ArfinGreebly
Moderator Emeritus
Abstraction
I'm going to suggest an abstraction.
You can fixate all you want on the "designer's purpose" for guns.
I would suggest that they are designed to make it possible to express force, or a potential for force.
While I can appreciate that this is kinda vague, stay with me for a moment.
The first gun may have been a siege cannon. Yes, it was designed to throw a heavy projectile more or less accurately for some distance. But its underlying purpose? To coerce the people behind the city's walls into surrendering or, alternatively, to coerce an invader to take his business elsewhere. They made it possible to threaten or apply force without nearly the risk to the troops that would be necessary without one.
Portable guns came along, and once again underlying purpose was the application or threat of force. The design intent of the musket? To make it possible to stand off at a safe distance and apply force more or less accurately. Deadly force, it is true, but the underlying purpose was the coercion of surrender. There really was no point in wiping out whole populations. Someone had to work the farms and factories, and it might as well be the folks who live there, so we don't want to kill them particularly, just make sure we're in charge. See? Look, I can hit you from clear over here. You can't outrun it. It can kill you. Now behave and plow that field.
As guns evolved, the underlying purpose was still the application or threat of force at a distance to either coerce surrender or dissuade an invader.
Even bombs -- even the BIG bombs -- have this as their underlying purpose. See? I can hit you harder than you can hit me. Now back off or I'll hit you REALLY hard. Do they kill? Well, yeah. The point is the application of overwhelming force.
Now we have rifles that are accurate at truly absurd engagement distances. We have rifles that are capable of delivering hundreds of rounds in absurdly short time frames. We have crew served stuff that's nigh on irresistible.
And the point? The subjugation or liberation of large or small groups of people.
Killing? Sure, if that's what it takes. If I threaten you with overwhelming force, it helps my credibility if I can deliver truly overwhelming force -- and what's more overwhelming than death?
Now, certainly there's that old "chicken and egg" argument, regarding whether firearms were first invented to hunt game or deliver force in wartime. The same argument is often had about bows and arrows. Was their first purpose to hunt or make war? Does it matter?
Hunting is its own domain, and the fact that overwhelming force can put food on the table is a powerful argument for owning and using something that can deliver deadly force at a safe distance.
But the bigger argument is usually not about hunting.
It's about the application of [potentially deadly] force.
And the underlying purpose of having deadly force capability is the same as it has always been: subjugation or liberation.
So, question isn't "can guns kill" or "were guns invented to kill" or "was my favorite gun intended for killing." It has never really been about "killing." It has always been about force.
Those who would subjugate you are happy to fixate on the "moral" question of "killing." The force they hope to exert is the "soft force" of law, backed by . . . overwhelming force. They hope to build a structure of rules which "sound reasonable" enough that there will be majority compliance, and the overwhelming force can be reserved for the few who are not fooled.
Guns are about applying or threatening overwhelming force. When everybody has one -- a la Sam Colt's equalizer -- then subjugation becomes much more difficult. Obtaining food is a completely separate issue, and a red herring for this discussion.
It's always about the application or threat of force to accomplish subjugation or liberation.
The question you have to ask yourself is which one of those describes your application?
I'm going to suggest an abstraction.
You can fixate all you want on the "designer's purpose" for guns.
I would suggest that they are designed to make it possible to express force, or a potential for force.
While I can appreciate that this is kinda vague, stay with me for a moment.
The first gun may have been a siege cannon. Yes, it was designed to throw a heavy projectile more or less accurately for some distance. But its underlying purpose? To coerce the people behind the city's walls into surrendering or, alternatively, to coerce an invader to take his business elsewhere. They made it possible to threaten or apply force without nearly the risk to the troops that would be necessary without one.
Portable guns came along, and once again underlying purpose was the application or threat of force. The design intent of the musket? To make it possible to stand off at a safe distance and apply force more or less accurately. Deadly force, it is true, but the underlying purpose was the coercion of surrender. There really was no point in wiping out whole populations. Someone had to work the farms and factories, and it might as well be the folks who live there, so we don't want to kill them particularly, just make sure we're in charge. See? Look, I can hit you from clear over here. You can't outrun it. It can kill you. Now behave and plow that field.
As guns evolved, the underlying purpose was still the application or threat of force at a distance to either coerce surrender or dissuade an invader.
Even bombs -- even the BIG bombs -- have this as their underlying purpose. See? I can hit you harder than you can hit me. Now back off or I'll hit you REALLY hard. Do they kill? Well, yeah. The point is the application of overwhelming force.
Now we have rifles that are accurate at truly absurd engagement distances. We have rifles that are capable of delivering hundreds of rounds in absurdly short time frames. We have crew served stuff that's nigh on irresistible.
And the point? The subjugation or liberation of large or small groups of people.
Killing? Sure, if that's what it takes. If I threaten you with overwhelming force, it helps my credibility if I can deliver truly overwhelming force -- and what's more overwhelming than death?
Now, certainly there's that old "chicken and egg" argument, regarding whether firearms were first invented to hunt game or deliver force in wartime. The same argument is often had about bows and arrows. Was their first purpose to hunt or make war? Does it matter?
Hunting is its own domain, and the fact that overwhelming force can put food on the table is a powerful argument for owning and using something that can deliver deadly force at a safe distance.
But the bigger argument is usually not about hunting.
It's about the application of [potentially deadly] force.
And the underlying purpose of having deadly force capability is the same as it has always been: subjugation or liberation.
So, question isn't "can guns kill" or "were guns invented to kill" or "was my favorite gun intended for killing." It has never really been about "killing." It has always been about force.
Those who would subjugate you are happy to fixate on the "moral" question of "killing." The force they hope to exert is the "soft force" of law, backed by . . . overwhelming force. They hope to build a structure of rules which "sound reasonable" enough that there will be majority compliance, and the overwhelming force can be reserved for the few who are not fooled.
Guns are about applying or threatening overwhelming force. When everybody has one -- a la Sam Colt's equalizer -- then subjugation becomes much more difficult. Obtaining food is a completely separate issue, and a red herring for this discussion.
It's always about the application or threat of force to accomplish subjugation or liberation.
The question you have to ask yourself is which one of those describes your application?
