CoRoMo
Member
No gun? Not even one? Ever? I know many of mine have certainly been purchased to do so. I grip to a hope that death was at least in part of the engineering because I'll need them to produce death when I use them.
Not for killing
- Thread starter jlmer
- Start date
- Status
No gun? Not even one? Ever? I know many of mine have certainly been purchased to do so. I grip to a hope that death was at least in part of the engineering because I'll need them to produce death when I use them.
scythefwd
Member
I've said that three times already. The purpose you own a gun has NOTHING to do with the designers intent. Make that 4. What the weapon was designed for is not the same thing as why you own it. You say you can separate them, but you refuse to accept that I did in my own arguments, nor do you acknowledge that I've already stated the reason for purchasing a firearm has nothing to do with why it was designed and what for. To put a very fine point on it, you aren't reading what I am typing but what you are thinking I am typing (we tend to see what we want to see, not what is really there). Go back, re-read what I have typed, and leave out any and all personal bias. What I have quoted above I have already said 3 times. To repeat it back to me is proof that you aren't actually reading and or comprehending what I am typing.
I can't be sure they weren't used at tools to open gords, etc or as weapons. Would it change your opinion if I stated the 16 oz Stanley claw hammer. I have a feeling it wont. Each iteration of design has a different possible intent. While a ball pein hammer and a claw hammer are both hammers, they were designed with a different set of functions and are based off the same functional concept.
Nor did I ever say the purpose you put your guns to use is of any lesser import. Again, go back and re-read my posts. I have, in so many words, stated
. That means that the reason the gun was designed or made is completely irrelevant to the reason you own your gun. The second sentence I quoted above actually agrees with me man... please go back and re-read.
I've also said, in slightly different terms, that owning a gun and not using it in the manner that the manufacturer or designer didn't intend is perfectly ok. I have in no place stated using a rifle in a different manner is less valid... I might have actually stated so as well... wait, I've already agreed with you on this as well..
I never said it was. But to be correct, the reason a gun was made has nothing to do with the reason it is owned. Both reasons for it's existence are perfectly valid.
Last edited:
45_auto
Member
scythefwd said:
Nope. Every one of your rifles was designed to contain a certain amount of pressure without blowing apart while sending a projectile out of one end.
Your quote is the equivalent of saying that Boeing 767's were designed to either kill people or train people to kill because they were used to knock down the World Trade Center 10 years ago. All those pilots flying them now are just training for the day they pick out a building to hit.
In the real world, the pilot flying the airplane is just like the man behind the trigger. It's his option on what he uses the tool for. A gun is designed to a set of pressure and velocity requirements to send a projectile downrange just like an airplane is designed to a set of cargo, speed and distance requirements.
scythefwd said:
Your cva optima elite was designed to send a projectile down range for a price point that CVA hopes will make them a profit on their investment. That's all it was designed to do. You may have bought it to hunt with, but other people may have bought it to shoot paper with, or to shoot blanks in re-enactments with, or as a decorater item to hang over their fireplace. Don't confuse your intentions with design requirements.
scythefwd said:
Your M1 was designed by John Garand and other engineers at the Springfield Armory to a set of requirements to send a projectile down range for a price point the military thought they could afford at the time. Some military personnel intended to use this ability for killing, some intended to use it only to punch holes in paper, some intended to use it only as a fancy drill implement. Again you're confusing design requirements with user intentions.
scythefwd said:
Your Mossberg 44US is nothing more than a modification of the pre-war civilian Mossberg 44b, whose design had nothing to do with the military. It was designed to send a projectile down range for a price point that Mossberg hoped would make them a profit. Both the 44US and 44b were designed to send a projectile down range while being built to a certain price point. If your 44US was "intended" to train soldiers to kill by the military, why did they leave off the bayonet lug? Most likely it was "intended" to be a basic marksmanship training rifle to teach sight alignment and trigger control, not a "killing training" implement. Those marksmanship skills could be intended by the military commander either to kill, or to punch holes in paper on a marksmanship demonstration team, depending on what the military perceived as the best use of that person.
scythefwd said:
To assign "intentions" to any manufacturer is pretty ludicrous.
The only "intentions" any manufacturer has are to make money.
If it was built to send a projectile downrange for a military or police contract, it was intended to make money.
If the exact same gun was built to send a projectile downrange for a civilian wholesaler, it was intended to make money.
Do you really belive that the Colt Corporation has some kind of nebulous "group mind" mentality when it comes to building and selling AR-15s?
Their advertising department has a certain sales strategy and campaign aimed at police sales. It's goal is to make money. The same advertising department also has a sales strategy and campaign aimed at civilian sales for the exact same gun. It's goal is also to make money.
The Colt Corporation has no "intention" for the AR15 sold to the police department to be used any differently than the one sold to the civilian shooter. If the police department uses it for a target rifle to punch holes in paper, Colt Inc. doesn't know and doesn't care. Colt Inc. has the money from selling it. If the civilian uses it for a target rifle to punch holes in paper, Colt Inc. doesn't know and doesn't care. Colt Inc. has the money from selling it.
If the police department uses it for a sniper rifle to punch holes in people, Colt Inc. doesn't know and doesn't care. Colt Inc. has the money from selling it. If the civilian uses it for a sniper rifle to punch holes in paper, Colt Inc. doesn't know and doesn't care. Colt Inc. has the money from selling it.
A civilian sniper will affect a few people in Colt Inc.'s advertising department because they have to adjust their ad campaigns based on the new data to continue to maximize their sales, but that'll be it. The rest of Colt Inc. will keep right on producing the exact same AR15 for both markets with no intentions whatsoever.
A gun is a tool just like a car or a plane or any other manufactured item. The anniversary of 9/11 coming up should make it obvious to you that a tool can be used for many purposes.
CoRoMo said:
Nope. Not a single one. They have always been designed to send a projectile of a particular size and mass downrange at a particular velocity without injuring the shooter. A design requirement to "kill people" is meaningless, everything in the world meets it. My printer meets that requirement. I could drop it on your head from a 10th story window and kill you. Boeing proved they could meet that requirement with a 767 on the World Trade Centers. Over the centuries many people have proven that baseball bats, cars, knives, ropes, bare hands, pretty much anything and everything can meet a design requirement to "kill".
Last edited:
Owen Sparks
member
- Joined
- May 27, 2007
- Messages
- 4,523
Evidently some people make no distinction between killing and murder. They are not the same.
To kill is to take life.
There is a moral and legitimate time to kill and injure other people. Sometime it is necessary to protect your life, liberty and property. This is why we have a military for our collective defense and handguns for our personal defense. The presence of these weapons acts as a powerful deterrent. It has been said that we sleep soundly in our beds at night only because rough men stand at the ready to do violence on our behalf.
Murder is the crime of taking life through the initiation of aggression against a person who is not threatening you. Quite a different thing.
To kill is to take life.
There is a moral and legitimate time to kill and injure other people. Sometime it is necessary to protect your life, liberty and property. This is why we have a military for our collective defense and handguns for our personal defense. The presence of these weapons acts as a powerful deterrent. It has been said that we sleep soundly in our beds at night only because rough men stand at the ready to do violence on our behalf.
Murder is the crime of taking life through the initiation of aggression against a person who is not threatening you. Quite a different thing.
Strykervet
member
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2010
- Messages
- 1,610
Okay, if they are JUST for killing, then how many people have you killed? That's what I thought...
Now many or most are designed to kill, that was the original purpose. If they are good for collecting, history, or symbols, there has to be a reason why. If you are using a rifle for a cane, well, I guess you deserve what you get (unless it is a nice AOW!).
Let's not pretend they are something they are not. That is playing into the hands of the anti's. Trying to make up reasons to satisfy them, reasons that belie the design. They don't need to be satisfied, what they need is an education. An education that doesn't involve emotional appeal, but rather logical appeal, and an education that teaches them the importance of individual rights and exercise of freedom. Right now, the average anti isn't much different than the average religious fundamentalist. The fundamentalist is VERY concerned with what you are doing in your house. So is the anti. This needs to stop first and foremost.
The best thing you can probably do is to paint an anti into a corner in front of his or her peers. Invite him or her to a target range. Take your best .22 and go have fun. Logic bests emotional appeal everytime, so I'm sure that even if you don't completely convert the person, you'll likely make them think about the time they had with you the next time they try to run over firearms owners.
Still, I have and need only one good reason --the Bill of Rights. Maybe two, because I took an oath to defend the Constitution, but sadly I can't recognize a part of the Constitution that is in direct conflict with the original intent, and yes, that WAS the Bill of Rights. Sorry, Janet. This is how I would defend it. Let's hope it doesn't ever come to that, not over here.
What I use them for on a daily basis? Target shooting. In the army, I carried one a lot, I also spent waaaay too much time at the range, but I never had to kill anyone. I'm grateful for that. But if I had to explain one reason I have them, to justify it to someone else, it would be because I am free and I can do what I want, and that is because it is very difficult to take that away from an armed population.
Finally, there is the genie in a bottle dilemma. Or Pandora's box. The firearm is, like it or not, here to stay. Would you rather a government have ALL the power? Do you trust them THAT much? Have you seen CNN lately? That is what I thought. When government goes out of control compeltely like in WWII Germany, or the Sudan or Syria today, this is all that stands between you and the good old days, or you an certain destruction --unless of course there is some other America that plans on securing your freedom in the event our system goes completely down the tubes. I'd say Europe was lucky TWICE, but obviously they didn't learn their lesson afterwards. Some did, most didn't. As far as crime, well, in the event of a total ban only the cops and the criminals will be armed. Doesn't seem to be working out too well in those places, because eventually, with an unarmed populace, the cops become the criminals too. Again, look at Syria today.
Then there is the fact that during the last ban, the atmosphere that was generated was that firearms WERE just sporting arms. If you liked the last ban, keep it up. Because if you just use your firearms for canes and starter pistols, then the anti's are more than happy to oblige you with a new cane and pop gun in return for your collection. I remember the last ban, and good 2A supporting gun owners like Bill Ruger stepped foward and even helped write the ban's language. Don't be "that guy".
Finally, we are a HUGE population. There are FAR more of us than them. Go search for anti sites and see how popular they are, then go search for firearms sites. You'll see we outnumber them by and large. Fanatics like to speak for everyone, but they are usually few. The fanatical anti's are few, their goal is to turn fence sitters into voters thus multiplying their numbers. And every arguement I see on MSNBC or CNN is geared toward the emotional appeal from the anti to the fence sitter. They obviously aren't talking to me!
You can destroy this simply by taking them to a range first, the anti you painted in a corner and especially kids. That is SO important. Take a kid target shooting, I promise you THEY will love it --they don't have the emotional appeal yet, they can still be "corrupted" as the anti's would have it, by logic. Make SURE to teach them responsible handling, and leave your tacticool stuff behind --they aren't ready for that, that is more of a firearms enthusiast arena along with collecting (albeit less directed). Then introduce them to the Constitution. They have a Civics class, sure, but that class is boring and these days just teaches, "It does what its told!" Teach them the importance of firearms in regards to freedom. Whatever you do, don't tell them to use a rifle as a cane, and don't teach them to justify their freedoms to their peers.
Now many or most are designed to kill, that was the original purpose. If they are good for collecting, history, or symbols, there has to be a reason why. If you are using a rifle for a cane, well, I guess you deserve what you get (unless it is a nice AOW!).
Let's not pretend they are something they are not. That is playing into the hands of the anti's. Trying to make up reasons to satisfy them, reasons that belie the design. They don't need to be satisfied, what they need is an education. An education that doesn't involve emotional appeal, but rather logical appeal, and an education that teaches them the importance of individual rights and exercise of freedom. Right now, the average anti isn't much different than the average religious fundamentalist. The fundamentalist is VERY concerned with what you are doing in your house. So is the anti. This needs to stop first and foremost.
The best thing you can probably do is to paint an anti into a corner in front of his or her peers. Invite him or her to a target range. Take your best .22 and go have fun. Logic bests emotional appeal everytime, so I'm sure that even if you don't completely convert the person, you'll likely make them think about the time they had with you the next time they try to run over firearms owners.
Still, I have and need only one good reason --the Bill of Rights. Maybe two, because I took an oath to defend the Constitution, but sadly I can't recognize a part of the Constitution that is in direct conflict with the original intent, and yes, that WAS the Bill of Rights. Sorry, Janet. This is how I would defend it. Let's hope it doesn't ever come to that, not over here.
What I use them for on a daily basis? Target shooting. In the army, I carried one a lot, I also spent waaaay too much time at the range, but I never had to kill anyone. I'm grateful for that. But if I had to explain one reason I have them, to justify it to someone else, it would be because I am free and I can do what I want, and that is because it is very difficult to take that away from an armed population.
Finally, there is the genie in a bottle dilemma. Or Pandora's box. The firearm is, like it or not, here to stay. Would you rather a government have ALL the power? Do you trust them THAT much? Have you seen CNN lately? That is what I thought. When government goes out of control compeltely like in WWII Germany, or the Sudan or Syria today, this is all that stands between you and the good old days, or you an certain destruction --unless of course there is some other America that plans on securing your freedom in the event our system goes completely down the tubes. I'd say Europe was lucky TWICE, but obviously they didn't learn their lesson afterwards. Some did, most didn't. As far as crime, well, in the event of a total ban only the cops and the criminals will be armed. Doesn't seem to be working out too well in those places, because eventually, with an unarmed populace, the cops become the criminals too. Again, look at Syria today.
Then there is the fact that during the last ban, the atmosphere that was generated was that firearms WERE just sporting arms. If you liked the last ban, keep it up. Because if you just use your firearms for canes and starter pistols, then the anti's are more than happy to oblige you with a new cane and pop gun in return for your collection. I remember the last ban, and good 2A supporting gun owners like Bill Ruger stepped foward and even helped write the ban's language. Don't be "that guy".
Finally, we are a HUGE population. There are FAR more of us than them. Go search for anti sites and see how popular they are, then go search for firearms sites. You'll see we outnumber them by and large. Fanatics like to speak for everyone, but they are usually few. The fanatical anti's are few, their goal is to turn fence sitters into voters thus multiplying their numbers. And every arguement I see on MSNBC or CNN is geared toward the emotional appeal from the anti to the fence sitter. They obviously aren't talking to me!
You can destroy this simply by taking them to a range first, the anti you painted in a corner and especially kids. That is SO important. Take a kid target shooting, I promise you THEY will love it --they don't have the emotional appeal yet, they can still be "corrupted" as the anti's would have it, by logic. Make SURE to teach them responsible handling, and leave your tacticool stuff behind --they aren't ready for that, that is more of a firearms enthusiast arena along with collecting (albeit less directed). Then introduce them to the Constitution. They have a Civics class, sure, but that class is boring and these days just teaches, "It does what its told!" Teach them the importance of firearms in regards to freedom. Whatever you do, don't tell them to use a rifle as a cane, and don't teach them to justify their freedoms to their peers.
CoRoMo
Member
Well...
This is where the discussion gets too silly for me. I roll my eyes when members post stuff like: "Guns don't kill; they simply send a projectile... Bullets don't kill, they simply penetrate the matter that they hit..."
Whatever.
The gun was designed to be able to propel a bullet, at a high enough velocity, to carry enough energy, to tear a hole, into and through the animal I want to eat, in order to kill.
That's why I buy 'em too.
This is where the discussion gets too silly for me. I roll my eyes when members post stuff like: "Guns don't kill; they simply send a projectile... Bullets don't kill, they simply penetrate the matter that they hit..."
Whatever.
The gun was designed to be able to propel a bullet, at a high enough velocity, to carry enough energy, to tear a hole, into and through the animal I want to eat, in order to kill.
That's why I buy 'em too.
Lubricant
Member
Whoa!People,Lets remember we're all on the same page here more or less.I assume your all here because you appreciate guns for whatever reason.Hunting,Target shooting,Self defense,Or maybe you just love the way a particular firearm looks,feels,shoots,or maybe you just like the fine craftsmanship some firearms display.They're made for whatever use you put them to.Why all the vituperous kerfluffle here?
tyeo098
Member
Phone up Kimber. Or Browning. Heck is Eugene Stoner still alive? Call him.
Ask 'em what their products are designed to do.
See what they say.
Ask 'em what their products are designed to do.
See what they say.
scythefwd
Member
45_auto - You have described the function, the how. The intent is the why.
Pipe bombs explode by burning an inflammable substance or explosive which raises pressure in a hard walled container to a point that the pressure fractures the container and is released. The walls of the container and debris that was in the container are thrown due to the force of the release of pressure.... The how.
I'm making this pipe bomb to blow up my school - The why
I'm making the pipe bomb to perform a controlled blow up on a movie set - The why.
Same device, but different intentions... one legal.
John Garand designed the best battle rifle he could. He made it as functionally sound as he could so that it could repeatedly be counted upon to expend bullets. The How. He did it so that our soldiers could kill the enemy or prevail in combat which he knew involved killing. The why.
Tayeo - The founder of keltec and hi-point are both alive and can be reached at their corporate offices.
Pipe bombs explode by burning an inflammable substance or explosive which raises pressure in a hard walled container to a point that the pressure fractures the container and is released. The walls of the container and debris that was in the container are thrown due to the force of the release of pressure.... The how.
I'm making this pipe bomb to blow up my school - The why
I'm making the pipe bomb to perform a controlled blow up on a movie set - The why.
Same device, but different intentions... one legal.
John Garand designed the best battle rifle he could. He made it as functionally sound as he could so that it could repeatedly be counted upon to expend bullets. The How. He did it so that our soldiers could kill the enemy or prevail in combat which he knew involved killing. The why.
Tayeo - The founder of keltec and hi-point are both alive and can be reached at their corporate offices.
Last edited:
oldbear
Member
GOOD FOR YOU SIR.. I can see no reason in the world to trophy hunt.
If you want or need to hunt to feed yourself or family I Applauded for skill and efforts.
tyeo098
Member
Incorrect.
He did it so the rifle WOULD be sound, so it would function without error for the many times that the rifle would be used. The why.
What the rifle was used for was up to the operator.
The rifle was designed to be a well oiled machine that would function flawlessly.
Car manufacturers design cars to move fast, and carry people. They are designed to rotate wheels to propel themselves on roadways.
Car designers do not design cars with the intention that they may be used to run over people. They do not adverstise "BLOOD STAIN PROOF PAINT" or the likes.
The method is up to the operator. The item was designed to the best of the ability by the designer.
scythefwd
Member
oldbear and OP - I can only say one thing to this...
Damn SkippY!
Ty - He built it to run flawlessly in battle. He knew very well what he was designing was going to be used to kill. He built it anyways to be the best at it. The garand started out as a military rifle. Now, something like a hi-point carbine... the argument would hold water. John designed it for Springfield with for the purpose of becoming the new battle rifle of the US. military. Too assume he didn't bother to think what that rifle was to be used for when he designed it is a bit naive. He had a set of requirements, but he also had to think about the operating environment, which is battle. I've yet to meet an engineer that didn't think of the applications his work was going to be put to. Sometimes they are wrong about what they have invented. When designing a military battle rifle... there isn't much room for thinking you're designing a rifle whose purpose isn't to kill when the soldier holding pulls the trigger.
Damn SkippY!
Ty - He built it to run flawlessly in battle. He knew very well what he was designing was going to be used to kill. He built it anyways to be the best at it. The garand started out as a military rifle. Now, something like a hi-point carbine... the argument would hold water. John designed it for Springfield with for the purpose of becoming the new battle rifle of the US. military. Too assume he didn't bother to think what that rifle was to be used for when he designed it is a bit naive. He had a set of requirements, but he also had to think about the operating environment, which is battle. I've yet to meet an engineer that didn't think of the applications his work was going to be put to. Sometimes they are wrong about what they have invented. When designing a military battle rifle... there isn't much room for thinking you're designing a rifle whose purpose isn't to kill when the soldier holding pulls the trigger.
Last edited:
Trench warfare at it's finest. This thread might as well be titled AR or AK, 9mm or 45 for all the good it will do. We have this argument about every 6 months or so and while I am not against having the same argument every so often it always ends the same way. One side has their view and the other side has their view. And never the two shall meet.
Use your fire arm for whatever you like. If more of us were actually out shooting there would be few folks on here to argue with.
Use your fire arm for whatever you like. If more of us were actually out shooting there would be few folks on here to argue with.
scythefwd
Member
I disagree to an extent. Car move and carry people by turning the wheels. That's the how they work part of it. The intent of the car is transportation, racing, stunts, etc. Cars are designed for different purposes and with different intents for their use. Stating what the car does in it's most basic and simplistic function in no way determines the intent. An example, a formula 1 race car and a school bus both fit you definition, but one was designed with the intent of mass transit, the other was designed to be the absolute fastest thing on the track. Then there's the whole automated cars that don't even need passengers or a driver that they race every year.
So you agree that the purpose an object was designed for and the purpose to which it is used don't always have to be the same AND that the purpose for which it is actually used in no way changes the purpose for which it was designed?
That's what I've been saying this whole freaking thread. A gun may have been designed to kill (not all, there are some very specific guns I can name that were never designed to kill and mine happen to be examples of both) but not be owned with that intended purpose but even if you bought it as a target rifle it doesn't change the fact that it MAY have been designed to be used to kill.
Last edited:
Justin
Moderator Emeritus
Eugene Volokh addresses this point in the essay I linked to on the first page.
http://volokh.com/2002_04_21_volokh_archive.html#75659421
For anyone who actually takes the time to read his surprisingly short essay, it becomes extremely clear that the claim that "guns are only good for killing people" is logically and factually wrong.
If it makes no difference, then why waste time splitting this particular hair?
Loosedhorse
member
...in order to get meat or enjoy hunting (or both).
I don't understand why we should arbitrarily ignore that there is a purpose behind killing the animal (hunting) in designating the purpose of the gun; and also ignore what a hunter actually expects from the gun when they pull the trigger is that a bullet come out and go where they aim it.
For some reason, there is an insistence that neither hunting itself nor accurate shooting is the purpose of the gun: the purpose is KILLING!
And, of course, the antigunners are pleased to see that some of us agree that guns are for killing.
Well, some of us don't.
Some of us old guys were drafted, handed a rifle and told to kill the other guys. I have never even drawn a handgun in the USA but I should hope they will kill whatever I want. If they won't they are useless to me. The ones I inherited I don't shoot but plenty of game has been killed with them. I trust my weapons, all of them to kill if necessary or I wouldn't own them.
Justin
Moderator Emeritus
You're missing the point.
It's not a matter of whether or not guns can be used defensively to take a life.
It's a debate about whether or not the claim that "guns are only good for killing people" is legitimate or not.
It's not a matter of whether or not guns can be used defensively to take a life.
It's a debate about whether or not the claim that "guns are only good for killing people" is legitimate or not.
scythefwd
Member
That, I agree is completely absurd.
That isn't what the OP posted though...
Tyeo098,
I believe you have a point, but as being one of the worst offenders, I must say that forums, were really never meant for demonstrating or showcasing one’s ability to master the English Language. Having been in the computer game ,"building repairing and many other non-relative things," they were created originally so people could communicate quickly with others , rather than email. Like in video games, discussions that were informal, and the like.
Most folks don't really use them as a essay/business letter type interface. When I traded using multiple monitors and 5 news feeds coming in, I used several forums where people were throwing out things like +100@62cover sell may30 put and buy July 35 <of the money. "just an example" I would be doing this for many hours including pre on Instinet and post market.
Your ideal "made for tv" forum, really was never meant for the accurate spelling and grammatical poise which seem to bother a few in here, "as always". and your assumption that one can switch to your preferred browser is a fallacy, since many people conduct various types of business online and can't use anything other than IE without having bugs in their programs.
Also one may be doing several other things and still enjoy attempting to add an opinion or critique something that one perceive as wrong or factually incorrect or irrelevant.
I do see that if you are an English teacher that this kind of MMA style of grammatical irresponsibility can cause irreversible damage to ones psyche. But unfortunately it's not an enforceable wish on the part of anyone, so to continue these comments about spelling and grammar, unless you are expecting to be published is just an exercise in futility, I hope you don't take offense to this as it was not really directed at you alone, it's merely becoming irritating to have to see it as it will never be anything other than what it is. Thank you for your time,
Gym
I believe you have a point, but as being one of the worst offenders, I must say that forums, were really never meant for demonstrating or showcasing one’s ability to master the English Language. Having been in the computer game ,"building repairing and many other non-relative things," they were created originally so people could communicate quickly with others , rather than email. Like in video games, discussions that were informal, and the like.
Most folks don't really use them as a essay/business letter type interface. When I traded using multiple monitors and 5 news feeds coming in, I used several forums where people were throwing out things like +100@62cover sell may30 put and buy July 35 <of the money. "just an example" I would be doing this for many hours including pre on Instinet and post market.
Your ideal "made for tv" forum, really was never meant for the accurate spelling and grammatical poise which seem to bother a few in here, "as always". and your assumption that one can switch to your preferred browser is a fallacy, since many people conduct various types of business online and can't use anything other than IE without having bugs in their programs.
Also one may be doing several other things and still enjoy attempting to add an opinion or critique something that one perceive as wrong or factually incorrect or irrelevant.
I do see that if you are an English teacher that this kind of MMA style of grammatical irresponsibility can cause irreversible damage to ones psyche. But unfortunately it's not an enforceable wish on the part of anyone, so to continue these comments about spelling and grammar, unless you are expecting to be published is just an exercise in futility, I hope you don't take offense to this as it was not really directed at you alone, it's merely becoming irritating to have to see it as it will never be anything other than what it is. Thank you for your time,
Gym
Justin
Moderator Emeritus
Then we're clearly reading the first post in this thread differently.
Care to give us your take?
tyeo098
Member
I... wut?
The spelling thing? Thats my signature. I put it wherever I visit, and its more a matter of convincing people to switch away from Internet Explorer because of security flaws and the like.
But alas, explaining that IE has more holes in it than swiss cheese is futile. So I just tell people that Firefox has a built in spell-checker instead, it usually sends them running in hordes.
Every since 2008, more and more applications are bing run "in the cloud" making companies who don't use cross-browser applications obsolete.
(Also yes, I've seen some terrible spelling on here, and by no means am I a grammar Nazi, but seriously, how can you mix up "site" and "sight?")
But to stay on topic...
Partially correct. John C Garand built his M1 rifle to function flawlessly in battle, at the range, as a club, etc. He built it to function flawlessly PERIOD.
Implying he built it to function flawlessly for only a particular function is just naive.
Last edited:
In reading and re-reading the OP's post, it leaves me asking why-the-post-in-the-first-place? The OP is preaching-to-the-choir. Yet, more than 3 dozen posts babble about all sort of side-track issues. Simply stated, a firearm fulfills the purposes intended by those who purchase them. The reason behind a firearm's purchase, and use is irrelevant so long as it is lawfully used. I don't get the central theme of the thread. Does this thread have a central point, or is it merely a stump?
Geno
Geno
scythefwd
Member
I'm taking it as what he said, in a very literal meaning.
"Iv'e been reading in the "Newbie" section" - the OP has been reading in the "newbie" section
"and find that a lot of people that doesn't own guns but are on the forum" - people being other posters in the newbie forum who are not gun owners
"are of the mindset that a gun is for killing" - think that guns are for killing. There are no qualifiers here, it is an absolute statement. Meaning each and every individual gun is meant for killing. Ascribing intent of design, that they were made for killing.
"Not so!" - also an absolute statement. Also assigning intent of design without qualifiers.
Had the OP said "are of the mindset that a gun is for killing. Not always so!" I would have agreed completely.
In my following post, I first argued against his absolute statement that guns are not designed for killing by providing examples of mine that were.
My next argument was that not all guns are, by mentioning my ruger and rough rider I was providing examples.
I then provided an example of a gun that was not being used as it was intended by the designer and why I thought I wasn't using it that manner (if you've ever held a rough rider... I think you'd agree that it isn't a firearm for hunting as it's a .22lr and it isn't a target gun based on build quality).
I try not to read into statements on the net because there aren't the vocal clues and facial expressions to help interpret what is meant. His statements were absolutes, and I treated them as such. Had he phrased the statement to not be so all inclusive on either one, I would have agreed totally.
"Iv'e been reading in the "Newbie" section" - the OP has been reading in the "newbie" section
"and find that a lot of people that doesn't own guns but are on the forum" - people being other posters in the newbie forum who are not gun owners
"are of the mindset that a gun is for killing" - think that guns are for killing. There are no qualifiers here, it is an absolute statement. Meaning each and every individual gun is meant for killing. Ascribing intent of design, that they were made for killing.
"Not so!" - also an absolute statement. Also assigning intent of design without qualifiers.
Had the OP said "are of the mindset that a gun is for killing. Not always so!" I would have agreed completely.
In my following post, I first argued against his absolute statement that guns are not designed for killing by providing examples of mine that were.
My next argument was that not all guns are, by mentioning my ruger and rough rider I was providing examples.
I then provided an example of a gun that was not being used as it was intended by the designer and why I thought I wasn't using it that manner (if you've ever held a rough rider... I think you'd agree that it isn't a firearm for hunting as it's a .22lr and it isn't a target gun based on build quality).
I try not to read into statements on the net because there aren't the vocal clues and facial expressions to help interpret what is meant. His statements were absolutes, and I treated them as such. Had he phrased the statement to not be so all inclusive on either one, I would have agreed totally.
scythefwd
Member
"Implying he built it to function flawlessly for only a particular function is just naive."
I can agree to that. As far as he was aware, this was a military rifle through and through though. He didn't know if springfield was going to market it to civilians, so while he may have considered it, I suspect he paid more attention to the uses he knew it was going to perform.
In the military, range time is practice to make sure you don't miss in battle. There isn't a whole lot the military does that doesn't have some aspect of prep for the battlefield.
He built it to perform perfectly at the absolutely known reason it was to be used. The rest is conjecture as to whether the M1 would ever see civilian ownership.
I can agree to that. As far as he was aware, this was a military rifle through and through though. He didn't know if springfield was going to market it to civilians, so while he may have considered it, I suspect he paid more attention to the uses he knew it was going to perform.
In the military, range time is practice to make sure you don't miss in battle. There isn't a whole lot the military does that doesn't have some aspect of prep for the battlefield.
He built it to perform perfectly at the absolutely known reason it was to be used. The rest is conjecture as to whether the M1 would ever see civilian ownership.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
