Can someone please explain why the intended purpose of a gun makes it so much worse?

[X_Digger]

We hear quite frequently in the gungeon that gunz are so bad because they're 'designed to kill'.

In any listing of causes of death, or accidental injuries, firearms are listed alongside motor vehicles, drownings, falls, or heart disease. There's no asterisk beside firearms with a footnote saying, "Because guns are designed to kill, we ranked them higher."

When discussing public safety and the methods used to kill or injure people, someone will inevitably bring up the stat that more people are killed by cars than firearms. The typical response goes something like, "But cars are for transportation, guns are designed to kill!" From a public safety standpoint, the intent of the designer has no bearing on the discussion IMHO, merely the incidence of harm represented by the indicated means.

So please, enlighten me. Why does the 'original intent' of any tool have any bearing on the relative safety of the tool? I would assert that if we're going to talk purpose, it's not the intended purpose of the original designer that is important, rather the purpose to which the tool is actually applied.

Then we can discuss the different purposes to which firearms are applied, and compare the relative incidence of usage, one purpose to another (use in crime vs self-defense vs target shooting) or incidence of one purpose of guns versus other tools for that same purpose (guns vs knives in crime).

[Skinner]

1. The purpose of an item has no bearing on the safety of that item.

But the purpose is very useful in doing a cost-benefit evaluation of an item.

We can justify the cost of automobile injury and deaths based on the fact that automobiles provide an extremely valuable benefit. Practically everyone agrees that the benefit of automobiles outweighs their cost.

Guns, however, provide the cost of killing people and the benefit of killing people. There is not universal agreement that the benefit of guns outweighs their cost.

[Tim01]

4. The purpose of my gun is to provide me and my family self defense.

What my gun does well is stop somebody from doing what they are doing. The fact that they might die in the process is a side effect. If I could have a tool that would stop a badguy more effectively than a hand gun, I would buy it right away, absolutely.

My gun doesn't kill people, because I don't kill people.

Give a violent criminal a gun and the result is completely different than if I have it. Same with a meat cleaver.

[texshelters]

149. According to many police departments,

a dog is a better deterent.

There is nothing wrong with a gun for self protection, but admit the facts. Dies are designed to kill and have no other social benefit outside of hunting and protecting.

Thus, one doesn't need a multi-clip semiautomatic. Those were only designed to kill.

Peace,
Tex Shelters

[friendly_iconoclast]

157. Then why are most guns *not* used to kill? What are their owners doing wrong?

BTW, proclaiming something doesn't make it true. You may believe it's true, but that doesn't necessarily mean that it is true.


Again, what matter the intended purpose of something, anyway? Are the victims of mass murders commited with:

Diesel fuel and fertilizer (Oklahoma City bombing)

A couple of bucks worth of gasoline and some matches (Happy Land fire)

Box cutters and airliners (9/11)

any less dead? Are the murderers in these cases morally superior to those who use guns?

[jeepnstein]

159. My dogs alert me and buy time.

They're not much use past that. Of course since a barking dog is enough to make most folks seek an easier target they're pretty darn useful. Fun, too.

[spin]

167. I had a 60 pound black Lab in the house ...

when an intruder tried to forced his way through a sliding glass door setting the burglar alarm off.

This gentle and very intelligent dog allowed my daughter to handle the situation with a large caliber S&W Revolver. She pointed it at the intruder and he ran.

[rl6214]

184. I have dogs, German Shepards and one of them sleeps

within two feet of me every night. She will not leave my side for any reason. I also sleep with a .45 on the nightstand next to my bed. The .45 will protect me and my dogs if someone were to break in. I also enjoy target shooting and have done some hunting. So yes, I do need a "multi-clip semiautomatic".

It is not up to society to regulate what guns I own, it is up to them to enforce the laws to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and to prosecute them to the full extent of the law when they do commit crimes with guns.

[X_Digger]

5. And that's fair- comparing one use to another..

And that leaves out 'original intent' as something inherently devaluing.

But it's not the only use, and we can compare the incidence of those various uses. Even in self-defense, most defensive gun uses don't actually involve discharging the firearm, nor killing someone. (Stats for the NCVS survey available at http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/)

[havocmom]

9. Sadly, society does not consider the FULL cost of automobiles

Our costly, and sometimes morally bankrupt, foreign policy, half-hearted environmental policy, are part of the cost of automobiles. All that oil and all the means we exercise of securing it, somehow never get added to the sticker price. The sprawl enabled by automobiles is costly to the environment, and probably the human soul.

If there was an anti-christ, it may have been that Ford chap who promoted the idea that everybody could/should have a car.

Cars kill more than just highway stats. But we never acknowledge the full tally of the havoc we do to enable their abundant use.

[aliendroid]

91. while I don't think cars are evil, I agree

also remember that cars add to our bad general health, which adds an unkown amount of morbidity to the general population creating problems in the health care system.

[SteveM]

97. Yep, I still drive, but keep mileage below 8K a year.

[GreenStormCloud]

105. Have you considered the cost of horse manure in the street?

Prior to auto, our cities had huge amounts of raw horse manure on the streets from all those horse drawn wagons. The reason brownstone houses have a full flight of stairs for the front steps was an attempt to get the living quarters of the house above the smell. Every time it rained, vast amounts of raw horse sewage went into the drains and then to the rivers. Hordes of flies bred in all the horse piles. In 1900 it was an extremely serious problem, and city planners (such as they were) were desperate to find a solution as city populations increased. Then the problem suddenly disappeared. Horses were replaced by engines.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

11. Many culturally accepted items use their potency to both harm and benefit.

You often hear the "Guns as a solution to guns?!?" snark put forth by people that want to decrease the number of firearms out there. It's an interesting observation and, at face valve, does not pass the logic test - how can more guns possibly be a solution? But upon further observation it makes sense with a few qualifiers.

Lets look at antineoplastics for a moment. Antineoplastics are poisons designed to kill. Used improperly, carelessly, or maliciously they can severely injure or kill people. Used correctly, they present a decent chance at curing people from cancer - chemotherapy. Antineoplastics are nothing more than a tool to fight cancer when used properly... a deadly agent used to combat another deadly agent with steep associated risks.

Firearms, used improperly, carelessly, or maliciously can severely injure or kill people. Used correctly, they present a decent chance at preventing grievous bodily injury or death - self defense. Firearms, in the hands of trained law-abiding people, are nothing more than a tool to fight crime. They are tool to equalize the force between an assailant and a victim. Guns, in the hands of qualified citizens, have positive externalities on safety and security.

The problem with attacking gun violence using legislation against the tool is that the law will disproportionately change the actions of those willing to obey the law. The tool is not the problem... the intent (the criminals) are the problem. Said otherwise, anti-gun legislation will handcuff the positive externalities of firearms in the hopes that the negative externalities can be mitigated. That is not sound logic which is further backed up by failed prohibition of illicit items in America and failed gun control around the globe. Legislation efforts to attack criminal possession of firearms - without infringing on the rights of the other 96%+ of the gun-owning population is perfectly acceptable.

"Guns (in the hands of qualified citizens) as a solution to guns (in the hands of criminals)" does make sense.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

34. bravo. well said. thanks

:applause:

[texshelters]

150. "Anti-gun legislation"?

What are you talking about? Should insane serial killer rapists have guns? Should we have some regulation? Is that anti-gun? Is a waiting period anti-gun? Is keeping gun our of the hands of violent felons anti-gun?

Has there ever been a bill seriously considered in Congress to ban guns? I think not.

Then why all the defense of guns at all costs? And the comparison between anti-cancer drugs and guns is not accurate.

Boo hoo if people have to wait two days to get a gun so that a few people who shouldn't have one get screen out or get to cool off.

Sensible regulation is what we need, and paranoids and the fear mongering gun only supporters want to use a few sensible regulations to sound an alarm about the gun bans and "anti-gun legislation".

Question: Do you want anyone to own a gun and be able to use it anywhere? If not, let's look at continuing and enhancing gun regulations.

Peace,
Tex shelters

[X_Digger]

152. Waiting periods have been tried..

From 1994 to 1998, when the NICS (National Instant Check System) came online, there was a waiting period.

President Clinton's DOJ found no decrease in violent crime due to waiting periods.

[YllwFvr]

163. cho had a 30 day wait between his first and second purchase

he was quite willing to wait. some good that did

[rl6214]

186. "Has there ever been a bill seriously considered in Congress to ban guns"

You don't consider the failed AWB of '94 a seriously considered bill to ban guns?

What planet have you been on?

[DWC]

169. Pure logic

Mr. Spock would be extremely proud of your logic. I know I am

Semper Fi,

[rl6214]

185. ""Guns (in the hands of qualified citizens) as a solution to guns (in the hands of criminals)"

"does make sense"

The arguement most people make is that MORE guns as a solution to guns is the problem.

More is not the correct term to make, you phrased it properly:

""Guns (in the hands of qualified citizens) as a solution to guns (in the hands of criminals)" does make sense"

[spin]

13. It's a shame we don't have reliable statistics on the defensive use of firearms...

but often such legitimate uses occur but never make it into any database.

Many of the good uses of firearms for defense never involve any shots being fired.

[krispos42]

21. I suspect that many of the uses...

...are done by people for whom it is illegal to carry or own a gun, and therefore ends peacefully because the criminal knows the guy won't shoot unless absolutely necessary AND the guy won't be calling the police. So, many violent crimes are thwarted but never reported to any government agency or agent.

And if you consider the general anti-gun zealotry of many urban district/state's attorneys, even a fully-legal CCW holder who used his gun in a defensive manner might wind up needing an lawyer and plenty of cash to deal with the charges.

[spin]

26. Most CCW permit holders avoid confrontation...

for the reason you mention. You may win the actual fight but then lose the legal battle.

If for example, you are attacked and pull your weapon, the bad guys may run but call the police and say that you threatened them with a firearm. Which is why if you find yourself in that situation, it's wise to call the police first.

One example of an incident where a firearm was successfully used involves my daughter and happened 20 years ago. My daughter stopped an intruder forcing a sliding glass door open in our home by pointing a large caliber revolver at him. He ran. She called the police who searched the neighborhood and filed a report but the incident never made it into any statistical database or newspaper. It qualifies only as an anecdote.

[Tim01]

31. Last I heard the average is $45,000 in Va in a good shoot.

Lawyer fees and all that. Even though you are found not guilty by the time it is over.

[krispos42]

36. Hmph. Maybe CCW holders should get insurance... for themselves!

Yikes.

So the police can investigate and determine it's a good shoot, but the DA can decide "Hey, I think I can prove murder anyway" and cost the guy 45 grand.


And people wonder why we have "Stand Your Ground" laws. Well, I don't know about them, but I don't have over a year's worth of wages floating around in my sock drawer.

[GreenStormCloud]

96. There are companies that have exactly that kind of insurance.

You can often see a table with it at a gun show.

[pipoman]

166. Some states have

rules of civil procedure which prohibit people who are injured in the commission of a crime, or their heirs, from civil actions against a person who acted lawfully. Some states require a grand jury for any shooting, this could be costly but $45k sounds like Shapiro or Cochran fees....there are good, competent attorneys who I believe could successfully get one through a grand jury in the 10-15k range...still expensive, not insurmountable for most people.

[texshelters]

151. The stats on defensive use are out there along with the stats showing the misuse of

firearms. When I find them, I will post a link.

Peace,
Tex Shelters

[X_Digger]

154. I think Spin was referring to the wide variation-

One study shows 110,000 defensive gun uses, another 1.5M, another 2.5M.

http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10881&page=103

COUNTING DEFENSIVE GUN USES

How many times each year do civilians use firearms defensively? The answers provided to this seemingly simple question have been confusing. Consider the findings from two of the most widely cited studies in the field: McDowall et al. (1998), using the data from 1992 and 1994 waves of the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), found roughly 116,000 defensive gun uses per year, and Kleck and Gertz (1995), using data from the 1993 National Self-Defense Survey (NSDS), found around 2.5 million defensive gun uses each year.

Many other surveys provide information on the prevalence of defensive gun use. Using the original National Crime Survey, McDowall and Wiersema (1994) estimate 64,615 annual incidents from 1987 to 1990. At least 19 other surveys have resulted in estimated numbers of defensive gun uses that are similar (i.e., statistically indistinguishable) to the results founds by Kleck and Gertz. No other surveys have found numbers consistent with the NCVS (other gun use surveys are reviewed in Kleck and Gertz, 1995, and Kleck, 2001a).

[provis99]

158. we do have statistics on "defensive" use of firearms.

Frankly, most people who claim their guns have been used for defensive purposes, were actually using them for criminal purposes, and trying to justify the usage as "defensive".

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/research/hicrc/files/Bullet-ins_Spring_2009.pdf

[TPaine7]

14. "the benefit of killing people."

The benefit of guns is SAVING PEOPLE, not killing them. Occasionally, it is necessary to kill the guilty in order to save the innocent, and that is preferable to allowing the guilty to kill or maim or rape or kidnap the innocent. But it is the criminal who insists on getting killed. The police or civilian shooter only requires that the criminal stop the attack.

Even from a military standpoint, intimidating the enemy and winning without casualties is the superior outcome. This has been recognized for some time. Read for instance, Sun Tzu's The Art of War.

[AtheistCrusader]

28. Guns may perform their function without ever being fired.

Most police officers do not discharge their weapons, even in situations where they may draw those weapons, in preparation to firing.

So the cost/benefit does not only relate to killing/dying.

[TheWraith]

41. Killing people isn't the only use for a gun. Nor is killing people solely the result of guns.

This past summer, I shot a raccoon which was hanging around outside my house and potentially threatening my cats. It wasn't rabid, but if it was, I would have been doubly glad that I didn't have to just hope it went away. Same thing goes if a black bear showed up and decided my house was a good source of food.

Plus, most people who haven't used them don't appreciate that guns can be fun. Being able to bust up clay targets and cinderblocks from hundreds of feet away is simply a great recreational test of skill, like being able to get five skips on a flat stone at your backyard pond.

Arguably we could say that cars don't give us valuable benefits--many DUers say just that, in fact--and that we should have only mass transit/walking/biking. But that's not an opinion that's realistic for everyone. Nor is living without firearms. And even if it were, denying people the choice of doing something they enjoy because a certain group finds it immoral runs contrary to the whole idea of liberalism and diversity of opinion.

[DrDan]

108. "killing people" is the purpose of a gun - "killing" is

and the use as a recreational test of skill as you describe is to improve your ability to use the gun for its intended purpose.

[X_Digger]

109. And that has *what* to do with public safety?

If you'd be so kind, could you explain your thinking as a reply to the OP?

[oneshooter]

110. The purpose of a firearm is

to expel a projectile from a tube at a high velocity using a spring, compressed air, or the expansion of gas. It is a mechanical device, like a bow or a car. HOW it is used is determined by the person in control of the mechanical device whether it be a bow, a car, or a gun.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

There is no firearm yet built that can think or control itself. They like all mechanical devices are solely dependent on a human to function.

[DrDan]

111. and I suppose the purpose of a car is to put in motion

a ton of metal via the transfer through some form of energy - e.g. gasoline, diesel, electricity - to 4 wheels via an engine and transaxle.

Lets not be silly - the purpose of a car is to transport a person from one place to another.

[oneshooter]

112. You are right!

That is the purpose of a vehicle. HOWEVER there is no way that said car can move itself without the direction of a human. The same as a firearm, both are mechanical devices and can be used wrongly by a HUMAN controlling them.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[Name removed]

114. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DrDan]

115. I can accept that - the purpose of a car is to move something

[DrDan]

125. I agree

and the purpose of a gun is to kill. It is up to the one using the gun to decide who and when.

[Name removed]

113. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DrDan]

116. the purpose is to kill

[X_Digger]

117. Care to respond to the OP? n/t

[Euromutt]

118. Then there are an awful lot of models that are badly designed for that purpose

For example, there isn't an army in the world that uses a firearm chambered in .22LR for combat purposes. Why? Because the .22LR isn't very effective at incapacitating humans; oh sure, it can do it, but you can't count on it to do it. So if the purpose of each and every firearm were to kill people, then why would anyone design a firearm that fires .22LR?

[DrDan]

124. "kill" - not necessarily humans

[Euromutt]

127. I refer you to your own post #108 in this thread

Right there in the subject line:

"killing people" is the purpose of a gun

What, are you going to claim that "people" are "not necessarily humans"?

[DrDan]

131. aaaaarg - my error - a typo

I meant that to read "killing people is not the purpose of a gun. Killing is."

[oneshooter]

133. Crawfishing, it's what that is called! n/t

[DrDan]

136. whatever . . .

I fully acknowledge a purpose of hunting.

[PavePusher]

120. Why do I hear a record player scritch every time I read that.... n/t

[jazzhound]

121. False.

The purpose of my firearms is to defend. I'm not planning on killing anything but paper targets. It would be with great dismay if I actually had to discharge my pistol/12 gauge at a human being.

It's just assinine to keep bringing up "the purpose" of firearms. The purpose of a toothbrush is to clean teeth -- yet I've been known to use these devices to clean the tight spots in my shower.

[DrDan]

123. and it works as a means of defense through it's capability to kill

[oneshooter]

134. A capability that is controlled by a HUMAN!

You keep after the object, which ,on its own can do no harm. The HUMAN that controls it is the one doing the harm.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[jazzhound]

140. Too bad for your failing, flailing argument that in the

vast majority of defensive gun uses, the firearm isn't even discharged -- much less used to kill.

Waiting for your next emotion-based fail/flail.

[DrDan]

144. try to understand my point -

it works as a tool of "defense" by it's threat to kill.

Is it really that hard to understand . . ..

and lay off the juvenile insults.

[jazzhound]

146. You have no "point" to "understand".

Your only (apparent) point in barfing out the tired "guns are designed to kill" line is to demonize guns.

Deal with your own juvenile behavior, then come back and talk to me.

[Name removed]

128. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DrDan]

132. twist it any way you like - the purpose is to kill

but if it puts your conscience at ease, then continue with the "projective throwing" rationale.

[Name removed]

135. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DrDan]

137. and I stand by my opinion

[SteveM]

139. So?

[DrDan]

142. did you read the message that was deleted - the one I responded to?

I thought not.

[Name removed]

141. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DrDan]

143. as opposed to one from an apologist . . . .

[rrneck]

42. A lot of the problem politically

seems to be that the cost benefit analysis offered by Democrats is in conflict with the risk assessment made by voters.

Wasn't it Tip O'Neill who said, "All politics is local."?

[onehandle]

46. I've tried that one.

It was ignored, denied, and deflected in just about the same way.

Only a lot less politely.

[TPaine7]

51. And if you posted that 2 + 2 = 3,

your post would likely be ignored, denied or "deflected."

Try that on a math forum.

[farmout rightarm]

56. Probably because it didn't contain any useful truth.

...

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

92. Surely you have a link to that?

[farmout rightarm]

53. There is no cost/benefit calculation that can justify preventing someone from

exercising their right to self-defense.

[aliendroid]

90. there are people who survive without cars.

One can say that cars are not necessary either. Before cars, people were able to get around. Most of the people in the world don't own cars. Cars also help society remain overweight. In fact the consequence of sedimentary behavior due to cars probably goes a long way in health costs and morbidity. But we enjoy cars and we would rather accept the negative impacts on society and keep driving.

When I'm riding my bike I feel that cars endanger me. Yet I'm not trying to get cars banned. Getting guns banned is about as stupid as getting cars banned.

[krispos42]

138. Things must be very quiet in the Hot Tub...

:hi:

[Fumesucker]

2. The intended purpose of weaponized anthrax is to kill..

Polio vaccine kills sometimes.

Surely you don't equate polio vaccine with weaponized anthrax?

[X_Digger]

6. God is love..

.. love is blind.
Stevie Wonder is blind.
Therefore, Stevie Wonder is God!

(Yah, that didn't work, either.)

Seriously, though, if I were comparing incidence of death from disease, both 'death by polio vaccine' and 'death by weaponized anthrax' would have a row and a number of deaths associated with each.

[Fumesucker]

7. I suspect polio vaccine has killed more...

But which of the two engineered substances is morally superior?

[X_Digger]

10. I don't attach a moral value to inanimate objects. n/t

[Fumesucker]

12. How about the designers of those objects?

Jonas Salk vs the designers of weaponized anthrax?



Edited to add: How about a bomb designed as a toy specifically so it will kill or maim children? Care to say that has moral status?

[X_Digger]

15. People's actions yes, objects no.

People are capable of acting in a moral or immoral fashion. And I rarely attach a moral judgment to a person themselves, rather to their actions. When the totality of a person's actions leans in one direction or another, or one act so overshadows their others, I'll hesitantly attach a moral judgment to a person.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

18. How about designers of hopefully helpful objects where the object turned out to be terrible?

Names like Henri Braconnot, Ascanio Sobrero, and Alfred Nobel come to mind.
They stumbled upon world changing discoveries - some even with good intentions.

For reference, in order:
nitrocellulose (laboratory accident)
nitroglycerin (university research, NG is a medicinal vasodilalating compound)
dynamite (invented as a way to make nitroglycerin safer and save lives of workers/miners).

Would you claim these chemists are morally questionable for having "invented" some of the most prolific explosives and gun propellant ever known to man in spite of their best intentions? Likewise, what about the those who create life saving or extremely useful items and concepts in spite of their worst intentions? Clearly, the designer intent nor the item itself is worthy of judgment in a practicable sense. What matter is the here and now. Guns in the hands of responsible law abiding citizens fight crime and guns in the hands of criminals cause death and destruction. The more efficient solution would be to combat guns in the hands of criminals - not simply guns.

[Fumesucker]

25. Anyone who developed an explosive and didn't realize it would be used to hurt people is a fool..

Sure, explosives have their peaceful uses but the history of mankind is replete with examples of horror on a massive scale.

I'm pretty much neutral on the subject of guns, I'm a better than average shot, better than my Marine son in law who qualified expert three or four times even though I never did better than sharpshooter when I was a Marine.

It's my opinion that unless you are thoroughly trained a gun is often more dangerous to you or your family than it is to any potential aggressor. I've seen too many examples of people doing stupid stuff with guns in my own life, two kids I knew shot themselves or someone else accidentally and I was damn near shot myself by accident.

I also think that having a gun makes a great many people put themselves in dangerous situations that they otherwise would have avoided if they didn't have the gun. My brother's wife stopped on a deserted road to harangue a group of men that she thought shouldn't be there, the only reason she did that was because she had a gun with her, she would never have dreamed of doing that if she were unarmed, she would have driven by at high speed and called the cops to report the situation, a much safer course.

A great many people get their attitudes about guns from the media (movies, tv shows and so on) and those attitudes are almost always dangerous, a gun does not make you bulletproof or invulnerable.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

33. You're missing the point I was trying to make.

According to lore, a chemist was cleaning up a spilled nitrating solution. The guy cleans it up with a cotton (cellulose) towel and upon drying, the towel sponaneously bursts into flame. Poof gone. I don't think the guy was striving to develop guncotton... it just kinda happened. I would not call him a fool for it. Nor would I call Alfred Nobel a fool for trying to save so many lives lost due to accidental NG explosions - lives like that of his brother.

Also, to touch on your later comment...
You are right, people weak minded enough to let a gun embolden them are ignorant or foolish and ought not have guns.
You wouldn't light a camp fire to roast 'mallows in your living room because you have fire insurance, would you?
Putting yourself in a scary situation with "I have a gun" as your backup plan is just plain stupid.

People need to realize that engaging in a gunfight is the ultimate losing proposition - at best, you win.
Even when you win you may have to live with having taken another's life, inuries, law suits, trials, or PTSD.
At worst... you can be killed. I've never seen a game I wanted to play with those kind odds. :yoiks:

[Fumesucker]

63. Approximately half the population is of below average intelligence..

There are one hell of a lot of fools out there, my brother's wife has an MS degree and is an RN, certainly not unintelligent, but she has gotten her attitudes about firearms almost entirely from the media. She is far, far from alone in this..

Heinlein said that an armed society is a polite society but he also said that having a gun will often make you stand and fight when you really should be running away.

[X_Digger]

*snort* Assuming normal distribution..

.. half any population will be below average for any measured criteria.

Not knocking you, I just get a chuckle when anyone says that.

[Fumesucker]

66. Those on the bottom half need it repeated a lot because they are .err.. slow..

:)

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

76. You are assuming that the median is the cutoff for "stupid".

I suspect the cutoff line for fools and idiots to be much lower than 50%.
However we live in a society of sheep determined to pander to the least common denominator.

[Fumesucker]

83. Better to live in Lake Wobegon

Where all the children are above average..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Wobegon

And keep in mind that we live in a nation where half of the voters who bothered to vote in 2004 cast their vote for George W Bush.

Is our children learning?

[farmout rightarm]

58. Just because your brother's wife is an idiot is no excuse to restrain the rights of others.

I can't imagine what kind of company you keep if you've been exposed to all those gun accidents...I've associated with gun owners for over 60 years (my first was a .22/410 over/under at age 8) and I have never
been in proximity to any anomalies. Well, I did know a guy who killed himself by first cutting his wrists and then shot himself - in the head, but that's not quite the same thing I don't believe.
\

[Name removed]

64. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

69. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Fumesucker]

71. Eh, I was a Marine, as was My son in law and his father..

That you cannot admit that firearms sometimes effect people's attitudes for the worse is hardly unusual.

[SteveM]

77. I don't see firearms as affecting people's attitudes...

It is how people see firearms in their upbringing. Not to make too fine a point, but the gun doesn't magically cause people's eyes to glaze over and cause them to zombie-walk into a mall. What makes people do things for "the worse" is seeing guns handled by gang members, seeing firearms "glamorized" by T.V. drama and film, seeing bad examples of gun use by others (even parents), and perhaps the biggest bogie, ignorance in the use of arms.

I cannot understand how some folks (and I've seen it) suddenly become experts-over-a-beer when guns come up as a subject. Even when I relate some of my hunting experiences, there is derision and abject disagreement from folks who don't know the difference between a .22 and a .30-06. They know very little about guns, yet they think they know, and the attitude is usually the same: swaggering, worldly knowledge that they picked up from T.V., movies, and some blow-hole who once knew someone else who had a "steetsweeper." One thing for sure, I don't relate what I've got and how I use them (other than for hunting stories) to these clowns.

[Mike K]

78. In spite of my pro-gun disposition -

"It's just been my experience that putting a gun in some people's hands lowers their IQ by a substantial amount, more commonly this happens with men but it happens with women sometimes too."

- I fully agree with what you've said here and I strongly favor some form of basic competence testing prior to firearm ownership: pay a fee, take the test, get a certificate, then go get the gun. I believe there should be training courses available for those who have no relatives or friends to teach them what they need to know to own and use a particular type of firearm, whether pistol, revolver, rifle or shotgun.

To allow someone to walk out of a store with a firearm he or she knows absolutely nothing about makes as much sense as issuing a driver license to someone without some sort of road test or other proof of competence.

[Fumesucker]

82. Yep, which was why the strawman about the military was just that..

Firearms training is part of military service or at least it is in the Marines and they are damn serious about it.

[Euromutt]

84. In the abstract, I'm sympathetic to that idea

During basic training, my platoon's instructors hammered firearm safety into us so thoroughly that by the time we got to fire blanks in training, let alone live rounds at the range, any fun we might have derived from the experience was overshadowed by the constant vigilance to firearm safety, and the prospect of spending more time cleaning our rifles than we'd spent firing them. That was almost seventeen years ago, and to this day, whenever I'm on the verge of doing something stupid with a firearm, I can mentally hear my squad's senior instructor making this sucking-air-through-his-teeth noise he'd make whenever we were in the process of doing something dumb.

I'd be very happy if every prospective gun owner could enjoy that level of training.

(Of course, here comes the "however...")

However, such licensing schemes have in the past been seized upon local governments with an anti-gun agenda to impose de facto (albeit not de jure) gun bans by the expedient of not actually holding the required classes, or holding them at times and locations inconvenient to most applicants, with little or no prior notice, etc. etc. (shades of Jim Crow "literacy tests" for voting there). Which is why I have serious objections to the idea in practice.

I believe there should be training courses available for those who have no relatives or friends to teach them what they need to know to own and use a particular type of firearm, whether pistol, revolver, rifle or shotgun.

There are, actually: NRA-certified instructors. You can find one here: http://www.nrainstructors.org/searchcourse.aspx
(Note that, like Microsoft certified IT people are not employed by Microsoft, NRA-certified instructors are not employees, or necessarily even members, of the NRA. Neither is membership in the NRA required to take a course.)

[SteveM]

98. Interesting argument. "Intent" and "design" are dicey...

Weaponized anthrax and a "bomb designed as a toy" are objectively offensive weapons. Anthrax (even if used as a counter-strike) is designed to kill large numbers of people; the "toy" bomb is even more pernicious, though clearly far less a threat to populations than anthrax. Yet a large-caliber "service" revolver (non-adjustable fixed sights, medium barrel length), is quite capable of killing an attacker, but is "intended and designed" as a self-defense weapon. If it were designed to be "offensive" and to kill, it would have such features as long-barrels, muzzle-breaks, some kind of long eye-relief scope or "red dot" sight, etc. Yet what I just described is a revolver designed and intended for hunting. Even Dirty Harry's ridiculous .44 magnum was designed and built (1955) to meet the demand of handgun hunters. Such a set-up would be absurd for even a semi-literate thug bent on mayhem.

In point of fact, most powerful handguns and their cartridges are designed and built for "stopping power," with the quite possible side effect of killing an attacker. I believe that the only weapons which are designed with the mysterious "intent" to kill are high-powered big-game weapons, such as my unremarkable deer rifle. Yet, these types are rarely used to kill people.

This discussion would benefit by a serious effort on the part of gun-controllers/banners to explain what THEY mean by throwing up what is essentially an implied moral condemnation: "guns are designed for only one purpose: to kill." I've seen precious little meaningful comment from them about the of purpose and intent of their own description. Such is the cul-de-sac of moral argument.

[AtheistCrusader]

30. Neither.

'Morals' do not apply to inanimate objects. They apply to the humans using them.

[Fumesucker]

68. Or those developing them..

[AtheistCrusader]

79. So is it either immoral or moral to build a slightly better rifle?

[AtheistCrusader]

29. Having weaponized anthrax may discourage a conventional war

The point is debatable, but as a deterrence, weaponized anthrax may save lives without taking any at all.

[Fumesucker]

70. Yeah, it worked so well for Saddam Hussein..

And he didn't even actually *have* any weaponized anthrax.

[AtheistCrusader]

80. Diversions will get nowhere with me.

In theory, strong weapons can provide a measure of security, without ever firing a shot.

Your example of Saddamn carries no weight, because Iraq lacked enough credible weapons systems to pose a serious threat to the United States. We were not in awe of their military in any way. (Bush's '45 minutes' claim is sad and pathetic)

Yes, it may provoke an attack in highly unusual circumstances, but Iraq's theorized posession of weapons such as Anthrax DID keep it's contemporary military opponent, Iran, at bay for at least a decade.

[Fumesucker]

81. Iran never attacked Iraq..

Iran hasn't attacked anyone in over a century.

In theory, theory and practice are identical, in practice they are not.

[Euromutt]

85. That's strictly speaking correct, however...

... when Iraq withdrew entirely from Iranian territory in 1982, and supported a Saudi-brokered peace deal (which included $70bn in reparations to Iran) in 1983, Iran refused, demanding nothing less than the removal of the Ba'athist regime, $150bn in reparations and the repatriation of 100,000 Iraqi Shi'ites who had been expelled into Iran.

The Iranian government didn't start the war, but it was responsible for the fact that the war lasted eight years instead of three. It did also extend the "Tanker War" to vessels under the flag of countries not involved (even tangentially) in the war.

[Fumesucker]

88. What happened to Japan when they attacked the US?

Did we enter into "peace deal" with them?

I seem to recall that nukes were used in that war and that nothing less than unconditional surrender of Japan was acceptable.

Isn't it interesting how we have different standards for others than for ourselves?

It's also interesting how we removed the Ba'athist regime for Iran, one would think the US was doing the bidding of the Mullahs.

[Euromutt]

93. When did Japan offer concessions as part of a peace deal?

The Japanese strategic plan always envisioned a negotiated end to the war, but only one in which they got to keep most of the territory they'd occupied. Moreover, the Japanese government had very little control over the armed forces, who were adamantly opposed to a negotiated peace that would involve Japan making concessions (whereas the Iraqi government was essentially bound up in the person of Saddam Hussein). Only by May 1945 did the Japanese start to put out feelers for a peace treaty, by which time it was a case of "too little, too late."

It's also interesting how we removed the Ba'athist regime for Iran, one would think the US was doing the bidding of the Mullahs.

If you're willing to overlook the fact that rather a lot can happen in twenty years. Not least that in the interim, Khomeini had died, there was a lot less rhetoric about exporting the Islamic revolution, and with the attempted annexation of Kuwait (and launching missiles at Israel in an attempt to rupture the Coalition), Saddam Hussein had emerged as greater threat to regional peace and stability (and, due to the oil reserves, by extension to global peace and stability) than Iran had appeared to be in the 1980s.

Hindsight is always 20/20.

[one-eyed fat man]

101. Interesting point

Old Saddam did his best by playing fast and loose with inspectors. Turns out he had nothing to hide, but his deceptions were likely intended to keep the Saudis, Kuwaitis, Kurds, and Iranians from knowing he didn't have weapons of mass destruction. I am not sure that last bunch of idiots planned an elaborate ruse to find an excuse to go to war. I think the idiots got snookered, by a bigger idiot who was more worried about Iran crossing his borders than us.

His actions were like flashing a toy gun to scare or intimidate people. Big fun, until you scare someone carrying a real one.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

3. Were knives designed to kill?

I'm not sure anyone knows as basic stone knives and spears date back to before recorded history.
But I'm confident the discovery was that "this sharp rock" seems to fuck up shit better than "this round rock".
A little ingenuity to artificially develop edges on assault objects and BAM... the first "knife" is born.
Hunters and warriors rejoice.

As bronze, iron, and steel are discovered the first thing they look at is making swords and blades stronger.
I would say unequivocally that "knives" were designed to kill. Should we ban them as well?

[TPaine7]

16. Hammers most likely were designed to kill.

[zipplewrath]

22. I'd dispute your history

"Knives" in some generic sense will trace their history back to tools. Predominately for cutting of animals, for butchering, and for plants. (You're gonna have some trouble here because the axe was an early sharp tool as well and the two probably start from the same point). They became weapons as an adjunct to their larger purpose (along with hammers and sharp sticks). Guns on the other hand come along long after we can find distinct classes of "weapons" and "tools". There's always overlap, but guns were predominately created as weapons, with their utility as a "tool" of food production (or collection really) was secondary.

I'm pretty sure that guns post date most other basic explosive powdered based weapons (various form of cannon really). And because of their expensive nature, weren't going to be commonly be available early on. As such, the primary origin of guns was going to be for combat, with their hunting nature following later.

So in relation to the OP, guns are a particularly unique form of weapon that assuredly started out as a tool of combat. Most other combat tools most likely were co-opted from their primary purpose of food gathering/production. However that really goes back to the question of the relevance of an tools initial intent with respect to its ultimate use. Early nuclear research was predominately for weapons production. Not sure I'm going to pass any judgment on radiation therapy from that.

The question really applies only directly to THE gun and its individual design elements. What is their primary purpose? Should that influence their regulation.

[X_Digger]

24. It is an interesting question..

.. and to go further, where do you draw a line in time / design and say that this person's adaptation of a previous design and all derivatives forward constitutes a 'gun'? Is it the first handheld bamboo "fire lances" the chinese used to propel shrapnel and later lead shot? Is it the first metal "bombard"?

[AtheistCrusader]

32. "Don't stab Thag, sharp rock only for cutting animals!"

There's a 'Year Zero' joke in here somewhere, I think.

[zipplewrath]

43. Slightly different.

More a case of not wasting alot of time making a special rock to stab Thag, any old sharp thing would be good enough for that. If you're gonna spend alot of time make a special sharp rock, it's to eat, not to just rag on Thag.

[SteveM]

44. And we come to "the purpose of guns is to kill" flippant, used as moral condemnation...

of the object, and by inference, the user/possessor. This is the chief dynamic of prohibition politics, and isn't the core of this discussion, but its use as a moral bludgeon assumes there is unexplained moral content in the "argument." Clearly, those using this argument have a real responsibility to explain it, but I see little of that. So I propose to take on the responsibility. To put it crudely, what is so "good" or "bad" about an object whose purpose, when used at its full capability, is to kill?

I believe nearly all instances of killing humans is regrettable. This is not to say that in a given situation the killing was not "justified," only to say that I can relate to the deceased human and experience regret. Some people see ANY "killing" as sufficient to condemn the object and user. Thus, a factory-built pump shotgun, designed for general bird and small game hunting, is designed for killing; ergo, it falls into the same category as a fixed-sight "service" revolver for LEOs. Thus the range of moral condemnation is expanded, even if the "designed" killing was of animals. For those who use the "purpose is to kill" argument, but recognize a more reasonable order of life-value, the response is: This humble shotgun CAN be used to kill people. Certainly it can, but at that juncture the automobile metaphor raises its turret top: the car was not designed to kill people, but it surely does. Now, this more "reasonable" person with the more "reasonable" position must either embrace the more extreme "ALL killing of ALL living things is bad," or concede that most shotguns are not designed to kill people, but are subject to misuse.

I believe those who wield the argument "guns are designed to kill" innately recognize the capacity -- even the desire -- to kill in everyone, including themselves, and point to an object that is relatively "unquestioned" in its purpose and seek to ban the thing as it reminds or spurs on man's capacity to kill or think about killing. This is compounded by a "vulgar passive-ism" which seems to be a refusal to engage in self-defense, lest one give in to the impulse to kill. Gandhi recognized this impulse, and decried those who would stood idly by and not defend, either by non-violent action or by violence, his/her life, loved ones, religion and property.

To return to prohibition, this ruinous "public policy" probably has its roots in the strictures of religion, even if this country has long since passed into a secular society. Those who seek prohibition probably have lost faith in government as a resolver of societal needs and problems (at least as much as many of the conservatives they condemn), and fall back on arguments which proscribe a condition which prohibition will bring about. This won't happen, of course, but then the societal conditions sought are secondary for these folks: The chief purpose of prohibition is moral validation of a "better life," or merely a set of unrealized values, by an authority "bigger" than oneself... government and the coercive force which comes with it. (This reliance on government force as weapon-of-choice is a peculiarly conservative notion, but that is lost on many.) In short, the feeling of vindication and satisfaction is in forcing those whom you condemn to stop doing this or possessing that with the threat of punishment, ubermensch.

The unexplained argument "The purpose of guns is to kill" is a marker used in a game whose objective is to declare: "My morals are more moral than your morals." It has no real place in social policy or governance except to write-large one's own feelings of outrage. Fundamentally, I am not concerned that I possess an object (gun) that "is designed to kill."

edit: sp., grammar

[farmout rightarm]

57. One could certainly make a rational argument that a device NOT designed to kill

does it anyway and very effectively is a worse development than the use of one whose principal purpose is to kill and it works about as well as the other one. (I don't necessarily subscribe to the theory that the primary purpose of a gun is to kill, however, I stipulated it for the argument.)

[SteveM]

59. I stipulated as well. Did you notice the meager response from the controllers? nt

[farmout rightarm]

60. Yes...meager is SOP.

:shrug:

[DissedByBush]

55. The nature of the origin

The origin of knives is primitive sharpened stones, possibly first designed for cutting.

The origin of guns is in fireworks to ward off evil spirits, which pre-date the first use of guns in China by centuries.

[spin]

23. Some knives are designed primarily for killing..

A dagger (probably from Vulgar Latin: 'daca' - a Dacian knife) is a double-edged blade used for stabbing or thrusting. They often fulfill the role of a secondary defense weapon in close combat. In most cases, a tang extends into the handle along the centreline of the blade.

Daggers may be differentiated from knives on the basis that daggers are intended primarily for stabbing whereas knives are usually single-edged and intended mostly for cutting. However, many knives and daggers are capable of either stabbing or cutting.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dagger

Fairbairn-Sykes Fighting Knife


Boker Applegate/Fairbairn, Spear Point Fixed Blade Knife

Currently in my small knife collection is a dagger that could easily be used as both a general purpose knife or as a lethal weapon.


One of the most Prized possessions of the Trapper and Native American was His Dag. It was his first line of defense at Close Quarters and a utility tool for everyday survival in the back county. The Bark River Mountain Man Dag has a matching handle to Our Mountain Man Knife and is a perfect Companion for it. In actual Period Use the Dag was also used as a primary Belt Knife by a lot of people. The Blade is purposely wider than most knives to give it knife-like Cutting Geometry while still maintaining the original look and use as a Dagger.

[PavePusher]

39. Actually, the first knives were "designed" to make it easier to cut...

any number of things. I'd bet that use as a weapon was figured out by some bright spark shortly after they were used for cutting food, but knives have LOTS of uses other than as weapons.

Again, intent of the user is the controlling factor.


Edit: Oops, zipplewrath said it sooner and better. Cheers!

[Glassunion]

8. It is a slippery slope...

As was stated there is a lack of unanimity on the cost/benefit of them. That appears to me that is the base point that most of us argue around here.

Another issue I see is that we cannot agree on the benefit portion of any cost / benefit analysis when discussing guns. Sort of like how some of us may see the possibility of an oppressive government coming to power, where there are those of us who do not see even the possibility of there ever being an oppressive government here in the United States. Therefore if the benefits cannot even be agreed upon, than there will always be a disagreement even down to the most simple points of firearm ownership.

I think that we can all agree to disagree? But maybe I'm wrong about that too? :)

[DirkGently]

17. Whoa

I am so not in for the long haul here, because like all gun-related issues in America, this is basically a religious question :) but I will respectfully proffer an answer to the question by agreeing with others here that it is essentially a cost / benefit analysis that makes the designated purpose of an item relevant.

Sure, knives and cars and chainsaws and other tools that can kill are legal. But we need them for all kinds of things that don't involving killing. Then consider, I don't know, poison blowdarts or pipebombs. Or knives that launch out of a spring-loaded tube mounted under your wrist. Good, law-abiding, responsible Americans could make lawful, constructive use of those items as well. But they're designed for, and best at, killing people, and in those cases, best for killing people randomly or covertly. So when we go to regulate them, we weigh that.

So maybe it's not directly the supposed "purpose" of a device that's relevant. It's more about the likely constructive vs. destructive use. However, that's related to the designated purpose, to one degree or another. Is this a tool with which someone may make a birdhouse, or is it really pretty useless beyond, say, assassination? Is it unreasonable to have tighter regulations on, say, suicide-bomber vests than on the Hardee's 1/2 lb quradruple cheeseburger? The cheeseburgers may kill more people, given time, but they will sustain life, after a fashion, while the suicide-bomber vest seems to have even less of an upside.

We have less sympathy for, and perhaps less responsibility to, the purveyors of the suicide vest, as well as the would-be owners, not just because we don't value their motives in *designing* a vest to kill large numbers of random people, but because, due in part to its design, we don't feel much obligation to protect the interests of suicide-vest devotees from government interference.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but one more example might be Stinger missiles. Designed for, and best at, shooting down airplanes. We're hard on private Stinger missile ownership, in part because we don't recognize a great legitimate need for people to be able to shoot down airplanes, although that situation could certainly arise. Of course it's also true that Stinger missiles might be used for less destructive purposes -- personal defense against an invading air force, say. Or even just as iving room conversation pieces. But we're trying to strike a balance between potential harm vs. potential legitimate use, so people have to find something else to hang over the fireplace.

[X_Digger]

19. I can see your point, but..

You vacillated a bit between the original intent / design and the use to which most people apply them.

That's the larger point I was aiming at- that the criteria used in a cost benefit analysis shouldn't depend so much on the original intent, but the intended use by those who utilize the technology (both good and bad.)

[DirkGently]

35. I think I did vacillate

or at least qualify my argument, because while there's a relationship between design and potential use, it's not necessarily 1:1. If your question is whether we can hold the supposed "purpose" of a device against it, as it were, I think we can if there's a reason to think it applies practically.

But I also think we can consider how something is marketed. The suicide vest may consist of a fly fishing jacket and four rolls of duct tape, and we're not going to regulate those things separately, but I don't think it's irrational to say we're going to draw a line at putting them together and marketing them as a tool for mass murder, even if you could still use it to hold your fishing lures. Is there a difference, for example, between making a weapon's handgrip out of a material which is lightweight, durable, and ergonomic, which happens to resist fingerprints, and marketing a weapon as having "fingerprint resistant grips?"

The Stinger missile's designed purpose is more deeply imbedded into how you can use it, and I think the purpose vs. application question merges. It's a tool designed for shooting down airplanes, which is likely to be used for shooting down airplanes, and has little to no value outside of shooting down airplanes, so the only question we have to ask is whether we can and should regulate tools for shooting down airplanes.

[SteveM]

47. I appreciate your insights. Thanks. nt

[Tim01]

20. Is a tool needed for self defense? Yes. Can a different tool do that job? No. nt

[farmout rightarm]

65. Well, you have convinced -me-. Obviously the ability to construct a birdhouse is FAR

above some silly concept of self-defense on the morality totem pole.
Thanks for setting me, er, straight.

[rrneck]

27. It has to do with

concern for and manipulation of the symbolism of a gun.

Those who show concern for the design objective of a firearm would like to project onto the individual possessing it an intent to use it for that purpose exclusive of most other social circumstances. Thus, we get the "just a matter of time before he loses it and shoots somebody" canard. It is a mischaracterization of how technology is used by people in the real world.

The assertion that a firearm was designed to do anything but kill is also a mischaracterization. Shooting sports can be understood to be training for the use of the weapon to kill somebody, either for good or ill. It makes no sense to claim that you are shooting your 1911 at the range just for fun, and a half hour later use it at an IDPA competition. Anybody that has ever had a gun pointed at them understands it's intended function, and anybody that has ever handled a gun in any capacity should, in the interest of safety, be candid about the intent of its design.

*WARNING - CAR ANALOGIES BELOW*

Almost every car and motorcycle available for consumer use in this country is designed go well in excess of one hundred miles an hour. Very few people drive them that fast. Most people attend some sort of driving class or another. They frequently get instruction from family members or friends.

It is illegal to exceed the posted speed limit, and there are nice men and women with guns and badges that will help you to observe all traffic laws and will be happy to refer you to others who will assist you in the observance of those laws. Some people still do stupid shit in cars anyway. They don't get tickets until after they do it.

There are a number of automobile accidents that do not result in fatalities every year. Safety procedures and equipment, along with traffic and licensing laws are designed to minimize the harm done by automobiles as much as possible. Those regulations, safety procedures and equipment are designed specifically for that technology. Different technology will require different regulations, safety procedures and equipment.

And so on, and so on, and so on.....

[Mike K]

37. Cars are not designed to kill -

- but they do. Frequently and efficiently. And while the design of guns renders them useful for killing, all killing done with guns is not necessarily wrongful and many guns are intended for purposes other than killing. Potential is not the same as purpose.

A gun is primarily a weapon, which, in itself, is neither good nor bad. Nature has equipped all animals with weapons, Man being no exception. The teeth and claws of a cat are designed for killing, as is the venom of a snake or the lethal contrivances of the human mind.

[mistertrickster]

38. As a former member of "Handgun Control," I believe we Dems need to scrap gun control.

Just put it in the "Too Hard" box.

The right-wing is going to continue to kill us with this single hot-button issue, and we're not going to be able to accomplish more important objectives, like living wage issues and restoring unions for economic fairness.

On edit: I agree with Skinner that the cost (of so many guns) probably outweighs their benefit (protection, hunting, collecting), but a lot of folks are fanatical about the importance of the right to keep and bear arms. They believe that ALL our freedoms are protected by the right of citizen gun ownership. I think that's ridiculous, but they don't . . . and the gun-fundamentalists number in the many millions.

You have to live in a rural state like Kansas (where I reside) to see the depth of feeling among gun owners.

More restrictions on guns just isn't possible at this time, and it will cost us dearly at the polls if we pursue it.

[onehandle]

45. That's very reasonable.

The problem is the 'fanatical' aspect you speak of.

They don't just want no new laws, they want all types of guns allowed in endless quantities, with no records or restrictions. Everywhere, all the time, no matter what the place or property owners say.

[Name removed]

52. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[farmout rightarm]

61. Can I get some of whatever you're smoking?

:silly:

[benEzra]

73. Who's this "They"?

They don't just want no new laws, they want all types of guns allowed in endless quantities, with no records or restrictions. Everywhere, all the time, no matter what the place or property owners say.

You're obviously not speaking of most American gun owners here, OR the NRA.

The gun control debate in 2008 is about the right of mentally competent adults with clean records to continue to purchase, own, and use non-automatic, non-sound-suppressed NFA Title 1 civilian firearms under .51 caliber (plus shotguns). With regard to carry licensure, we'd also like to preserve the rights of individuals duly licensed to carry and transport firearms from gun-control-lobby harassment. (Laws protecting employees' vehicles from random corporate search in public-access lots weren't even an issue until the gun-control lobby made it one by promoting such searches.)

It is most assuredly not about "all types of guns allowed in endless quantities, with no records or restrictions, everywhere, all the time, no matter what the place or property owners say." That straw man hasn't been valid for the last 75 years and isn't valid now.

[proteus_lives]

104. That's what we want?

:rofl:

This is the problem of only listening to your own voice and those who agree with you.

[shadowrider]

119. ROFL. You make me laugh, really.

No one has ever said "(We)they want all types of guns allowed in endless quantities, with no records or restrictions. Everywhere, all the time, no matter what the place or property owners say."

Show me one post where someone said that.

I'll wait.

[rl6214]

187. That's just not true and you know it

The NRA HAS been instrumental in some gun control laws and regulations. They and most gun advocates DO NOT advocate "everywhere, all the time, no matter what"

[SteveM]

48. Perhaps you can help. In my post above I noted the unexplained...

content of the argument "Guns are designed for killing," and laid the responsibility for such an explanation in the hands of those who use the argument. Do you have any insights into why this argument is used? Thanks.

[mistertrickster]

74. Well, they are designed for killing. A shovel or a hammer can be used for

killing, but it is not designed for killing.

Since most people are opposed to killing, it stands to reason they would also be against a tool designed expressly for killing.

But that's a little simplistic because a gun by its very presence can prevent killing . . . or encourage violence.

[farmout rightarm]

67. Not the "too hard" box...the "too stupid" box.

...

[dickthegrouch]

40. Three words missing from the sentence: "From a distance"

The primary purpose of the gun is to kill from a distance.
Unless you throw a knife or most other weapons, you have to be very close in order to kill.

From my point of view non-gun weapons users have to have to put themselves in more danger. Therefore, for me, the use or display of a gun is evidence of cowardice since they are not putting themselves in similar danger.

[Mike K]

49. Interesting perspective:

"Therefore, for me, the use or display of a gun is evidence of cowardice since they are not putting themselves in similar danger."

When I was trained in the use of the M-1 Garand on the Marine Corps rifle range at Parris Island in 1956, in order to qualify we needed to demonstrate some level of proficiency in the ability to strike a man-size target at distances of 200, 300 and 500 yards. I recall the Range Instructor explaining that the greater the distance at which you are able to strike your enemy the lesser is his ability to strike at you.

So, that either makes sense or Marines are trained to be cowards. Which do you think it is?

[SteveM]

50. "From a distance" is more manly? Courageous? What for?

Certainly, guns kill from a distance, and over the last 200 years that distance has grown remarkably. But the distance is topping off. Despite the styles, features, electronics, etc., the firearm (in most of its forms) is reaching a plateau of performance.

I see no problem with killing "from a distance." The problem is when one chooses to attempt such. I do so every year when deer hunting, but never consider it for killing people. The only weapon I have which I might use to kill a human "from a distance" is a handgun. It's not a deer rifle, but if someone were to break-in my house, and after due warning, I (not the gun) will stop or kill at whatever distance gives me the most advantage.

"From my point of view non-gun weapons users have to have to put themselves in more danger."

I assume you mean that non-gun weapons are more "manly," or a signifier of "more courage," as they require mano-y-mano combat, when compared with a gun. This is a wholly misplaced notion in this debate. In hunting, I shoot from a distance because that is the usual order of things when hunting cautious animals. Should a mortal threat come from a human, I have no interest in demonstrating a cinematic ability to expose myself to "similar danger:" my intention is to stop the intruder with a gun with as little threat to myself as possible. You (as an observer) and the thug (as an actor) might relish combat. I most decidedly do not.

You should explain what relevance there is in this one-on-one combat vs. "cowardice" notion; otherwise, I am left to conclude that your view is merely a rather tired smear of gun-owners.

[PavePusher]

54. By what moral or legal principal...

Should I have to meet a criminal attacker on a level playing field? And how would you force the criminal to obey such a restriction?

Your allegation is... Massive. Facepalm.

[Euromutt]

87. That pretty much sums up my feelings on the matter

The way I see it, when combat occurs that is not by mutual consent of the parties involved, the party who is not the aggressor is under no moral obligation to fight on the terms set by the aggressor. And of course, when dealing with criminal assaults (in general, including robberies and confrontational "hot" burglaries), the aggressor will launch his assault when he believes the circumstances favor him.

The idea that it's somehow cowardly not to employ every advantage that you have as the aggressed-against party is beyond fucked up.

[farmout rightarm]

62. I must admit, your choice of username is completely appropriate.

:D

[spin]

72. You don't bring a knife or a sword to a gun fight...

because guns can kill from a distance.

You think that that not carrying a firearm for self defense makes you braver than those that do, who are cowards.

I would point out that it just makes you stupider then those who do.

The first five rules of gunfighting:

Drill Sergeant Joe B. Fricks Rules For A Gunfight

1. Forget about knives, bats and fists. Bring a gun. Preferably, bring at least two guns. Bring all of your friends who have guns. Bring four times the ammunition you think you could ever need.

2. Anything worth shooting is worth shooting twice. Ammunition is cheap - life is expensive. If you shoot inside, buckshot is your friend. A new wall is cheap - funerals are expensive

3. Only hits count. The only thing worse than a miss is a slow miss.

4. If your shooting stance is good, you're probably not moving fast enough or using cover correctly.

5. Move away from your attacker and go to cover. Distance is your friend. (Bulletproof cover and diagonal or lateral movement are preferred.)
http://www.fieldandstream.com/blogs/ammunition/2009/02/petzal-rules-gunfighting

The list of rules goes on and my favorite rule is this one. It should actually be the first rule.

23. Your number one option for personal security is a lifelong commitment to avoidance, deterrence, and de-escalation.


edited for fat fingered spelling

[oneshooter]

86. Unless you are a magical Ninja!! n/t

[dickthegrouch]

94. Your #1 rule is my point precisely

Your number one option for personal security is a lifelong commitment to avoidance, deterrence, and de-escalation.

Avoidance: Don't carry a gun

Deterrence: Execution for murderers and man-slaughterers and anyone else who kills with a gun

De-escalation: I have no weapon and you are a coward if the only thing you can think of to attack me with is a gun.


"Violence is the last resort of the incompetent" Salvor Hardin as channeled by Isaac Asimov

[SteveM]

99. Some problems here...

"Avoidance," when faced with possible personal attack, is the best course of action. It is the "number one" option, but it doesn't guarantee your safety or survival. Gandhi, who followed "Ahimsa" or the way of non-violence recognized that not all (or even most) people could follow that course: confronting an attacker who threatens you, your family, your property, even your religion, and stopping the attacker without hurting him/her. His recommendation if you could not follow Ahimsa? Resist/"despatch" the attacker by violence.

His description of the third option, to stand by or run and let the attacker have his/her way? "Cowardice."

Avoidance can be exercised with a gun just as well as without; however as it should be abundantly clear, one can't always "avoid" a determined attacker (those I term HyperPunks). The gun then can be used (most often non-violently) to avoid the confrontation. Without a gun, you do not have that option.

"Deterrence: Execution for murderers and man-slaughterers and anyone else who kills with a gun."

I cannot share this strategy since I do not agree with the death penalty (due process and unequal protection of the law is demonstrably violated). Further, manslaughter is not a capital offense because there is no intention aforethought. Still further, the methodology of killing would in your scheme "cheapen" the crime (and a life) if, say, a knife were used.

"De-escalation: I have no weapon and you are a coward if the only thing you can think of to attack me with is a gun."

This is a fatuous attack since no one here is so single-minded (note again the self-defense procedures cited above). I would also point out another misconception: Again, per the procedures above, we are talking about self-defense, not "attack." Thugs, ruffians and HyperPunks "attack."

Though I have not read Asimov's work wherein this quote, together with its context, appears, I'll stick with Gandhi.

[benEzra]

75. Hmmm. Criminals seem to prefer to attack people smaller/weaker/older than themselves...

and will often attempt to put numbers and the element of surprise on their side. And you don't actually think a criminal would drop his knife and go bare-handed if he thought his victim was less skilled than he at knife fighting, do you? Or that he would fight with one hand behind his back to "even things up" when assaulting a woman or man half his mass, or when assaulting someone older than he?

Violent criminals are not restrained by a sense of fairness, or else they wouldn't prey on people they perceive to be weaker than themselves.

FWIW, I think you underestimate the threat radius of a knife. The lethal radius of a knife in the hand is generally taken to be around 21 feet, which is the distance from which the blade can be planted in you in 1 or 1.5 seconds. A thrown knife is much less dangerous than a knife that stays in the attacker's hand, even from 7 to 10 yards.

[GreenStormCloud]

106. I am under no moral obligation to prove my courage by giving a violent criminal...

...a so-called fair fight. Since I will be attempt to preserve my own life, I will take every advantage I can get, and having a gun is a huge advantage.

BTW - Bows and arrows can kill from a considerable distance and have been around for thousands of years. Today, archery is a sport.

[shadowrider]

130. Sure, I'm 57 with some health issues. I'll get up close to 2 18 year old thugs

intent on causing me harm who could whip my ass in a heartbeat.

Or

I can pull my weapon from 15 feet and watch them shit themselves while they're running away.

Which will it be.

[rl6214]

188. Do you know that most defensive firearm instances occur

within 3-7 yards. That's not really "a distance" that I would consider to be very far. A person with a knife can travel 21ft (7 yards) in 1.5 seconds, generally about as qwik as a person can draw their gun. Is a gun for defensive purposes still cowardice?

[benEzra]

89. It seems to me that in a lot of cases, the "intended purpose" as stated by gun-control activists

is not necessarily the same as the actual purpose of the item.

The "intended purpose" of a non-automatic civilian AR-15, for example, is neither military combat, nor murder; no military on this planet uses them, and they are rarely used in violent crimes. They are purchased as target guns (they dominate competitive and recreational target shooting in this country) and as defensive carbines.

The intended purpose of this match grade Camp Perry style AR is exactly what this woman is using it for:




Most handguns are sold for lawful defensive standby duty and recreational shooting. In extremis, they may be used to take a life (lawfully or not), but the overwhelming majority never are.


I only own one gun that was designed for combat and that has seen combat. It is a bolt-action made in 1905; the receiver is a hundred and five years old this year.



I didn't buy it for combat; I bought it because it is a piece of history that bears the imperial crest of Czar Nicolas II, that likely saw action in World War I, the Russian Revolution, the War for Finnish Independence, the Finn-Soviet Winter War and Continuation War, and likely helped kick the Nazis out of Finland. It still shoots well, as the Finns were fanatical about accuracy, and it was rebarreled with a Finn barrel in 1942.

"Intended purpose" is usually a pointless rhetorical game.

[GreenStormCloud]

95. It is a rhetorical device to make an implied statement to subtly direct the hearers thoughts..

The hearer is supposed to think: Guns were only designed to kill people, and killing people is bad. The fallacy is that guns are also used for other things, and it is sometimes needful to kill a person.

[X_Digger]

100. *bump*

We have some new posters, I'd love to get their opinion on this question.

[slackmaster]

102. High-heeled womens' shoes have done a lot more damage than guns have

Their intended purpose doesn't matter much.

[shadowrider]

129. Especially when the owner of said shoes finds out you've been seeing other high heels not hers n/t

[rrneck]

103. Because we're all afraid to die.

It doesn't matter what a gun actually does, only what it means. When anti gun people make snide remarks about an over fondness for firearms what really disturbs them is a perceived attitude that seems to assert that the use of violence is a solution to various social ills. They get that impression from hearing a callous, vengeful attitude from gun owners when a criminal dies in a confrontation.

Pro gun people perceive the same callous disregard for others when those who dislike what guns are intended to do obliviously overlook the realities of a disparity of force between aggressors and victims and while offering no solution for that disparity, question the moral rectitude of those who produce their own solution.

All of this is because guns symbolize death for somebody, either the good guy or the bad guy.

Errors in thinking and unworkable ideologies occur when we become too invested in our own solutions for the moment when a trigger is pulled and overlook all of the work that has to be done before or after the event. Anti gun people question the preparations that people make with firearms because they seem to focus too much on the damage that always follows violence of any kind. Pro gun people overlook the circumstances that lead people to initiate violence because they seem to favor a clear sense of closure for a problem they feel they didn't create. Both ideologies exist along a sliding scale of arbitrary absurdity depending on the individual expressing them.

In the end, there are no good guys or bad guys. There are only people we fail to understand, fail to help, fail to notice until it's too late. We seem to have to attach our fear of failure to something, and guns draw it like a magnet.

[Nomorehannity]

107. x_digger you're using too much logic, not enough emotion

shame on you.

You're making people think instead of feel.

[Euromutt]

122. So the short answer to the OP question is "no"

I guess that's a problem you get when you think a soundbite is adequate replacement for reasoned argument.

[Remmah2]

126. Prevention

Do you know how many fire extinguishers are out there that will never get used? What would be be to not have one and need it? Day care centers have fire extinguishers.

[creeker]

145. ditto man---weapons are a right-- people who are ignorant of them

do so at their own risk.
We need to teach children to respect weapons.
And we need to teach them how to use them.

[DissedByBush]

147. My guns act as over-glorified paper hole punches

And hopefully they will never be used for anything else.

[texshelters]

148. So, you think killing lots of people at once is okay?

That is what you suggest by supporting guns.

Cars are created for driving, not killing. The fact that people die using them is different. I am sorry that you can't see the obvious difference in their use.

And I never said ban all guns. A gun is made for killing. If you don't see how that's different than a car, I can't help you.

So, dying from a preventable gun death is okay because it's low on the list of causes of death. Again, the logic fails.

One gun can easily kill many people in the hands of an unskilled person. It's not as easy to do that with a knife. Try target practice with a knife, and see how many rounds you can get off in one minute.

Peace,
Tex Shelters

[jody]

153. What mental twist do you use to morph supporting RKBA into supporting killing people? What is your

point and what facts support it?

[X_Digger]

155. Care to actually respond to my OP?

Let me refresh your memory- "So please, enlighten me. Why does the 'original intent' of any tool have any bearing on the relative safety of the tool?"

Oh, by the by..

"It's not as easy to do that with a knife."

Google Chinese School Stabbing.

7 dead, 28 stabbed, 5 dead, 17 stabbed, 7 dead, 46 stabbed in 2 separate attacks..

What were you saying again?

[friendly_iconoclast]

156. You're bringing verifiable facts and not moral posturing into this.

Stand by to be accused of a lack of 'empathy'...

[rl6214]

189. Tell these people that you can't easily kill many people with a knife

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osaka_school_massacre

At 10:15 that morning, 37-year-old former janitor Mamoru Takuma entered the school armed with a kitchen knife and began stabbing numerous school children and teachers. He killed eight children, mostly between the ages of seven and eight, and seriously wounded thirteen other children and two teachers.

[Name removed]

160. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[texshelters]

161. I already replied here and the point is that because guns are made to kill

we need to do better at keeping them out of the hands of lunatics and regulating the damage they can cause.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x184093

http://texshelters.wordpress.com/2011/01/12/there-is-no-analogy-for-a-gun/

Peace,
Tex Shelters

[X_Digger]

162. You didn't actually reply to my OP..

Hence the request to do so.

[X_Digger]

164. *bump*

We have more 'but gunz is different!' posters.. please chime in.

[rl6214]

165. "Guns are made to kill"

Hell, you mean I've been using my guns the wrong way all along? Shit, what do I need to do or who do I need to see to help me make sure I use my guns the way they were designed? :sarcasm:

[ileus]

168. Guns are designed to save lives....not kill.

[billh58]

170. The argument that

automobiles and guns are both "tools" with little distinction or difference when it comes to causing bodily harm has always baffled me.

As the OP points out, the primary purpose of a gun is to provide lethal force, or the threat of lethal force. This is where some people usually jump in and point out all of the benign "recreational" uses for guns. In the end, however, a gun has only one designed purpose, and that is the provision of lethal force -- sometimes for criminal purposes, and sometimes for self-defense -- but always potentially deadly force.

Automobiles, on the other hand, are designed for transportation. They are seldom used directly in the commission of a crime, or in self-defense. Automobiles make an unwieldy "weapon", and most automobile deaths occur from accidents caused by misuse (drunk driving, inattention, speed, etc.) rather than an actual intent to kill. I'm sure that there are instances where a vehicle is used as an intentional weapon, but I believe that they are relatively rare compared to the use of a gun as an intentional weapon.

So I totally agree that it is not the "intent of the designer" which makes a gun more lethal than an automobile. It is the obvious choice of the user of a gun as a more suitable weapon as opposed to an automobile when planning a robbery, a murder, a suicide, or use as a weapon-of-choice for self-defense. Because of the proliferation of so-called "illegal" guns on the streets, criminals and gang members also carry guns for "self-defense." If I'm not mistaken, most of the "illegal" guns were, at one point in their journey to the streets, manufactured, and sold legally.

I agree that ill-planned, and otherwise onerous gun laws have little effect on those who possess and use guns illegally. That is a social problem, and like most social issues will not be solved through legislation, but through the slow process of liberal change. A belief that a single provision (2A) of the Bill of Rights, rather than the whole of the Constitution of the United States of America is a remedy for oppressive government is to make a mockery of American values and our history.

Hopefully, there will always be communities in this country where ordinary law-abiding citizens feel secure in their own homes, and on the streets of their towns and cities, and have no reason to keep or bear arms. I am lucky enough to live in such a place.

[Euromutt]

173. That doesn't really answer the OP question, though, does it?

You're just restating, a bit more emphatically, the point noted in the OP that "cars are designed for transportation, guns are designed to kill" without explaining why that makes the number of dead caused by gunshot wounds a more serious public health and safety issue than the number of dead caused by motor vehicle collisions, even though the latter is half again as high as the former.

That is ultimately the question in this thread: why are ~30,000 dead a year a greater problem than ~46,000?

[billh58]

174. The short answer

is that automobile deaths are for the most part accidental, while gun deaths are predominantly intentional. Attempting to frame the argument in such a way as to make both sets of circumstances an equally "serious public health and safety issue" as if they were were ALL accidental is disingenuous. It may have been lost in the telling, but that distinction was included in my response to the OP.

There is also the vast difference in the amount of vehicles in daily use, as opposed to the number of guns used on a daily basis. And then there is the exposure factor: millions of vehicles are "used" 24/7, mainly for transportation on public highways and roads, while guns are "used" infrequently (in comparison) in the public venue. That fact is seldom mentioned in the guns=vehicle death comparison. It would seem that if the numbers were weighted, gun deaths would be the hands-down winner percentage-wise.

It may be that a percentage of gun deaths are "justifiable homicide," but they remain as intentional deaths as opposed to accidental automobile deaths. If most gun deaths were "accidental," then the argument comparing them to automobile deaths might almost be apples-to-apples. You also conveniently overlooked the point I made about the differences in the portability of guns vs. automobiles. Very few crimes are committed, or heated confrontations are settled, at "car point."

The last sentence of your post sums up the attempt at the apples-to-oranges argument fairly well. To my way of thinking, a single preventable (intentional) death is a "problem." And yes, that includes criminal intent, suicide, self-defense, and stupidity.

And finally, this is not an "anti" post along the lines of the "with me or against me" standard fare for this forum. My complaint is with the use of misleading statistics to prove an otherwise honestly debatable point.

[Straw Man]

175. The shorter answer...

The short answer

is that automobile deaths are for the most part accidental, while gun deaths are predominantly intentional. Attempting to frame the argument in such a way as to make both sets of circumstances an equally "serious public health and safety issue" as if they were were ALL accidental is disingenuous.

...is that intention doesn't matter in public health and safety issues. Cancer is a public health issue. Is cancer intentional or accidental? It isn't either one. It just is. The only significant factor in public health is... the health of the public. Whatever threatens it is the problem that needs to be addressed.

What I find to be disingenuous is the attempt to make gun violence a public health issue in the first place. What we are really talking about here is criminal behavior, whether it be overt violence or culpable negligence. Society has mechanisms for dealing with this. They are called "laws." To my mind, the attempt to medicalize the issue is an overreach by medical professionals who fancy themselves social engineers. The criminal code and gun-safety education can address the behavioral issues. The prohibition model fails. See "War on Drugs."

And then there is the exposure factor: millions of vehicles are "used" 24/7, mainly for transportation on public highways and roads, while guns are "used" infrequently (in comparison) in the public venue.

And I would suggest to you that a gun owned for the purpose of self-defense is being "used" every time it leaves the gun safe. But in the end, doesn't the overall number of deaths define the scope of the problem?

To my way of thinking, a single preventable (intentional) death is a "problem."

Absolutely. What is debatable is the efficacy of various means of prevention.

[billh58]

176. Good points all, but

I maintain that equating an accidental death to an intentional death is neither a logical, nor an honest, comparison. As near as I can tell, there are only around ~800 accidental gun deaths per year, and over half of gun deaths are attributed to intentional suicide.

As for a gun carried for self-defense being "used" when it leaves the gun safe, I agree. Still, compared to the number of vehicles each of us directly come into contact with each day, exposure to concealed gun carriers is minuscule by comparison. As a percentage based on individual opportunity, guns kill far more people than vehicles.

I am not arguing for more gun restrictions, and fully agree that keeping firearms out of the hands of criminals requires vigorous enforcement of current laws. I disagree with your premise, however, that like death from cancer, or vehicle accidents, intentional death by gunshot "just is." That is the false premise that the OP puts forth by attempting to frame gun deaths as just another "public health" issue. Accidents and disease are NOT caused by the intent to harm on the part of an individual.

As you pointed out, society can hardly outlaw accidental death (except by negligence), or death from disease or other "natural" causes. But the failure to enforce existing laws and regulations pertaining to the use of firearms is, by itself, a criminal act, and definitely NOT a public health/safety statistic to be used as an excuse.

[Straw Man]

177. I think we may be agreeing more than we disagree.

I don't think gun deaths are a public health problem at all. Accidental gun deaths are a very small number, and can be dealt with through safety education. Gun death is overwhelmingly a crime and mental health issue. The former is dealt with via the criminal code and the latter is dealt with through existing mechanisms that focus on behavior rather than hardware.

[Common Sense Party]

171. I think we should outlaw fire.

Fire only has one purpose--to burn things.

And look how many things it burns down--houses, day care centers, hospitals, businesses, forests, etc.

Fire only consumes stuff, and there are some people who are irresponsible when it comes to fire. Whether accidentally or intentionally, they burn things down, they kill or disfigure people. 3500 people a year die in fires. Billions of dollars of property go up in smoke every year.

Fire is bad, because it occasionally causes unpleasant consequences. It burns stuff--and that is what it is supposed to do.

So we should ban fire. No one should be allowed to start, make or ignite any kind of fire, because of the potential damage it can do.

[X_Digger]

172. That reminds me of this quote..

A principal source of errors and injustice are false ideas of utility. For example: that legislator has false ideas of utility who considers particular more than general conveniencies, who had rather command the sentiments of mankind than excite them, and dares say to reason, `Be thou a slave’; who would sacrifice a thousand real advantages to the fear of an imaginary or trifling inconvenience; who would deprive men of the use of fire for fear of their being burnt, and of water for fear of their being drowned; and who knows of no means of preventing evil but by destroying it.

The laws of this nature are those which forbid to wear arms, disarming those only who are not disposed to commit the crime which the laws mean to prevent. Can it be supposed, that those who have the courage to violate the most sacred laws of humanity, and the most important of the code, will respect the less considerable and arbitrary injunctions, the violation of which is so easy, and of so little comparative importance? Does not the execution of this law deprive the subject of that personal liberty, so dear to mankind and to the wise legislator? and does it not subject the innocent to all the disagreeable circumstances that should only fall on the guilty? It certainly makes the situation of the assaulted worse, and of the assailants better, and rather encourages than prevents murder, as it requires less courage to attack unarmed than armed persons.

–Cesare Beccaria

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

180. W Churchill

"If you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed; if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a small chance of survival. There may even be a worse case: you may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves."

[X_Digger]

178. Another poster recently brought up the 'but guns are designed to kill' without explanation..

Thought this might prod conversation.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

179. re: 'but guns are designed to kill'

And I could bring up 'you say that like it's a bad thing'.

I do not believe in the death penalty.
I don't think I've struck anyone outside of a dojo since my age was in the single digits, (I'm 53.)

If someone threatened my life or, more particularly, my wife or daughters, either him or I would be immobile before I stopped fighting.
If I was appropriately armed, I would kill him as quickly and as efficiently as possible, without hesitation or mercy.

Those who would not kill in self-defense or to defend a weaker victim are cases of latent assisted suicide.

[X_Digger]

181. *nod* See my OP for a longer discussion..

I was just repeating what a poster said that made me think of this thread..

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

182. I read the OP.

I've heard the same or similar cases many times.
I am at such loss to say anything that has not already been said by those far wiser than I.

A few of my favorites:
John F. Kennedy: (NRA Life Member)
"Today, we need a nation of Minutemen, citizens who are not only prepared to take arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of their daily life and who are willing to consciously work and sacrifice for that freedom."
"By calling attention to 'a well regulated militia,' 'the security of the nation,' and the right of each citizen 'to keep and bear arms,' our founding fathers recognized the essentially civilian nature of our economy... The Second Amendment still remains an important declaration of our basic civilian-military relationships in which every citizen must be ready to participate in the defense of his country. For that reason I believe the Second Amendment will always be important." John F. Kennedy, Junior Senator of MA in a 1959 letter to E.B. Mann

Samuel Adams: (founder of the Sons of Liberty, 1765; Signer of the Declaration, 1776)
"If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen."

St. Augustine:
"Though defensive violence will always be 'a sad necessity' in the eyes of men of principle, it would be still more unfortunate if wrongdoers should dominate just men."

[rl6214]

183. Since an automobiles purpose is NOT to kill

and the fact that it does it SO OFTEN, you would figure that the focus should be on stopping all of those deaths, caused by a machine that is not meant to kill.

Guns are designed to kill and they do what they are designed to do very well. But the number of unlawfull or innocent deaths caused by a machine designed to do that is far less than those caused by a machine that IS desinged to kill.

[ileus]

190. pretty much everyone knows a guns job is to save lives, and enrich family time...

Guns are never meant to kill, only defend, and enjoy hunting, target, or competition sports.


Anyone that claims a guns job is to kill is sadly mistaken...these same people also claim guns are weapons.


They're just objects of enjoyment and some are safety devices.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

191. You need some help. n/t