New Zealand Mosque Shooting

[Danoff]

I fully understand your view and I would categorise guns for a higher threshold (what I essentially mean with stricter gunlaws) .

Yea, that's fine. But that's not what NZ is doing here. So again I gather you're in my camp in thinking that the NZ ban is wrong.

But there are also alternative ways to preserve your rights then using weapons designed for killing.

Like learning how to use a sword or something? Yea I prefer using a good tool for the job.

Killing is a violation of rights, but what is killing in selfdefense in your view?

Preservation of rights. Specifically, the defense of one person's rights (the defender) against someone who has forfeited theirs (the attacker).

the main point in this thread is that the potential upside, in my view, outweigh the downsides and also is much better then not acting at all.

Well aside from the "human rights" issue, we still have the issue of what the upside is. Semi-automatic rifles are not used nearly as often as other kinds of guns when it comes to murder. So the utilitarian calculus is pretty weird on this one.

Some guns are desgined for other purposes, like some cars.

The reason modern gun manufacturers design and build guns is to sell them. That's their (original) purpose, to fill a demand in the market. The reason people buy guns is all over the place. The "purpose" is really going to get you nowhere here.

 

[PocketZeven]

Your answer is the answer I already refuted? Nice, so that means you acknowledge guns are not too dangerous for the general public as they don't meet your criteria for things that are. Glad we agree on that.

Yes, what with "function" meaning "purpose" and all that jazz. How a thing works is pretty much integral to what it's used for.

We've been over this. The original purpose was to shoot flames. The first recorded use of delivering projectiles against live targets is some two centuries later.

Guns are not designed to kill, or kill efficiently, or kill lots of people - it's pretty hard to kill anyone at all with a gun. They're designed to deliver a projectile to a remote point, with the design depending on the type of projectile, how far away that point is, and how much of it you want the projectile to hit, and sometimes to look nice too.

The projectiles may be designed to kill, or kill efficiently, or kill lots, or kill slowly and horribly, or not kill. Guns don't just point at things and kill them. That's literally not how any of this works. It'd be nice if you'd try to understand what guns are and do.

Yeah, already answered that one for you yesterday, the first time you asked about the UK's gun control:

Yeah can redefine the purpose all you want, but that is not the thought of the ones who designed guns. I dont think I can really contribute to a conversation with you, since our views on a simple subject as the purpose of guns differ so much. I guess you live in another europe then I do.

I apologise for my bad memory by the way. I am not as young as I used to be.

I really think it is a gross misconception if you define the UK as a tyranny. It lacks nuance, but that is inherently what you believe in. I will respect, but not agree with those views.

Yea, that's fine. But that's not what NZ is doing here. So again I gather you're in my camp in thinking that the NZ ban is wrong.



Like learning how to use a sword or something? Yea I prefer using a good tool for the job.



Preservation of rights. Specifically, the defense of one person's rights (the defender) against someone who has forfeited theirs (the attacker).



Well aside from the "human rights" issue, we still have the issue of what the upside is. Semi-automatic rifles are not used nearly as often as other kinds of guns when it comes to murder. So the utilitarian calculus is pretty weird on this one.



The reason modern gun manufacturers design and build guns is to sell them. That's their (original) purpose, to fill a demand in the market. The reason people buy guns is all over the place. The "purpose" is really going to get you nowhere here.

I agree with the ban. But that is because I believe in the correlation we previously discussed. That does not mean I think your country should to.
That is a slipery slope, because punishing someones for violating someones rights by killing them is not what I ethically agree with.

I am speaking of the purpose of how guns came to be. Logically it can have many purposes defined by the user. Like I said, if you use a gun as a paperweight, then it is a paperweight for you. But the purpose of most guns is to kill or destroy where you poin it at.

Doesn't this then go against what you've been saying this whole time? It can't be that cars are designed for transport, but this particular car is not designed for transport.

I definitely agree that items of the same type can have different purposes through design or use, but you were arguing against this before.


Edit:

Bringing it back to guns, if they aren't necessarily designed for killing, then there should be ways facilitate their use without causing harm to people right? Even for something like a military style weapon, if it can only shoot at a gun range and only downrange, what reason is there to ban it?

Why not? The purpose of glasses are to see better, yet there are glasses that were designed to look more fashionable.

Ideally I would like that. If those guns are kept at the range to reduce the risk of misuse I cant see why not.

 

[PocketZeven]

double

 

[Danoff]

I agree with the ban. But that is because I believe in the correlation we previously discussed. That does not mean I think your country should to.
That is a slipery slope, because punishing someones for violating someones rights by killing them is not what I ethically agree with.

It wouldn't be punishment. It would be saving an innocent person from someone who had forfeit their rights. Lethal force if necessary.

I am speaking of the purpose of how guns came to be.

Which guns? My guns? Two of them came to be for the purpose of making money. All guns? Why would you want to know that? What bearing does someone's invention of a hand-held cannon for the purpose of fighting indigenous people have on the purpose of a semi-automatic rifle? Or for the purpose of shooting flames (depending on what you think a gun is).

Are you speaking of the specific technology used in current guns? The purpose is to make money. Seriously, you're not going to get anywhere with this "purpose" line of reasoning.

 

[PocketZeven]

It wouldn't be punishment. It would be saving an innocent person from someone who had forfeit their rights. Lethal force if necessary.



Which guns? My guns? Two of them came to be for the purpose of making money. All guns? Why would you want to know that? What bearing does someone's invention of a hand-held cannon for the purpose of fighting indigenous people have on the purpose of a semi-automatic rifle? Or for the purpose of shooting flames (depending on what you think a gun is).

Are you speaking of the specific technology used in current guns? The purpose is to make money. Seriously, you're not going to get anywhere with this "purpose" line of reasoning.

Sorry I meant in certain situations, like a break in or something non violent.

Designpurpose is quite logical. People however tend to interpret their own primary purpose to follow their narrative.(I know it sounds ironic) You were speaking about the purpose of the manufacturers though. I am talking about what primary purpose guns exist in our world. It is common sense that everyone can define its purpose according to their own use. But the main use of a weapon of war in general is to kill and incapicitate an enemy. It is the same for swords, tanks, grenades etc.

 

[Famine]

Yeah can redefine the purpose all you want

You keep circling this drain. Guns weren't invented to kill people, they were invented to shoot flames. Guns aren't built to kill people, they're built to fire projectiles. In fact guns can't kill people - unless the person wielding it is very strong and the person they're hitting with it is very fragile, or they catch them just right.

Guns are designed to deliver projectiles to a remote location, with the design itself depending on the type of projectile, where the location is, and what you want to happen when it gets there. And sometimes to look pretty when they do it.

The argument that guns are designed to kill people requires you to defend the notion that someone who has a gun and does not use it to kill someone is misusing the gun. Which you refuse to do.

but that is not the thought of the ones who designed guns.

You've run out of ways to rationally describe what you want and are now speaking for other people? Wow.

I guess you live in another europe then I do.

That you think where someone lives has a bearing on anything shouts volumes about how emotional and subjective your position is.

I apologise for my bad memory by the way. I am not as young as I used to be.

Nor is anyone. That's how linear time works.

I really think it is a gross misconception if you define the UK as a tyranny.

States which create laws - and thus use force - to deny rights are tyrannical.

It lacks nuance, but that is inherently what you believe in.

Nope. Been through this:

And as a quick rule of thumb for you, if you ask me if I believe something, the answer is no. I accept or don't accept, based on evidence.

I am talking about what primary purpose guns exist in our world.

85% of guns are never fired. 85% of those that are get fired at inanimate objects. The primary purpose is not killing people.

But the main use of a weapon of war in general is to kill and incapicitate an enemy.

And now we're invoking war!

 

[baldgye]

In fact guns can't kill people - unless the person wielding it is very strong and the person they're hitting with it is very fragile, or they catch them just right.

All those poor fragile Muslims

 

[Famine]

All those poor fragile Muslims

I suspect you've misinterpreted somehow.

Guns are not designed to kill, or kill efficiently, or kill lots of people - it's pretty hard to kill anyone at all with a gun. They're designed to deliver a projectile to a remote point, with the design depending on the type of projectile, how far away that point is, and how much of it you want the projectile to hit, and sometimes to look nice too.

The projectiles may be designed to kill, or kill efficiently, or kill lots, or kill slowly and horribly, or not kill. Guns don't just point at things and kill them. That's literally not how any of this works. It'd be nice if you'd try to understand what guns are and do.

 

[Danoff]

Designpurpose is quite logical. People however tend to interpret their own primary purpose to follow their narrative.(I know it sounds ironic) You were speaking about the purpose of the manufacturers though.

And the designer of those specific guns. Design and manufacture of a specific model of gun.

I am talking about what primary purpose guns exist in our world.

Which is why I gave you two answers. The reason they are made (to make money) and the reason they are bought (all kinds). Either can be attributed to why that gun exists "in our world".

But the main use of a weapon of war in general is to kill and incapicitate an enemy. It is the same for swords, tanks, grenades etc.

My guns are not weapons of war (well ok... the WWII guns are ). You're trying to smear a massive grouping of items (guns) into a single purpose based on, as best I can tell, the first one? But not really?

I mean, if a horseshoe is sold (to make money) to a person for use in a game (horseshoes), does that mean that because some earlier horseshoes were made to shoe horses that the purpose is to shoe horses?

Seriously, this is not going to get you anywhere.

 

[baldgye]

I suspect you've misinterpreted somehow.

Oh sorry, I thought you were talking about the massacre of 50 Muslims in New Zealand, not Amazon Prime.

 

[Famine]

Oh sorry, I thought you were talking about the massacre of 50 Muslims in New Zealand, not Amazon Prime.

I wasn't really addressing either, although I've no idea what Amazon Prime has to do with anything. The discussion was on the purpose of guns, with one user insisting they're designed to kill people. Which is patently false, as we know, because they very hard to kill with. A bayonet attachment would help, but then that's more a knife doing the job than the gun itself.

However some of the projectiles are designed to kill, at varying rates, and of course some are designed not to.

 

[BobK]

Yes target shooting is actually to train to kill you potential target better.

That is complete and utter bull excrement. I myself have punched a number of holes in paper with circular images imprinted on them and at no time did anybody think, least of all myself, that I was training to kill people.

Destroying a inanimate object equates to killing a lifeform.

So yes, you actually are equating punching holes in paper targets with killing.

Gee, a lot of people I know are killers by your definition, despite never having killed anyone.

Actually I've killed a number of lifeforms, but never with a gun. Most commonly with insecticides or fly swatters or things of that nature. But that gets me to thinking, should flyswatters be banned as well? After all, do they have any purpose other than to kill?

 

[Famine]

So yes, you actually are equating punching holes in paper targets with killing.

 

[Dennisch]

So yes, you actually are equating punching holes in paper targets with killing.

Assassination training.

 

[PocketZeven]

And the designer of those specific guns. Design and manufacture of a specific model of gun.



Which is why I gave you two answers. The reason they are made (to make money) and the reason they are bought (all kinds). Either can be attributed to why that gun exists "in our world".



My guns are not weapons of war (well ok... the WWII guns are ). You're trying to smear a massive grouping of items (guns) into a single purpose based on, as best I can tell, the first one? But not really?

I mean, if a horseshoe is sold (to make money) to a person for use in a game (horseshoes), does that mean that because some earlier horseshoes were made to shoe horses that the purpose is to shoe horses?

Seriously, this is not going to get you anywhere.

You are making my point. You decide what purpose a gun has for you personally, however guns were and still have the same design purpose. You can use any heavy object as a hammer, but that doesnt mean their primary design purpose was for hammering.

That is complete and utter bull excrement. I myself have punched a number of holes in paper with circular images imprinted on them and at no time did anybody think, least of all myself, that I was training to kill people.



So yes, you actually are equating punching holes in paper targets with killing.

Gee, a lot of people I know are killers by your definition, despite never having killed anyone.

Actually I've killed a number of lifeforms, but never with a gun. Most commonly with insecticides or fly swatters or things of that nature. But that gets me to thinking, should flyswatters be banned as well? After all, do they have any purpose other than to kill?

You choose your own purpose for it. Do you agree however that target shooting is for practicing shooting skills? I enjoy target shooting myself, but I guess because of how guns fit in our different cultures I am fully aware it is a dangerous weapon designed to kill. But like I said you decide its purpose for your own and dont disagree at all with your point of view

 

[Famine]

Edits do not alert users. This is why you should use the multiquote function.

I guess because of how guns fit in our different cultures I am fully aware it is a dangerous weapon designed to kill.

Where you live has no bearing on facts. This is, yet again, another example of how subjective your position is. Perhaps it's your culture that is preventing you from seeing guns objectively.

A gun is not designed to kill, unless the designer puts sharp points on it or something. It's designed to deliver a projectile to a remote point, with the gun's design depending on the type of projectile, distance of the point and what you want to happen. The projectile may be designed to kill, or it may be designed for other purposes (for instance the rubber bullets used in riot control, which go in regular firearms), but that's not the gun.

You are making my point.

He's really not.

 

[PocketZeven]

Edits do not alert users. This is why you should use the multiquote function.

Where you live has no bearing on facts. This is, yet again, another example of how subjective your position is. Perhaps it's your culture that is preventing you from seeing guns objectively.

A gun is not designed to kill, unless the designer puts sharp points on it or something. It's designed to deliver a projectile to a remote point, with the gun's design depending on the type of projectile, distance of the point and what you want to happen. The projectile may be designed to kill, or it may be designed for other purposes (for instance the rubber bullets used in riot control, which go in regular firearms), but that's not the gun.

He's really not.

So if I put on sharp points on a horseshoe it suddenly is weapon for killing? A gun throughout the history of its existence has been used (when in use) to kill. It isnt for you and that is ok. You can use a gun anyway you like, paperweight, hammer, delivering bullets etc. Delivering bullets is its describing how it kills. A sword cuts, a pen disposes ink, a car turns wheels with an engine. All nice and all, but not the purpose they were designed for. It is common sense.

PS: Like any tool/object there are always exceptions. Some guns are designed for display and some for sports. A gun like this is not designed to kill:


edit: an object/tool in one culture can have a different purpose in another culture.

 

[Famine]

So if I put on sharp points on a horseshoe it suddenly is weapon for killing?

No. Where did I say that it would be?

I said guns are not designed to kill. If they were, they'd be a more efficient shape for killing than they are, like having spikes on them rather than that daft barrel and the weird mechanisms inside. Getting sufficient force to kill someone with a gun is quite hard, because the shape is not ideal for it - although if you can catch someone right with the butt you can do some damage.

A gun throughout the history of its existence has been used (when in use) to kill.

A gun throughout the history of existence has almost never been used to kill. Sometimes it's used to deliver a projectile (which may be designed to kill) into a living creature with the purpose of killing it.

As you're now talking about what things are used for defining their purpose, I should repeat that 85% of all guns on the planet have never been fired, and 85% of those that have been fired have only been fired at inanimate objects. Guns used to shoot at things to kill them are the minority, and guns used to shoot at people to kill them are the minority even of that minority.

Delivering bullets is its describing how it kills. A sword cuts, a pen disposes ink, a car turns wheels with an engine. All nice and all, but not the purpose they were designed for.

You're getting so close to seeing it with your pen analogy that it's almost painful. The pen doesn't draw - it's the vector for drawing, as the ink it dispenses (disposes means "throws away") creates the drawing that the user chooses. A gun doesn't cause harm - it's the vector for causing harm, as the bullets it fires cause harm to what the user chooses.

Usually that's no harm. Most of the time when it is, it's to inanimate objects.

 

[PocketZeven]

No. Where did I say that it would be?

I said guns are not designed to kill. If they were, they'd be a more efficient shape for killing than they are, like having spikes on them rather than that daft barrel and the weird mechanisms inside. Getting sufficient force to kill someone with a gun is quite hard, because the shape is not ideal for it - although if you can catch someone right with the butt you can do some damage.

A gun throughout the history of existence has almost never been used to kill. Sometimes it's used to deliver a projectile (which may be designed to kill) into a living creature with the purpose of killing it.

As you're now talking about what things are used for defining their purpose, I should repeat that 85% of all guns on the planet have never been fired, and 85% of those that have been fired have only been fired at inanimate objects. Guns used to shoot at things to kill them are the minority, and guns used to shoot at people to kill them are the minority even of that minority.

You're getting so close to seeing it with your pen analogy that it's almost painful. The pen doesn't draw - it's the vector for drawing, as the ink it dispenses (disposes means "throws away") creates the drawing that the user chooses. A gun doesn't cause harm - it's the vector for causing harm, as the bullets it fires cause harm to what the user chooses.

Usually that's no harm. Most of the time when it is, it's to inanimate objects.

Sorry, you might be very intelligent, but now you are being ignorant. If the purpose for guns arent for killing, why do soldiers have them? If they are just for dispensing bullets and bullets are for killing, that means that the bullet was invented for killing and then the gun for dispensing? Did they used to throw them at people before using guns for delivery?

Lets say I agree with you. The vast majority of people that buy guns in the USA do buy them to kill things. (mostly defensive, as deterrent or hunting)

 

[BobK]

Sorry, you might be very intelligent, but now you are being ignorant. If guns arent for killing, why do soldiers have them?

Yes soldiers use guns to fire at the enemy with the intention of killing them (not literally true but close enough). that does not mean that is the sole or even primary purpose of guns in general. Nor is it the purpose for which it was invented; guns were used for two purposes at least before the first gun was fired at somebody so claiming otherwise is sheer wilful ignorance.

If they are just for dispensing bullets and bullets are for killing, that means that the bullet was invented for killing and then the gun for dispensing? Did they used to throw them at people before using guns for delivery?

Why yes, as a matter of fact:

 

[Exorcet]

Why not? The purpose of glasses are to see better, yet there are glasses that were designed to look more fashionable.

Right, but if the latter doesn't improve your vision, then its purpose isn't to let you see better. Similarly if someone uses glasses with corrective lenses only to change their appearance and not to alter their vision, then their purpose for the glasses is not to see better. Essentially, whatever the "purpose" of glasses is fails to have any significance.

Ideally I would like that. If those guns are kept at the range to reduce the risk of misuse I cant see why not.

The idea was more that they feature some kind of security system that would only let them fire at range. You could still take them anywhere, but they'd be unable to fire in most places. It seems like a good way to protect against gun misuse without unfairly punishing gun owners, with variations on the safing conditions depending on the intended use for the gun.

 

[PocketZeven]

Yes soldiers use guns to fire at the enemy with the intention of killing them (not literally true but close enough). that does not mean that is the sole or even primary purpose of guns in general. Nor is it the purpose for which it was invented; guns were used for two purposes at least before the first gun was fired at somebody so claiming otherwise is sheer wilful ignorance.



Why yes, as a matter of fact:
View attachment 814142

Rocks=bullets?

Its designpurpose was as a weapon. Is that perhaps more accurate for you?

 

[Famine]

Sorry, you might be very intelligent, but now you are being ignorant.

Mm hmm. Look at all the times I've changed my argument and dodged questions so that I don't have to address my highly emotionally charged beliefs regarding an item that I don't understand.

Oh, wait.

If guns arent for killing, why do soldiers have them?

To fire projectiles.

If they are just for dispensing bullets and bullets are for killing, that means that the bullet was invented for killing and then the gun for dispensing?

Yes.

Did they used to throw them at people before usiong guns?

What a truly odd question.

I don't know why I'm going to take the time to explain this, as it'll go completely ignored and we'll be back to "guns are designed to kill" in the very next post, but... the purpose of tools is to change the amount of force a person can physically deliver (both up and down). In order to attack or defend oneself, a person can only deliver a limited amount of force. Their hands/nails/fists, feet, forehead and teeth, are all limited by their own physical strength and using the body like this will generally cause harm to the individual in the process.

Weapons are tools that are designed to enhance the amount of force the person can deliver and cause physical harm in defence or attack. These likely started as things that were heavy and long. A heavy thing moving at the same speed as a light thing has more kinetic energy and thus causes more damage at impact. Move the heavy thing further away and you can move it faster for the same input force, resulting in more kinetic energy. A fist is less damaging than a hammer, which is less damaging than a sledgehammer, which is less damaging than a long handled sledgehammer.

Over time we developed sharp edges to cause more damage. A sharp thing causes more damage by increasing pressure. A force distributed over a large, flat area results in less pressure than the same force concentrated on a sharp edge or a point. A long handled sledgehammer is less damaging than a poleaxe of the same length and weight.

We also developed projectile weapons. These initially were just sharp or heavy (again, sharp or heavy = more damage) things that we threw, but again there was a limitation of physical strength. You can only throw so hard and so far. It's possible to increase that with tools - a slingshot increases your arm length and the speed a rock, while something like an atl atl does the same with spears. However we developed ways of exploiting potential energy. Pulling a bowstring, for example, allows you to store energy within the bow, resulting in a rapid discharge of energy into a projectile - the arrow. It's important to note that the slingshot, atl atl and bow all exist to change your physical characteristics, while the stone, spear and arrow are the actual weapons.

Still, you need strength for a bowstring, so we developed ways of making it easier. Pulleys allow you to draw a 200lbf bow with 50lbf of effort, while we also added mechanical systems to things like crossbows and ballistas to wind the device with very little physical effort, but still fire the projectile with the same force. They have a trigger mechanism, so that you can release the force when you want.

At the same time, these devices served a second purpose. Throw a spear and whether it hits or not depends on your skill. If you don't have the skill to aim the spear, it doesn't matter how much force it strikes with, because it won't deliver that force to the right place. A calibrated bow greatly reduces the chance of you missing - so long as you can assess the range and environmental factors like wind correctly, the arrow will strike within a couple of feet of where you want it, delivering the force where you want it.

Guns started off as probably a development of fireworks. They were simply tubes that shot flames, and not very far - around four feet. Combining that with spears - think of a bottle rocket with a knife on the top of it - and you got a fire lance. Now we have an important distinction. The tube is still the aiming device, and the spear is still the weapon, but now your muscles are not enhanced by leverage or used to store energy within the device. Now the energy store is chemical and it's part of the spear.

At some point over the 250 years after the original flame-spitting gun and the tube-with-a-bottle-rocket-in, someone put stuff inside the tube and it came out quickly, but not very accurately, making a sort of cross between a shotgun and a flamethrower - lots of noise, things and spread, plus fire. Over the course of centuries, this design adapted so that only the stuff came out of the tube. Rather than a big tube you put stuff in, the tube is only just about larger than the thing you put in it - there's still some flame, but now it's not the purpose, it's minimised somewhat. The result is the modern gun, but it's not significantly different in mechanism from the fire-lance. There's a trigger like a mechanical crossbow and sights like a calibrated bow.

If we zip right back to the caveman swinging a large, weighted stick, the caveman's mind is the aiming mechanism and force release mechanism, the caveman's muscles are the energy store that provides the force, and the end of the stick is the weapon. For the modern gun, the barrel and sight are the aiming mechanism, the trigger is the force release mechanism, the charge inside the round is the energy store that provides the force, and the bullet itself is the actual weapon.

But like other weapons, they're not much use without the right tool. A sledgehammer needs a person to provide the initial force which it can amplify - it does no damage while just sitting there. An arrow needs a bow, whether drawn or mechanically cocked, to provide the force which it can amplify - it does no damage while just sitting there. A fire lance needs a flame to provide the force which it can amplify - it does no damage while just sitting there. A bullet need striking to provide the force which it can amplify - it does no damage while just sitting there.


A gun itself is no use as a weapon. It needs to be loaded. If I gave you a gun to defend yourself against a zombie horde or a pack of wild dogs, you'd be utterly boned unless I gave you so bullets with it. The bullets on their own are difficult to use as a weapon, unless you could find some way of holding the casing while striking the cap - maybe hold them down with pliers while you use a nail taped to a toffee hammer to hit the firing cap - or you could chuck them on a fire until they got so hot they started firing off at random. You'd probably be crying out for the right tool to use them, just like if you had arrows with no bow.

Guns are designed as the vector for bullets. How they're designed depends on what the bullets are, and also where you want them to go - a sniper rifle you want to use to put a bullet in a six-inch wide target 3,000 yards away is considerably different from a shotgun that you want use to put pellets into literally everything that's 60 feet away.

The bullets are the actual weapon. They can be designed to bounce, splash on a surface, to just penetrate the surface and fragment to cause damage, to penetrate several inches of an object, to go through animal hide, to pierce metal, to pierce several inches of metal, and so on and so forth. There's bullets designed for paper targets, there's bullets designed for living targets, there's bullets designed for tanks, there's bullets designed to really, really, really hurt - and you don't want to use the wrong one for the purpose. Shoot a lightweight round at a paper target and it's good news, but shoot it at a charging hippo and it's bad news. An armour-piercing round will go right through a person, which sounds awesome but it won't actually impart the force on them - if you're wanting to put a criminal down you really need something that will stop on or in him in order to deliver all of the force to the criminal and not the wall behind the wall behind them.


To say "guns are designed to kill" chronically misunderstands everything to do with guns.

 

[PocketZeven]

To say "guns are designed to kill" chronically misunderstands everything to do with guns.

I think it is a cultural thing. You hang on tight to your definition of the design purpose of guns. But just delivering bullets was not goal or purpose the first shrapnel or other object with gunpowder. It was made for warfare.

1. Fireworks and firearms evolved seperately. gunpowder was both used as for entertainment/aestetics and also as a weapon of war.They serve 2 different purposes.
2. To define design purpose you need to look at the result you want with a certain tool.
3. Gunpowder was used to develop ranged weapon of war. Very specifically to harm/kill/ destroy the enemy. This is where modern guns are all based on.

 

[Famine]

Yep, wasted my time.

I think it is a cultural thing.

Where you live has no bearing on facts. This is, yet again, another example of how subjective your position is. Perhaps it's your culture that is preventing you from seeing guns objectively.

You hang on tight to your defition of the design purpose of guns.

Well, isn't that quite the ironic statement, given that you keep dodging between subjects to stick to the inherently flawed and proven false "designed to kill"?

But just delivering bullets was not goal or purpose the first shrapnel or other object with gunpowder. It was made for warfare.

Of course delivering bullets is the goal. The bullets are what impart the force. The bullet is the arrowhead, the tip of the spear, the face of the hammer and the end of the club. It's what causes the damage by imparting force - more than the human can manage on their own.

Guns would be crap at warfare if they didn't fire bullets. Dude.

1. Fireworks and firearms evolved seperately. gunpowder was both used as for entertainment/aestetics and also as a weapon of war.

Firearms developed from the fire-lance, which developed from fireworks. The fire-lance was literally a bottle rocket with a spear tip on the end of it.

2. To define design purpose you need to look at the result you want with a certain tool.

Yes, I did that in the long post I wasted my time on. I couldn't possibly have held your hand more as I walked through it, and you've just blasted past it like it wasn't there.

3. Gunpowder was used to develop ranged weapon of war. Very specifically to harm/kill/ destroy the enemy. This is where modern guns are all based on.

Gunpowder itself was developed as a medicine (huoyao - "fire medicine"), based on sulphur. It predates guns by some 250 years, although between the two it was subsequently used to make fireworks, flaming arrows and bombs. And fire lances.

I have literally no idea of the relevance of your statement, but guess what you find inside modern bullets and not guns?

 

[PocketZeven]

Unrelated to this thread, but more reasons why strict gun laws may prevent misuse and save lives.
Why I think guns are dangerous to posses as a right, without proper laws and oversight:

https://abcnews.go.com/US/child-accidentally-shoots-mother-shotgun-backseat-car/story?id=60588706

https://www.clickondetroit.com/news/national/georgia-boy-4-accidentally-shot-sister-authorities-say

 

[BobK]

Rocks=bullets?

Its designpurpose was as a weapon. Is that perhaps more accurate for you?

So we can add slings to the list of things you know nothing about

Slings have been used to throw lead bullets (and yes that's what they were called) back in Roman times and even earlier. Yes you can use rocks for ammo as well but there's a reason why people went to the trouble of casting lead bullets for slings. Can you guess what it is?

 

[Dotini]

Only the sword is unambiguously a weapon designed and built to kill men.
It appeared in Celtic Britain and Minoan Crete some time between 1500 and 1100 BC.

 

[BobK]

Only the sword is unambiguously a weapon designed and built to kill men.
It appeared in Celtic Britain and Minoan Crete some time between 1500 and 1100 BC.

And guns. Don't forget the guns, each and every one of which is a killing machine. Even that .177 match rifle I fired a while back, which would probably require the active cooperation of the victim to do lethal harm to them. Definitely a killing machine.

 

[PocketZeven]

So we can add slings to the list of things you know nothing about

Slings have been used to throw lead bullets (and yes that's what they were called) back in Roman times and even earlier. Yes you can use rocks for ammo as well but there's a reason why people went to the trouble of casting lead bullets for slings. Can you guess what it is?

And guns. Don't forget the guns, each and every one of which is a killing machine. Even that .177 match rifle I fired a while back, which would probably require the active cooperation of the victim to do lethal harm to them. Definitely a killing machine.

Slings are weapons to, like other ammo delivery system. They all have a common goal and designpurpose as weapons. But I dont think its productive to continue arguing if bullets, rocks, slings, bows or guns designed purpose are to kill.

I think at least there is common ground in that the majority of guns are bought to be used as weapons, but that not all people buy them to kill people. But without proper laws however, are very prone to misuse. Both accidental and as a weapon to murder.

Only the sword is unambiguously a weapon designed and built to kill men.
It appeared in Celtic Britain and Minoan Crete some time between 1500 and 1100 BC.

One could argue that it evolved from knives as a tool to cut meat, cloth etc, Like I keep hearing guns evolved from fireworks. Which are tools with different purposes.
But I agree that the sword as we know it, like katanas, broadswords were purposefully designed to kill. Just like other weapons which were designed with battle/war/conflict in mind. I dont understand how one can argue they arent.