Guns are not designed to kill people

Great Debates
1

Every time I read a gun thread I see the comment Guns are designed to kill people and every time I see it it irritates me. That means despite being a hunter and competitive shooter, firing thousands of rounds using different rifles and pistols, I’ve never used a firearm for it’s designed purpose and fervently hope that I never do.

I thought about it and came up with this definition: Guns are designed to accurately propel a projectile.

Ammunition on the other hand…

Ammunition is designed for different purposes. There’s blank ammo, designed to simulate firing a ‘real’ bullet. There are rubber bullets and other ‘less lethal’ ammunition. This page shows different types of common bullets such as wadcutters, full metal jacket, soft point, hollow point, etc. Less common types of ammunition include armor piercing, incendiary, and tracer rounds.

All of these different types of ammunition, in the same caliber, can be fired in the same firearm with no modifications (blank adapters being the only exception that comes to mind). Once the bullet has left the barrel, the firearm has performed it’s designed function. It’s the ammunition that is designed for different purposes. Wadcutters to punch nice clean holes in a paper target. Rubber bullets to stun a person with much less chance of killing them. Armor piercing to, well, pierce armor. And so it goes.

Am I arguing semantics or making pointless distinctions? A firearm by itself is no better than a club. Ammunition by itself is about the same as a firecracker. Are firearms and ammunition so intertwined in a gun novice’s mind that one automatically equates with the other?

I’m willing to change my mind on this point or at least be less irritated when I read it. So am I the only one? Does this irritate anyone else or is it so obvious as to be a given?

I’d like to add a disclaimer. I’m not starting and then abandoning this thread. As you might be able to tell from my post count, I don’t post that often. Usually by the time I read every post, someone has already expressed my opinion. I only get to check the Dope in the evenings so I’ll respond to direct questions and I’ll do my best to contribute.

2

Oh, for crying out loud. You honestly think guns were designed for competitive target practice, and not killing?

Try paint ball. Designed not-for-killing. Squirt guns are good, too. Darts aren’t bad for the ol’ target practice, though they are pointy and could hurt.

3

Okay.

Guns were designed for killing living biological systems. Is that better?

4

They were invented for weapons in war. History is all about a society inventing the better weapon and then using it. Weapons are used to kill people.

5

And the purpose of propelling that projectile is…

I think you’d find it challenge to complete that sentence (or idea) without using the word kill. Your one option would be to call humans, animals and bullseyes all “targets” regardless of whether they are living things or inanimate objects, and ignoring the fact that the bullseyes only stand for the humans and animals anyway. It’s wrong if people are accusing you of being a potential killer just for owning a gun and enjoying it, but I don’t think you can define this away.

6

But as instruments of war - where the biological systems in question are soldiers who happen to be human.

That they were then also used for hunting is a secondary characteristic, but they were invented for the purpose of fighting wars - originally as cannons, then scaled down into hand cannons, and further improvements turned them into modern guns.

Guns wouldn’t have ever been invented if we weren’t looking for more efficient ways to kill people in battle.

7

This (guns not designed to kill people) is among the dumbest arguments I have ever heard. Guns are designed differently for hunting, personal defense, target shooting, and warfare.

8

I’m reminded of a recent conversation about guns.

9

In war, it is better to wound and permanently disable the enemy than to kill them. That way they continue to consume resources without contributing to the war effort.

10

I want to buy a Beretta Neos, a .22 to plink with. It wasn’t designed to kill people, but to target shoot. You could try to kill someone with it, but he’d probably beat you to death with a chair after you emptied the clip into him before he bled to death. :slight_smile:

I also want a Colt 1911A, and it was designed to kill people.

11

No no, guns are designed to burn powder, whatever happens next it was never part of the original design goal. :rolleyes:

Kaboodle, have you ever had a military issues magazine in your hand?, believe me, the adds are not for the best weaponery that can lob chunks of metal for no reason in particular.
Kill and incapacitate, that´s what guns and ammunition are designed, built and sold for.
Shooting roundels is an after thought for weapons, you don´t build a gun/munition with the best armor penetration/tissue damage/stopping power just to punch holes in a cardboard target.

12

It’s better strategically to do that, but disabled soldiers kill more of the opposing side than dead ones do.

13

Not in all instances of warfare. In most ancient battles and perhaps the majority of wars up to and including the modern era, the idea is to kill the enemy soldiers and utterly destroy the opposition (sometimes even their entire people). The wounded who fail to escape are killed after the battle.

14

Cars aren’t designed for driving. They’re just designed to turn their wheels real fast.

15

** Dangerosa **

We can say the same thing about many many things that we use today. Guns were and are a tool used to kill things. They are also a tool used by many people in nonviolent recreational activities. My gun is a ruger mark II target model with a slab barrel. As a killing machine it is pretty weak. It shoots a .22 caliber round which makes it a poor choice for personal defence. It has a long barrel for a pistol and would be nearly impossible to concealed carry. As a hunting weapon it is inferior, a rifle would be superior for killing squirrels or prarie dogs. The primary purpose of this pistol is to put little holes in a piece of paper as close together as possible. I think it is dishonest to say that guns were not originally designed to kill people. It is also true that most guns today are not used for this purpose. And while guns were originally designed to kill people many guns on the market are not designed for this purpose.

16

…generally to put holes in things.

Though I do remember reading stories about Iriaqis that liked to fire automatic weapons in the air at celebrations just to make noise. (Sorry, not serious, I couldn’t resist :D)

If I was talking about hunting and you included euphemisms (I don’t usually think in terms of “kill”. Yes I killed those groundhogs on my cousin’s farm but it’s usually ‘I shot them’, or ‘I dropped them’, or ‘I bagged them’.) then yes.

Guns can be designed for portability, toughness, reliability, accuracy, and other things, none of which has an effect on their lethality.

I remember some guys in college that had Soldier of Fortune magazine if that’s what you’re talking about. It’s been a while but I don’t remember much about lethality, more about reliability and accuracy, though I could easily be wrong.
The way I’m reading the responses the overwhelming majority is basically stating that guns and ammo are indistinguishable. I’m not trying to be disingenuous, I freely admit that most ammunition is designed to kill humans or animals. One firearm of a certain caliber is pretty much as lethal as another firearm of the same caliber, it’s the ammunition that makes the difference.

Hollow point bullets are designed to expand on impact thereby causing a bigger wound (and probably make death more likely) are generally not used in warfare due to convention or ‘rules of war’ so to speak. The convention isn’t against ‘guns’, it’s against a certain type of ammunition.

I guess I’m just picking nits.

17

Pretty much. You might as well go ahead and say cartridges are just designed to make little bits of lead move really fast, and the fact that those little bits of lead punch holes in (often living) things is irrelevant. Although, really, the lead is just there to impart kinetic energy, and what that energy does to other matter isn’t really the point. So, you know, cartridges, and bullets, they aren’t designed to kill people either.

18

Even as a gun owner and supporter of gun rights, I can’t find much rationality in arguing that guns aren’t weapons, because they sure as hell are. It’s true that many guns are designed for different purposes, including many match guns that are excellent for sharpshooting competitions but less practical as weapons, but that doesn’t change the fact that the main reason for the existence of firearms is their ability to project lethal force. Many people do use firearms for recreational activities, as people have used other weapons recreationally for thousands of years. But while that is a perfectly legitimate use of firearms (and even, for some, the only use), it doesn’t change the fact that as a tool, the purpose of a gun is to have the capacity to project pieces of metal at high speed into living things so that they will stop living. For purposes such as personal defense, it is hoped that merely possessing the capacity will render its exercise unnecessary, but it is still the effectiveness as a weapon that is important.

Bottom line, though, we shouldn’t have to scramble for a response to an argument that begins with “guns are meant to kill!” What people need to get out of their heads is the idea that just because something is a weapon, its ownership by citizens should be restricted or heavily regulated. That is the fundamental point we need to be arguing, and we’re just doing ourselves a disservice by using weaselly semantic arguments that only muddle the issue.

19

If you’re going to talk about a gun with no ammo, you may as well also talk about a bow with no arrow, a catapult with no stone, or a spear with no point. None of these are a complete implement, therefore when you are talking about them it is assumed that you are including the lethal component. That any of these things can be used for nonlethal purposes is immaterial.

20

Grenades are actually a means of killing/stunning fish in inland waterways which you can then gather and eat.

The fact that some reprehensible people use them to kill and wound other people is an irrelevancy.

I expect any day now grenade fishing to become a recognised sport.