What exactly is the point of saying guns are designed to kill?

Kill what? For the sake of argument, I'll stipulate that my AR15 and 1911 are both designed to kill people.

Who or what is my pump action .22 Remington Fieldmaster designed to kill? Rabbits?

Who or what is my double barrel .410 designed to kill? Doves?

Who or what is a Beretta Silver Pigeon Over-Under designed to kill? Sporting clays?

Who or what is a Benelli MP90S designed to kill? Olympic bulls-eye targets?

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

Well in this thread, the point was to draw a distinction between cars and firearms, in the context of a dunce post comparing driving a car over the speed limit or getting into an auto accident with failing to maintain accountability for your firearm to the point where you get to the airport having forgotten you have a pistol in your baggage.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

Like you said, guns are tools, and are designed to expel a projectile (or multiple projectiles). What the user tries to hit with those projectiles is up to the user.

The intended purpose of most legally purchased guns is hunting, target shooting, competitions, or just collecting. Even most home defense purchases are made in the hope that they are never used for that purpose.

Like I said, they are multi purpose tools, and most of those non-lethal purposes are random things people came up with that the designers didn't think about. As mentioned, there are plenty of guns that are designed for specific sporting/competitive purposes (air rifles, biathlon rifles, etc), and while they could probably still kill a person, it certainly isn't their purpose.

Saying guns are designed to kill, is like saying pickup trucks are designed to haul drywall. It's just one of the many things you can do with it.

I'm not seeing it.

Let's say I forget that I have a bag of fireworks in my carry-on. Is that somehow less of a problem than forgetting that my gun is in my bag, because fireworks are designed for oohs and ahs, and not "to kill"?

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

I don't know that it's useful to build a full hierarchy of all possible offenses, but surely forgetting that you have explosive materials in your bag is also not great.

Ownership of certain dangerous things requires more exercise of responsibility. If you have a bottle of poisonous or toxic liquid, you have to be careful of where and how you store it. If you have explosive materials, you have to maintain accountability of them and exercise more responsibility regarding where and how you store them. The same concept goes for firearms, and it's astounding and saddening that any supposed gun ownership advocates would argue others.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

Not for nothing, but you keep listing hunting as if it doesn't involve injuring or killing. I have to say, you might be doing it wrong.

That said, when you add hunting back into the "injure and /or kill" category, I think it's fairly obvious that the majority of firearms are produced and purchase by people or organizations that intend to use them for those purposes. Either military and law enforcement agencies who intend to use them (when legally required) to shoot people, criminals who intend to use them illegally to shoot or at least threaten to shoot people, citizens who intend to use them (if legally permissible and only if required) to defend themselves by shooting people, or by hunters who intend to use them to shoot game.

There's nothing wrong with most of those uses (except the illegal ones).


The purchasers intend use doesn't change what the weapon was designed to do. If I buy an AK-47 just because I think it looks cool and I want to paint it gold and hang it on my wall, that doesn't change the fact that it was designed to shoot people.


Of course that's true, but it doesn't represent the majority of firearms.


No. It's like saying pickup trucks are designed to transport people in the cab and goods of some sort in the bed. That's what they are designed to do. People may do other things with them, but that's what they were designed for.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

Ownership of certain dangerous things requires more exercise of responsibility.

Absolutely agree. I have no problem with that. I have no problem, whatsoever, with the idea that owning a gun carries responsibility for handling it safely.

But yeah, that applies to other dangerous things, like, say, cars. It does not matter that a car is designed to transport people or things, and not "to kill." Cars are dangerous.

There's really no point in saying that "guns are designed to kill" other than to appeal to emotion, and it isn't even really true. And what something is "designed for" often has little to no bearing on how dangerous it is, and how that thing should be handled in a responsible manner.

The same concept goes for firearms, and it's astounding and saddening that any supposed gun ownership advocates would argue others.

It would be astounding if it happened, but it hasn't happened, so I'm unastounded.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

A couple of people in this thread remarked that forgetting you have a firearm in your bags is just a simple mistake. And Veganerd's response about guns being designed to kill was in response to a post that created the analogy between losing accountability for your firearm, and speeding by 10mph over the limit or having been involved in a car accident.

Yes, car ownership also requires added responsibility. I don't have any problem with that. That's why we have licensing requirements, all sorts or laws governing their use, and lots of legal penalties for violating those laws.

If you misuse your automobile sufficiently egregiously, I think you shouldn't drive anymore. If you can't maintain accountability for your firearm, I don't think you should own a firearm anymore. I don't think those are controversial ideas.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

A couple of people in this thread remarked that forgetting you have a firearm in your bags is just a simple mistake.

Because it can be, and often is. Just like forgetting to set the parking break can be just a simple mistake.

Saying, "I can understand how someone could make that mistake," is not the same thing as saying people have no responsibility in the matter.

And Veganerd's response about guns being designed to kill was in response to a post that created the analogy between losing accountability for your firearm, and speeding by 10mph over the limit or having been involved in a car accident.

And I'm still not seeing the point. We seemed to agree just a minute ago that the operative factor was the dangerousness of something- a gun, a car, whatever, and not what the object was "designed to do."

How many people have been killed because someone left their firearm in a carry-on bag, and how many people have been killed because of speeding?

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

Ok, forget it. Gun accountability isn't that big a deal.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

Its not an appeal to emotion anywhere in this debate. Ita a simple fact. Most guns are designed to kill. The most produced guns of all time are designed to kill on the battlefield. Hunting guns are designed to kill animals in nature. Etc.

Its as much of an appeal to emotion as saying cars are designed for transportation.


Unless it was designed to to something dangerous.


I think most people would say that dangerous things should be handled responsibly.

---

who's smarter than you're? i'm!