New Zealand Mosque Shooting

[Danoff]

I reallyt do understand your perspective, but what do you call the reason why the toothbrush was invented?

I don't know why the toothbrush was invented. I could probably narrow it down for you. It might have been to brush teeth, or to help people brush teeth. Or it might have been to make money. The modern toothbrush, the one you'd buy at the store, was invented by probably hundreds of people contributing small elements, and each of them may have had their own motive for it.

What does any of their reasoning have to do with anything else though?

The gun in the pic is obviously an exception.

That's why I posted it.

 

[Famine]

I don't know why the toothbrush was invented. I could probably narrow it down for you. It might have been to brush teeth, or to help people brush teeth. Or it might have been to make money. The modern toothbrush, the one you'd buy at the store, was invented by probably hundreds of people contributing small elements, and each of them may have had their own motive for it.

And it's a fabulous, easily-accessible murder weapon if you're a prisoner.

 

[BobK]

Irrelevant to whom? For the user, seller and pretty much everyone else it is. I dont exclude use of that glass to drinking though,. It is its primary usecase. One could use it as art or for storage etc. But the majority use it for drinking.

It should be pointed out here that the majority of gun owners do not use them for killing people. So by your own logic, guns are not primarily for killing.

 

[Imari]

I don't think you're misusing the concept of "design purpose" or "usecase", but they're not well defined enough to actually use for guns, especially for gun legislation. It's like saying guns are beautiful. I mean, sure that's a word, and it's used correctly there, but it's opinion and not fact. Perhaps is your "opinion" that the design purpose is what it is, but I think I've demonstrated that it's not fact, and that there are so many ways to interpret that that there is no such thing as a right answer to that question.

I think for any specific gun model one could answer the question of "why was this gun designed this way?", if only by going and asking the actual designer/designers what they had in mind. However, the answers are going to vary as widely as all the different uses that guns can be made for.

Trying to cull that down to a single design philosophy to cover all guns is always going to result in misrepresentation. "Guns" is too broad a category to have a single narrow design philosophy applied to it.

For example, I enjoy watching a Youtube channel called Forgotten Weapons. It's largely about the design of odd firearms, and the host regularly discusses why a certain firearm was designed in a certain way, whether that be for the use they had in mind, to circumvent certain patents, to attempt to improve and evolve current designs, or whatever. It's cool because you get to see a lot of gun designs that didn't become mainstream, and with the clarity of hindsight it's often pretty obvious why.

 

[Tornado]

Forgotten Weapons is the shizz but he needs to find a 6 Unica to explain.

 

[PocketZeven]

It should be pointed out here that the majority of gun owners do not use them for killing people. So by your own logic, guns are not primarily for killing.

I don’t mean killing people, but killing in general. As a deterrent it helps because the potential criminal fears he might be killed by such a weapon.for hunting it is used to kill animals. There of course exceptions. Don’t take my opinion as black and white. Some people here seem to translate me saying “guns are designed primarily for killing” (I am dropping “purpose” because I used it incorrectly before) to “guns are only for killing” which misrepresents what I said. Like toothbrushes are primarily meant for brushing teeth, but can be used as a cleaning tool or even a shank.

 

[ryzno]

Like toothbrushes are primarily meant for brushing teeth, but can be used as a cleaning tool or even a shank

With that said, is it the tool or the person?
And what you know about shanks?

 

[Tornado]

Some people here seem to translate me saying “guns are designed primarily for killing” (I am dropping “purpose” because I used it incorrectly before) to “guns are only for killing” which misrepresents what I said.

I'm confused. Weren't you the one who tried to push that argument about killing so far that you said "target shooting = "kill" or destroy target"?



Don't get me wrong: I find the "guns aren't even really that dangerous by themselves" line of logic to be a bit tortured myself, but you do yourself no favors when you absolutely make an argument that appears (language barrier notwithstanding) to mean a certain thing and then argue that you are being misrepresented when people respond to that thing.

 

[PocketZeven]

With that said, is it the tool or the person?
And what you know about shanks?

Both. A dangerous tool can magnify the dangerous person. For example a gun can cause more damage then a knife.

I don’t know much about shanks. I was referring to @Famine ’s comment.

I'm confused. Weren't you the one who tried to push that argument about killing so far that you said "target shooting = "kill" or destroy target"?



Don't get me wrong: I find the "guns aren't even really that dangerous by themselves" line of logic to be a bit tortured myself, but you do yourself no favors when you absolutely make an argument that appears (language barrier notwithstanding) to mean a certain thing and then argue that you are being misrepresented when people respond to that thing.

Correct, but one can use a gun as a paperweight if one wishes. I mean one could use a military tank (designed for warfare) as a daily driver, but I think the risk of misuse is much too high to have it freely available without very strict restrictions protected by law. I am trying to be consistent, however my opinion has repeatedly been represented as me claiming guns are only for killing. Which Is incorrect.

Edit:

I think for any specific gun model one could answer the question of "why was this gun designed this way?", if only by going and asking the actual designer/designers what they had in mind. However, the answers are going to vary as widely as all the different uses that guns can be made for.

Trying to cull that down to a single design philosophy to cover all guns is always going to result in misrepresentation. "Guns" is too broad a category to have a single narrow design philosophy applied to it.

For example, I enjoy watching a Youtube channel called Forgotten Weapons. It's largely about the design of odd firearms, and the host regularly discusses why a certain firearm was designed in a certain way, whether that be for the use they had in mind, to circumvent certain patents, to attempt to improve and evolve current designs, or whatever. It's cool because you get to see a lot of gun designs that didn't become mainstream, and with the clarity of hindsight it's often pretty obvious why.

I enjoy that channel too! Especially civil war weapons. To clarify my views in an ideal world guns could be used recreationally for collecting, re-enactment and target shooting, however one does require proper training to safely handle such a dangerous tool. The risk of misuse is much higher with a gun then for example a knife. A gun is a much better weapon then other hand to hand weapons, because it was designed that way. That doesn’t mean I was saying that everybody who buys one want to kill. Like I referred to above, one could use it as paperweight if one wants too. But the risk of misuse by a crazy person, child or self harm is too high to have guns available without proper restrictions, training and licensing.