Guns designed to kill?

[shanek]

Okay, here's something I've been wondering, and it seems on-topic enough for this thread:

WTF is the big problem with sawed-off shotguns? I mean, as opposed to regular shotguns. What is it about cutting off the barrel (or part of the barrel, however it's done) that makes the police and the news treat it as a much more horrible weapon?

It seems to me that, if anything, a shorter barrel would mean a greater spread of the buckshot, spreading out the force of the shot over a greater area and making it less damaging. So this has never made any sense to me.

 

[Bikewer]

Sawed-off shotguns are amazingly lethal at close ranges, and in addition it's not possible to ballistically identify shotgun pellets.
As the weapon can be easily concealed, they were (and still are, to some extent) a favored weapon of armed robbers.
Extremely intimidating as well. Prior to Federal legislation prohibiting such weapons, Ithaca produced a 20-guage sawed-off double with a pistol grip, which they marketed as the "auto and burglar gun".

The sawed-off has perhaps become less popular due to the lack of popularity of break-action shotguns in general. With the long action, pump and auto weapons are still quite bulky, even if the barrel is shortened to the maximum extent. (in front of the magazine.) In addition, posession of such an altered weapon is a federal offense.

The prospective armed robber should, however, keep in mind the limited ammunition of a weapon of this type. In one case, a fellow decided to rob a rather "tough" bar. He announced his holdup by firing a round into the cieling. This display caused no great display of concern on the part of his victims, so he fired the other round as well.....
His body was found in the alley.

 

[luchog]

Sawed-off shotguns are amazingly lethal at close ranges, and in addition it's not possible to ballistically identify shotgun pellets.
As the weapon can be easily concealed, they were (and still are, to some extent) a favored weapon of armed robbers.

In places where handguns are heavily regulated or banned, sawed-off shotguns are at least as common, if not moreso, for armed robbery. Primarily for it's intimidation factor, easy concealability, short-range lethality, low cost, and availability.

 

[Earthborn]

Originally posted by 69dodge
Ok, I have a silly question: why would we want to know that? What difference would it make?

I haven't got the foggiest. But it seems to be very important to some people, both to gun control freaks as gun nuts. The issue of the designed purpose of guns always comes up in discussion like this:

Gun nut: "So if guns must be controlled because they are so dangerous, why only guns and not other dangerous things like cars/knives/pianos?" (Ignoring of course that many dangerous objects are already heavily regulated)

Gun control freak: "But guns are specifically designed to kill!" (A better answer may have been: "Guns are more often used to kill.")

Gun nut: "No, they are not." (Igoring that many guns really are specifically designed for their killing power.)

Gun control freak: "Yes, they are!"

Gun nut: "No, they are not."

Etc... Apperently to some people, the designed purpose of guns is very important.

Originally posted by Shanek
Is a gun deadly independent of the ammunition loaded into it?

Not entirely, as it still needs some sort of ammunition to be deadly. However, it is very difficult to make usuable ammunition that makes the gun incapable of causing death. As you said it yourself: "Heck, a blank round can kill you at close enough range..." It's probably easier to design a gun that shoots 'deadly' bullits without killing than it is to design a bullit that does not kill in a 'deadly' gun. Therefore I think it is fair to say that 'deadliness' is in large part a property of the gun.

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?

Bad example. With the exception of machines we would not call 'computers' today but would describe them as 'calculators', even early computers were specifically designed to be 'universal machines'. That means that the design does not define its purpose, its programs do. By entering a different program, the same computer can be used for a different purpose.

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

Did I say that? I'm fairly sure I didn't.

Something is designed to kill when the designer purposefully gave it properties that make it easy to kill with it. The fact that cars can also be used to kill is not purposefully built in, but a side effect of properties that are built in for a different purpose. A car is designed to go fast to move people quickly from one place to another, but not to run down pedestrians. A hunting rifle is specifically designed to cause death in an animal, so its deadliness is a property that is purposefully designed.

 

[CapelDodger]

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

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

I missed my vocation. I should have been a lawyer. Instead, I went into banking. Hey, that's where the money is. And that's how damn' naive I was.

Naive or not, guns are designed to kill. Putting explosive in a closed tube behind a projectile has nothing to do with cooking (for instance). It has to do with, at the very least, killing what you're going to cook.

 

[Freakshow]

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

I missed my vocation. I should have been a lawyer. Instead, I went into banking. Hey, that's where the money is. And that's how damn' naive I was.

Naive or not, guns are designed to kill. Putting explosive in a closed tube behind a projectile has nothing to do with cooking (for instance). It has to do with, at the very least, killing what you're going to cook.

I understand, and largely (not totally) agree. My view here has been that I am much more concerned with usage than the intent of creation.

There is also another point, that I'm not going to get into in this thread, and that is:
Someone: "Guns are designed to kill!"
Me: "Yeah, so?"

 

[CapelDodger]

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

There is also another point, that I'm not going to get into in this thread, and that is:
Someone: "Guns are designed to kill!"
Me: "Yeah, so?"

you are sooo getting into it in this thread by that.

Swords were designed to kill, and laws about who can carry a sword where and when are a common feature in post-sword societies world-wide. The thread is about gun-control. Had they had this technology back in the day, it would have been about sword-conrol.

 

[Freakshow]

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

you are sooo getting into it in this thread by that.

Swords were designed to kill, and laws about who can carry a sword where and when are a common feature in post-sword societies world-wide. The thread is about gun-control. Had they had this technology back in the day, it would have been about sword-conrol.

Why, I AM? Gosh, I had NO IDEA. Snicker, snicker, chuckle, chuckle.

Geez, I crack myself up...

 

[shanek]

Sawed-off shotguns are amazingly lethal at close ranges, and in addition it's not possible to ballistically identify shotgun pellets.

Moreso than with regular shotguns?

As the weapon can be easily concealed, they were (and still are, to some extent) a favored weapon of armed robbers.

Lots of weapons can be concealed, though.

 

[Santa666]

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

I understand, and largely (not totally) agree. My view here has been that I am much more concerned with usage than the intent of creation.

I agree here. Largely, intent of use does play a significant role in how we determine what the "purpose" is of any given item. Guns are used for many, many things, though ultimately, their design remains the same; launching a projectile at high velocity at a target(s). Now we must ask, is this primary feature, lauching projectiles at high velocity, designed for killing. Let us look at some ficticious examples.

Homeowner Harry:

Homeowner Harry owns a gun he keeps buried in the bottom drawer of his nightstand. He encounters a situation where he feels it necessary to retrieve his gun..i.e.loud noises coming from another area of the house, a scream from within the house, etc.., if Harry finds another person within his home, he is very likely to point his gun at them. At this point, what is the purpose of that gun? To kill? To frighten? One cannot say the purpose is NOT to kill, but only to frighten, because, unless the person staring at the barrel of that gun BELIEVED IT WAS DESIGNED TO KILL, they would not be frightened by it.

Soldier Sam:

Soldier Sam is riding in his Humvee with his other compatriots when they find themselves under attack. They immediately exit the vehicle and run for cover. Using the GUNS they have with them, they all return fire, not to wound, or frighten, but to kill. It is quite obvious, the guns they are using have been designed to kill and are being used as such.

Police officer Paul:

Police officer Paul gets a call about suspicious characters in a parking lot. He and another squad car arrive to investigate. When they arrive, they find several teens apparently breaking into a car. When the teens see the officers, they appear to pull weapons, which, in response, causes the police to pull their guns. These officers are ready to fire if neccessary and the weapons they are using were designed to stop the criminals. Much like in example 1, the only reason a criminal is going to back down from an officers gun is that they know what the gun is designed to do, kill.

I could of couse continue on and on, but I will ramble. Hunters use guns to kill, they purchase them for just such a reason. Those weapons were designed for that. Some would say there are those who use guns for just skeet shooting, or marksmanship, but those are uses above and beyond design. Those guns are still designed with a primary purpose, killing.

If you believe guns are designed for some other purpose, then pick one up, walk up to a total stranger, point it at them and see how they react. They are instruments of killing and it because of that design purpose that people fear them, without that purpose, without the design to kill, people would likely have little or no fear of guns. That is all.

By the way, allow me a moment to mention that I am not antigun. I am simply pointing out that guns DO have a purpose.

Santa

 

[shanek]

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

Homeowner Harry:

Homeowner Harry owns a gun he keeps buried in the bottom drawer of his nightstand. He encounters a situation where he feels it necessary to retrieve his gun..i.e.loud noises coming from another area of the house, a scream from within the house, etc.., if Harry finds another person within his home, he is very likely to point his gun at them. At this point, what is the purpose of that gun? To kill? To frighten? One cannot say the purpose is NOT to kill, but only to frighten, because, unless the person staring at the barrel of that gun BELIEVED IT WAS DESIGNED TO KILL, they would not be frightened by it.

No, they're frightened by it because it's capable of killing. The intention of the gun, what Harry would hope for the most, is that it would never be needed. He also hopes that if it ever is needed, the deterrent factor of brandishing or pointing the gun will be enough to protect him. If all goes according to his wishes, no one dies. So how is this "designed" to kill, rather than merely being capable of killing? Is it not really "designed" to be a deterrent instead?

 

[Santa666]

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

No, they're frightened by it because it's capable of killing. The intention of the gun, what Harry would hope for the most, is that it would never be needed. He also hopes that if it ever is needed, the deterrent factor of brandishing or pointing the gun will be enough to protect him. If all goes according to his wishes, no one dies. So how is this "designed" to kill, rather than merely being capable of killing? Is it not really "designed" to be a deterrent instead?

That gun, which instills fear in the burglar in this example, does so because the burglar fears what the gun was designed to do to him; kill him. Many weapons are CAPABLE of killing and said weapons may very cause fear of dying, but guns are both CAPABLE of and DESIGNED for killing. It is this feature that allows people to defend themselves without actually doing any killing.

Santa

 

[Leif Roar]

Lots of weapons can be concealed, though.

Sawed-off shotguns aren't really suitable for anything else but armed robberies as they're too inaccurate for anything except indiscriminate shooting. I suppose that's why police and legislation tend to take a particular grim view of them.

 

[Freakshow]

Sawed-off shotguns aren't really suitable for anything else but armed robberies as they're too inaccurate for anything except indiscriminate shooting.

Actually, they are excellent for home-defense.

I suppose that's why police and legislation tend to take a particular grim view of them.

Not the police I've known. Sure, the politicians do. But that has nothing to do with crime or violence.

BTW...I'm not talking about a literal "sawed off" shotgun. I'm talking about an assualt shotgun.

 

[CFLarsen]

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.

But you agree that the purpose of a gun is to strike lethally at a distance?

 

[Bikewer]

Although slightly OT; one should differentiate between a "sawed-off" shotgun, ie- an illegally altered weapon, and the sort of tactical or "riot" shotgun used since the turn of the century by police and military. Hard to find a police car in the country that does not have the venerable Remington 870 somewhere inside.

Most of these "riot guns" have barrells from 18" to 20" in length, and are quite legal for civilians to own. Many military authorities deem them superior to submachine guns in close combat situations.

Federal law specifies not only legal barrell length, but legal overall length.

 

[shanek]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Guns designed to

That gun, which instills fear in the burglar in this example, does so because the burglar fears what the gun was designed to do to him; kill him. Many weapons are CAPABLE of killing and said weapons may very cause fear of dying, but guns are both CAPABLE of and DESIGNED for killing. It is this feature that allows people to defend themselves without actually doing any killing.

It doesn't make ONE SINGLE DIFFERENCE what it was "designed" to do. This works because the gun is CAPABLE of killing, and both homeowner and intruder know it. You're reaching here, badly.

 

[Freakshow]

But you agree that the purpose of a gun is to strike lethally at a distance?

Sure, most guns are. But that's OK with me. No problem with that.

 

[CFLarsen]

Sure, most guns are. But that's OK with me. No problem with that.

There you go.

 

[Santa666]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Guns designed to

It doesn't make ONE SINGLE DIFFERENCE what it was "designed" to do. This works because the gun is CAPABLE of killing, and both homeowner and intruder know it. You're reaching here, badly.

I really do not see this a reaching at all. Just about anything is CAPABLE killing another person. There are thousands upon thousands of household objects with the CAPABILITY of ending someone's life, though they were not DESIGNED to do so. Would a burglar, rapist, mugger, etc.. be frightened by one of these various objects? Perhaps. Why then, can we be reasonable sure they would be a afraid of a gun? Allow me to venture a guess. Because it is DESIGNED to kill.


Santa