Guns designed to kill?

[CapelDodger]

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

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.

Sorry, I misread your post. Iraq on my mind, I guess. There are certainly times when defence means you have to go get the buggers where they live. In the Pacific War, the US was defending its access to the Western Pacific, and had to do it over there. The French Revolutionary Wars were defensive, even when they extended beyond France. In the Great War the Brits fought the Germans in France and Belgium rather than fight them in Britain.

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

It usually becomes clear what's behind a war, even if it's just idiocy. It's already clear what was behind Afghanistan. It may one day become clear what's behind Iraq.

 

[Freakshow]

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

Sorry, I misread your post. Iraq on my mind, I guess.

I understand totally. I probably would have made the exact same assumption, if our post exchanges were reversed.

There are certainly times when defence means you have to go get the buggers where they live. In the Pacific War, the US was defending its access to the Western Pacific, and had to do it over there. The French Revolutionary Wars were defensive, even when they extended beyond France. In the Great War the Brits fought the Germans in France and Belgium rather than fight them in Britain.

Yep, that's exactly what I meant.

It usually becomes clear what's behind a war, even if it's just idiocy. It's already clear what was behind Afghanistan. It may one day become clear what's behind Iraq.

What do you think was behind Afghanistan?

 

[CapelDodger]

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

What do you think was behind Afghanistan?

This summer I had a wasp's nest in my shed. Way down the bottom of the garden - but I still took it out with overwhelming force. I didn't realise it was there until I got stung on the head a few times all at once.

I see this as analogous to Afghanistan.

 

[Freakshow]

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

This summer I had a wasp's nest in my shed. Way down the bottom of the garden - but I still took it out with overwhelming force. I didn't realise it was there until I got stung on the head a few times all at once.

I see this as analogous to Afghanistan.

I'm still not quite following you.

Part of which is deliberate on my part. Just trying to draw a more specific explanation out of you.

Care to elaborate and clarify a bit?

 

[CapelDodger]

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

Care to elaborate and clarify a bit?

I will not be coerced into clarity. But I can do elaborate.

Afghanistan : Garden Shed. Al-Qaeda : Wasps. 9/11 : Stings. USA : Me. Seriously pissed attitude : Seriously pissed attitude. There's just a difference of scale.

Even if I abandoned my shed, there'd be more and more wasps ranging further and further, and first my garden, then my house, and my neighbours gardens and houses would become increasingly dangerous. New nests would be established in nooks and crannies. Inaction was not an option. I went in with WWD and superior technology, and triumphed. I feel good about it, I did a service to the community. And told everybody, of course. ("It was this big!", and it gets bigger all the time.)

Afghanistan was great, I loved it. Who could watch the Taliban front-lines getting carpet-bombed without whooping and punching the air? I'm one of those who didn't take their eyes off Afghanistan when the Soviets left. On 9/11, when the news came through of the second WTC strike, my first rational thoughts were "Bin Laden" and "The Taliban are toast". I was still mourning Ahmad Shah Massood at the time. Serious days.

 

[Freakshow]

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

I will not be coerced into clarity.

I don't suppose you happen to be a politician, do you?

 

[Leif Roar]

Target rifles and pistols are NOT designed for killing.

Some shotguns are only designed for clay pigeon shooting.

Certainly, but those are fairly rare exceptions, and as they're still quite efficent at killing and base much of their design on "gun commonality," is it really worthwhile to quibble as long as the original quote wasn't "Absolutely all guns are solely designed for killing"?

Hunting rifles and most other shotguns are only designed for game hunting.

Funny thing is, killing a human and killing large game pretty much amounts to the same thing.

Only military guns are actually weapons.

Weapons intended for hunting are still weapons (" something (as a club, knife, or gun) used to injure, defeat, or destroy" to go by Merriam-Webster); and even if we ignore those, what about all the hand-guns designed for personal defence or police work?

 

[CFLarsen]

Purpose of its usage? As I said, it varies.

No, not just usage. Purpose, overall.

 

[69dodge]

Originally posted by Earthborn
If we want to know what "guns are designed for" [...]

Ok, I have a silly question: why would we want to know that? What difference would it make?

 

[kmortis]

I suspect it's an alliterative marketing campaign. Can you imagine trying to sell "relatively harmless" weapons to the police?

--Patch

I can see it now

DON'T PANIC
[Big Red Button]
Get your Mostly Harmless (tm) ammunition now! Who needs digital watches when you can have the newest invention from the Sirius Cybernetics Coproration.

edited to fix spelling mistake

 

[Jon_in_london]

they're still quite efficent at killing

So are sticks.

 

[Leif Roar]

So are sticks.

You took seven wourds out of the middle of a rather verbose question of 47 and posted a smart-aleck reply. What's the point?

 

[Freakshow]

No, not just usage. Purpose, overall.

Answered already. You'll have to make-do with looking through my previous posts in this thread, and addressing them. Or just ignore them. Either one works for me.

 

[Jon_in_london]

You took seven wourds out of the middle of a rather verbose question of 47 and posted a smart-aleck reply. What's the point?

Oh all right.

Firstly I disagree that target and clay pigeon shooting "are fairly rare exceptions". Entire sports exist solely using these type of guns. And while you may be able to kill someone with a target rifle, you can kill them just as well- if not better -with a golf club.

Yes, you can also use a hunting rifle to kill a person but they werent designed for that purpose..... I guess you could use a microwave to murder babies but they werent designed for that purpose.....

As to handguns other than target pistols- Im not a fan. Do what you will with them.

 

[CFLarsen]

Answered already. You'll have to make-do with looking through my previous posts in this thread, and addressing them. Or just ignore them. Either one works for me.

So, you think that purpose = usage?

 

[Leif Roar]

Oh all right.

Firstly I disagree that target and clay pigeon shooting "are fairly rare exceptions". Entire sports exist solely using these type of guns.

There's an entire sport centered around jumping far on skis. That doesn't mean that the kind of skis used for that sport aren't fairly rare as skis go. Special purpose targetting firearms exist in much smaller number than "regular" ones, so I think it's appropriate to call them "fairly rare."

And while you may be able to kill someone with a target rifle, you can kill them just as well- if not better -with a golf club.

My point is really that the existance of targetting guns isn't really enough to refute the statement. Just because there are exceptions to the statement doesn't mean that the statement isn't generally true. (It does mean that the statement isn't absolutely true, but then it's not presented as an absolutely true statement.)

Yes, you can also use a hunting rifle to kill a person but they werent designed for that purpose.....

I'm going to have to disagree with you here. The design parameters for killing a deer and killing a person is, for all practical purposes, identical. If a gun is designed to effectively kill deer, it will by necessity also be designed to effectively kill humans. There's no difference, from a gun designer's point of view, of whether it's a human on the other end or a deer.

No, the purpose of the design process was not to be able to kill humans specifically; but that's just splitting semantic hairs. I might just as well claim that hunting rifles aren't designed to kill caribou, since no hunting rifle is designed for the specifica purpose of killing caribou.

Hunting rifles are designed to kill. Period. There's really no way to design a rifle to kill a particular species; they have to be designed to kill in general. To claim that a hunting rifle isn't designed to kill humans is technically true, but it is also completely meaningless.

[SNIP]

As to handguns other than target pistols- Im not a fan. Do what you will with them.

You might not be a fan of them, but as they are one of the most widespread kinds of guns around, you can't just ignore them when considering the truth of the statement "Guns are designed to kill."

 

[epepke]

Yes, you can also use a hunting rifle to kill a person but they werent designed for that purpose.....

The thing I find ironic is that, arguably, hunting rifles and ammunition are designed to kill something, though not usually humans.

On the other hand, assault weapons and ammunition, at least in the US (can't speak for Norway) are designed to wound.

Yet the term "assault weapon" predictably results in more hysteria than "hunting rifle."

 

[Freakshow]

So, you think that purpose = usage?

No, quite the opposite. I think that purpose has incredibly minor significance when compared to usage. Objects themselves can't really have much of a purpose. They are objects, after all. They can't think. Not being able to think, they can't have a purpose. Now, the designer of the object may have made it for a purpose. But what matters is how it is used, not what purpose someone had in mind.

What was the purpose of the guns that I've owned in my life? As I said, I've fired countless 10's of thousands of rounds with them, and never killed anyone. So what is of more significance: the intent of the designer, or my usage? Only a tiny percentage (I believe it is much less than 1%) of all firearms in the US are ever used to kill someone. In other words, over 99% (if I am correct, and I believe I am; would have to look it up) of the firearms in the US are not used to kill someone. What does that say about the significance of how something is used?

I don't usually blame inanimate objects for things. I blame the people using them.

 

[shanek]

Yes, very clever. However, we can also turn that around and say that rubber bullets are designed not to kill when used in a deadly weapon.

Is a gun deadly independent of the ammunition loaded into it?

If we want to know what "guns are designed for" we may have to ask ourselves what came first: guns shooting deadly bullets, or guns shooting rubber bullets.

Ah. So, if I download Google Earth and use my computer to zoom all around the globe and see what's there, I'm not using the computer for what it was designed for, since originally computers were designed to tabulate census data?

We can also ask ourselves how effective guns with rubber bullets are at not-killing. If guns are not 'designed to kill' and only the ammunition is, we can expect that when loaded with ammunition that is specifically designed not to kill, you'll end up with a combination that makes it very difficult to kill someone with.
However if guns are designed to kill, their killing power might still be pretty good, even if used with ammunition designed to minimise killing.

Perhaps there is a reason why rubber bullets are called 'less lethal' more often than 'relatively harmless'.

So if something can kill, that means it's designed to kill? Cars must be designed to kill, then...

 

[shanek]

Since you're trying not to kill someone who is armed with a dangerous weapon (such as a knife), you don't want short tactical ranges. Thus, there's going to be some distance where "less than lethal" ammo results in serious injuries. It's all about the velocity at point of impact and where you hit them. I know of at least one fatal shooting involving a beanbag round, and one involving rubber buckshot. Since you're trying to balance pain vs. serious injury with a projectile weapon, things can go wrong. However, fatal injuries are rare.

Heck, a blank round can kill you at close enough range...