Shooting at Empire State Building.

[Famine]

I think you neither misused them nor used it correctly.

What was incorrect in my use?

I observed all of the safety requirements of firearm use and behaved responsibly, never pointing the hole at the end at anything I wasn't perfectly satisfied to see destroyed. My aim was slightly off, but nothing in my operation was incorrect.

So what was incorrect in the 200+ times I used a gun to deliver a projectile to a remote target and not kill anything?

A bloke who decides to blow someone's head out using one doesn't misuse it either, does he? It's illegal, yes, but the gun does what the guy firing it wants it to do.

Let's requote that with a variety of different implements:

A bloke who decides to stove someone's head in using one doesn't misuse it either, does he? It's illegal, yes, but the shovel does what the guy swinging it wants it to do.

A bloke who decides to cut someone's head off using one doesn't misuse it either, does he? It's illegal, yes, but the axe does what the guy swinging it wants it to do.

A bloke who decides to stab someone's eyes out using one doesn't misuse it either, does he? It's illegal, yes, but the knife does what the guy wielding it wants it to do.

A bloke who decides to cut someone's heart out using one doesn't misuse it either, does he? It's illegal, yes, but the tea cup does what the guy holding it wants it to do.

A bloke who decides to run someone over using one doesn't misuse it either, does he? It's illegal, yes, but the car does what the guy driving it wants it to do.

Yes, someone using a gun to kill someone is misusing it. The gun's job is to deliver a projectile to a remote target - like an axe's purpose is to cut through substances and a car's is to convey its occupants between locations.

They're all tools that serve to amplify the force a human can normally manage. Subverting that purpose to take a human life is misuse (except in self-defence - you should be permitted to use whatever force you have to hand to preserve your rights).


* Bonus points for spotting the reference in the second last one.

 

[CSLACR]

"I'll kill you with my tea cup".

Shooting where cops kill most of the people always grabs my attention. Fortunately we have the sound minds around here that know for certain death and murder are impossible without guns, or even happen less often without guns.

Without guns, you have to fight the criminals hand-to-hand. I guess nobody thinks of it that way.(Yet)

 

[Exorcet]

Without guns, you have to fight the criminals hand-to-hand. I guess nobody thinks of it that way.(Yet)

They'll take the faucet off the sink before they use their hands.

 

[Ridox2JZGTE]

Crossbow, the silent deadly weapon comes to mind, then throwing knives, machete, dagger and so many other weapons that can kill easily. I guess it's all in the mind, and the willingness to do it. The means are just that.

 

[Strittan]

What was incorrect in my use?

I observed all of the safety requirements of firearm use and behaved responsibly, never pointing the hole at the end at anything I wasn't perfectly satisfied to see destroyed. My aim was slightly off, but nothing in my operation was incorrect.

So what was incorrect in the 200+ times I used a gun to deliver a projectile to a remote target and not kill anything?

Let's requote that with a variety of different implements:

Yes, someone using a gun to kill someone is misusing it. The gun's job is to deliver a projectile to a remote target - like an axe's purpose is to cut through substances and a car's is to convey its occupants between locations.

They're all tools that serve to amplify the force a human can normally manage. Subverting that purpose to take a human life is misuse (except in self-defence - you should be permitted to use whatever force you have to hand to preserve your rights).

* Bonus points for spotting the reference in the second last one.

I knew it was stupid of me to disagree with you. I surrender, you win.

You misunderstood me though, but I don't blame you. I'll just say I didn't mean you used it incorrectly.

 

[Famine]

I knew it was stupid of me to disagree with you. I surrender, you win.

And it's all thanks to the gun I keep as a deterrent.

 

[lbsf1]

And it's all thanks to the gun I keep as a deterrent.

I know I'm digging myself a grave by questioning what you said, however.

If an item does a job (gun killing someone, knife killing someone) then surely it is useful at doing that and thus doing so is a use of that item. Legally speaking it is misuse, however practically if it does the job then is it misuse.

If you say a use of an item is what it was designed for then what about items where their marketed use is different to the designed use (mouthwash wasn't designed as mouthwash.), is that misuse?? If an item does any job well then is it misuse?? After all all it is is atoms in a certain arrangement, can you misuse atoms??

A gun only does one thing, shoot projectile, as does an axe (cut object), so therefore the gun has done its use whatever the object hits.

Even if you hit someone with gun (pistolwhip) then I would consider that not misuse since the item is effective at that use.

My argument isn't a legal standpoint (yours is much closer to that) mine is more of a logical point of view (to me it is logical anyway.)

 

[CSLACR]

They'll take the faucet off the sink before they use their hands.

Hand-to-hand refers to pretty much anything without a gun doesn't it?

I know I'm digging myself a grave by questioning what you said, however.

If an item does a job (gun killing someone, knife killing someone) then surely it is useful at doing that and thus doing so is a use of that item. Legally speaking it is misuse, however practically if it does the job then is it misuse.

If you say a use of an item is what it was designed for then what about items where their marketed use is different to the designed use (mouthwash wasn't designed as mouthwash.), is that misuse?? If an item does any job well then is it misuse?? After all all it is is atoms in a certain arrangement, can you misuse atoms??

A gun only does one thing, shoot projectile, as does an axe (cut object), so therefore the gun has done its use whatever the object hits.

Even if you hit someone with gun (pistolwhip) then I would consider that not misuse since the item is effective at that use.

My argument isn't a legal standpoint (yours is much closer to that) mine is more of a logical point of view (to me it is logical anyway.)

No, you're 100% correct from a logical standpoint.
Guns are also at times, built solely for the use of killing too.

Last I checked this wasn't built just for target practice or hunting.

Of course none of this means guns are evil and should be banned.

 

[JediRage]

I was reading about the Colorado 'TDKR' Movie shooting and some commenter said that if the people in the movie were 'carrying' the shooter wouldn't have been able to kill so many people.

That's a very simplistic stand. If you hear gunshots in a dark theatre and hear retaliatory gunfire from another direction, how do you know which one came from the original shooter? It would become a cluster-**** very soon.

 

[Famine]

I know I'm digging myself a grave by questioning what you said, however.

My argument isn't a legal standpoint (yours is much closer to that) mine is more of a logical point of view (to me it is logical anyway.)

You need to reduce the jobs they do to a simpler basis.

They, as with all tools, are a device made by people (and sometimes we need other tools to make these tools) to amplify the power they have. It's really difficult to pull a tree down and break it apart into usable chunks with your bare hands, but really easy with an axe*.

You can easily see that axes are useful and why they were useful. Our ancestors needed to cut down trees to make shelter and to make fire (for cooking and for smelting) and to protect themselves from animals.

Now we enter the land of misuse. Why is using the axe for its purpose - concentrating and increasing the force available to us - to cut down a tree a suitable use of the axe, but to cut off a guy's arm "misuse"? Rights (and no, I don't mean "laws") tell us that we may act to preserve ourselves and our survival - or indeed in any manner of our own choosing - but not at the expense of the survival of another individual in absence of threat from them. So we can use the axe to cut things up (so long as they're our things, or things that have no owner), because that preserves ourselves and our survival. We can use the axe to defend ourselves from wolves (even if they wolves owned by someone else), because that preserves ourselves and our survival. But we can't use the axe to go and cut someone up and take their trees because we do so at the expense of their survival in the absence of threat from them. Using the axe to ignore rights is a misuse, using it in accordance with them is a valid use.

And so, guns. The gun is a tool for amplifying force in the form of a projectile of small weight delivered at high speed. We can use it to shoot paper targets depicting Magneto (no-one's survival is threatened), or at deer if they have no owner or if the owner permits us to (no-one's survival is threatened), or at a guy coming at us with a chainsaw (to defend our ourselves and our survival), but not to shoot some dick we work with because he's a dick. Even the gun CSLACR posted would be misused if for killing without direct threat.

Using a tool to kill an individual without any threat to our own survival is a misuse. Using a tool in accordance with rights is a valid use**.


*With your bare fingers you can probably manage around 5lb equivalent of force, scratching at something. Using your entire body to swing an axe you can generate 200lb equivalent of force and concentrate it on a 12" long, thousandths-thick spot. That's quite the increase.

** You can change TV channels with an axe or gun if you wish and if no-one's survival is threatened. It'd be a profoundly moronic and irresponsible use though.

 

[Exorcet]

Hand-to-hand refers to pretty much anything without a gun doesn't it?

I was playing with words a little, though at the same time bringing up a point. Removing (as in -poof- gone, not banning) guns probably won't significantly disarm criminals. They'll always have weapons.

And the step down from guns probably won't be hand to hand, but bows, explosives, etc. You could manufacture these from house hold items.

Last I checked this wasn't built just for target practice or hunting.

Of course none of this means guns are evil and should be banned.

Even with military weapons, the point is not always to kill. A good example is the nuclear bomb which has been purely used as a deterrent since WWII and could be considered one of the reasons why there was no WWIII.

If you overwhelm the enemy with superior technology, you could avoid the fight. That's one of the reason to have stealth aircraft despite the potency of older fighters and bombers against most militaries. It's also why guns are useful in a world of fists, knives, and spears.

 

[CSLACR]

I was playing with words a little, though at the same time bringing up a point. Removing (as in -poof- gone, not banning) guns probably won't significantly disarm criminals. They'll always have weapons.

And the step down from guns probably won't be hand to hand, but bows, explosives, etc. You could manufacture these from house hold items.

I agree. I'd be trying to fight a guy with a weapon and I wouldn't have a gun. I'd be in extra danger.

Even with military weapons, the point is not always to kill. A good example is the nuclear bomb which has been purely used as a deterrent since WWII and could be considered one of the reasons why there was no WWIII

So because it hasn't been used to kill in a while, it's purpose of design has changed? I disagree.
The nuclear bomb was designed with the sole intent of killing mass quantities in a single blow. Current use of it means nothing for it's design.

If you overwhelm the enemy with superior technology, you could avoid the fight. That's one of the reason to have stealth aircraft despite the potency of older fighters and bombers against most militaries. It's also why guns are useful in a world of fists, knives, and spears.

And to overwhelm the enemy with superior technology, you need weapons designed to do what?
Give the enemy a spanking?

I agree that guns are a good thing and we should have them.
I do not agree that guns weren't designed to kill. Target practice was not on the mind of the designer/builder of the first gun, no sir. Target practice is for practicing your aim, for when/if you need to shoot something. Be it an animal or human, these are the things a gun does better than other tools.

Sure, I could pistol whip someone, but a baseball bat does the job better. Much like using the above axe to change channels, just because you can, doesn't mean it's the intended purpose at the time of design or the best use of it.

Famine was very close when he said "designed to shoot a projectile etc, etc".
Guns were designed to place a projectile into or through something in hopes of killing it.

 

[Famine]

I do not agree that guns weren't designed to kill.

Famine was very close when he said "designed to shoot a projectile etc, etc".
Guns were designed to place a projectile into or through something in hopes of killing it.

Then everyone who uses one not to kill something with it is misusing the technology - and people who murder with them are using them correctly, but illegally.

 

[lbsf1]

You need to reduce the jobs they do to a simpler basis.

They, as with all tools, are a device made by people (and sometimes we need other tools to make these tools) to amplify the power they have. It's really difficult to pull a tree down and break it apart into usable chunks with your bare hands, but really easy with an axe*.

You can easily see that axes are useful and why they were useful. Our ancestors needed to cut down trees to make shelter and to make fire (for cooking and for smelting) and to protect themselves from animals.

Now we enter the land of misuse. Why is using the axe for its purpose - concentrating and increasing the force available to us - to cut down a tree a suitable use of the axe, but to cut off a guy's arm "misuse"? Rights (and no, I don't mean "laws") tell us that we may act to preserve ourselves and our survival - or indeed in any manner of our own choosing - but not at the expense of the survival of another individual in absence of threat from them. So we can use the axe to cut things up (so long as they're our things, or things that have no owner), because that preserves ourselves and our survival. We can use the axe to defend ourselves from wolves (even if they wolves owned by someone else), because that preserves ourselves and our survival. But we can't use the axe to go and cut someone up and take their trees because we do so at the expense of their survival in the absence of threat from them. Using the axe to ignore rights is a misuse, using it in accordance with them is a valid use.

And so, guns. The gun is a tool for amplifying force in the form of a projectile of small weight delivered at high speed. We can use it to shoot paper targets depicting Magneto (no-one's survival is threatened), or at deer if they have no owner or if the owner permits us to (no-one's survival is threatened), or at a guy coming at us with a chainsaw (to defend our ourselves and our survival), but not to shoot some dick we work with because he's a dick. Even the gun CSLACR posted would be misused if for killing without direct threat.

Using a tool to kill an individual without any threat to our own survival is a misuse. Using a tool in accordance with rights is a valid use**.


*With your bare fingers you can probably manage around 5lb equivalent of force, scratching at something. Using your entire body to swing an axe you can generate 200lb equivalent of force and concentrate it on a 12" long, thousandths-thick spot. That's quite the increase.

** You can change TV channels with an axe or gun if you wish and if no-one's survival is threatened. It'd be a profoundly moronic and irresponsible use though.

I fully see your point however I dissagree with it.

Legally speaking your examples are misuse of an axe or gun, however to me they are just uses, uses that we have decided (laws and human rights) that shouldn't be done.

Me shooting someone with a gun is a completely valid use of a gun, the gun has done the job very and is good at this use. In my opinion laws come after this, you will get charged with murder for that use of a gun.

Same with drugs and "misuse" of drugs. If I take cocaine and are caught then it is commonly called misuse of drugs. However is it, you decided to use the drugs for a certain purpose of which they did very well at that use. The fact that it is judged wrong for you to have taken those drugs doesn't make it misuse of them.

I do feel that this is an issue where it is all about opinion and there is no right answer. Your view see's the lawful and rightful aspects when calling an action misuse or not. In my opinion I think that any action is use of that object, it may be a good use or bad use depending on how adept the object is at that use, however if you have chosen to use an object for a reason then it isn't misuse, laws may call it misuse however I dissagree with that term.

 

[CSLACR]

Then everyone who uses one not to kill something with it is misusing the technology - and people who murder with them are using them correctly, but illegally.

Not quite.
If you hit someone with the butt of a gun that's not the intended purpose, surely you know that though. It would need to fire projectiles at murderous speeds to do that at all would it?
Target practice is just that - Practice for when/if you shoot something.

Of course you're also neglecting the word "design".
Just because it's illegal to shoot someone in the street doesn't mean a gun isn't designed to kill things. It means it's illegal to use them as designed on innocent people.

It's not illegal to shoot someone in war, does that suddenly change the purpose of design back to killing things?

Same with drugs and "misuse" of drugs. If I take cocaine and are caught then it is commonly called misuse of drugs. However is it, you decided to use the drugs for a certain purpose of which they did very well at that use. The fact that it is judged wrong for you to have taken those drugs doesn't make it misuse of them.

That's a great example. Particularly because with drugs like cocaine, there is no legal use of them at all.
Just because the news crew or police called it "misuse" doesn't mean it wasn't used as the design intended.

 

[Exorcet]

So because it hasn't been used to kill in a while, it's purpose of design has changed? I disagree.
The nuclear bomb was designed with the sole intent of killing mass quantities in a single blow. Current use of it means nothing for it's design.

The original purpose was actually deterrence in a way, as Japan was warned to surrender, twice.

It has nothing to do with what has happened over time, the bomb is a great deterrent.

And to overwhelm the enemy with superior technology, you need weapons designed to do what?
Give the enemy a spanking?

To inflict damage of some kind, be it death, something that completely disables their weapons, or an economy crippling computer virus.

I haven't said that no gun was ever designed to kill, but I did say that even military weapons might not be designed to kill. It's not as clear cut as that, and even killing is not a bad thing. It's not like it's evil to shoot someone who is attempting to harm someone else.

Famine was very close when he said "designed to shoot a projectile etc, etc".
Guns were designed to place a projectile into or through something in hopes of killing it.

The killing part there isn't truly accurate, especially when talking about guns as a whole. It might apply to specific guns, but not guns in general.

 

[Famine]

I fully see your point however I dissagree with it.

Legally speaking your examples are misuse of an axe or gun

Nope. I very clearly stated that I wasn't referring to law in any way.

Rights (and no, I don't mean "laws")

I also linked you to the relevant thread so you wouldn't make that error.

Me shooting someone with a gun is a completely valid use of a gun, the gun has done the job very and is good at this use.

Then mowing you down with my car is a completely valid use of the car.

Which, of course, it isn't. Unless you're threatening me with an axe, in which case I can use whatever force I have to hand to preserve my existence. And you won't find that in our statute books because it's not there - I'm not talking about laws.

Same with drugs and "misuse" of drugs. If I take cocaine and are caught then it is commonly called misuse of drugs. However is it, you decided to use the drugs for a certain purpose of which they did very well at that use. The fact that it is judged wrong for you to have taken those drugs doesn't make it misuse of them.

You're back on law again. I will state that there is no rights issue with using drugs of any kind.

Something is misused when its purpose is subverted. The purpose of a gun is to deliver a projectile to a remote target. To use one to violate rights (not laws) is a misuse.

Not quite.
If you hit someone with the butt of a gun that's not the intended purpose, surely you know that though. It would need to fire projectiles at murderous speeds to do that at all would it?

This makes no sense. You stated that the purpose of a gun is to kill:

Guns were designed to place a projectile into or through something in hopes of killing it.

By that argument, anyone using one not to kill is using it improperly. If you do not accept this, your argument needs rethinking.

Target practice is just that - Practice for when/if you shoot something.

Like... competition targets?

Of course you're also neglecting the word "design".
Just because it's illegal to shoot someone in the street doesn't mean a gun isn't designed to kill things. It means it's illegal to use them as designed on innocent people.

This also makes little sense. Let's try that with axes again:

Just because it's illegal to chop up someone in the street doesn't mean an axe isn't designed to kill things. It means it's illegal to use them as designed on innocent people.

Would seem to be a rather irrelevant argument that addresses no points.

It's not illegal to shoot someone in war, does that suddenly change the purpose of design back to killing things?

Nope. I already addressed that though:

Even the gun CSLACR posted would be misused if for killing without direct threat.

That's a great example. Particularly because with drugs like cocaine, there is no legal use of them at all.

It's a terrible example. There is no rights violation from putting drugs into your own body - it just happens to be largely illegal, depending on the drug. There's no such thing as a misuse, except in law. That's one of the reasons I didn't bring law into it at all (except to debunk the point that not killing with a gun is a misuse of one).

 

[photonrider]

My Staple Gun does a fine job. And my Glue gun. too.

Same principle: every action has an equal and opposite reaction - which also gave us the rocket to the Moon.

Any other news on what the actual gun was that this guy had? And the fact that it jammed - is that confirmed?

 

[CSLACR]

The original purpose was actually deterrence in a way, as Japan was warned to surrender, twice.

It has nothing to do with what has happened over time, the bomb is a great deterrent.


To inflict damage of some kind, be it death, something that completely disables their weapons, or an economy crippling computer virus.

I haven't said that no gun was ever designed to kill, but I did say that even military weapons might not be designed to kill. It's not as clear cut as that, and even killing is not a bad thing. It's not like it's evil to shoot someone who is attempting to harm someone else.



The killing part there isn't truly accurate, especially when talking about guns as a whole. It might apply to specific guns, but not guns in general.

Fundamental misunderstanding here.

Guns (the first) were absolutely designed for that purpose.
Just because we design different types and uses today doesn't change the design intention of guns as a whole.

In fact, that's all you and Famine have really said so far on this matter, simply saying just because you can use them for something else automatically means the design is for whatever you decide.
That doesn't make any sense to me. There have been plenty of examples, I'm pretty sure if we haven't agreed by now there isn't much to say left.

Using something for a different purpose than it's original design, doesn't change the purpose of said original design. End of story.

One last time, I can use my keyboard as a surf board, so is my keyboard designed for surfing?
What if it's a good use?
I have a large floor jack with a long handle that extends, I could use that handle to beat someone to death, among other things, and it would work very well.
Are jack handles designed to kill? I think not.

The purpose of a gun is to deliver a projectile to a remote target.

Wrong. UPS delivers.
Show me a video of a bullet just "delivered" (by a gun) without injuring/killing/harming/breaking what it hits and you have something to talk about.

 

[Exorcet]

Fundamental misunderstanding here.

Guns (the first) were absolutely designed for that purpose.
Just because we design different types and uses today doesn't change the design intention of guns as a whole.

In fact, that's all you and Famine have really said so far on this matter, simply saying just because you can use them for something else automatically means the design is for whatever you decide.
That doesn't make any sense to me. There have been plenty of examples, I'm pretty sure if we haven't agreed by now there isn't much to say left.

Using something for a different purpose than it's original design, doesn't change the purpose of said original design. End of story.

Well, you can't compare the original gun to say a modern BB gun. They're both guns, but the latter doesn't even have the power to kill ordinarily, so it certainly could not be designed to kill. They are two different things despite both being guns.

 

[lbsf1]

Nope. I very clearly stated that I wasn't referring to law in any way.



I also linked you to the relevant thread so you wouldn't make that error.

Yes I saw that, however I don't believe whether it is use or "misuse" of an object is anything to do with whether it is right or wrong.

Then mowing you down with my car is a completely valid use of the car.

Which, of course, it isn't. Unless you're threatening me with an axe, in which case I can use whatever force I have to hand to preserve my existence. And you won't find that in our statute books because it's not there - I'm not talking about laws.

Yes it would be a valid use of a car, it would also be a good use since the car would do a very good job of mowing me down. As I said above I don't believe that whether a use is right or wrong has any effect on whether it is a valid use. Your car can mow me down so therefore it is a valid use of your car to mow me down.

You're back on law again. I will state that there is no rights issue with using drugs of any kind.

Something is misused when its purpose is subverted. The purpose of a gun is to deliver a projectile to a remote target. To use one to violate rights (not laws) is a misuse.

I dissagree. The outcome (whether it affects someones rights) of the use has nothing to do with the validity of the use. The gun isn't misused, the gun has done its job of shooting the projectile and in this case was aimed at a person, the fact that it was aimed at a person doesn't make the use invalid since the gun would have shot whatever was in the way. If I aimed for someone and missed is that a "misuse" as you would call it?? since it didn't take anyones rights. The use of the gun has nothing to do with what it hits. The gun does the same job no matter what.



I realise what your argument says and it makes complete sense, however I don't believe it is correct. If you reply could you specify whether you understand my argument but dissagree.

Each time you reply I'm just having to repeat the same thing, you believe that whether the action is effecting someones rights means that it is missuse. I believe that rights have no effect on whether its misuse or not. We each have different believes on this subject

You can't argue that a gun isn't a good way of killing someone, it is very effective at that use. There is no misuse, just how a person has chosen to use it, they didn't misuse the gun, they had an intention of how to use it and used that way, they was no misuse of it. I'm not saying that shooting someone is right, just that it isn't misuse.

 

[CSLACR]

Well, you can't compare the original gun to say a modern BB gun. They're both guns, but the latter doesn't even have the power to kill ordinarily, so it certainly could not be designed to kill. They are two different things despite both being guns.

But we started by talking about the design of "guns".
Not "certain guns" or how things can be used, or might be used.

This started with "the design of guns".
"Guns" as a whole are designed to injure/kill. Find whatever reasoning, purpose, laws, rights, morals, whatever you like, none of it has the power to change the purpose of design.
The purpose of their design was set in stone when they were designed.

 

[Famine]

In fact, that's all you and Famine have really said so far on this matter, simply saying just because you can use them for something else automatically means the design is for whatever you decide.

Uh... no? That's the argument of the "I can point a gun at something alive so guns are for killing" lobby.

Using something for a different purpose than it's original design, doesn't change the purpose of said original design. End of story.

Indeed. Killing things with guns doesn't change the fact they're designed just as a tool to increase force (in this instance to deliver a projectile to a remote target with significant additional force).

Wrong. UPS delivers.
Show me a video of a bullet just "delivered" (by a gun) without injuring/killing/harming/breaking what it hits and you have something to talk about.

Why? Show me a video of an axe just "struck" without injuring/killing/harming/breaking what it hits and you have something to talk about.

This line of "reasoning" makes no sense whatsoever.

Yes I saw that, however I don't believe whether it is use or "misuse" of an object is anything to do with whether it is right or wrong.

What you believe is your prerogative, but it's not especially logical - particularly if you're hinging your position on logic.

Yes it would be a valid use of a car, it would also be a good use since the car would do a very good job of mowing me down. As I said above I don't believe that whether a use is right or wrong has any effect on whether it is a valid use. Your car can mow me down so therefore it is a valid use of your car to mow me down.

This argument denies the concept of "misuse" where the implement used is effective at the function - it is based on "good" and "bad", which is a subjective value judgement and as far from logic as you can get.

If I aimed for someone and missed is that a "misuse" as you would call it?? since it didn't take anyones rights.

Now we're in the realms of intent. Are you sure you've read that Rights thread, because you're just recycling debunked stuff from it.

I realise what your argument says and it makes complete sense, however I don't believe it is correct. If you reply could you specify whether you understand my argument but dissagree.

Your argument is using subjective value judgements and beliefs. As a logical argument it does not make sense.

you believe that

Let's not go there again. It's quite tiresome.

I believe that rights have no effect on whether its misuse or not.

The fact it's a subversion of the design purpose (intent) is what renders it a misuse. The design purpose is not to kill, it's to increase available force. It can be used to kill, as can an axe, or a snooker cue but it is not intended to do so. It's just a force multiplying tool.

Where rights come in is defining what are permissible actions and what are not. It's a defining function of rights that they are not subject to force - to "might makes right" - because that would make them subjective and logic tells us they are not. Using a gun in its role as a force multiplying tool to deny the rights of others is a clear example of "might makes right" - rights are not subject to force and this means using a gun in this manner is not a permissible action. This is a misuse. Using a gun in its role as a force multiplying tool to preserve your rights from the threat posed by others is a clear example of evening out the "might" (force) available to prevent those who think rights are subject to force from succeeding. This is a valid use.

Thus using a gun to kill is both a use (using force to preserve rights) and a misuse (using force to deny rights).

"Guns" as a whole are designed to injure/kill. Find whatever reasoning, purpose, laws, rights, morals, whatever you like, none of it has the power to change the purpose of design.
The purpose of their design was set in stone when they were designed.

Then you are stating that those who do not injure/kill with guns are misusing them - using them for a purpose other than the design purpose.

If you are not, please rethink your argument.

 

[lbsf1]

I'm not going to quote what you said simply because in answering what you say I will repeat myself again.

"I believe that" is a valid statement in this because as shown in this thread there is more than one valid argument on what is misuse of a gun. You believe that rights are heavily involved on whether it is misuse or not. I don't.

I believe an item can be used for actions outside its original purpose without "misusing" it. We are on a forum about a car racing video game, a car is aimed to transport people from A to B, so is racing a car misuse of a car??? By your reasoning possibly yes.

I'm not saying that my argument is completely logic either, just that in my opinion it is based more on logic as your argument is specifying what is a misuse, which is once again subjective (in my opinion.)

I have read parts of the human rights thread, however it is kinda irrelevant to my argument because as I have already said I think any use of an item is not misuse thus human rights don't affect whether it is a "misuse". You can have a bad use if it doesn't do the job well, but not misuse if it does a job that is against someones rights.

You have your opinion and I have mine on this argument, I respect your opinion however don't believe that it is correct. As do I hope you.

 

[Famine]

I believe that ... I believe an... in my opinion

Faith, subjectivity and value judgements. Not logic.

You believe

No, I don't. I did say not to do this.

I believe an item can be used for actions outside its original purpose without "misusing" it. We are on a forum about a car racing video game, a car is aimed to transport people from A to B, so is racing a car misuse of a car??? By your reasoning yes.

Straw man, particularly since I've already stated the purpose of a car in this thread and racing does not qualify as a misuse under those terms. By my reasoning, no.

Please do not claim a logical high ground and do crap like this.

I'm not saying that my argument is completely logic either, just that in my opinion it is based more on logic than yours.

I have read parts of the human rights thread, however it is kinda irrelevant to my argument because as I have already said I think any use of an item is not misuse thus human rights don't affect whether it is a "misuse". You can have a bad use if it doesn't do the job well, but not misuse if it does a job that is against someones rights.

"Bad" is a subjective value judgement. This is not based on any kind of logic. This, on the other hand, is:

The fact it's a subversion of the design purpose (intent) is what renders it a misuse. The design purpose is not to kill, it's to increase available force. It can be used to kill, as can an axe, or a snooker cue but it is not intended to do so. It's just a force multiplying tool.

Where rights come in is defining what are permissible actions and what are not. It's a defining function of rights that they are not subject to force - to "might makes right" - because that would make them subjective and logic tells us they are not. Using a gun in its role as a force multiplying tool to deny the rights of others is a clear example of "might makes right" - rights are not subject to force and this means using a gun in this manner is not a permissible action. This is a misuse. Using a gun in its role as a force multiplying tool to preserve your rights from the threat posed by others is a clear example of evening out the "might" (force) available to prevent those who think rights are subject to force from succeeding. This is a valid use.

Thus using a gun to kill is both a use (using force to preserve rights) and a misuse (using force to deny rights).

Replace "gun" with "knife", "axe", "icicle", "Barney lunchbox" or whatever you like and it still makes sense.


Since this thread isn't about rights (though the 2nd Amendment right will be mentioned a few times, it's just a law) I'd suggest this doesn't go any further. There is a perfectly acceptable rights thread I've already linked to that I suggest you read.

 

[CSLACR]

Uh... no? That's the argument of the "I can point a gun at something alive so guns are for killing" lobby.

No, as classic Famine, you've ignored the original point and argued semantics, laws, morals, and rights.
None of which have anything to do with what guns are designed to do.

That's not an opinion, it's fact. Laws, morals, rights, and everything else you're sidetracking with have nothing to do with the purpose of design.

Indeed. Killing things with guns doesn't change the fact they're designed just as a tool to increase force (in this instance to deliver a projectile to a remote target with significant additional force).

Indeed, you cannot shoot something without harming it. Therefore guns must be designed to impose physical harm, because there's no other actual use of said gun.
It's not simply delivering, no matter how many times you repeat it. If I deliver a bullet to something from a gun, it gets hurt. There's nothing to shoot outside of targets and living beings.
Unless you have some evidence that guns were designed soley for target practice?

Why? Show me a video of an axe just "struck" without injuring/killing/harming/breaking what it hits and you have something to talk about.

This line of "reasoning" makes no sense whatsoever.

An axe is designed to harm trees. Why would I have to show you it's not designed to bring harm to something? It is.
And my reasoning doesn't make sense?

What you believe is your prerogative, but it's not especially logical - particularly if you're hinging your position on logic.

You've hinged your position that guns can be used for something other than violence/protection from said violence.(By means of violence, of course)
Tell me how to shoot something without harming it at all. Then you have an argument.

 

[a6m5]

Then you are stating that those who do not injure/kill with guns are misusing them - using them for a purpose other than the design purpose.

If you are not, please rethink your argument.

This is the point I also made earlier. Majority of civilian firearms never hurt or kill anyone.

I thought that, by design, firearms are designed to injure or kill human beings. However, you have wrong perspective arguing about the intended design of firearms, because we are not talking about a hammer, or screwdriver. Hardly scientific, but I'd guess most civilian firearms in the U.S. is never used to assault anyone. When people purchase tools, they buy specific tools for specific jobs. When Americans buy firearms, what are their expectations? I'm certain they have one, or both of these intentions in mind: 1) Defense 2) Recreation

People in here says that the sole purpose of the gun is to kill. I own firearms. I know many people who own many firearms(most own a handful to a full blown collection of them). As far as I am aware, not one of them contributed in killing or injuring a man. Can you say the same about hammers, screwdrivers or measuring tapes in your tool box? We are talking about something like one hundred examples here. Of course, there are exceptions. Criminals will steal, or obtain firearms to do wrong. And once in a great while, you will get a psycho who fully intend to do wrong.

When guns are banned in the U.S., mark my words, explosives. They could produce lethal gas, too. How will they ban those?

 

[Azuremen]

It's not simply delivering, no matter how many times you repeat it.

It is actually exactly that - a remote delivery system.

An axe is designed to harm trees. Why would I have to show you it's not designed to bring harm to something? It is.
And my reasoning doesn't make sense?

The first axes were likely developed from primitive weapons for hunting, you realize this right? Cutting wood down comes long after hunting in human history.

You've hinged your position that guns can be used for something other than violence/protection from said violence.(By means of violence, of course)
Tell me how to shoot something without harming it at all. Then you have an argument.

Depends on what you consider harm. Target practice is quite enjoyable, and doesn't hurt anything living. Driving hurts tires, road surfaces, and the environment. Arguing on the internet uses a electricity, which comes from power that very likely harms things in some way. Talk about semantics, eh?

Curious if you've ever handled a gun in your life by the way, let alone shot one?

When guns are banned in the U.S., mark my words, explosives. They could produce lethal gas, too. How will they ban those?

With guns legal that has already happened. Just ask Mr. Kaczynski or Mr. McVeigh about how effective they can be.

Certainly trumps random shootings I'd say.

 

[CSLACR]

As far as I am aware, not one of them contributed in killing or injuring a man.

So now it only counts if it's to injure or kill a person?
We change the subject by the minute in here, don't we?

When guns are banned in the U.S., mark my words, explosives. They could produce lethal gas, too. How will they ban those?

A criminals intent still has nothing to do with what guns were created for.

The first axes were likely developed from primitive weapons for hunting

Hold on here... We can say the first axe was used for hunting, even though they're not really used for that anymore?(No I don't want to hear about a guy anyone knows that hunts with an axe)
But we can't admit what guns were designed for...because they're apparantly not used for killing anymore. Somewhere along the line everyone stopped hunting, and wars aren't fought with them.
Guns are really just kiddie toys designed to shoot clay out of the air. That's what they were thinking back in A.D. times, for sure.👍
No matter what uses you can think of for it, a car is for driving, not designed for running people over. And just as cars aren't designed for running people over, guns weren't/aren't designed for shooting nothing.
They would lower the velocity to a point that doesn't kill anything in the way if that were true.
If the sole purpose of you owning a firearm were recreation, a BB gun could do the job, in a much more safe manner.
Many own a gun in case someone tries to harm them or their family, so they can fight back with lethal force. If only it were designed to do that, imagine how good guns would be then.


Guns were designed to kill, period.
You can use them for other things, but no matter how many of you disagree, being able to be used for other things will never change the original purpose of firearms.

Just because you're pro-gun (As I am) doesn't mean you have lie about what guns were created for.
Guns were not designed for target practice.
Guns are not designed for waving in the air to scare people.
Guns are not designed for beating people as a blunt object.
Guns are designed to fire bullets at a target with the intent to harm it.

Whether you're defending yourself, hunting, or practicing for both, it doesn't matter.
Saying it does can't change that, like it or not.

Just because you own a gun and don't shoot anything with it, still doesn't change what the gun is designed to do.

This is basic common sense.

 

[a6m5]

With guns legal that has already happened. Just ask Mr. Kaczynski or Mr. McVeigh about how effective they can be.

Certainly trumps random shootings I'd say.

I was thinking more along the lines of Al Qaeda & friends, but yes, murders & mass-murder rampage will go on, even without guns.