dauhmer, mass murderer and general weirdo, killed for pleasure. That's bad.

Example: Me, blue-collar working stiff w/nary a blemish on my record, doesn't kill at all unless my life or the life of a family member is jeopardized. I avoid nightclubs and bars and bad neighborhoods. I'm in before dark and lock my doors. I do everything politely and wish to be treated the same. If you come against me or mine, it's you that has shown the aggression, for whatever reason, and I just might have to end your life because of it. I didn't ask for or provoke the attack; I just have to end it as best I can.

Question: If you wake up in the middle of the night to the sound of your little daughter screaming in pain and terror because there's a bad man doing bad things to her, will you politely ask him to stop so that she might get her rest?

Question: Is the act of killing, in this instance, a bad thing?

Remember that little girl in California that was kidnapped from her very own home, right in front of her sister, and held captive for several months before she was found in a routine traffic stop? If you had the chance to kill the kidnapper before he could get the girl out of the house, would that have been a bad thing?
 
This isn't just wordplay. I came to this conclusion because I've found myself using firearms for all sorts of things, including shooting out snags in mid-winter when the chainsaw won't start. It dawned on me that I didn't have a killing tool, merely a tool designed to fire cartridges or shells which typically contain a projectile. I think we all know this instinctively about knives and hammers, so we laugh when somebody calls a hammer a "killing machine." But with firearms it's been drilled into us from birth, and in the military in some cases, that firearms are for killing and nothing else.
 
The history of firearms shows that they were designed to meet the needs of military forces, and the role of the military is to kill the enemy.

The reason why firearms should not be banned is the result of this very fact. Free men only retain their freedom when they are able to hold the military forces of governments in check.

Firearms kill, and for that I am thankful.
 
But again, looking to the motives of the guys who designed the first matchlocks doesnt' get you anywhere. If that's the determining factor, then the desginer's purpose can also render a firearm non-lethal if he makes it for target practice only. Obviously that's not the case. A "target rifle," whether for schutzen or olympics, is in essence still just a tool for firing cartridges.
 
Firearms kill? Of course. But other than my trusty CZ-452, none of my current crop have ever killed. At least not by my hand. Am I mis-using them?
 
And of course, sometimes killing--even another human--is justified. But that has to do with self defense laws. Or game laws in the case of non-human animals. It's an analysis that has nothing to do with the tool used to do the killing.
 
I would say the firearm was designed as the simplest most effective way at the time to remove the enemy from combat. Face it before the firearm all methods to remove combatants involded either highly trained individuals or expensive, bulky and complicated equitment. However we have come up with many other uses.

I think a reasonable comparison would be the electronic computer. If I remember right the Eniac was the first electronic computer, and it was designed primarly as a balistics computer. It evolved into what we have today the PC, main frame, and every other piece of equitment that uses IC to proccess data. Think about it.
 
That's a great analogy. And if someone said my computer should be banned because it can decypher government code, they'd be able to say that's what computers "were designed for" in the sense that that's what the first computers were used for. But they'd be a laughing stock.
 
Cosmoline,

I think that you are falling into the trap that many of the "antis" set for the unsuspecting. They would have us think that "civilians" should only have firearms for "sporting purposes".

Yet, as the founding fathers knew, the reason why government should not infringe the God given rights of men to keep and bear arms is because firearms, and their portable lethality, allow free men to protect themselves from thugs, whether those thugs are common thieves, invading enemies, or rogue governments and their agents.

The fact that we enjoy the sporting aspects of firearms is secondary to their utility in killing thugs.
 
Cosmoline, firearms were definitely designed to kill. Some are designed to better kill our fellow human beings (like the M16), and others are designed for killing game animals. That some weapon types have evolved into purely sport rifles, like the schutzen, is meaningless because that 'evolved' weapon is still a weapon that can kill if the person holding it so wishes. Heck, the Olympic Games have evolved quite a bit, but the mainstay events are still based on early warfaring skills.

A hammer was originally designed to crack bones for marrow extraction and pound nuts out of their shells. These early hammerstones have evolved into carpentry tools that we are all familiar with, but even those early hammerstones were used as weapons if needed. War-hammers were the prefered weapons of people going up against armored knights because the blunt-force trauma was more damaging than an edged weapon against the armor.

Today, hammers are considered rather innocent and the majority of them are not used in crimes. However, they are still used by criminals, especially in areas where having a gun might not be legal. Same with the ubiquitous utility knife.

Though the origins of the hammer show it to have been intended as a tool for food gathering and processing, it can and has been used as a weapon of offense and defense. The firearm, on the other hand, was originally designed as a weapon of war. Like the hammer, though, what you do with it is what matters.

My guns punch holes in paper. They are target pistols, though not of the type seen in the Olympics.

My hammer pounds nails and builds stuff around the house. It is a finish hammer, not a framing hammer, and has cracked a few stubborn pistachios in its day. I have never used it as a fighting tool.....but I know how and am willing if provoked.

I once saw a man that was killed with a run-of-the-mill eating fork. Never would have thought such a thing was possible, but I can't deny what I saw.

In the end, it is the mind that is the true weapon. Everything else, including bare hands, is just a tool that the mind uses to accomplish its end goal.
 
I never said a firearm could not be a lethal weapon, or even that it SHOULD NOT be a lethal weapon. Indeed it makes a fine lethal weapon. I'm talking just about its design. There is nothing inherent in the firearm that makes it a "killing machine," as many antis claim.

The key is as you say--it's what you do with it that matters.

My argument goes to the heart of the claim that firearms are somehow distinct from all other potential lethal weapons in that they were "designed to kill." I don't think that's they case. Their distinction comes from the fact that they are better at most kinds of killing than a hammer or knife. But this does not make them "tools for killing." They're just tools. The killing is what you may or may not with them.
 
I think that you are falling into the trap that many of the "antis" set for the unsuspecting. They would have us think that "civilians" should only have firearms for "sporting purposes".
Click to expand...

My point is that there is no such thing as a rifle designed for "sporting purposes." All firearms are designed to fire cartridges or shells. To try to draw lines between those emerging from military backgrounds and those emerging from schutzen and say the former are verbotten and the latter OK is absurd, as all of us know. That's why I don't think it MATTERS what the intent of the original designers were, or how the firearms were marketed.
 
To make a blanket statement that firearms aren't designed to kill is absurd and plays into the leftists' morality, by implicitly accepting their belief that all killing is bad. That firearms are designed to hold a cartridge a fire projectiles doesn't mean they aren't designed to kill. That is just the mechanism they use to perform their function. Sometimes killing is the right thing to do, whether it's killing the enemies of the US or killing a game animal for the table.

Clearly, many firearms are designed for killing. I defy you to look at a .50 caliber Browning and tell me it isn't designed for killing. Or a USMC M-40 sniper rifle. Or a Winchester 94 deer rifle. Of course, others, such as target rifles, are not designed for killing. The fact that a particular firearm is suitable for other uses, e.g., shooting out snags or punching holes in paper, has no relevance to its intended purpose. I may like target shooting with my m/39 Mosin, but that doesn't change the fact that it was built to kill Soviet soldiers.
 
Whenever people say that "guns are designed for killing, that's their only purpose", I always follow up with: "yes, some guns are designed for killing, but saying that a Hämmerli Olympic match pistol or a Smith and Wesson Model 500 is designed for anything other than target shooting or hunting is ridiculous".

Of course, I wouldn't care in any case, heh. They're just objects.
 
Firearms don't kill. People do. So it's a misstatement to say that firearms are designed to kill. It would be better to say that people are designed to kill, and indeed we are. It's our brain that does the killing, the firearm is merely a tool for firing cartridges.

Sometimes killing is good, sometimes killing is bad. Of course. But that analysis has nothing to do with the tool used to do the killing.

I understand what you're saying about the morality of antis, but believe me when I tell you that based on about 1,000 debates with them, when you boil it down THIS is ALL THEY HAVE--FIREARMS WERE DESIGNED TO KILL. You'll hear every anti repeat this line eventually, from Michael Moore to HCI spokesmen. They view firearms as death stick, objects of slaughter.
 
Think of this. Whey you say "firearms were designed to kill," aren't you really saying "the PURPOSE of firearms is to kill"? If so you need to take a step back. Because wood and steel have no purpose, no intent. Purpose is a human factor.
 
Guns are intended to kill. If they didn't, I wouldn't want one, and I'd want my money back.

As long as there are people who are willing to prey upon the innocent with violence, it's a good thing to have a tool used to defend yourself against such people. If guns were not designed for people to use to kill other people, then those who prey on others would have nothing to fear.
 
I said this on the TFL quite awhile ago.

"This is all very nice but it is a concession to the antis. The reason for the 2nd was to have instruments of lethal force. By avoiding the issue with euphenisms, you go right down the path that the UK did - no guns.

It is the RKBA, not the RKBTools. I want a gun as it is a weapon that I can use to defend myself and my loved ones.

It is not my bowling ball. I don't care if you use them for sport. If we lose the RKBA, they can ban hunting and skeet shooting for all I care.

Your logic and rhetoric should be able to overcome this inflammatory BS without falling for it. By avoiding the issue, you concede the point that guns are inherently evil."
-------------------------------------------------

The sports/tool usage is a failed strategy. It was tried in the UK and Australia to preserve gun ownership and failed drammatically. Find the post on IPSC being banned in German.

Read Abigail Kohn's book on Shooters. It is a brilliant anthropological analysis of gun usage. It is clear that the core of American support of gun ownership is their nature as weapons.

If you decide to play this game with antis - you will lose. Guns are inherently too dangerous to exist only as sports items. It is only because they are fundamental to our view of this Republic that they should be allowed.

If some loonie went into to Columbine with a bowling ball and killed 20 kids, there would be no bowling balls anymore. Guns are different. They are weapons. They kill. They are designed to kill. The ones that don't are modifications from their original purpose. The RKBA is based on our perceived right to have instruments of lethal force as a fundamental part of the American character. That view doesn't exist in many other places.

Go read the UK gun press about American anthropomorphic IPSC targets before the ban on handguns there. They thought we were barbarians for shooting at humanoid targets. They were sportsmen. Now they have no handguns.

Bah! :cuss: :cuss:
 
Those who argue the point that guns are made for killing need to be approached with a different argument than, "No they're not!"

You need to ask them if they believe that there are ever circumstances when a private citizen is justified in killing somebody.

If they say YES, then I think you can handle it from there. It's difficult for them to defend their believe that people have the right to defend themselves but not allowed to have the means to defend themselves.

If they say NO, then ask them if there are ever circumstances when the police are justified in killing somebody. They will normally say yes. If they say no, then laught them to scorn.

When they say YES, that there are circumstances when the police are justified in killing somebody, ask them:

Are you truly comfortable in a society where only the agents of the state have the legal right to use violence?

If they say YES, then let them know that they test positive for having a statist ideology. Let them know that, historically speaking, and according to the beliefs of our founding fathers, it is people like them that will gleefully usher in a totalitarian government because they promise them safety.
 
I agree that guns are tools, but their function is as a weapon, and they are pretty efficient weapons at this point. They are designed to kill things, but there are things you can do other than that. Many tools have dual functions (wrench=hammer in a cinch, hahah).

I think the really important thing is that we shouldn't go around banning things based on their potential to do something illegal, when there are plenty of legal things to do with them. I get mad when my DVDs are copy protected, when I can legally make backup copies of them. I do think we need to keep guns away from some people, but that is because they are weapons and can be very dangerous.

So guns were originally designed and intended to kill, but people have found new things to do with them that don't involve killing (at least not of people). I mean, an AR-15 is pretty good at killing stuff but I'd rather have one for shooting cans, I think I'd even rather have a bolt action for prairie dogs if I did that. Heck, for self defence I'd rather have the gun I used for trap for 4 years.:rolleyes:
 
Guns were designed to kill.

Asking for evidence to prove this is kind of a backwards approach. It would be smarter to try to find some evidence to the contrary since that's what you want to prove. Sorry, but you aren't going to find much.

Many guns made today are not designed to kill. That's true but not particularly relevant to the argument about what they were designed for in the first place.

Swords were designed to kill. Now, far more people use swords (foils/epees, etc) for sport than for killing. That fact doesn't change history.

Cars were designed for transportation. The guy who buries them nose down and calls them art hasn't changed that fact.

Admitting guns were designed to kill isn't a problem--that's what makes them essential. Trying to defend gun ownership on the basis of recreation/competition/sporting uses is a lost cause.

Why should you be allowed to own something that many people consider dangerous just so you can have fun?

Gun ownership is important because guns are essential tools of self-defense against criminals and tyranny. For that to be true, they have to be effective weapons. Weapons are dangerous and potentially deadly--that's what makes them weapons.

Sometimes debates can make you forget what's important.
 
We can take this to absurd extremes...

Poison gas munitions weren't designed to kill, the were designed to fill an area with a gas that happens to be unsafe for humans to breathe. That they kill humans is the fault of the idiot users who set them off in areas full of people.

Nuclear weapons aren't designed to kill. They're just uncontrolled nuclear reactions that happen to be incompatible with life in the area they are unleashed.

[/sarcasm]

Weapons are designed to kill. That's why they are called weapons. Guns have been called weapons and used as such since they were invented. That they can be used for other means is irrelevant to their original purpose for existing. Somehow, I don't think Europeans of the Middle Ages were developing matchlocks for target practice and recreational shooting.

Chris
 
Guns were designed for competition and target shooting. ;) :p

In all seriousness, the only object I can think of that was specifically designed to kill people, and only people, is the sword. Yeah, you can use it to hunt, cut steak, bread, and use as a rotisserie, but its most effective use (and its original intent) was to effectively maim/kill a person when in the hands of a trained user (or untrained, albeit not as well).

Swords also carry that mystical property that guns have--it's the property that brings them above the ranks of the everyday hammers, screwdrivers, and pliers. Guns and swords can have some of the most ornate decoration ever seen and still be able to perform their intended duty flawlessly. Regular tools such as a hammer or air compressor do not lend themselves to scrollwork, inlays of gold, and/or pearl/rosewood/pau ferro grips. The same applies to cars. People spend hours and hours and thousands of dollars modifiying their cars (although some have no taste ;) ) and such. Not often to lawnmowers.

My point? Whether trained in Western Medieval sword combat or Easter Samurai theory, whether you shoot only AR-15s or only Black Powder smoothbores, whether you love your 1910 Ford or your 2005 Audi, these things all have one thing in common--when used, the "tool" becomes a part (an extension rather) of your body and mind. I know that sounds like a cheesy New Age thing to say, but you know what I'm talking about. The amount of concentration (whether you still recognize it or not depending on how long you've done it) is astounding... while driving at 75 mph down I-35, you have to keep yourself focused on the road. While lining up the sights on a target 200-300 yards away, a single itch will ruin everything if you let it. From talking with a few friends that fence, the experienced fighter will know he will lose 3 moves before it officially happens, because of how well the fighter can gauge his own reactions.

The reason people get into these sports is that though there's always an outside competitor, whether it's the guy in the lane next to you (at the range or on the track) or the one standing in front of you, these guys leave at the end of the day, leaving the serious competitor with his greatest enemy: himself. Only when mind control/telepathic sports are invented will that change. :uhoh: These people take pride in the fact that with every hour, every minute of training, they are constantly becoming better and better than they once were. To show this pride, they often can display the love of their discipline through art; and what better place to show it than on the artificial enxtension of their souls--the car, the sword, or the gun?

I forgot where I was going with all of this... :scrutiny: :uhoh: :banghead: :fire:
 
Cosmoline, I think I see what you're trying to say.

Guns very well may have been designed to kill, but when I'm standing on the firing line, my gun, however it was designed, only does one thing. It drops the hammer when I pull the trigger. That simple act alone doesn't mean it's going to kill - if there's no ammo in it, it won't do anything; the point is that everything beyond that point is entirely based upon the user. A gun is built to drop the hammer when the trigger is pulled (basiclly, it does other functions, ie re-loading, however that is a moot point for this view)- that's all the gun does. A simple construstion of metal parts: when the trigger is pulled a child ISN'T killed! The hammer falls! That's it!

Is that what you're trying to get across, Cosmoline?

Nick

(Pardon grammar errors, Word won't open :scrutiny: )
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Dudedog
  • Locked
Firearms back when vs now, designs
2 3
Replies
51
Views
2K
TomJ
TomJ
D
  • Locked
Human Factors Issues In Firearms Design And Training (worth a read)
Replies
13
Views
978
JJpdxpinkpistols
J
D
  • Locked
"Two security guards killed protecting designer suits" !!!
Replies
9
Views
1K
blades67
B
L
  • Locked
Gun designs that almost made history
Replies
17
Views
1K
otomik
O
D
  • Locked
Shotgun Goes On Killing Spree
Replies
1
Views
727
pax
P
Back
Top