Why are guns made to kill?

[E.J.Armstrong]

There's two ways of measuring efficiency. The first is maximum output for minimum input. The second is maintaining maximum output applied to achieving the aim, while producing minimum excess or unusable output.

Combining them together we get a model for perfect efficiency:

Zero input for infinite applied output and zero excess output.

Any increase in input, or any decrease in applied output or any increase in excess output results in decreased efficiency.

In this model I am using "infinite applied output" to define the total amount of output required to achieve the aim and nothing else.

In the gun/knife model I think the input is comparably low for both:
Knife has low "setup" input (buy knife)
Gun has a moderate "setup" input (buy gun, buy ammunition, load ammunition into gun)
Knife has a moderate to high "execution" input (stab victim with knife)
Gun has a low "execution" input (pull trigger)

The applied output for each is quite variable, but fairly high:
Applied output for knife ranked by liklihood:
1. Non-fatal injury, requires additional input (low output)
2. Fatal injury, delayed death (moderate output)
3. Immediate death (high output)
Applied output for gun ranked by liklihood:
1. Fatal injury, delayed death (moderate output)
2. Immediate death (high output)
3. Non-fatal injury, requires additional input (low output)

Note that these output rankings assume no intervention by a third party (for example immediate medical treatment).

In terms of excess output I think both are quite efficient. Neither is likely to inflict significant damage outside the aim. Minor excess output would include damaging clothing but I can't think of much else.

From this I would conclude that both a gun and a knife are fairly efficient methods of killing people, however I would argue that a gun is moderately more efficient mainly because of a higher applied output.

If we look at the gun/nuclear weapon example:

-The setup input for a nuclear weapon is very, very high
-The setup input for a gun is relatively low
-The execution input for a nuclear weapon is very high (primarily because nuclear weapons are typically very large, and thus difficult to deploy regardless of method)
-The execution input for a gun is very low

-The applied output for a nuclear weapon is very, very high
-The applied output for a gun is moderate to high (varies as per above)

-The excess output for a nuclear weapon is very, very high
-The excess output for a gun is very low

I would conclude from this that a gun is substantially more efficient for killing people than a nuclear weapon.

Of course the above is for the killing of one or several individual people. If the aim is not to kill people but to destroy an entire city, this obviously changes things dramatically and I would argue that a nuclear weapon is more efficient than a gun.

You gun knife analogy misses out the action at a distance capabilites of a gun versus a knife which is clearly one of its main benefits. By ignoring that you come up with a completely flawed analysis. As well as ignoring the action at a distance problem you ignore the ability of people to run from a knife which they are not so able to do with a gun. You also ignore the likeihood of fewer casualties in subduing a knife wielder rather than a gun carrier. All in all a completely flawed analysis.

In relation to nuclear weapons versus a gun given the starting conditions I tabulated the nuclear weapon is enormously more efficient. The logic of the gun lobbyists is the argument of the arms race.

 

[Ranb]

I notice that you haven't actually provided us with any of those 'ways' of calculating efficiency that demonstrate a gun is more efficient way of killing people than a nuclear weapon so I would be grateful if you could tabulate say three of those methods that demonstrate the truth of your claim.

I am all agog.

In post #255 you claimed “It is even more efficient to use a tactical nuclear weapon to kill but it would seem you don't feel that would be meaningful either.”

I suggest that you support this claim. When you show me some math that supports your claim that nuclear weapons are more efficient, then I will comment on it.

Ranb

 

[E.J.Armstrong]

In post #255 you claimed “It is even more efficient to use a tactical nuclear weapon to kill but it would seem you don't feel that would be meaningful either.”

I suggest that you support this claim. When you show me some math that supports your claim that nuclear weapons are more efficient, then I will comment on it.

Ranb

Still not provide any evidence to support your claims about efficency yet I note.

If you are unable to accept that a nuclear weapon will kill more people in a shorter time than a gun when both are used in any group of people at the same time then I am sorry but there is absolutely nothing on this earth or fuller's that can help you.

Let me see, the Hiroshima bomb is claimed to have killed 135,000 people from http://www.atomicarchive.com/Docs/MED/med_chp10.shtml assuming a period of some ten seconds for the heat and air blasts to damage the area involved (estimate from www.wtj.com/archives/hiroshima.htm) that represents approximately 13,500 people per second.

Which gun meets that rate of murder?

I've asked you before and ask you again. If the gun was more efficient than an atomic weapon why did the USA use multiple atomic weapons on the Japanese civilian population rather than invade Japan armed with guns?

 

[fuelair]

So you agree that a 'bad guy' or a 'good guy' gone bad could get the drop on you and shoot you as you drop thereby adding you gun to those owned by the 'bad guys' and thereby endangering society as a whole.

What evidence does anyone have that you are a 'good guy' and why should anyone trust you to be responsible for a firearm? What happens when you take one too many bourbons or reefers or whatever narcotic or inebriant is your recreational drug of choice or find your best friend in delicto flagrante with your missus i.e. giving your wife a right royal rogering or when your boyfriend goes off with another man or a Palestinian makes the mistake of telling you where she comes from.

What have you ever done that would make anyone trust you with a gun?

Your opinion of pretty much anything holds no interest for me. We both know why. I don't like evil. Your mileage seems to vary.

 

[Autolite]

You seem to be saying that you want more law in relation to violent crime but less law in relation to the means of carrying out violent crime. Forgive me but I think that is completely contradictory.

I feel that I've been fairly specific with respect to my views but I don't mind repeating them over and over again for the purposes of clarification.

I don't want more laws in relation to violent crime. I want harsher penalties for existing laws.

I don't want ineffective laws in relation to the means of carrying out violent crime as they only serve to create the illusion of public safety. I want effective deterrents to discourage people from committing violent crime.

I am completely at a loss as to what you find contradictory...

 

[AkuManiMani]

Why are guns made to kill?

Because its fun and often profitable....

>_>


Don't shoot me.

 

[Autolite]

Are you really claiming that the most effective means to prevent theft is to murder people? Good grief. I do hope people of that mind are forever barred from getting near pointed sticks never mind firearms.

I am claiming that the option to employ force, the threat of deadly force, or deadly force itself would serve as a more effective deterent against the threat of my guns being stolen than what current Canadian law provides (which prohibits the use of any force or the threat of deadly force). Take into account that a law permitting the use of deadly force can be an effective deterrent. It doesn't mean that the individual is obligated or even willing to employ it.

Admittedly, I am somewhat confused with respect to the argument you seem to be presenting. You whine about the criminals' access to stolen guns yet you would deny the legitimate gun owner an effective means of preventing such theft. Such convoluted rationale escapes me.

Consider also that there are circumstances where the employment of the threat of deadly force, or deadly force itself for the protection of property is legal and justifiable. In such cases, should deadly force be necessary, I would hardly think that the term "murder" is applicable...

 

[gumboot]

You gun knife analogy misses out the action at a distance capabilites of a gun versus a knife which is clearly one of its main benefits. By ignoring that you come up with a completely flawed analysis.

However shooting at someone from a distance greatly decreases the chance of hitting them at all, whereas you need to be very close to stab someone, thus are much more likely to hit them.

My analysis was never intended to be thorough - it was merely used to illustrate the elements of measuring efficiency.

In addition, my analysis concluded that a gun was a more efficient device for killing someone than a knife. You appear to agree with that conclusion based on the above.

As well as ignoring the action at a distance problem you ignore the ability of people to run from a knife which they are not so able to do with a gun.

However people can make hitting someone with a gun much much harder by moving. And a knife wielder is close enough to their victim to physically restrain them.

You also ignore the likeihood of fewer casualties in subduing a knife wielder rather than a gun carrier. All in all a completely flawed analysis.

As I mentioned my analysis assumes only a victim and killer.

In relation to nuclear weapons versus a gun given the starting conditions I tabulated the nuclear weapon is enormously more efficient.

False. A nuclear weapon is drastically less efficient at killing someone than a gun. It requires significantly more resources and results in enormous amounts of waste or excess output. The very definition of inefficiency.

 

[gumboot]

I've asked you before and ask you again. If the gun was more efficient than an atomic weapon why did the USA use multiple atomic weapons on the Japanese civilian population rather than invade Japan armed with guns?

That's one of the worst analogies I've ever heard.

 

[Ranb]

Still not provide any evidence to support your claims about efficency yet I note.

I've asked you before and ask you again. If the gun was more efficient than an atomic weapon why did the USA use multiple atomic weapons on the Japanese civilian population rather than invade Japan armed with guns?

You keep saying that I am making claims about efficiency. I have not done this at all. You are making the claims and demanding that I prove or disprove them. Can you show me where I made a any claim about the efficiency of nukes vs guns? You say your claims of efficiency are self evident. You sound like a truther on the LC forum when you say this. No way I am going to do any calculations or research for you; do it yourself.

Ranb

 

[Ranb]

Again you miss the point. I did not talk about controls on buying motor vehicles and guns, I talked about controls on possession and use.

Finally, the actual use of motor vehicles is much more strictly controlled than firearms. Yes, there are rules on how you can use a firearm, certainly. But I believe the road rules much more tightly restrict how you may use a motor vehicle.

On a final note, I believe that in some ways the nationally recognised status of a driver's license and car ownership constitutes greater control as it means all police in the USA have direct access to an accurate national database on motor vehicle registration, safety certification, and driver licensing.

I must profess ignorance at this point... is there any nationally accessible database for firearms?

I stated in the past that a child could buy a car and that a car need not be registered if not driven; in Washington State this is not true. Only adults and legally emancipated minors may own a car, and it must be registered even if not driven on public roads.

A driver’s license (or permit) is only required when driving on a highway (public road), it is not required on private property. I can use (drive) a car on any public road with a license. In Washington, I can open carry a firearm in public places without a permit, but a permit is required for concealed carry. I am not allowed use (shoot) a firearm in most counties in a public place unless it is an established firearms range or hunting area. Mason county is one of the exceptions.

My concealed weapons permit allows me to carry in WA and a few other states. Because it is not good even when held in most states, this is more restrictive for gun owners. In other words, in some states if you have an invalid carry permit, then the gun is confiscated. Cars are not confiscated in Washington if a person is driving with an expired license or a license from another state even if it is not valid. It is just a minor traffic ticket.

There is no central database for most types of firearms in the USA. Records are kept that allow the tracing of every firearm manufactured by a licensee and sold by a dealer. Private sales are not recorded except for NFA (machine guns, short barreled shotguns, silencers etc.) weapons, in this case all transfers are authorized by the BATFE. The tracking of car ownership is better than the system used for most firearms.

Ranb

 

[gumboot]

A driver’s license (or permit) is only required when driving on a highway (public road), it is not required on private property. I can use (drive) a car on any public road with a license. In Washington, I can open carry a firearm in public places without a permit, but a permit is required for concealed carry. I am not allowed use (shoot) a firearm in most counties in a public place unless it is an established firearms range or hunting area. Mason county is one of the exceptions.

Would I be correct in thinking that Washington is one of the states that has a "will issue" policy regarding concealed carry?

Also in Washington, were you to discharge your firearm in public in order to protect the life of yourself or another, would this be illegal? What if you discharged it to protect property?

There is no central database for most types of firearms in the USA. Records are kept that allow the tracing of every firearm manufactured by a licensee and sold by a dealer. Private sales are not recorded except for NFA (machine guns, short barreled shotguns, silencers etc.) weapons, in this case all transfers are authorized by the BATFE. The tracking of car ownership is better than the system used for most firearms.

Thanks for all of this information. Very informative.

 

[Ranb]

Would I be correct in thinking that Washington is one of the states that has a "will issue" policy regarding concealed carry?

Also in Washington, were you to discharge your firearm in public in order to protect the life of yourself or another, would this be illegal? What if you discharged it to protect property?

Washington is a shall issue state in that it issues to anyone who is allowed to own a gun. As far as I know anyone who uses a firearm to defend themselves would not be arrested merely for shooting a weapon in a public place. Of course if the facts are in doubt, the shooter could very well find him or herself behind bars until the AG sorts things out.

As far as I know Washington does not have a "stand your ground" or castle doctrine law. In other words I can not use deadly force to protect my property, just my life.

Ranb

 

[Autolite]

For those in the States who are sincerely interested in getting a handle on violent crime why not keep an eye on what has been going on in Canada? Today on the CTV National News, it's been reported that criminal violence with handguns have seen a significant increase in major centres like Vancouver and Toronto.

This is because our previous federal Liberal government concentrated on "bogus" gun laws that duped concerned citizens into thinking that effective measures were being implemented. It was all "smoke and mirrors" as the linked article asserts.

I've been going on in previous posts that effective deterrents are what is required. Piling ineffective laws on top of ineffective laws only add to this illusion of public safety. It's an injustice to those that can see beyond the smoke screen. I've been accused on this forum of irresponsibility and for advocating "murder" as a crime deterent.

Well, if those accusations fit then our current Prime Minister, the Right Honourable Stephen Harper can share the blame with me as I've been parroting some of his basic views as follows:

Conservatives: Liberals "must take responsibility for the growth in gun crime" -- Tory Leader Stephen Harper

Harper said he supports harsher penalties for those who use illegal guns, but he is not advocating an outright ban on handguns across the country. He said a Conservative government would strengthen gun control in Canada by:

cracking down on illegal gun use;
stopping the flow of illegal guns at the border; and
bringing in mandatory minimum prison sentences.

"The Liberals have done none of these things," said Harper in a statement released Thursday. "They must take responsibility for the growth in gun crime on their watch. Gun crime has spun out of control because they have failed to do anything to reduce gun crime."

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNe...k_051208/20051208?s_name=election2006&no_ads=

So if our American neighbours are serious about crime control then just look north. Canada doesn't have all the answers, but at least we are learning what doesn't or hasn't worked...

 

[gumboot]

So has anyone worked out why it is that cruel oppressive people are forcing innocent guns to kill?

 

[Mobyseven]

So has anyone worked out why it is that cruel oppressive people are forcing innocent guns to kill?

Nope. Seems to me that if guns aren't made to kill, the designers did a lousy job, too...

 

[E.J.Armstrong]

Your opinion of pretty much anything holds no interest for me. We both know why. I don't like evil. Your mileage seems to vary.

I have no idea what you are talking about here? Are you trying to claim I am evil?

If you are could you please express yourself clearly.

I also have no idea what 'mileage' means in this instance. Does it mean that you disagree with me?

I am sure that you don't like evil if you say so but we have only your words to go by and you have not answered my simple question so I'll rephrase it.

On what basis should anyone who doesn't know you assume that you are a good guy with a gun?

In what way are you immune from ever running amok and killing people? Are you uniquely immune from mental illness? Are you unique in that no 'bad' guy' will ever get the drop on you?
How do strangers know you are a good guy?
Do you, for example, wear a label saying
'GOOD GUY' in capital letters or perhaps "GUN TOTER - PLEASE KEEP YOUR DISTANCE OR I WILL SHOOT FOR REASONS OF MY CHOOSING. FOR YOUR OWN SAFETY DO NOT MAKE ANY MOVES THAT I MAY INTERPRET AS AGGRESSIVE. YOU KNOW IT MAKES SENSE."

Seriously - how do people know? I don't see why anyone should apparently be expected to assume any such thing. If I knew there was someone in a room with a gun other than a policemen I would leave pronto. I am deeply suspicious of anyone who sees the need to wear a firearm especially anyone who wears a firearm and who feels they can call people who disagree with them evil - if indeed that is your intention. How could I trust a person with such a short fuse not to kill whoever he/she disliked whenever he/she chose?

 

[E.J.Armstrong]

I am claiming that the option to employ force, the threat of deadly force, or deadly force itself would serve as a more effective deterent against the threat of my guns being stolen than what current Canadian law provides (which prohibits the use of any force or the threat of deadly force). Take into account that a law permitting the use of deadly force can be an effective deterrent. It doesn't mean that the individual is obligated or even willing to employ it.

The major problem with that view is how do you determine when to use deadly force? Is it when a youth spits at you or when she smashes your windows?

That is the major problem with that view. In the UK we have rightly jailed people who have used deadly force. One farmer shot a burglar in the back and was incarcerated. In this country and luckily burglary is not yet a capital offence. I think it would inevitably become so if the state allowed to decide to apply the death penalty and carry out the execution yourself.

Admittedly, I am somewhat confused with respect to the argument you seem to be presenting. You whine about the criminals' access to stolen guns yet you would deny the legitimate gun owner an effective means of preventing such theft. Such convoluted rationale escapes me.

Sorry but I am not whining about anything. If you wish to characterise my refusal to allow people from being indiscriminately executed on the whim of gun toters as whining so be it. That is your perogative.

I have tried to explain that the presence of massive quantities of guns in a society inevitably leads to guns being stolen and used to kill, in guns not being properly secured and used by children to commit murder and suicide as we see so regularly in the USA, in some 'Legitimate' gun owners going nuts and blasting others as well as herself. A society that allows and promotes massive gun ownership must, by definition, accept the inevitable consequences of their actions or they would change the law. In the UK we have seen a number of so-called 'legitimate' gun owners going nuts and mass murdering children. We have taken measured and reasonable action to inhibit repetition.

The following is a very serious question. How can anyone guarantee that you or people like won't ever do the same?

Consider also that there are circumstances where the employment of the threat of deadly force, or deadly force itself for the protection of property is legal and justifiable. In such cases, should deadly force be necessary, I would hardly think that the term "murder" is applicable...

What circumstances are those?

The problem with allowing 'legitimate' gun owners to sentence people to death and carry out the execution (even on an unpaid basis) is the impossibility of 'legitimate' gun owners to act legally or even responsibly on every occasion. I and luckily the UK and apparently Canada are not prepared to allow any gun nuts to cull the population of people they choose to deem are acting in a way they disapprove of, which is what I believe your proposal would inevitably lead to.

 

[E.J.Armstrong]

However shooting at someone from a distance greatly decreases the chance of hitting them at all, whereas you need to be very close to stab someone, thus are much more likely to hit them.

My analysis was never intended to be thorough - it was merely used to illustrate the elements of measuring efficiency.

It missed out one of the vital issues. Guns supplanted knives and spears in warfare because they were more efficient. Sorry but your attempt to rationalise that away has to be one of the silliest I have ever heard.

In addition, my analysis concluded that a gun was a more efficient device for killing someone than a knife. You appear to agree with that conclusion based on the above.

I stated that as self evident. Among other things you stated that a gun is '... moderately more efficient...' If that was true then armies would tend to be use guns moderately more than knives.

However people can make hitting someone with a gun much much harder by moving. And a knife wielder is close enough to their victim to physically restrain them.

Are you now trying to claim that all knife victims remain close to their attacker so he/she can get a good stab or that an automatic weapon cannot spray an area densely packed with students?

You have also failed to establish the relative kill rate per blow or bullet.

As I mentioned my analysis assumes only a victim and killer.

And as I have pointed out that assumption renders it unusable in any serious dicussion about the efficiency of guns versus knives for the reasons I have already tabulated.

False. A nuclear weapon is drastically less efficient at killing someone than a gun. It requires significantly more resources and results in enormous amounts of waste or excess output. The very definition of inefficiency.

If that was true then the USA would not have used them repeatedly in Japan if they could have done the job more efficiently with guns? Perhaps the USA acting irrationally? I believe that one of the major justifications for their use was that huge additional numbers would be killed if the US used guns instead.

 

[E.J.Armstrong]

That's one of the worst analogies I've ever heard.

It may be the worst one you have heard but only you can vouch for the analogies you have heard and you may never have heard of any other good ones.

It also happens to be one to which I have yet to get an answer.