Shooting at Empire State Building.

[CSLACR]

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

Of course they will.
People are stupid though, and the bulk think without guns they couldn't be harmed. Boy are they in for a surprise.

 

[a6m5]

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.

I agreed with the intent of the design of the firearm, but what did you think about my comment regarding the intent of the acquirement of these firearms? It could have been designed to bake strawberry shortcakes, but that's not what people are buying, or using them for.

I think it's a waste of time getting stuck on debating back & forth about what the gun was originally designed to do. I think it's little more complex than that. Firearms today are sports & recreation, I also bet that most owners of firearms considers it an insurance. Almost none of us are not buying, or owning these things with intent to kill.

 

[Zenith]

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.

A firearm hurls a small object at high velocity.

The end. Any other interpretation of either's "purpose" is incorrect.

The purpose of guns is to deliver a projectile at speed to a remote target. The purpose of bullets is to be delivered by a gun at speed to a remote target. Neither has the sole design purpose of killing people.

You are assigning an incorrect purpose to an inanimate object. You are still incorrect.

I've shot thousands of rounds at targets. People have shot guns for competition. In all cases the firearm hurled a bullet at a target. It fulfilled its purpose. Trying to say that guns are designed for killing is simply incorrect.

How about this gun? What was it designed to do?

 

[Famine]

No, as classic Famine, you've ignored the original point and argued semantics, laws, morals, and rights.

Yes. Curse me for using basic principles in a discussion, instead of just claiming I'm right, ignoring all questions, dismissing all challenges and reasserting my correctness without basis!

How could anyone want to use reason while reasoning? Pah!

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.

You've still to demonstrate why a gun is what you say - designed to kill - and why not using a gun to kill is a misuse of it, a conclusion implicit in this statement.

Demonstrate how using a gun not to kill is misuse of that gun.

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.

That's a mechanism, not a purpose.

You're overcomplicating things. A gun is just a force multiplier. How does it do this? By utlilising captive chemical energy to create a confined shockwave to propel a low weight projectile with high kinetic energy, aimed by means of tube, to a remote location. What the bullet does when it gets there isn't really the concern of the gun - it just delivers a significant amount of force when it arrives, provided to it be the mechanism of the gun.

The gun is just a tool for multiplying force, like every tool I can think of (some multiply it by less than one).

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.

So... the bullet is designed to injure?

Unless you have some evidence that guns were designed soley for target practice?

Your assertion is that they were not only not designed for that, but that anyone who uses one for that is misusing the gun. You've yet to demonstrate this.

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?

Yes. By your same definition, the axe is designed to kill. The knife is designed to kill. Any tool designed to impart greater force than a person can manage on their own is designed to kill - and not doing so is misuse. By this bizarre definition that things designed to multiply force are actually designed to bring harm and this means they must be designed to kill.

That makes sense to you?

You've hinged your position that guns can be used for something other than violence/protection from said violence.

Nope. I've hinged my position on the fact that all tools are designed to multiply force - it's the misapplication of this force to deny rights (since rights are objective and not subject to "might makes right") that dismisses the concept that (tool) is designed to kill.

 

[Bram Turismo]

How about this gun? What was it designed to do?

I don't think that demonstrates the point CSLACR is trying to make. I think CSLACR is talking about why a gun was ever invented? What purpose did it need to fulfill at its time?

I'm not taking any sides at all, bear with me, but I highly doubt the first guns were ever designed to shoot projectiles at a target just for the fun of it or because people had nothing better to do on a sunday afternoon.

 

[Dan_]

Guns are tools as much as scissors, axes and spoons are.

The problem here is with the people that wield them, society is getting sick nowadays and the corporate environment is even worse. And it's not just in America as some posters are implying, shootings between coworkers like these happen every day around the world, the other events just don't get as much media coverage.

Banning guns wouldn't help much either as you're capable of killing with your bare hands. In fact, it would only make the regular burglars more prone to act against the unprotected civilians. This comes from someone who will never have a gun at home, mind you.

EDIT: Keeping with the discussion, guns were invented with military purposes. See the chinese Fire Lance for reference.

 

[Müle]

Saying that guns aren't designed to kill things is just plain silly.

 

[Famine]

Thanks for that reasoned addition there.

 

[CSLACR]

I agreed with the intent of the design of the firearm, but what did you think about my comment regarding the intent of the acquirement of these firearms? It could have been designed to bake strawberry shortcakes, but that's not what people are buying, or using them for.

I think it's a waste of time getting stuck on debating back & forth about what the gun was originally designed to do. I think it's little more complex than that. Firearms today are sports & recreation, I also bet that most owners of firearms considers it an insurance. Almost none of us are not buying, or owning these things with intent to kill.

I very much agree that 99% of gun owners do not buy them with the intent to kill someone without cause, yes.
But if you're buying it for protection, you're buying it for it's original purpose, the purpose for which it was designed.
Whether to kill out of necessity, self-preservation, or personal enjoyment holds no merit, these are all using guns for their original intended purpose.
To kill what stands between you and what you desire.
You desire your safety, you shoot they who endanger your safety.
You desire bloodshed, you shoot those whom you want to see blood spill from.
You desire food from the wild, you shoot the animals you eat.

Now if someone buys it for recreation, they've found an alternate use for it, and that's great. But it can't change what they were designed for.

EDIT: Keeping with the discussion, guns were invented with military purposes.

Famine would like to disagree.
I'm personally not repeating myself for a 4th time to him, do so if you feel you can get through.

Saying that guns aren't designed to kill things is just plain silly.

Below...

Thanks for that reasoned addition there.

It's smarter than anything you've said on the matter so far, because it's actually correct.

 

[a6m5]

I very much agree that 99% of gun owners do not buy them with the intent to kill someone without cause, yes.
But if you're buying it for protection, you're buying it for it's original purpose, the purpose for which it was designed.
Whether to kill out of necessity, self-preservation, or personal enjoyment holds no merit, these are all using guns for their original intended purpose.
To kill what stands between you and what you desire.
You desire your safety, you shoot they who endanger your safety.
You desire bloodshed, you shoot those whom you want to see blood spill from.
You desire food from the wild, you shoot the animals you eat.

Now if someone buys it for recreation, they've found an alternate use for it, and that's great. But it can't change what they were designed for.

You are turning this around on me, but again, I already agree with your take on what purpose guns were designed for. What I was pointing out was what purpose they serve in today's society, as: 1) Most people do not obtain firearms with intent to kill. 2) Most civilian owned firearms never have, or will never harm anyone.

Again, we can argue all day long about the purpose behind the invention of firearms, but that has very little to do with gun control/gun rights, or violent incidents such as this Empire State Building shooting.

I love my bosses, and would never do anything to harm them. But if I wanted to murder one of them, I wouldn't even use a gun. I'd use something quiet, like a knife, or some kind of blunt object. That's why people like me & OP are saying that the focus should be on the "why", and not get caught up with the guns.

 

[WikiUser]

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

Guns were designed by people to kill other people.

 

[Exorcet]

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.

It doesn't make sense though. The wing was originally designed to create lift, but then:

You can't say that that was intended to generate lift. Every distinct item has its own purpose and design goals. So the first gun could have been designed to kill, it would not mean that guns are designed to kill.

There is also a distinction between design, as in intent, and capability. Something can be capable of killing without being designed to kill, and guns can fall into this category.

Unless you have some evidence that guns were designed soley for target practice?

Competitive shooting. But then again no. Some guns were designed for war, others were not. A blanket statement doesn't make sense, except for the one Famine suggested.

Whether to kill out of necessity, self-preservation, or personal enjoyment holds no merit, these are all using guns for their original intended purpose.
To kill what stands between you and what you desire.
You desire your safety, you shoot they who endanger your safety.
You desire bloodshed, you shoot those whom you want to see blood spill from.
You desire food from the wild, you shoot the animals you eat.

You desire safety, you pull out a gun, and the aggressor runs away.

Maybe you shoot in the air and hit nothing.

The gun is not there to kill, even if the goal is self defense. Self defense is not killing. The gun is firing, why it's firing is up to the user.

Now if someone buys it for recreation, they've found an alternate use for it, and that's great. But it can't change what they were designed for.

Even when a gun is purpose built for those "alternative uses"?

 

[a6m5]

You desire safety, you pull out a gun, and the aggressor runs away.

Maybe you shoot in the air and hit nothing.

The gun is not there to kill, even if the goal is self defense. Self defense is not killing. The gun is firing, why it's firing is up to the user.

We've brought this up before in this thread, but some people have trouble with this for some reason. It most definitely serves as a deterrent. It's statistically proven that one could effectively stop a crime, or prevent one without ever firing a shot, but by just saying that you are armed, or by displaying the firearm.

 

[Joey D]

We've brought this up before in this thread, but some people have trouble with this for some reason. It most definitely serves as a deterrent. It's statistically proven that one could effectively stop a crime, or prevent one without ever firing a shot, but by just saying that you are armed, or by displaying the firearm.

But sometimes, and this happens frequently in Detroit, if you pull a gun to someone threatening you they might just go ahead and shoot you before you ever think about aiming and pulling the trigger.

I'd like to see statistics that show that people who carry a concealed weapon are less likely to be involved in a crime when they are in a similar situation as someone who does not have a concealed weapon. I'm guessing now such data exists because what I assume these studies look at is just crime vs. people with concealed weapons and doesn't actually take into account situations. If I never leave Pleasantville, USA where the crime rate is already .1% or something then of course nothing's going to happen to me.

I agree there are situations where if you had a concealed firearm you'd prevent a crime or be able to stop a crime, but I don't believe for an instant that it's the norm rather than the exception.

 

[WikiUser]

There is also a distinction between design, as in intent, and capability. Something can be capable of killing without being designed to kill, and guns can fall into this category.

You are right.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun

But no one wants to eliminate nail guns.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Empire_State_Building_shooting
A .45 caliber semiautomatic handgun only has one purpose.

 

[Joey D]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Empire_State_Building_shooting
A .45 caliber semiautomatic handgun only has one purpose.

I don't know my buddy has a .45 and he shoots targets with it all the time at the range. He also carries it while hunting in case some big animal wants to make him dinner. So if you're implying the only purpose of the gun is to shoot human beings I think you might want to recheck yourself.

 

[WikiUser]

I don't know my buddy has a .45 and he shoots targets with it all the time at the range. He also carries it while hunting in case some big animal wants to make him dinner. So if you're implying the only purpose of the gun is to shoot human beings I think you might want to recheck yourself.

Alaskans hunting should be allowed to have unconcealed large caliber handguns, not New Yorkers.

http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?isbn=0309091241&page=2
"...the committee found no credible evidence that the passage of right-to-carry laws decreases or increases violent crime..."

I haven't found statistics, but there is a conclusion from a not-for-profit organization.

And here is this, also:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

 

[Joey D]

Alaskans hunting should be allowed to have unconcealed large caliber handguns, not New Yorkers.

http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?isbn=0309091241&page=2
"...the committee found no credible evidence that the passage of right-to-carry laws decreases or increases violent crime..."

I haven't found statistics, but there is a conclusion from a not-for-profit organization.

And here is this, also:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

If the carrier of the firearm is responsible and trained why shouldn't they be allowed to carry it? I mean knives kill people, should New Yorkers be denied to carry those too? Or how about hammers? Or cars? Or cigarettes? Or fast food?

You can kill anyone with anything, look up any shank/shiv ever made.

 

[Tornado]

A .45 caliber semiautomatic handgun only has one purpose.

Indeed it does. To transport a pointed piece of metal .45 inches in diameter at just under supersonic velocities in the direction that it was pointed.


Or, put another way:

The purpose of guns is to deliver a projectile at speed to a remote target. The purpose of bullets is to be delivered by a gun at speed to a remote target. Neither has the sole design purpose of killing people.

It doesn't make sense though. The wing was originally designed to create lift, but then:

You can't say that that was intended to generate lift.

Well...

*cough*

 

[a6m5]

I agree there are situations where if you had a concealed firearm you'd prevent a crime or be able to stop a crime, but I don't believe for an instant that it's the norm rather than the exception.

But that is not at all what I'm talking about. My comment was in regards to the effectiveness of firearms without even having to pull the trigger. You are talking about defense weapon affecting the crime rate, which I have no idea about.

Alaskans hunting should be allowed to have unconcealed large caliber handguns, not New Yorkers.

http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?isbn=0309091241&page=2
"...the committee found no credible evidence that the passage of right-to-carry laws decreases or increases violent crime..."

I haven't found statistics, but there is a conclusion from a not-for-profit organization.

And here is this, also:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

Isn't this more of nothing? "the committee found no credible evidence" suggests it's inconclusive. Firearm related death statistics is just classic Michael Moore presentation comparing apples & oranges. With, or without firearms, certain cultures & societies will have more murders. Take the guns away from the gangbangers, they'll still kill each other with knives.

 

[Joey D]

But that is not at all what I'm talking about. My comment was in regards to the effectiveness of firearms without even having to pull the trigger. You are talking about defense weapon affecting the crime rate, which I have no idea about.

Even then showing a gun or any weapon for that matter probably doesn't effect the crime rate one way or another, or even stop a crime from happening for that matter.

Say someone tries to mug you and you pull out a gun, chances are they are probably going to run off. But they are just going to go up beat up some little old lady who doesn't have a gun and take off with her purse. So yes you prevented a crime against yourself, but still didn't prevent a crime from occurring.

I suppose my point is whether you carry a gun or not it's not going to do anything for the crime rate. It'll just transfer the crime to some other method or some other victim.

I do apologize if I am misunderstanding you on this.

 

[Dan_]

Famine would like to disagree.
I'm personally not repeating myself for a 4th time to him, do so if you feel you can get through.

That's not what I said, guns were invented with military purposes, which does not imply they were designed with the sole purpose of killing people. As much as the Internet, GPS and the Jet Engine are military inventions too.

As a matter of fact, the Fire Lance which I mentioned as a precursor to the firearm was so rubbish at killing enemy soldiers that it was used more as a deterrent measure, not as a mass killing device.

So are nowadays guns, the fact that they can effectively kill somebody makes them no different of a ordinary kitchen knife. This may even sound a little bit controversial, but guns have the primary function of promoting peace by discouraging violence.

EDIT: More to the point, I'll make an analogy there. Rockets, what is the primary purpose of a Rocket? Delivering a payload to space, correct? All ICBMs are rockets which happen to carry a bomb on their upper section. When Von Braun was designing the V2, his goal was to send the first man to space, he used military funding to develop the V2 in order to validate the technological feasibility and accomplish his visions, which happened through the Apollo program; People gave military purposes for his rocket technology, not Von Braun himself, the rocket isn't solely a military device, but it was developed into one, as were the first polished stone knives and axes, at cetera.

But I'm wandering off far away there, sorry for off-topic.

 

[Slash]

I forget what country it was (Switzerland or Sweden), but they gave everyone a weapon and how to use it, and crime rate is really low, because everyone knows they'll get shot if they start something. Thats what they need to do here. Look at the Batman shooting. If someone in the crowd was legally armed, they could have put a bullit through the gunmans head and stopped him dead in his tracks, potentially saving a lot of lives in the process. If someone gets shot in the crossfire, think of how many more lives could have been saved with the sacrifice. Either way, with gun control and whatnot, if a criminal wants a gun, they'll get it. What they should have done after wars was stop production of weapons instead of keeping them in production and auctioning off war excess.

 

[WikiUser]

Or, put another way:

That refers to guns in general, like nail guns. Firearms were designed from their inception to kill people, and since their inception specific firearms have been further designed to specifically kill people, ie .45 caliber semiautomatic handguns.

Isn't this more of nothing? "the committee found no credible evidence" suggests it's inconclusive. Firearm related death statistics is just classic Michael Moore presentation comparing apples & oranges. With, or without firearms, certain cultures & societies will have more murders. Take the guns away from the gangbangers, they'll still kill each other with knives.

A person in the US is 59 times more likely to be killed by another person via a firearm, referred to as a gun from now on, than a person in the UK, and the likelihood of being a victim of homicide is 3 1/2 times higher in the US than in the UK. So people will still kill each other, but less often.

One is also 3 times more likely to die on accident from a gun in the US than people are killed intentionally from guns in the UK.

 

[Patrick]

I forget what country it was (Switzerland or Sweden), but they gave everyone a weapon and how to use it, and crime rate is really low, because everyone knows they'll get shot if they start something. Thats what they need to do here. Look at the Batman shooting. If someone in the crowd was legally armed, they could have put a bullit through the gunmans head and stopped him dead in his tracks, potentially saving a lot of lives in the process. If someone gets shot in the crossfire, think of how many more lives could have been saved with the sacrifice. Either way, with gun control and whatnot, if a criminal wants a gun, they'll get it. What they should have done after wars was stop production of weapons instead of keeping them in production and auctioning off war excess.

Switzerland.

 

[WikiUser]

I forget what country it was (Switzerland or Sweden), but they gave everyone a weapon and how to use it, and crime rate is really low, because everyone knows they'll get shot if they start something. Thats what they need to do here. Look at the Batman shooting. If someone in the crowd was legally armed, they could have put a bullit through the gunmans head and stopped him dead in his tracks, potentially saving a lot of lives in the process. If someone gets shot in the crossfire, think of how many more lives could have been saved with the sacrifice. Either way, with gun control and whatnot, if a criminal wants a gun, they'll get it. What they should have done after wars was stop production of weapons instead of keeping them in production and auctioning off war excess.

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

Since I doubt anyone will read it, concerning the militia issued guns, they are issued rifles and they are required to keep them at home. And 99% of ammo has been returned.

 

[Müle]

Indeed it does. To transport a pointed piece of metal .45 inches in diameter at just under supersonic velocities in the direction that it was pointed.


Or, put another way:

Alright, let me ask you this, so that you can't just repeat what your master Famine says:


What's the purpose of a bullet?

 

[ilikewaffles11]

Ok first let me say that I'm all for guns, I don't think that banning them would help anything and I'm all for the second amendment.

But I have to ask, is a Browning M2 .50 caliber machine not built to kill? I believe some weapons are built for the sole purpose of killing humans. Yes, it was built to hurl a large projectile at a target but I doubt the designer had firing it at a paper target in mind while designing it.

 

[Tornado]

That refers to guns in general, like nail guns.

Pretty sure hot glue guns, light guns and squirt guns don't fit the profile of delivering "a pointed piece of metal .45 inches in diameter at just under supersonic velocities in the direction that it was pointed."


So no. Not really.

Alright, let me ask you this, so that you can't just repeat what your master Famine says:


What's the purpose of a bullet?

Pretty sure "my master Famine" covered that pretty well already, as did Zenith013. You might have seen their posts if you planned on contributing to the discussion.


Though I do have a question that you should be able to answer, since you are so positive that the only purpose of guns is killing: I shot shotgun and rifle competitively for a year (2008-2009, for Venture Scouts). I used a purpose-built rifle that looked quite a bit like this one (though with a painted stock) and everything (though my own personal shotgun). Was never really that good, so maybe that is why I don't recall seeing piles of corpses after I was done in each event. Perhaps you can explain where they hid them?

 

[a6m5]

I do apologize if I am misunderstanding you on this.

But you are! We are still talking about the crime rate versus firearms still being effective deterrent, if not for you, for somebody else. It's an argument used by pro-gun lobby, because FBI study backs this up. I agree with you, it probably is if not 'me', they go find a easier mark.

I forget what country it was (Switzerland or Sweden), but they gave everyone a weapon and how to use it, and crime rate is really low, because everyone knows they'll get shot if they start something. Thats what they need to do here. Look at the Batman shooting. If someone in the crowd was legally armed, they could have put a bullit through the gunmans head and stopped him dead in his tracks, potentially saving a lot of lives in the process. If someone gets shot in the crossfire, think of how many more lives could have been saved with the sacrifice. Either way, with gun control and whatnot, if a criminal wants a gun, they'll get it. What they should have done after wars was stop production of weapons instead of keeping them in production and auctioning off war excess.

It's Switzerland, but again, it's apples & oranges. Crime rate or violence has a lot to do with culture, government, economy, etc., etc. Gun indeed is just a tool being used in this sense.

A person in the US is 59 times more likely to be killed by another person via a firearm, referred to as a gun from now on, than a person in the UK, and the likelihood of being a victim of homicide is 3 1/2 times higher in the US than in the UK. So people will still kill each other, but less often.

One is also 3 times more likely to die on accident from a gun in the US than people are killed intentionally from guns in the UK.

Again, this is a similar argument used by anti-gun activist like Michael Moore. These guns are not going around murdering people, they are mere devices being utilized by murderers. By your logic, guns equal death. The obvious truth is, people, with or without guns, they still get killed everyday. By how much more, or how much less, it is impossible to determine, because there are hundred different angles to look at this, not just this 'A person in the U.S. is 59 times....', because this no different than religious people picking and choosing only the part that helps their case, ignoring the rest. Statistics are useless in something like this, unless you take every existing factor in account. Simply, there are way too many variables.

What's the purpose of a bullet?

Do me a favor, just go back to the beginning of the thread. Let's not go in a loop beating a dead horse. If you have something to add after reading all the comments made on the purpose of a bullet, then just ask or state your case.