• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Why are guns made to kill?

bjornart said:
What practical applications does a gun have that doesn't involve killing? Hole punch? (Target shooting is practice, not practical.)
Click to expand...

Why is target shooting only practice? Recreation is not practical for anything?

Ranb
 
Ranb said:
Here are examples of the Central Scrutinizer’s personal attacks for merely posting about firearms or gun control. When I requested that these attacks stop and why I was being harassed, TCS said it was because I was strange. Great excuse for this behavior I’d say.

“In Ranb's case, it's which state will allow him to legally marry his 50 BMG rifle.”
“Will you pay the $200 or give up your girlfriend?”
“Do you have some sort of bizarre sexual fetish about this gun?”
“But you do have some sort of bizarre fetish with this gun. I just figured it might be sexual.”
“Do you sleep with your 50 caliber rifle? Do you masturbate while writing about it? I think so.”
“Perhaps they didn't know that you have a sexual fetish regarding 50 BMG rifles.”
“What is your bizarre obsession with this 50 BMG thing? Is it sexual? Do sleep with a gun?”

When I posted about TCS’s behavior in unflattering terms, the posts were moved to the Abandon all Hope section. TSC's reaction to my post was; "Woo-Hoo!!! I get my own thread!! It's all about me!!!"

When I asked the admin to take some action, two of the offending posts were marked with; “Do not use personal attacks to argue your point. Several of your posts are bordering on sexual harrassment which breaches the Membership Agreement.”

People on JREF have also accused me of attempting to break the law merely because I said I was going to cut down a shotgun barrel to make a pistol. Even after explaining how to get ATF approval some clowns here are just too prejudiced to understand that what I was doing was legal.

Ranb
Click to expand...
Probably doesn't help, but actual knowledge of firearms - particularly military types among US citizens (and those of a number of other countries)- is abysmal. That's why most of them make mistakes in their descriptions that are unbelievably wrong (for large numbers, the idea that the bullet moves in the direction the gun is pointed is the limit of their knowledge) , and it's why it really doesn't matter if movies/tv get the results right or not in police, western, spy or war films because a majority of the audience does not know (my biggest annoyance is those firing large calibre pistols with little or no rise when fired. Assuming way under powered loads (blank, of course).
Heck, I bet most of them would happily stand to watch the action just behind a recoiless gun/rifle in operation - and likely have no idea why I find that interesting. Knowledge is good, ignorance is deadly.
 
Ranb said:
I see this statement all the time here. "Guns are made to kill." Why do you think this is true or not? While some firearms are clearly intended to be used to kill humans (M-16's, AK-47's), others (electric free pistols, silhouette pistols, target rifles) are clearly intended for sport shooting only.

Why isn't it possible that a gun can be made for something other than killing? Thanks.

Ranb
Click to expand...
I understand that you are offended by people implying that merely owning a gun means you are interested in using it for killing. I myself do not (and would never) own a gun, but I do practice martial arts, and if someone implied I did so because I was looking to fight people, or seriously suggested it was due to some sexual fetish, I would feel insulted too (although I agree with other posters that insults from people on the Internet should not be taken very seriously). I am peaceful near the point of ideological pacifism, and strongly doubt I'd ever use any of what I practice under controlled circumstances.

However, if someone said that martial arts are, in fact, "made" (developed) to fight people, I would not deny that. Sure, some may be more focused on recreational purposes than others, but in the end the purpose of martial arts as a whole is to fight people. I do not use them to fight - you do not use guns to kill - but the original purpose may differ.
 
Rufo said:
I understand that you are offended by people implying that merely owning a gun means you are interested in using it for killing. I myself do not (and would never) own a gun, but I do practice martial arts, and if someone implied I did so because I was looking to fight people, or seriously suggested it was due to some sexual fetish, I would feel insulted too (although I agree with other posters that insults from people on the Internet should not be taken very seriously). I am peaceful near the point of ideological pacifism, and strongly doubt I'd ever use any of what I practice under controlled circumstances.

However, if someone said that martial arts are, in fact, "made" (developed) to fight people, I would not deny that. Sure, some may be more focused on recreational purposes than others, but in the end the purpose of martial arts as a whole is to fight people. I do not use them to fight - you do not use guns to kill - but the original purpose may differ.
Click to expand...
Actually, I believe - and have heard this from other martial arts people (and it is the theoretical basis of the Kung Fu tv show): you learn martial arts to learn to control your mind and body. You use martial arts when necessary to teach or to keep yourself and others from harm. You do not use martial arts to murder/ you are not the aggressor. (This does not mean no one does, it means it should not be the intention.) Guns and other weapons are the same (or should be). You do not use them to murder and terrorize and control. You should use them only when necessary to protect and prevent harm to yourself and others. If that was everyone's way, we would not be having these arguments. Unfortunately, life is otherwise.

Our bodies and our minds are our primary tools, they are used, like any other tools, to provide for us and protect us. Training our bodies and minds to do that is perfectly rational. Using other tools for the same basic functions is also perfectly rational.
 
Supercharts said:
Sometimes I need to go over to “The BAD side of Town”. I carry a concealed alligator in an alligator holster.
Click to expand...

Good for your! "When owning alligators becomes criminalized only criminals will own alligators"!!!
 
fuelair said:
You should use them only when necessary to protect and prevent harm to yourself and others.
Click to expand...

This i found interesting. With martial arts, you are able to incapacitate an attacker or to block an attack, supposedly with usually non-lethal or non-permanent outcome. With guns, on the other hand, you can not "just" protect yourself or prevent harm to yourself or others. You could "protect yourself" by separating yourself from an attacker with e.g. a wall, a locked door, anything large & solid etc.

You can "protect yourself" with a gun only by either deterring an attacker through intimidation, or by firing said gun at him, the gun of course being a tool which usually is designed to accelerate a solid particle to a high enough speed to penetrate tissue and cause a high degree of damage to its target, which usually equals "protection by permanent removal of opponent", though, as i recall reading someplace else, "we've not become better at sparing lives, it's just that modern medicine makes it harder to keep people dead".

From my time in the military, i recall the gun training to be of little recreational value in itself: pointing at cardboard soldiers and then pulling the trigger, which results in having a large metal object repeatedly slammed against one's shoulder while wearing safety ear plugs to prevent hearing damage isn't quite my idea of "recreation"...
Did earn me a nice silver medal, though. And of course, the whole concept of having control over a force both that intimidating and powerful has it's own merit, but that's more of a "indirect recreational aspect" that - to me - ranks at about the same weird satisfaction to be gained from the operation of high-powered cars, watching the demolition of derelict buildings or movies where things go "boom" in a spectacular way. (I'm myself prone to enjoy each of these things in a spectator-sport way.)

In short, i suggest (excessive) release of power and/or control over it (or watching that activity) for entertainment and/or recreation seems to have allure to a large part of the human population. Those actions in itself are destructive and/or wasteful by design (which is usually not beneficial in the long run), but they tend to give a heightened feeling of being in control or having power, so to enjoy them "we" decide to give it them a positive label: "recreational purpose".
Case in point: any blockbuster movie of recent, and/or (first hand) the crowds of witnesses that assembled when an old power station near my hometown was "thermally demolished" a few years ago.
Can i link yet? (non-accepted URL was here) No. Sorry.

Just some rambling from a most-of-the-time lurker:
theMark

(man, i hope that text doesn't sound too weird. English isn't my main language, and it's 2 a.m., which is usually not considered a good time to write stilted sentences in foreign tongues...)
 
*looks at calendar*

Oh, was it time for another gun thread already? I could have sworn that wasn't until next month.
 
fuelair said:
Probably doesn't help, but actual knowledge of firearms - particularly military types among US citizens (and those of a number of other countries)- is abysmal. That's why most of them make mistakes in their descriptions that are unbelievably wrong (for large numbers, the idea that the bullet moves in the direction the gun is pointed is the limit of their knowledge)
Click to expand...
There are even a few supposedly intelligent posters here, all outside the US, who apparently don't even understand that last part. They lack anything resembling accurate knowledge of firearms and how they work in the real world. Which is why I gave up trying to debate anything regarding firearms on this forum.
 
I use my guns to cut plywood. And my keyboard to go on suicidal killing sprees.
 
Tricky said:
There is little doubt that the first guns were made not only to kill, but to kill humans. Surely, they were quickly adapted for the purpose of killing animals for food as well, but, being the warlike creatures we are, the military applications came first. I think you will see that many early technological improvements had anti-personnel purposes in mind as well.

Certainly, other applications have followed, but they use the basic gun model for projecting non-lethal missiles, rather than deadly ones, ranging from tranquilizer darts to paint-balls. These emphasize our newfound morality which decries useless killing, but it does not disguise the original purpose of the weapon.

This is not such a surprise. From the first discovery of pointy sticks, humans have turned their technological expertise to weaponry. It's just the way we are. The "problem" is our relatively new morality, which I believe emphasizes empathy more than at any time in history. This in turn may result from our discovery of modern agriculture, and that large, inwardly peaceful populations survive better than smaller, hostile ones. But for whatever reason, modern morality states that killing, except in defense, is now "bad", a morality I share.

And if killing is bad, then making and disseminating tools that (mostly) have this express purpose is bound to be viewed as a moral issue as well. It is almost cognitive dissonance to simultaneously reject murder, yet embrace the tools of it. I suspect that this is our old, savage morality which has not yet given up the ghost. Of course, one can respect the "beauty" and workmanship of a piece of technology, but there is no point in denying what our love affair with them says about us. We are still savages at heart, with all the lust that implies. This is simply one of the less flattering parts of being human.
Click to expand...

Well said. Nominated.

Ranb said:
So how do you determine if a gun is intended or designed to kill humans? For example, does this "intended to kill" label apply to a rifle that has never been supplied to any military or uses a cartridge designed specifically for civilian use?
Click to expand...

:rolleyes:

Pretty much any gun that isn't specifically designed for sporting or hunting purposes is designed to kill people. I'm trying to figure out exactly what the gun being designed specifically for civilian use has to do with things - civilians don't shoot people now? Seeing as how one of the main reasons people say they own guns is for personal protection, it seems a little bit silly to say that civilians don't buy guns with the intended target being another person (if a target presents itself - I'm not saying that all people who buy guns want to use them on another person, just that anyone buying a gun for 'personal protection' is buying it to use on another person if they need to).

Gagglegnash said:
Still, why condemn a sport because the thing you use was originally used to kill?
Click to expand...

Is anybody here condemning target shooting as a sport? I don't recall anybody doing so, but I could have missed the post.

Supercharts said:
But so far in this discussion it seems that "kill" something means humans.
Let's establish that in this discussion "to kill" means to kill humans.
Click to expand...

Let's not, seeing as how I specifically drew a distinction between the two phrases. "To kill" means "to kill". "To kill humans" means "to kill humans". Don't confuse the general and the specific.
 
JoeEllison said:
Generally speaking, guns are for killing. You can use them for other things, but it doesn't change their basic purpose. My cell phone can take pictures. It doesn't make it a camera, the purpose of my cell phone is still making phone calls.
Click to expand...

I guess you've never heard the term "camera-phone?" If your phone has the ability to take pictures then part of the purpose of the phone is to take pictures.
 
Ranb said:
The inventors of early firearms made them primarily for warfare and hunting.
Click to expand...
Actually, early firearms were exclusively military in their application. The first gunpowder weapons were cannon - which are not actually all that useful if you want to take home and cook what you shot. Cannon got smaller and smaller until varieties existed that were man-portable. It was only after this that firearms became useful for hunting. Guns were invented specifically for use in warfare.

I used to wonder why people wanted to collect guns in this modern day. Guns are made in order to kill. I didn't find that particularly desirable as a category for collection. But then I realised something.

I would collect swords if I could afford them. Swords have no use whatsoever in hunting. Sure - some boar hunting swords were made, but they were really boar spears in disguise. A sword is a device that was invented for a single purpose, and throughout its history until very recently could be used only for that single purpose, which was to kill a fellow human being.

If I could stomach the idea of collecting swords, why shouldn't I be able to stomach the idea of collecting guns? It struck me as hypocritical.

I currently use a sword in a recreational way. Firearms can also be used in a recreational way. I'd love to collect swords. Other people would love to collect firearms. Why should I object to that?
 
My point was that comparing guns with knives in such an argument is stupid.
A knife is a versatile tool, a gun isn't.

"Guns are made for killing" isn't a good argument either, but the knife argument is a rubbish counterargument.
 
Why are guns made to kill?
Click to expand...
fishbait said:
Because we don't yet have the technology to make lethal seltzer bottles or creme pies.
Click to expand...
Tricky said:
You are behind the time. Polonium seltzer is all the rage in assassin circles these days.
Click to expand...
Mobyseven said:
That reminds me...the umbrella you borrowed from me? Don't go poking anybody with it, 'kay?
Click to expand...
This is one of the funniest things I've read in a long time. A long time. Such subtle humour.
 
bjornart said:
"Guns are made for killing" isn't a good argument either, but the knife argument is a rubbish counterargument.
Click to expand...

I can't speak for other people, but I don't use 'guns are made for killing' as a direct argument for gun control. Instead, it's one of the counter-arguments against the false analogy often invoked along the lines of, "Cars kill more people than guns, so by your logic we should ban cars," or, "Alcohol kills more people than guns, so by your logic we should bring back prohibition."

The 'guns are made for killing' counter-argument is valid because it demonstrates that the analogy being made is a false one. Also important counter-arguments is the fact that I am not calling for guns to be outright banned (and neither are most people on this board - indeed I can't think of a single person, though if I'm wrong please correct me), and the fact that cars and alcohol do have restrictions on them - indeed, in the USA it's harder to legally drive a car than to legally obtain a firearm.

arthwollipot said:
This is one of the funniest things I've read in a long time. A long time. Such subtle humour.
Click to expand...

Yay! Someone got the joke! (And did a livejournal about it!) :D
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom