Guns designed to kill?

[Ed]

In some recent thread I deconstructed the notion that guns, per se, are designed to kill. I pointed out that there are many things that are functionally "guns" what are pretty harmless and that if one, dishonestly, plays with definitions appropriately certainly the end point will be that the defined class of propelling objects have killing as a central aim.

I have thought about this and I think that that definition is pretty narrow, narrower than I thought.

You see, it is never the objective of an army (who probably have been the driving force behind most firearms development) to kill. Never, ever. The objective is to impede and marginalize an opposing forced. The dead are dead. Sunk, done. The wounded require infrastructure, bodies and resourses. The objective of an army is to create the maximum number of wounded in order to create the maximum drain on an enemy state.

If death were the objective, all armies would use some sort of hollow point/expanding bullet, they don't. I would be curious if anyone knows of any (modern) military round that is loaded with anything other than FMJ (full metal jacket).

That said, it changes the definition from the simplistic "guns are designed to..." to "what are the strategy and objectives of the force utilizing the weapon?" That is to say that guns don't ... well you know how that goes.

 

[Freakshow]

I must have owned some defective guns in my life. I have fired countless 10's of thousands of rounds over the past 20+ years, and have never killed anyone. Maybe I should take the guns back and get a refund?

 

[Ed]

I must have owned some defective guns in my life. I have fired countless 10's of thousands of rounds over the past 20+ years, and have never killed anyone. Maybe I should take the guns back and get a refund?

The bullet comes out of the hole. I hope this helps.


To elaborate on the OP for a second. The issue is how a firearm/projectile/cartridge combination are configured that defines the purpose/intent of the firearms system. Prior to that configuration thay are just parts. Again, it is human intent. Referring to a gun in vaccuo is meaningless.

 

[Bjorn]

If death were the objective, all armies would use some sort of hollow point/expanding bullet, they don't.

I'm probably showing my ignorance here, but isn't that because such bullets are banned by conventions we and other countries have signed?

 

[Ryokan]

You see, it is never the objective of an army (who probably have been the driving force behind most firearms development) to kill. Never, ever. The objective is to impede and marginalize an opposing forced. The dead are dead. Sunk, done. The wounded require infrastructure, bodies and resourses. The objective of an army is to create the maximum number of wounded in order to create the maximum drain on an enemy state.

There are two schools of thought here.

One is to use small caliber slow-moving bullets that wound rather than kill, so that if you hit one enemy, it takes two enemies to drag him off the battlefield. The US use this tactic, which is why they use 5.56 rifles (M16 and its cousins).

The other is to use large caliber fast-moving bullets, to kill the enemy as fast as possible. Norway uses this tactic, which is why we use 7.62x51 rifles (H&K G3). If you get hit by one of those suckers, you're done for.

Besides, hollow-point and explosive rounds are banned by the Geneva convention.

 

[Ed]

Re: Re: Guns designed to kill?

I'm probably showing my ignorance here, but isn't that because such bullets are banned by conventions we and other countries have signed?

I was going to say that they are, I was not sure. But, so what?

 

[CapelDodger]

You see, it is never the objective of an army (who probably have been the driving force behind most firearms development) ...

Your agument comes off the rails at that point. The driving force has been the people who use armies. Armies have been the driving force behind getting women and drink onto camp, whatever the rules say.

... to kill. Never, ever. The objective is to impede and marginalize an opposing forced.

The objective is whatever the army has been set, which is to render the enemy incapable of preventing the outcome their users desire

The dead are dead. Sunk, done. The wounded require infrastructure, bodies and resourses. The objective of an army is to create the maximum number of wounded in order to create the maximum drain on an enemy state.

You confuse strategy with tactics. In a battle, especially from a defensive position, you may wish to disable because advancing past, or holding on next to, people screaming for their Mommas takes a mental toll. Once the battle has been won and the enemy breaks, chasing them down and slaughtering them at a major advantage so you don't have to meet them again is a priority.

The classic strategic application was by Basil the Bulgar-Slayer, who took 15,000 prisoners and sent them home. 99 men out of each hundred was blinded; the last man was left with one eye so he could lead the others home. The Bulgars didn't just lose 15,000 young men (easily replaced in a generation), they gained 15,000 disabled young men to support.

Or so the story goes.

If death were the objective, all armies would use some sort of hollow point/expanding bullet, they don't. I would be curious if anyone knows of any (modern) military round that is loaded with anything other than FMJ (full metal jacket).

This became an issue when modern Europeans were fighting each other, rather than natives. We are, after all, civilised, aren't we?

 

[Ed]

Re: Re: Guns designed to kill?

There are two schools of thought here.

One is to use small caliber slow-moving bullets that wound rather than kill, so that if you hit one enemy, it takes two enemies to drag him off the battlefield. The US use this tactic, which is why they use 5.56 rifles (M16 and its cousins).

The other is to use large caliber fast-moving bullets, to kill the enemy as fast as possible. Norway uses this tactic, which is why we use 7.62x51 rifles (H&K G3). If you get hit by one of those suckers, you're done for.

Besides, hollow-point and explosive rounds are banned by the Geneva convention.

I don't think that the .223 is slow moving by any stretch. In any event, if a bullet is FMJ it will sail thru you.

My uncle was a paratrooper in the 82nd Airborne and was shot by Jerry whilst descending. He had a couple of interesting pock marks front and back. Bullets sailed thru.

7.62 is like .308 NATO? To lazy to look it up and my memory is rusty.

 

[Freakshow]

The bullet comes out of the hole. I hope this helps.

Bullets? DOH!!! So THAT'S what I've been doing wrong all these years!

I always wondered why the guns in the movies were so much louder than mine. Theirs go "boom", and mine always goes "click".

 

[CapelDodger]

Bullets? DOH!!! So THAT'S what I've been doing wrong all these years!

I always wondered why the guns in the movies were so much louder than mine. Theirs go "boom", and mine always goes "click".

Their bullets kick up sparks as well. Bet yours won't, when you remember to put them in your loads.

 

[Earthborn]

I pointed out that there are many things that are functionally "guns" what are pretty harmless and that if one, dishonestly, plays with definitions appropriately certainly the end point will be that the defined class of propelling objects have killing as a central aim.

So you consider it dishonest to exclude starter pistols and squirt guns from a Second Amendment thread? Everything that is 'functionally a gun' should be included?

Please tell us your definition of a 'gun' that includes things that are pretty harmless, so we can properly distinguish them from 'feather pillows' in gun control threads.

You see, it is never the objective of an army (snip) to kill. Never, ever.

(snip)

The objective of an army is to create the maximum number of wounded in order to create the maximum drain on an enemy state.

That's certainly new to me. I wonder why the arms race hasn't been more successful in creating weapons that wound but do not kill.

And here I always thought that armies often tried to instill the fear of death into enemies in the hope they will stop, or if they don't to stop them with deadly force if necessary. But you said "never, ever" so I guess I must have been wrong.

The wounded require infrastructure, bodies and resourses.

The wounded already have bodies (albeit damaged ones). The dead also require infrastructure and resources, to give them a proper burial.

If death were the objective, all armies would use some sort of hollow point/expanding bullet, they don't.

If death were "never, ever" the objective, one wonders why military use of them is illegal. Is there any point in making things illegal that nobody ever does and never did?

I must have owned some defective guns in my life. I have fired countless 10's of thousands of rounds over the past 20+ years, and have never killed anyone. Maybe I should take the guns back and get a refund?

You probably should. If you that many rounds, and you still didn't kill anybody, either the gun is defective or you took great care in not killing anyone. It is very easy to kill someone with a functional gun and it requires considerable effort in safety measures to not kill. Killing with a gun is so easy, it's almost as if they were designed for it. Almost.

 

[Freakshow]

You probably should. If you that many rounds, and you still didn't kill anybody, either the gun is defective or you took great care in not killing anyone. It is very easy to kill someone with a functional gun and it requires considerable effort in safety measures to not kill. Killing with a gun is so easy, it's almost as if they were designed for it. Almost.

Could you elaborate on this a bit more? I was joking, of course. I'm not sure if you were. If you weren't, then you kind of lost me there...

 

[CapelDodger]

Re: Re: Guns designed to kill?

There are two schools of thought here.

One is to use small caliber slow-moving bullets that wound rather than kill, so that if you hit one enemy, it takes two enemies to drag him off the battlefield. The US use this tactic, which is why they use 5.56 rifles (M16 and its cousins).

The other is to use large caliber fast-moving bullets, to kill the enemy as fast as possible. Norway uses this tactic, which is why we use 7.62x51 rifles (H&K G3). If you get hit by one of those suckers, you're done for.

This demonstrates a profound difference in cultural attitudes to the role of a soldier. In Norway, the role is essentially defensive, and is an extension of the hunter. Wolf or Russian invader, what's the difference? In the US the role of the soldier is offensive and succeeds through superior technology, supply and firepower. A sheet of 5.56 instead of the line of 7.62 (the European calibre).

 

[Freakshow]

Re: Re: Re: Guns designed to kill?

This demonstrates a profound difference in cultural attitudes to the role of a soldier. In Norway, the role is essentially defensive, and is an extension of the hunter. Wolf or Russian invader, what's the difference? In the US the role of the soldier is offensive and succeeds through superior technology, supply and firepower. A sheet of 5.56 instead of the line of 7.62 (the European calibre).

Is there ever a time that defense requires attacking someone outside of your own country?

 

[CapelDodger]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Guns designed to kill?

Is there ever a time that defense requires attacking someone outside of your own country?

The Norwegians don't seem to have encountered such a position. When the Norse went forth, they did it purely for profit. The Orkneys posed no threat to Norway. How often have pre-emptive strikes solved real problems? Compare and contrast with the number that caused them.

 

[Earthborn]

I was joking, of course.

Of course.

I'm not sure if you were.

Sort of. I'm just pointing out how silly it is to claim that 'guns are not designed to kill' by saying you have used guns and not killed anyone.

It's a bit like claiming that cars are not designed to be driven with more than 50 kilometers per hour on the motorway, by showing a car that never left a garage in 30 years.

This thread is started by Ed because he intends to show that guns are not designed to kill. I'd say that either quite a lot of them are designed to kill, or they are incompetantly designed because they are very good at what they aren't designed for (killing) and pretty bad at doing what they are designed for (not killing).

Gun designers: unscrupulous or idiot... You decide!

Yes, I know that's a false dilemma. Gun designers might indeed be both.

 

[Freakshow]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Guns designed to kill?

The Norwegians don't seem to have encountered such a position. When the Norse went forth, they did it purely for profit. The Orkneys posed no threat to Norway. How often have pre-emptive strikes solved real problems? Compare and contrast with the number that caused them.

It is not a matter of a pre-emptive strike. It is a matter of the location and nature of the fighting.

I was thinking about the fighting in the Pacific, in WWII. That was definately done for defensive reasons, but it wasn't fought here in the US. It was fought far overseas, in an aggressive fashion with the goal of taking over land that was under the control of a foreign army.

Looking at the situation in isolation, would it not be the same as if the US was doing do offensively?

 

[Freakshow]

Of course.Sort of. I'm just pointing out how silly it is to claim that 'guns are not designed to kill' by saying you have used guns and not killed anyone.

It's a bit like claiming that cars are not designed to be driven with more than 50 kilometers per hour on the motorway, by showing a car that never left a garage in 30 years.

This thread is started by Ed because he intends to show that guns are not designed to kill. I'd say that either quite a lot of them are designed to kill, or they are incompetantly designed because they are very good at what they aren't designed for (killing) and pretty bad at doing what they are designed for (not killing).

Gun designers: unscrupulous or idiot... You decide!

Yes, I know that's a false dilemma. Gun designers might indeed be both.

I understand. But I would point out that the majority of defensive handgun use in the US does not result in death. In fact, the majority does not even result in any shots being fired.

Now, that doesn't mean that they are not "designed to kill". But it does mean that the use of a gun does not necessarily mean killing.

 

[Bjorn]

I understand. But I would point out that the majority of defensive handgun use in the US does not result in death. In fact, the majority does not even result in any shots being fired.

Now, that doesn't mean that they are not "designed to kill".

Do you disagree with the OP, claiming that guns are not designed to kill?

 

[Freakshow]

Do you disagree with the OP, claiming that guns are not designed to kill?

Guns are designed to launch bullets. This may or may not mean killing someone.

For example, some guns are designed exclusively for use in shooting competitions. Looking at the design of these guns, they are obviously an extremely poor choice for killing someone. Someone intent on killing would pick a different gun to do it with. It would be much cheaper, too. Guns designed for use in shooting competitions are usually not very cheap.

Some guns are designed specifically for killing. Some aren't. They can even be designed with defensive use in mind, without the concious thought of the gun designer being "I'm going to make this as lethal as I can." They could certainly be thinking of other design requirements as higher priorities. Of course, the designer is aware that a gun can be used to kill. But it might not be an aspect of the design requirements.