Is the purpose of guns in general to kill?

Are guns designed to kill?

The statement makes too broad of an assumption.  It implies that this is the most important reason why guns exist in our society.  Guns can be used as tools to make sounds (like in a race), to shoot at paper for entertainment and to hunt.  You cannot make the broad statement that guns are designed to kill and maintain logical integrity.  

The purpose of a gun is to accelerate a projectile from zero velocity with respect to the gun to a certain velocity (such as 1200 feet per second) in a controllable vector (meaning you can control the direction)

This is a universal and correct explanation of the purpose of a gun as a tool.

None of my guns are meant to kill.  They serve the purpose of entertainment and sport and to protect my family and if I had to protect my family my objectives would be 1. to stop the bad guy and 2 try not to kill him.  In fact, such a large fraction of guns in our society are meant for entertainment and other functions than killing that to describe guns in general as being meant to kill is irrational.

That would be like saying the only purpose of the motorcycle is to jump ramps or the only purpose of the car is to ram things.

I know it is a difficult to escape the constant brainwashing of the media about guns, but an intelligent, open minded person should be able to take this in, adapt and learn.

No matter what your emotions tell you what the purpose of an object is, the real purpose of an object is based on what that object is used to do most of the time.  Today tens of thousands of guns were used for other purposes than to kill while only 80 or so were used to kill here in the US.  Making the purpose of guns in general to be entertainment and not killing. Please rec this so people outside the gun forum can see it and join in the discussion

I suppose you could use them for 'entertainment' and 'sport,' but you would be just kidding yourself.

The purpose of a gun is to kill.


But good luck with your yawn... gunspeak.

Many hobbyists do in fact use screwdrivers for entertainment. Are they kidding themselves? Deluding themselves into thinking that they are enjoying themselves, when if fact they are just obsessively screwing things? Screwlust? Furthermore, while they are in fact "screwing" for enjoyment, millions of people use firearms recreationally without killing a single thing.

Of course the shooting sports have their origins in preparations for hunting and war. But I challenge you to watch an NFL game and deny that football also has its origins in combat. Baseball too, and soccer, and lacrosse, and don't even get me started on polo.

This thread is rife with tortured semantics: "The purpose of a gun is to kill." The indefinite article "a" denotes "any." This shotgun



is designed for, intended for, marketed for, purchased for, and used for knocking down clay discs that are flying through the air from a distance of 16 to about 100 yards. How is that not its "purpose"? It is capable of killing, certainly, but I would venture that few if any have been used for that. It is not a hunting gun, and it is not a combat weapon. There are guns that are much better suited to those purposes.

Hunting guns are most definitely designed for and used for killing. The best hunting gun is the one that kills most quickly, both to spare the animal from prolonged suffering and to save the hunter a long and possibly unsuccessful trek after wounded prey. A very large and powerful cartridge is desirable. Combat weapons, however, are designed with other considerations in mind, such as how much ammunition a soldier can feasibly carry. The purpose of a military firearms is to render an adversary unable to fight, and killing may not be necessary or even desirable. Lethality must be balanced with logistics, which explains the universal move to smaller-caliber infantry weapons after WWII.

Let's talk about defensive weapons for a moment, shall we? Is their "purpose... to kill"? I would say that their purpose is to project violence or the threat of violence onto an aggressor for the purpose of halting aggression. If actual violence occurs, it may or may not be lethal; the threat of violence is obviously not lethal, yet it may be sufficient to achieve the desired purpose, which is to ensure personal safety. Of course, the same gun could be wielded by the aggressor for offensive purposes, which may or may not include killing. I would venture that the purpose of the tool depends on the intention of its wielder, but of course your camp doesn't like that formulation.

What I'm hearing is a lot of sloppy language and sloppy logic being used to promote an agenda. Good luck with your yawn... doublespeak.

Heard you the first time, Chucko. You're still wrong.

One purpose.

OK. They're wrong too.

Read it again:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=347754&mesg_id=347788

Purpose. It's all about purpose.

We can play this ridiculous game until everyone gets tired of it and quits the thread. Is that your strategy? To wear your opponents down with nonsensical repetition until they either get tired and go away or get angry and say something that causes their threads to be erased? Do you really think that this serves your cause well?

You can shoot to kill, you can shoot to scare, you can shoot at a target, you can shoot to start a race.

Just as not everyone with a screwdriver is there to unscrew the hasp from the padlock on your shed and steal your property, not everyone with a gun is is there to shoot you.

It's not a hard distinction to make, unless you're blind to any alternatives.

In fact, it only supports your total wrongness. Nice job.

Here, this is how it works:

Screwdriver is to screw, as firearm is to bullet.

Each is a tool used to drive another object in a desired direction. I can use a screwdriver to build a house, or fix a lawnmower, or any number of good/neutral things. I can also use it to pry open a window for a B&E, sabotage a vehicle, or any number of malevolent things. Or, I could simply fuck up with it and wreck your brakes.

I can use a firearm to drive a bullet into game to kill it for food, or punch holes in paper, or ring steel gongs at long distances, or any number of good/neutral things. I can also use it to malevolently harm a living thing, or sabotage materiel, or any number of evil things. I could also fuck up with it and damage something/someone.

They are pretty much the same.

Focusing on the tool, rather than the intent/competence of the user seems awfully oversimple and immature, now, don't you think?

But, whatever.

Because that is, mechanically, what a firearm does. What you launch that projectile at is a different question, just like the question of what you drive the screw into.

At all costs.

The PURPOSE of a gun is to move a projectile down the barrel at high velocity.


Now, that we have the purpose of a gun cleared up, you can stop repeating yourself.

You'll note that I actually commend Speck Tater for acknowledging that, while firearms (as a concept) may ultimately serve the purpose of inflicting incapacitating and/or lethal trauma on a living entity, they have many other uses.

What anyone who harps on about "the only purpose of a gun is to kill" is attempting to insinuate is a) that firearms have no other uses, and b) that killing is by definition morally wrong. Neither is true. The fact is that firearms can--and frequently are--used in self-defense (or defense of others) without a shot being fired, let alone anyone being physically injured. That may not be the ultimate purpose of the concept of a firearm, but that is one of its potential uses. And even when firearms are used to inflict potentially fatal trauma, doing so may be morally justified, e.g. to prevent harm to innocents.

Not that you don't know that, but I notice you have a tendency to avoid some things "at all costs" yourself.

It could be. It depends on the purpose of the particular firearm he or she is designing. But you knew that.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=347754&mesg_id=347788

Read it again carefully and address it.

Go get 'em.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=347754&mesg_id=347788

Read it again. Please point out where you feel that I am in error and why.


This is so overstated as to be meaningless. You might say something along the lines of "The original purpose of handheld gunpowder weapons was to maim and kill, and many such weapons are still designed with that purpose in mind." Then you would be closer to accuracy, but that wouldn't have quite the same emotional impact, would it?

Hyperbole is not your friend.

...and the banality of "guns only serve one purpose" falls apart rapidly. Because if you start talking about specific models of firearm, you have to account for the models that aren't much good for killing, e.g. anything made by Anschütz for silhouette or target shooting, unless you want to explain to me why anyone would design a bolt-action, single-shot pistol in .22 Hornet or rifle in .22LR (http://jga.anschuetz-sport.com/index.php5?menu=105&sprache=1) if their intent was to create an efficient killing machine. Or a single-shot shotgun (http://www.krieghoff.com/ki/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=63&Itemid=75). Or a semi-auto pistol chambered in .32 S&W Long (excellent ballistics, lousy stopping power) with a 5-round magazine, anatomical grip and adjustable weights to provide balance (http://www.carl-walther.de/index.php?company=walther&lang=EN&content=products&hid=1&uid=3&product=671). Or a similar pistol, only chambered for .22LR and single shot (http://www.carl-walther.de/index.php?company=walther&lang=EN&content=products&hid=1&uid=20&product=699).

I could go on with other examples. Point being that these are models of firearm by no means designed for killing anything, or even for practicing killing. Nobody fucking hunts with a biathlon rifle. Stick to "guns in general" and you'll be on much safer ground.

Of the time for something other than killing

One purpose.

You are designed to have enough common sense not to shoot bullets at things that don't need bullets shot at them. As alway, you (not the gun) determine its purpose

One purpose.

was found on "Last Stand Hill" on the Little Bighorn Battle Field. the round had lain there for roughly 130 years. in all that time w/out human intervention it never went off it never killed anyone it just laid there like a penny would. I can kill you just as dead w/ a rock or a bat or a knife or a weed eater or a well trained pit bull or a rolling pin or a screwdriver.

It's not the object it's the intent of the person using it. but your unreasoning hatred of guns won't let you see that

ETA

I assume that your intent is to totally outlaw civilian possession of fire arms so if I'm wrong feel free to correct me.

Starting form that assumption let me point out that Marijuana has been illegal in this country for around 100 years. There is a total ban on possesion of Marijuana but Marijuana is mor plentiful today and of better quality than it was when it was legal.

What makes you think a total ban on firearms would have any other effect? Why is your option viable?

A bullet's purpose is to deliver kinetic energy to a target.


Neither imply killing anyone. Millions of rounds are fired every day without killing a single human.

They are not all suitable for killing, and indeed, the only one I have that likely ever has, hasn't taken a life since at least WWII.

The purpose of a gun is to fire a chunk of lead at high velocity (as your screwdriver turns a screw).


My guns could be mis-used and utilized in a criminal manner, and commit aggravated assault, assault with a deadly weapon, or murder, just as someone could stab someone with a screwdriver.

Good analogy. Thank you for participating.

Ann Richards and Gun Control made Bush the President....

Ann Richards, then Democratic Governor of Texas, refused to sign the CCW bill in Texas. Bush, running against her, said he would sign the CCW bill if he won, and did both. The rest is history.

Clinton signed the Assault Weapons Ban, and as a result the Republicans took Congress in '94. The rest is History.

See what supporting Gun Control costs Democrats, and the country?

Guns to start races were used only because they already existed as weapons. Otherwise there are many other ways to make a noise signifying the beginning of a race. In horse racing they use a bell. And, in fact, a starter;'s pistol isn't even a gun. The barrel is solid. No bore. No bullet in the cartridge. It's a noise maker in the general shape of a gun, but it's not a gun.

Shooting at a paper target is, of course, a competitive sport. It's even part of the Olympics. But it only exists because it was originally a means of improving one's aim for the purpose of killing.

Hunting is, by definition, killing. Of course hunting serves the useful purpose of feeding people, so I have no objection to that. I eat meat, and I know that in doing so I am at the very least indirectly responsible for the killing of animals. I can live with that. However, capturing game meat could be done without guns, and domesticated animals don't need to be hunted. So guns are not strictly necessary for procuring meat.

In truth, guns have many uses that do not directly entail killing, but a gun's sole purpose is to kill a living thing. The only question is under what circumstances are you willing to kill another living thing? I would certainly hunt to feed myself and my family. I would certainly shoot a bear that was attacking me. I would certainly shoot a person who was attacking me or my family if there were no other way to disarm that attacker.

But no matter how justifiable the reason for killing another living thing, the gun is still an instrument whose reason for existence is the killing another living thing.

...in at least acknowledging that firearms have other uses than to kill, and that killing may in certain circumstances be morally justified. Because that is what everybody who wheels out the "the purpose of a gun is to kill" banality conveniently tries to ignore.

Than 1% of it's use (using a gun to kill) while another use makes up more than 50% of it's use (target shooting). Assigning an object a purpose based on what it rarely does is faulty logic

Personally, I enjoyed target shooting when I was in the Air Force back in the 1960's. When I went back to civilian life I continued to enjoy target shooting. I still do. But when ammo became too expense for my budget I switched to target shooting with high precision air rifles. The rifles and pistols I own today are all just as much fun to target shoot with, but they are of such low power that they are non-lethal except to small rodents and large insects.

On the one hand it could be argued that these devices are guns, since they look like guns and fire a small projectile from a barrel, but with a stricter interpretation of the word "gun" it could be argued that these devices are toys, or mere imitations of real guns. Many gun owners I know think of my Crosman guns as mere toys because they are incapable of bringing down even a small deer.

However, the only ways out of that logical impasse are circular. If the device is non-lethal then it is not a gun. Therefore guns are devices meant for killing. OR if it looks like a gun and shoots like a gun then it is a gun, even if it is non-lethal. Therefore guns are meant for things other than killing.

So clearly this is an argument that can never be settled by logic because people on either side of the issue can choose their own preferred set of axioms from which to argue.

I prefer the pragmatic approach. I believe that guns were initially created for the purpose of killing. I also believe that other legitimate uses were found for guns, and that today some guns (for example, guns made only for target recreational purposes, including my own air guns) are made for purposes other than killing. I can't possibly claim that all guns made today are for killing. That's obviously not true. My argument is only that guns originated for the purpose of killing.

(As an ironic side bar observe that on the Crosman web site the most prominent feature mentioned for their air rifles is their killing power: http://www.crosman.com/airguns/ so even with "toy" guns, killing seems to be a prominent justification for their existence.)

I'll acknowledge that the examples of flare guns et al. might not be the best ones available, but there exist firearms such as those designed for various Olympic events (e.g. biathlon, rifle and pistol target shooting) that conform to any realistic definition of "firearm," and could theoretically be used to kill, but really aren't designed for that purpose. In the present day and age, no single-shot bolt-action firearm chambered for .22LR can be said to be "meant for killing" when so many other calibers and modes of operation are available that would do the job of killing so much more effectively.

The Anschuetz 1827 Fortner biathlon rifle (http://jga.anschuetz-sport.com/index.php5?produktID=271&menu=99&sprache=1&produktShow=detail) or 1907 series target rifle (http://jga.anschuetz-sport.com/index.php5?produktID=130&menu=105&sprache=1&produktShow=detail)--to name but two examples--are not firearms that were designed for any other purpose than very specific sporting events, to the extent that neither is particularly well suited to the event for which the other is designed (the 1827, being a repeater, cannot be legally used for Olympic target shooting, while a non-repeater like the 1907 would place any biathlete at a severe disadvantage). This in spite of the fact that both are potentially lethal weapons, being chambered for .22LR rounds.

The odd thing is that you acknowledge that there exist firearms, for which the definition of "gun" (or even "firearm") does not need to be stretched, that are nonetheless not created (i.e. designed and manufactured) for the purpose of killing. I cannot disagree with your basic assertion that man-portable firearms--as a class of devices--were originally conceived and created for the purpose of inflicting incapacitating physical trauma (up to and including death)* on battlefield opponents, and that the development of the concept into hunting weapons merely extended that purpose to game animals.

But when you acknowledge that there exist specific models of firearm that are clearly not designed for the purpose of inflicting incapacitating physical trauma on a living organism, and that even weapons that have been designed for the purpose of inflicting such trauma may be put to other uses (witness the popularity of the 1911 and Glock designs in competition shooting), it becomes very difficult indeed to support the insinuations inherent in the banality that "guns only serve one purpose: to kill." Those insinuations being that the fact (which I will concede) that firearms as a class of devices were conceived and exist to kill ipso facto means that anyone who owns a firearm must therefore possess it for the purpose of killing. That is utter bullshit,k to the extent that I don't even entirely understand why we need to have a special thread to explain how much bullshit it is.

* - I'm not trying to be euphemistic about the effects of firearms, but from a combatant's perspective, the object of inflicting physical trauma is to render an enemy hors de combat, i.e. incapable of combat; the issue is that, human physiology being what it is, the amount of force required to reliably place an enemy hors de combat is almost invariably also enough to kill him.

I doubt guns have killed or maimed more than a few hundred million living creatures since their inception. I use my .22 to create trenches to plant vegetable seeds in my raised beds. :eyes:

A .22 would be ineffective for that, and very nearly all .22 bullets are made of lead, so you've got that to deal with. Plus, I imagine having a solid chunk of metal a few inches under the soil would interfere with the roots. You'll be spitting out slugs each time you bite into a radish!

But yeah, regardless of their "purpose", guns are extremely useful in the task of killing. Living in the country, I need to kill quite a few things over the course of a week. I also have lots of loved ones who I wish to keep alive, and a tiny cross-section of the population has a habit of killing innocent people, so I need to be prepared for that. So I find guns quite a valuable tool to keep close at hand.

He may have had it for protection or entertainment, but he used it for murder suicide.

Very conveniently and efficiently accomplished.

at target ranges. They had a great time enjoying their hobby and no one was hurt.

Shortly deer season will be open and many hunters will take to the woods and harvest game. Families will enjoy tasty meat without steroids and chemicals and will stock their freezers to help avoid the rising food prices.

...about how the firearm "emboldened" him to commit the act. I like that story because it reminds me of the Golden Age before firearms were invented, when there was no war and no murder and no suicide. Or was it just that war and murder and suicide weren't "convenient" or "efficient"? I always get confused about that.

How very progressive of you to impute data from a VERY small subset onto an entire group.

If you add the murder and suicide rates of japan it is higher than the US and many suicides in Japan are in fact murders. The gun ban there doesn't seem to help reduce violence.

My guns never leave the house. I have no desire to ever shoot anybody. However, if forced to protect my family, I should have the option of using deadly force.

should be "Thou shalt not murder".

There have been things designed in the past used for military/battle/killing that have turned out to benefit life for humans in a positive use. There have also been items designed with the well-being of people in mind which turned out to be dangerous and killed many people as well.

The intent of the designer does not matter.
Firearms, I believe were designed to kill. So what.

Firearms were designed first and foremost as weapons, and thus for killing things, primarily people.

Yes, weapons can be used for sport, or entertainment. Many people hunt with bows and arrows, or target shoot. Bows and arrows are still weapons, and were no doubt designed as such.

I find arguments like this a waste of energy. There is no need to try and whitewash what firearms are in order to try and make them more palatable.

Good anti-lynching device. Anti-tyranny machine.

Apparently the fact I haven't killed anything and even tried to avoid profiting through the death of animals for 10 years is made worthless by the fact I own several tools that move a tiny piece of metal from one place to another place very fast.

Yeah, there I said it. I have some that are used as duty weapons. Those are strictly fighting guns any way you look at it. There's no nice way to put it. Any time you see a police officer you can be sure the weapon he is carrying is first and foremost a fighting tool. Most will never have to actually fire their weapons on duty.

My other guns are all used for hunting. That's their purpose. So yes they are also very efficient killing tools. That's what hunting is. I don't know why I bother taking any of them with me when I hunt because it's been years since I actually bothered to harvest any game. These days I spend more time stalking and tracking and don't really have the desire to take a shot.

I know guys who have guns they use strictly for punching paper. I don't really do target shooting anymore so I can't say anything I have is really that useful for that.

It doesn't really make any difference, though. The 2nd Amendment isn't about hunting or Camp Perry.

... then the design is flawed. They aren't used all that frequently to kill given the tens of millions, if not hundreds of millions, of firearms in America.

They aren't even used in the commission of most crime.

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/cv09.pdf

In 2009, only 22% of criminal offenders were armed, including 8% who were armed with a firearm.

It was not designed for those purposes.

http://jga.anschuetz-sport.com/index.php5?produktID=271&menu=99&sprache=1&produktShow=detail

It's a rifle chambered in .22LR and designed exclusively for the purpose of competing in biathlons. It is decidedly sub-optimal (to put it mildly) for any applications that involve killing anything other than little black discs.

Yes, there are plenty of models of firearm that are designed to incapacitate by means of potentially lethal trauma (and I won't deny the majority of mine are), but if you're going to be talking about firearms in general, you should beware of generalizing.

however that is not true for the majority of guns, is it?

also just so you know the question was asked as a generality, which makes my answer perfectly appropriate

Can you rationalize it by giving me an examble of an object in which society has assigned an object a purpose in which that object is almost never used for? You mention guns are for killing even though they are not used to kill in well over 99% of the time they are used.

But they were not originally designed for those purposes.

AmIright?

A derivate argument doesn't really hold here

The javelin throw, hammer throw, shot put, fencing, archery.

How is it not? Try these on for size:

"The purpose of a javelin is to kill."
"The purpose of a foil or épée is to kill."
"The purpose of a longbow is to kill."
"The purpose of karate is to kill."
"The purpose of kendo is to kill."

All of these statements are arguably true, but only if we indulge in gross generalization and ignore the evolution of these objects and disciplines away from warlike and toward sporting purposes. Maybe you don't like sports based on war, and that's fine. But to claim that all firearms are killing machines first and foremost is as inaccurate as the statements above. Granted that a modern biathlon rifle is potentially more lethal than a fencing foil, but it is less lethal than the service-caliber rifles that were in use in the sport until the 1970s.

They are all pacifist and tired of being persecuted. I had to give them Valium last night after they read all the negative post about them. Marlin, Winchester, and Springfield are becoming neurotic and I fear they will break out and become mass murderers. Please stop bullying my firearms.

and can only be kept calm with large medicinal doses of vodka and schnapps.

That calms them down.