That actually allows discussion

A gun is designed to safely fire a projectile out the barrel of the weapon. It is up to the person controlling the weapon to ensure it is aimed and used properly. Even in self defense, killing is not the objective. The objective is to stop the threat and that can be done without firing a shot at all.

Just like a computer is designed to download and view information of the users choosing.

Or a car is designed to steer in a direction of the users choosing, to a destination of the users choosing, at a speed of the users choosing.

It seems, we have in our midst, individuals who wish to ignore the 'user' aspect, whether a gun is used for good, or bad, or not used at all.

Its like I've said before. As far as they're concerned, its the gun, regardless of how its used.

Their latest arguments seem to be an admission of that.

It is always amazing they blame the gun for suicide but not the rope.

Whatever the reason for the first gun, it didn't take long for it to be adapted for killing.

Not all guns are designed to kill, but few guns are far removed from killing.

I own a Browning Hi Power. I bought it new with target sights and have only used it as a target pistol. What was this gun designed to do?

Whatever you intend it to do as the user, consistently and without malfunction.

I've seen bathtubs used as large planters. Does that mean the man who designed the bathtub meant for it to be used as a planter?

The Browning Hi Power was designed as a military side arm. As such it has been used by many country's armies and police. Just because I've got a target sight on mine doesn't change that.

It has EVERYTHING to do with it. The device is designed to do as user input dictates. Theres no arguing against that, even in a military situation. As I've said previously, one could make the argument that anti-personnel mines are designed to kill. They have no other use, and no other purpose. You can not say that about firearms. Period.

The lethality of a firearm is completely dependent on the user, and that's why they didn't hand a person a browning high-power and tell them "go to town". People in the military are trained to use firearms in a lethal manner.

Ammunition manufacturers aren't in the business of coating bullets, whether civilian or military, with a nerve toxin that kills the target even if it hits a finger of toe. If they were, THAT would be designed to kill and nothing else. Again, the lethality of a firearm is dependent on the user - BY DESIGN.

You can come up with all the cockamayme equivocation you like, using as many words as you like, but you can't change those simple facts.

You're saying that an M2 machine gun in the hands of a soldier with poor marksman skill is not designed to kill; but the very same gun, in the hands of a skilled machine gun operator, is designed to kill.

No, I'm saying your example doesn't apply, because you're comparing two examples where the only difference would be execution, and pretending that the users have some vast difference in mind with what they're doing. They don't.

'Pointing and pulling the trigger' are not the only forms of user input, and that is where your example, and indeed the very argument you're here trying to prop up, fail miserably.

The argument I'm making is that some guns are designed to kill and some guns are not. I go on to say that I own a gun that was designed to kill, but that has been re-purposed as a sporting device.

The argument you seem to be making is that no guns are designed to kill until someone uses them, has the intent, and the skill to kill.

Your position is untenable.

No, that's the argument you're assigning me.

My argument is that firearms are intended to project force when necessary.

The amount of force applied, and the target of that force, are completely independent of the design of the firearm, and the designers in fact design them specifically to work that way - based on user input.

Perfectly tenable, and completely factually true.

But first you back track here by admitting design is independent of use, the point I tried to make in my original post. A point which you disagreed with.

The amount of force applied, and the target of that force, are completely independent of the design of the firearm, and the designers in fact design them specifically to work that way - based on user input.

Yes I get your non-argument. If a gun is intended to project force, would that force include lethal force? If lethal force is one of the types of force a gun is supposed to project, then that lethality has to be included in its design.

Another flaw you have to accept is that some guns were designed to be non-lethal, not to project any force whatsoever. That group would include parlor guns which fire projectile that would have problems penetrating human skin, unless used in a manner in which they were not designed for. The original was a Flobert.

Your problem is you are trying to defend personal protection guns, "We're trying to stop the threat not kill". A brief survey of popular defense guns and the popular cartridges they are chambered for, demonstrates their lethality.

Backtrack? Hardly, though I expect that attributing to the words others your own choice of sentiments, has won you many a battle in your own mind. Bravo.

I didn't say design was independent of use, I said that the amount of force applied and the target of that force was independent of (mechanical) design, by (mechanical) design.




Such a non-argument that you just had to reply, right?

Up to and including potentially lethal force? Sure. I've never said otherwise. But theres a whole lot of room between pointing a gun at someone that needs a gun pointed at them implying that 'bad things will happen if you come any closer to me in my home', and putting a gun against a known lethal point (head/heart) and pulling the trigger. That 'whole lot of room' is dependent on the user, by (mechanical) design.



Except it isn't a problem. Lethality is generally in the aim, and generally not simply in the firearm. I would say the amount of woundings you lot regularly like to bring up, is proof positive of that point. Had they been shot with weapons that were strictly and specifically designed to kill, they'd all be dead.

And, even the guns you mention, do not fail to project force when simply pointed and not fired.

Which is why self defense courses stress COM not brandish and shoot them in the leg. Well that is those that don't advocate double tap.

Guns in general cannot project force if they are not potentially lethal. If that were not true then everyone would carry less expensive toy guns.

I would say the amount of woundings you lot regularly like to bring up, is proof positive of that point.

Or it could be the quality of care at modern trauma centers. It also points the the general poor marksmanship of the arms carrying public.
But it's nice to know I'm part of a "lot" even if I don't mention firearm injury statistics.

Now lets go back to the OP shall we?

"A gun is designed to kill",

Doesn't say a word about usage does it? And you rest your case on usage.

The one item the anti's refuse to talk about, or even consider.

A firearm is dependent on a HUMAN to

Load
Aim
Fire

Since it is impossible for it to do these three item by itself.

As I pointed out the OP is concerned with design not usage.

Self defense courses stress stopping the threat, rather than killing, but you knew that.



Yes, a victim with gun shot wound to the foot is a dead person unless extensive medical treatment is received.

Marksmanship being required on the part of the user is part of the design of the firearm.



I rest my case on 'usage' being part of the design, as it factually is.

In some peoples living memory that very well could be the case. Many people with gun shot wounds died of sepsis before antibiotics were developed.
If you were to read a medical history of wars and the treatment of wounds you might find it educational.

Medical malpractice for not giving care that is not available would be anachronistic.

this gentleman's vids.

So of course one could argue that a gun is designed to kill, however, I would argue that a gun was merely designed to kill more efficiently than a rock.

Computers, guns, washing machines, etc. are all ROCKS. They all spring forth form that first tool.

Like the computer, any weapon has multiple use cases. It is up to the user to fulfill the tools ultimate destiny.

One person uses a computer for Internet porn, another uses it to write this post. Two seperate destinies, each use case produces a lump of metal once the power source has been removed.

"Guns are designed to kill."

Well, then I guess we should all be pleased that SO FEW are actually used for what they're designed for, yes? YES?!

Fewer than 2% of all handguns......and fewer than 1% of all guns will ever be used in violent crime.* (Note that I said 'violent crime' and not homicide!) But let's not let facts get in the way of a good moral poutrage, eh? The 'Guns Are Designed To Kill' "argument" is an infantile little red herring -- insidiously designed to keep the gun restriction/gun rights debate mired in emotion-based poop slinging. Heaven forbid we seek to elevate the discussion desiring conversation that produces light rather than heat! Heaven forbid we maintain "liberal consistency" and focus on actual data! Worst of all, the GADTK "argument" demonstrates how little gun restriction supporters actually care about the victims of gun violence -- attempting to debase the debate as they SO OBVIOUSLY do. In puking forth this ridiculous piffle they also demonstrate that "gun control" isn't at all about saving lives -- it's about the need to exert authoritarian control. For The Controllers this has become a pissing contest that they (foolishly) think they're going to win.

Of all of the intellectually lazy, moronic, dishonest and infantile "arguments" The Controllers puke out, the GADTK "argument" resides near, or at the summit. (summit referring to a mountain of bullsh*t.)

*http://www.catb.org/esr/guns/point-blank-summary.html

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10028104872#post152

My all time favorite Olympic sport is fencing.

Their argument is just plain off target. Apparently firearms have evolved past their argument resources.

Olympic shooting sports = sniper training?

Shooting sports require great self discipline, focus and practice. In other words a lot more than cut and paste plagerism skills.

to be fair the person who made that argument received little to no support, even from posters who have a history of being pro gun control.

Of course some are for hunting and others for competition.

are you saying computers can be used for things other than porn? mind blown

when you need to punch holes in things.

As far as I can tell, they are pretty darn effective (or can be) at various things.

So, as long I am not breaking any laws, I am good with it.

you don't need a gun to do that, just drink a few beers watch fox news and punch the nearest wall. be mindful of studs though.

was a 12ga. to remove the top of a 60' Spruce tree that was interrupting the television reception of my satellite dish.

awesome, wish i was there to see it.

btw i'm assuming you're one of those people that live in the middle of nowhere, and your nearest neighbor is miles away. just need clarification so people don't assume your a city dweller.

True = A gun is designed to kill. That it the primary purpose of the weapon.

False = A computer is designed to download and view porn. That is not the primary function of a computer. A computer processes data, any and all kinds of data, and for a multitude of tasks, not just porn.

There is no rational equivalency between a weapon and a computer.

And a guns primary function is to propel a projectile at a time, place and target of the users choosing.



Yes there is. They're both designed to do as the user directs. A gun can not do so without the interaction of a user, just like a computer. It can not be involved in a good action or a bad action without the input of a user, just like a computer.

Just because you don't like or don't acknowledge those facts or call them false, does not make them untrue.

A person using a computer poses no threat to me, on the other hand, a person with a gun in a public setting is clear danger to my safety. Remove the weapon from the equation and the threat level is removed as well.

PS: You're killing your own argument by blaming gun violence on the bad decisions made by those who use guns. This is exactly why people object to having loaded weapons brought into public venues. There's something amiss with those who feel they must always have a gun on them, it is a visual statement of their unsound logic and willingness to engage in violent behavior.

Normal people do not think like that, and the public shouldn't have to fear being within range when the next mass shooter makes one of those notoriously 'bad actions' just because he has an easily available gun.

don't require them. Numbers rising all the time.

Not sure how many actually do carry - but seems millions & million of people could - lots of people to call 'not normal'.


"Willingness to engage in violent behavior", or unwilling to be helpless victim. Seems many have made that call.

Tell me you don't really believe that or perhaps you haven't given it much thought.

Clearly, very little thought went into that post. And that's the generous interpretation.

A man with a weapon can rob dozens; a man with briefcase can rob millions; the right man with a computer can rob millions, steal millions and make billions cease to exist.

You don't know that, you assume that.



Again, you don't know that, you assume that.



I don't blame gun violence on the bad decisions of those who use guns. I blame it on those who MISUSE guns.



That's your opinion, and no matter how many you can find that agree with it, its STILL an opinion.



I find it a bit problematic to have 'normal' dictated to me by people who fear and hate inanimate objects (certainly NOT normal behavior in America), particularly those who focus on the object rather than the tiny percentage of a percentage who misuse it.