Why are guns made to kill?

[Francesca R]

Of course guns are not made to kill people. That's usually illegal. It's like saying that CD rippers/burners are made to pirate copyrighted material.

 

[Ranb]

NoNoNoNoNoNoNo!!!! Why do you want the gun at home??? Guns at home is precisely what this law is intended to prevent! You do all the cleaning and repairs and so on at the gun club.

Most of what I enjoy about guns is tinkering with them and developing new loads for shooting. Having to go to the club might make that less enjoyable. But if the club had a complete machine shop available to it members, then that might improve things greatly.

Ranb

 

[Rolfe]

Well, I don't know, it's not my hobby. But if such a facility is needed (or even generally desired), then I would imagine it must be provided, as there's no way these guns are going anywhere.

Rolfe.

 

[Furcifer]

Did anyone point out that guns aren't made to kill people, people are made to kill people?

 

[Autolite]

Did anyone point out that guns aren't made to kill people, people are made to kill people?

3bodyproblem, this thread is a gun control discussion. Please try and keep your posts within the gist of the topic. Common sense and self evident facts should be avoided ...

 

[Skeptical Greg]

If one contends guns are not made to kill, one would have to also contend that gun manufacturers have overlooked an important use for their product.

It seems they would do well to take advantage of this fact , get some ads out there and make some money ..

 

[Tricky]

Did anyone point out that guns aren't made to kill people, people are made to kill people?

Wrong and right. Both are "made" (or evolved) to kill people. Way back at post 38 I pointed out that killing people is something that people have always done and that our widespread empathy-based morality is a fairly new thing.

However, there is little doubt that guns assist in the satisfaction of that "basic instinct" rather efficiently, as they were designed to do.

Now if you prefer the "basic instinct" of killing people and do not wish to participate in this newfangled morality thing, such is your choice, but don't be surprised if you're not invited to many parties.

 

[Frozenwolf150]

In terms of human evolution, humans evolved not only to compete with each other, but also to cooperate with each other. Both are part of what it means to be human, at the same time. Given that guns were developed for the purpose of competition, to kill other human beings, it doesn't really surprise me that over time we've found more cooperative uses for firearms, so to speak. I think a fairer assessment would be to say that, since both competition and cooperation are part of human nature, then any given tool that humans invent should be viewed both ways. Guns may have originated as killing tools, but this is no longer solely the case, and the other purposes we've adapted them to should also be part of how we define guns.

Personally, I hate guns, I don't own one, and I think they're dangerous. If you have a gun in a household with a person suffering from depression, it makes them more likely to use the gun in a suicide attempt. There's also that statistic (often cited by liberal gun control proponents) that you're 40 times more likely to shoot a family member than an intruder. However I'm not for gun control in terms of restricting the right to own one; I'm more in favor of gun safety and responsible ownership. Knives kill more people than guns each year. Fists and feet kill more people than guns each year. As a former martial arts practitioner, I know for a fact that you don't need a gun in order to kill someone, and in some situations guns aren't even the most effective weapons.

My stance is that you should be able to own a gun if you want. In the meantime, I'll just stick with my fists and feet. The best part is that no license is required to carry.

 

[Lensman]

I don't see the objection to reasonable gun control, eg. a waiting period & determination of mental state - after all, you wouldn't want someone with a severe personality disorder or even anger management problems to be able to just go into a shop & buy one over the counter.

I live in the UK & I don't mind guns - I quite like them & have some markmanship awards from my younger days in the Air Training Corps, I've fired .303 Lee Enfields, 7.62mm SLRs & .22 singleshot, bolt action HKs. I've never owned anything more deadly than a BSA .22 air rifle, but if I could afford to, I'd join a gun club & own some sort of rifle (not sure about the current types available), but I wouldn't want to keep it at home - too risky around here.

 

[Ranb]

.....There's also that statistic (often cited by liberal gun control proponents) that you're 40 times more likely to shoot a family member than an intruder......

What you are quoting is a study done in 1978-83 in King county WA (Seattle) stating that "firearm in the home is "43 times more likely" to be used to kill a member of the household than to kill a criminal intruder” The study claimed that most of the deaths were suicides.

The study did not include non-lethal uses of firearms in which no one was shot or when the firearm was not discharged. Other studies have concluded that firearms were frequently used for defense without actually discharging the gun.

Ranb

 

[Tricky]

The study did not include non-lethal uses of firearms in which no one was shot or when the firearm was not discharged. Other studies have concluded that firearms were frequently used for defense without actually discharging the gun.

I'm betting the study also did not include "near misses" where a gun was used in a dangerous manner, but nobody was hurt. For example, if somebody fired a gun in the air just to make noise, or somebody fired a gun at a noise (that turned out not to be a threat) but missed. Or perhaps the gun were left loaded and accessible to a child, but the child didn't find it. I'm betting that if all these these things were considered, it would still show that gun possession is more of a danger than a protection.

 

[YoPopa]

I'm betting the study also did not include "near misses" where a gun was used in a dangerous manner, but nobody was hurt.

What the study does include but is rarely mentioned is that in addition to family members, the FBI uniform Crime Reports also include victims who were known to the shooter. This perversely includes gang on gang drug turf wars. When a Bloods kills a Cryps the stats assume they knew each other and the stat gets lumped in with family stats. Drug war shootings vastly outnumber anything that could reasonably be called domestic violence.

 

[Tricky]

What the study does include but is rarely mentioned is that in addition to family members, the FBI uniform Crime Reports also include victims who were known to the shooter. This perversely includes gang on gang drug turf wars. When a Bloods kills a Cryps the stats assume they knew each other and the stat gets lumped in with family stats. Drug war shootings vastly outnumber anything that could reasonably be called domestic violence.

If this is true (and I'm not sure how to tell if it is) it is kind of a push. If it is a drug war, then it is kind of hard to call this a "defensive" use of a gun. Drug wars certainly can't be used as a shining example of why it is good for law-abiding citizens to have guns.

 

[YoPopa]

If this is true (and I'm not sure how to tell if it is) it is kind of a push.

I am looking at a 1992 report and the categories for murder victims are
Family 18%
Acquaintance (friend & non friend) 40%
Stranger 13%
Unknown 30%

If you take just the Family as being Family (duh) then you have a much greater probability of shooting someone else. I'm not saying that's a good thing, just trying to figure out how these stats work.

I'll do some more digging and see if I can get more recent reports with the caveat that this is back of the napkin kind of calculations, you know that and you know that I know that.

If it is a drug war, then it is kind of hard to call this a "defensive" use of a gun. Drug wars certainly can't be used as a shining example of why it is good for law-abiding citizens to have guns.

Very true. Drug wars have little to do with defensive home use which is why it's a crime to scare people with stats so heavily weighted by them.

It's also worth noting that drug turf wars have been in the decline, IIRC, but the studies so often quoted pre-date that decline.

 

[Ysidro]

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.

I've actually had that argument made about martial arts to me in chat last year. We were supposedly "macho" and interested in "violence". No matter what we said, it wasn't accepted as why we did what we did.

I have no point, I just want to let you know someone actually bothered to say that sort of thing to myself and others awhile back.

For the record, even though I practice an art that makes no bones about being about killing, I have no intention of killing or getting into fights. I may get into some friendly sparring with friends and strangers but that's about it. And frankly, that's more about me dealing with people hitting me then me hitting others.

Don't know what this has to do about guns but I'm sure someone else can figure something out.

 

[Ysidro]

Aren't most modern military rifles designed to wound more than kill? I know I've heard this somewhere, but I have absolutely no valid citations. Is there someone more knowledgable who can support this or strike it?

 

[Sir Robin Goodfellow]

My understanding is that assault rifles are engineered to do a maximum amount of damage with a minimum of rounds fired. I saw a bit on television regarding the design of such a weapon, and it was explained that the projectile is supposed to tumble end over end when it strikes tissue, theoretically causing more injury than a bullet that would pass straight through. I'm neither a gunsmith nor a physicist, so I don't know how that holds up in the real world.

 

[Autolite]

My understanding is that assault rifles are engineered to do a maximum amount of damage with a minimum of rounds fired. I saw a bit on television regarding the design of such a weapon, and it was explained that the projectile is supposed to tumble end over end when it strikes tissue, theoretically causing more injury than a bullet that would pass straight through. I'm neither a gunsmith nor a physicist, so I don't know how that holds up in the real world.

I've read the same thing. I believe that they are referring to the NATO standard 5.56mm (.223 cal.) round commonly used in modern assault rifles. It is a smaller, lower powered round that apparently has a tendency to "tumble" upon impact with soft tissue (creating a nastier wound channel). IIRC it is because it's aerodynamic shape causes it to slightly "wobble" in flight.

FWII, the 5.56 round replaced the previous standard 7.62mm (.308 cal.) round because being smaller and lighter, the soldier could carry more rounds for the same given weight of the older, bigger bullets. Also a smaller, lighter round meant that a smaller, lighter rifle could be used.

The old 7.62mm military round was heavier and more powerful and was therefore more likely to create a "through-and-through" type of wound although I wouldn't want to be at the receiving end of either bullet.

Perhaps this renders the entire thread moot. Guns aren't made to kill people, but apparently bullets are...

 

[ponderingturtle]

There are non lethal weapons out there.

Yep like the good old fashion club.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Because I am not offended when a person assumes I own a gun for sporting purposes. When some ignorant person assumes I own firearms because I plan on killing someone or breaking the law in other ways it pisses me off.

Ranb

And there are people who feel the same way about the bombs they make.