Why are guns made to kill?

[Autolite]

Originally Posted by bjornart
What practical applications does a gun have that doesn't involve killing? Hole punch? (Target shooting is practice, not practical.)

Actually, there are a variety of interesting uses. There are flare guns, gas guns and stun (bean bag) guns. There are pyrotechnic guns used for pest control and tranquillizer guns. There are special rounds for shot guns that are specifically designed for breaching locks and doors on buildings. There are high powered .50 cal anti-materiel guns used for explosive ordinance disposal (UXO, bombs, mines and such). And of course my personal favourite the "stop-that-car-gun". It is a 12 gauge shot shell that employs small, saboted square metal cubes designed to cut through the hood and fenders of a car resulting in a mangled ignition/fuel system.

I understand that this is not what bjornart was referring to in the original query, but one must admit that those are some pretty interesting and legitimate applications...

 

[Autolite]

But are you against murder laws in the same way you are against gun laws?

I am not 100% certain that I understand the question but I'll try and answer as best I can.

I am against ineffectual laws that serve only to create the illusion of public security (eg. the magazine capacity restriction as I cited in a previous posting). Other examples might be the restrictions once placed on folding stocks, the shape of the grip and bayonet lugs (please correct me if I'm wrong but AFAIK, there hasn't seem to have been a tremendous increase in the number of "drive-by-bayonetings" across the U.S. in recent years).

Also IIRC, Germany has, or had, a restriction on the colour of gun that an individual was permitted to own. Such farcical rules are implemented to create the impression that something is being done to counter violent crime.

What I would like to see are more severe deterrents for those inclined to commit violent crime. Harsher punishment and stiffer penalties for those convicted of murder and such.

Admittedly, this is not an all encompassing solution. There were always be people so determined to commit violent acts that there will no deterent big enough to stop them. The same applies to folks with mental imbalances or those intent on terminating their actions with suicide. There is no ultimately, guaranteed a one hundred percent effective solution.

However, I am absolutely convinced that there are far more effective deterrents to violent crime than say prohibiting a responsible gun owner from mounting a flash suppressor on his/her deer rifle...

 

[Autolite]

The simple presence of large numbers of guns guarantees some will be stolen and used for murder, some of the so-called responsible gun owners will lose the plot and use their weapons to murder people, somm to be used by members of their family for murder.

I think that I might have addressed this in a previous post. Under the laws here in Canada there are very specific and restrictive rules on how responsible gun owners are to transport and store their firearms. These rules are designed to keep the firearms as secure as reasonably possible while in the possession of their legitimate owners.

However, bear in mind also that Canadian law prohibits the use of force, let alone deadly force, for the protection of property. So what we have here is a rather absurd situation that Canadian gun owners are forced to comply with. Gun control advocates cry about the number of stolen guns in the hands of criminals yet they deny the gun owner the most effective means of preventing their theft.

The people shouting the loudest about criminals with stolen guns are the ones facilitating the criminals' access to the stolen guns...

 

[Matthew Best]

More guns - even just one or two- would likely have resulted in the murderer being dropped after two or three shots at most.

Maybe if there had been one or two armed policemen present?

Kind of like what happened in this case?

Charles Thornton stormed into the Kirkwood City Hall on Thursday night and used two weapons -- his own revolver and a cop's gun he took from an officer who was the first victim of the deadly rampage.

Charles Lee "Cookie" Thornton carried a large-caliber revolver that he used to shoot and kill Kirkwood Police Sgt. William Biggs outside City Hall about 7 p.m. Thursday. Then, he grabbed Biggs' .40-caliber handgun and walked into the council chambers with both guns.

Hmmm. OK, I guess that wasn't such a good example....

 

[Skibum]

Anecdotes are fun...

http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/14808321/detail.html

 

[Mobyseven]

Are you saying it would be completely impossible to purchase a L1A and an AR-15 off the Australian black market today?

Completely impossible? No. Significantly more difficult than it was in 1996? You betcha.

 

[fuelair]

Maybe if there had been one or two armed policemen present?

Kind of like what happened in this case?



Hmmm. OK, I guess that wasn't such a good example....

A) with the police, he knew they were police. And, they clearly were not police trained to actually guard things and they were not in a crowd of others. With a random group of people, some of whom might be armed, the ease of eliminating the armed is quite a bit less. B)Your example has no relationship to that. Though, C) I do wish all police departments, sherriff's offices, etc. required all officers to have much more thorough firearms training, including rapid draw and fire with decent real-life examples required for becoming an officer and for annual contract continuation.

 

[littlehulkster]

Completely impossible? No. Significantly more difficult than it was in 1996? You betcha.

And what evidence, if any, do you have to support this?

 

[Ranb]

Completely impossible? No. Significantly more difficult than it was in 1996? You betcha.

I have a question about how guns/gun parts are controlled in in Australia. In the USA, the only gun parts that are controlled are receivers (the part all other parts are attached to) silencers/silencer parts, and auto sears or other parts designed to make semi-auto guns machine guns. All other parts are completely uncontrolled. They can be purchased with no controls at all. Is Aussie gun control similar?

I ask because if the other parts are uncontrolled, then it would be a simple matter to fly into Australia with an AR-15 or AK-47 receiver in your suitcase, I think customs would not recognize a receiver if they saw one; maybe. Then get the other parts to assemble a working firearm. While I have much better things to do in Australia then flirt with prison time, thinking is risk free. Thanks.

Ranb

 

[Mobyseven]

And what evidence, if any, do you have to support this?

The fact that a major supply source for said firearms (firearm supply stores) has been entirely removed from the system, coupled with the fact that large numbers of weapons (including the AR-15 and L1A1-SLR) were destroyed in buyback schemes. Removing a large number of weapons from the system and cutting off legal supply routes means that in order to obtain the weapons now, they would have to be:

• illegally smuggled into the country, or
• in Australia prior to the gun reforms and retained illegally, or
• stolen from the military (in the case of the L1A1-SLR - I am not sure whether the AR-15 is used by the military or law enforcement in Australia).

Due to the removal of large numbers of said weapons from circulation, the cessation of legal supply and the difficulty of introducing new weapons into circulation, it is now significantly more difficult to obtain an AR-15 or an L1A1-SLR now than it was prior to 1996.

 

[Mobyseven]

I have a question about how guns/gun parts are controlled in in Australia. In the USA, the only gun parts that are controlled are receivers (the part all other parts are attached to) silencers/silencer parts, and auto sears or other parts designed to make semi-auto guns machine guns. All other parts are completely uncontrolled. They can be purchased with no controls at all. Is Aussie gun control similar?

I ask because if the other parts are uncontrolled, then it would be a simple matter to fly into Australia with an AR-15 or AK-47 receiver in your suitcase, I think customs would not recognize a receiver if they saw one; maybe. Then get the other parts to assemble a working firearm. While I have much better things to do in Australia then flirt with prison time, thinking is risk free. Thanks.

Ranb

I am reasonably sure that control extends to all parts of guns, though not 100% sure. Gun kits are not available legally in Australia.

 

[earloke]

I think somone needs to study a little GUN history here. The first firearms were fabricated by the Chinese to launch fireworks and progressed to the launching of a projectile that could possibly terminate a living animals life functions among other things.

 

[E.J.Armstrong]

If you are slow enough or incautious enough that the baddies get the drop on you and they are at least as intelligent as you, you might be in trouble - armed or not. Armed, and remembering some data I have put in previously about the accuracy of most criminal gun users (and many legal ones) I am willing to drop, pull as dropping and be firing as I hit the ground. I won't be able to do that in 10-15 years I suspect and will have to work on another technique (possibly pretending heart attack, slow drop with draw - have to practice it). I also foolishly carry chains and sand bags in areas with possible heavy snowfall, raincoats and umbrellas in case of inclement weather, minor food and drink always, first aid supplies always, car chargers for light, battery charger recharging, cell phone. Preparedness lessens the chance of problems. You are free to not be prepared. I try to be - and it really does not take up all that much of my time, energy or thought. Just something you do.

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?

 

[E.J.Armstrong]

Yeah yeah. Sure. I just bet you have an atomic bomb. You can not drop an atomic bomb anywhere because you do not have one. Most countries do not have them. Millions of dollars have been spent for each one ever made. There is more than one way to calculate efficiency. I'm sure you can get a gun and some cartridges though. Get it now? Comparing atom bombs and bullets like you are doing is stupid.

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.

 

[E.J.Armstrong]

I am not 100% certain that I understand the question but I'll try and answer as best I can.

I am against ineffectual laws that serve only to create the illusion of public security (eg. the magazine capacity restriction as I cited in a previous posting). Other examples might be the restrictions once placed on folding stocks, the shape of the grip and bayonet lugs (please correct me if I'm wrong but AFAIK, there hasn't seem to have been a tremendous increase in the number of "drive-by-bayonetings" across the U.S. in recent years).

Also IIRC, Germany has, or had, a restriction on the colour of gun that an individual was permitted to own. Such farcical rules are implemented to create the impression that something is being done to counter violent crime.

What I would like to see are more severe deterrents for those inclined to commit violent crime. Harsher punishment and stiffer penalties for those convicted of murder and such.

Admittedly, this is not an all encompassing solution. There were always be people so determined to commit violent acts that there will no deterent big enough to stop them. The same applies to folks with mental imbalances or those intent on terminating their actions with suicide. There is no ultimately, guaranteed a one hundred percent effective solution.

However, I am absolutely convinced that there are far more effective deterrents to violent crime than say prohibiting a responsible gun owner from mounting a flash suppressor on his/her deer rifle...

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 also have the problem in why you think I should assume that you are law abiding just because you claim to be. What have you ever done to assure every stranger that you can be trusted with a gun?

After all if you want better laws in relation to guns you could simply stop keeping them to the betterment of your society. Have you no personal responsibility if you really want more effective deterrents? You don't have to wait for the law to tell you how to behave better.

 

[E.J.Armstrong]

I think that I might have addressed this in a previous post. Under the laws here in Canada there are very specific and restrictive rules on how responsible gun owners are to transport and store their firearms. These rules are designed to keep the firearms as secure as reasonably possible while in the possession of their legitimate owners.

However, bear in mind also that Canadian law prohibits the use of force, let alone deadly force, for the protection of property. So what we have here is a rather absurd situation that Canadian gun owners are forced to comply with. Gun control advocates cry about the number of stolen guns in the hands of criminals yet they deny the gun owner the most effective means of preventing their theft.

The people shouting the loudest about criminals with stolen guns are the ones facilitating the criminals' access to the stolen guns...

Unfortunately that doesn't address my point. The very fact of having enormous quantites of guns in a society guarantees that a number will : -
1/ be stolen and used in crime
2/ be used by family members to commit crime
3/ be used by the gun owner to commit crime when they turn 'bad'

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.

That simply makes my point and demonstrates that the gun lobby are the very people who should be kept furthest from guns and sharp objects.

 

[gumboot]

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.

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.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Goodwin does not apply. As I already stated, I was not comparing you (or your position, whatever that might be in this case) to the Nazi's in any way. I was asking how you would have advised the Jews had you been WITH them on Kristallnacht. Would I ask a Nazi how they would have advised the Jews? No, I would not. I would ask someone that I thought cared about the Jews. If you can't answer the question from that POV then just take a pass but don't say I was calling you names. Look again at post #191.

You do not need to call someone a Nazi to godwin a thread. As I quoted godwins law, you just need to bring up them to godwin a thread.

Why focus there? Why not take a more recent and likely thread, say various riots in france or america. Should store owners have sat on the roof and shot all who approached?

What about say after katrina?

 

[ponderingturtle]

Apparently you hate guns, do not worry about being protected, do not care if others are protected and assume if you remove protection from others no one will have guns to shoot you with and you'll be fine. Statistically, you may be right to a very small degree more than statistically you are unlikely to be shot now. In reality, you are still just as much in danger for all practical purposes. Only the format changes.

You never seemed interested in the safest course of action

I used to - before Florida law changed - train people how to maneuver into a corner so the perp would be blocking your way to escape

So there you clearly are not interested in the safest solution or being protected, but demostrating your manlyness by killing people.

 

[ponderingturtle]

A) with the police, he knew they were police. And, they clearly were not police trained to actually guard things and they were not in a crowd of others. With a random group of people, some of whom might be armed, the ease of eliminating the armed is quite a bit less. B)Your example has no relationship to that. Though, C) I do wish all police departments, sherriff's offices, etc. required all officers to have much more thorough firearms training, including rapid draw and fire with decent real-life examples required for becoming an officer and for annual contract continuation.

What about more training like you offered in how to maneuver situations into where they can justify shooting more readily?