Guns are not designed to kill people

Great Debates
61

guns created to kill people…i’m going to guess you were talking more about the modern day concept, because naturally back in the yester-years guns were created as weapons to kill. back then though it basically served a single purpose.

these days, no guns aren’t created to kill people, and to think otherwise is just letting your skepticism and conspiracy theories get the best of you. it’s just simple supply and demand. it’s a legal trade so people want to make a buck off of it. there is no plot against anyone, or some grand plan by big brother.

if i make it, and you choose to use it in whatever fashion you decide…that’s your burden. it bugs me how people these days think they are so smart, savvy, outside the box, and on top of their game, but conveniently find themselves clueless and at the mercy of these supposed "evil doers’ at interesting moments. when some kid runs over some old lady, it must be from all the video games he played, and so forth. but when it comes to something like the war in iraq, all of a sudden people who never served a day in the military or any sort of political office have it all figured out, and quickly become experts.

guns are guns, and were created (in the modern day sense) simply because it was possible. call your congressman and get some laws changed, or don’t buy one, but don’t try to pin it on some company trying to make a buck. without guns the next target would be bows and arrows, and all the way down the line to wanting to fry God because he gave us hands…and those can be used to kill someone…he’s part of the conspiracy.

it’s obvious guns kill, but to insist that these days the purpose is to kill people is as bogus as saying that because i throw a rock at your noggin’ and take you out…it’s purpose must have been to kill

62

as i’m sure it was already stated (but i didn’t see it, so i’ll comment anyway) “arms” is not a bat, it’s a gun/firearm. it’s not open for interpretation, otherwise i’ll keep a nuke in my house, because i’ll decide it’s “arms.”

63

“Middle ground” in this discussion inevitably means the anti’s gain part of their agenda while the pro’s give up something.
You know what? Fuck the middle ground. We’ve already lost too much. The pants-wetters are never going to feel safe, no matter what, exactly because they are pants-wetters. I have exactly zero interest in giving up anything more just to cater to their insecurities.

64

Bullshit. Cite?

65

I agree that there are peope wetting their pants because they think that someone is going to break into their house at any minute and go all Deliverance on them. I don’t think that our gun policies need to be based on their insecurities however.

66

A short sleeved one, because you only have the right to bare arms.

67

Groan… for a response like that, you should be taken out back and-- um-- exposed to Constitutionally protected sporting equipment that was designed to do nothing in particular.

68

Obviously automobiles kill more people, but they’re accidents. The number of deaths by guns that are accidents is probably much fewer than those that are deliberate. I’d rather like to know how many guns are used for purely hunting vs. “other” uses.

Personally, I don’t understand those “other” uses. I find target practice with a gun to be really boring. and I’ve never had a reason or desire to fire at another person. When I had a gun, I had no use for it, and then it got stolen while I wasn’t home. Now it’s probably being used to hold up 7-11s.

69

I have a feeling we may disagree on the finer details on gun control, but I agree whole-heartedly on making that a given for the discussion. In fact, even nations with gun control laws tend to make exceptions for exactly the sort of guns that aren’t designed to kill other humans. Target shooters and hunters still purchase, keep and transport their weapons in Europe.

70

Colt who invented the revolver ,sold his first ones to rangers and army brass. His first significant order came from Zach Taylor who bought 1000 for the Mexican war.
Previous weapon were rifles which were designed and built for the military.
Guns and muskets were designed for military purposes. Yes they were designed to kill people.

71

While I admire your avoidance of the Shift key and the use of … to avoid actually expressing a though, I’d like a cite that the reason God created rocks was entirely to throw them at other people’s noggins. I mean guns were invented entirely and for the express purpose of killing people. I guess you have a cite that God invented rocks for the express purpose of killing as well.

Just sad, as I said, it’s amazing the lengths people will go to insist that guns aren’t for killing. I don’t even really have a dog in this fight. It’d be great if handguns could be univented and the world was free from them, but that’s as stupid as wishing the A-bomb would go away. Neither will, and we have to live in the world with them. Ideally, I wish things had gone differantly. Practically, gun ownership isn’t going to go away and there’s no point in fighting it. Anyone silly enough to say that guns aren’t for killing is just beyond debating though, they live in a world of denial.

72

Out of curiousity, has anyone ever used the Second Amendment in ana ttempt to defend a weaopon other than a fire-arm? In New York, for example, certain weapons like gravity knives, nunchuks, or sword canes are completely prohibited. Has anyone ever argued the have a constitutional right to bear nunchuks?

“A well regulated ninja force being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear nunchuks and throwing stars shall not be infringed.”

73

Wow a 5 to 4 decision. That indicates that the militia arguments carried weight with 4 members of the Supreme Court. It also carries with me. I agree with them. It is settled law until the next court case throws it out.
That does not make it dead and buried by any stretch. It is just one vote from law.

74

There’s been like two 2nd Ad cases before SCOTUS.

75

The majority of cases do not appear before the Supreme Court.

76

Yes, and?

Here’s a link to the wiki page:

*Early commentary in state courts

In Bliss v. Commonwealth (1822, KY),[59] which evaluated the right to bear arms in defence of themselves and the state pursuant to Section 28 of the Second Constitution of Kentucky (1799), the right to bear arms in defense of themselves and the state was interpreted as an individual right, for the case of a concealed sword cane. This case has been described as about “a statute prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons [that] was violative of the Second Amendment.”[60] Others, however, have seen no conflict with the Second Amendment by the Commonwealth of Kentucky’s statute under consideration in Bliss since “The Kentucky law was aimed at concealed weapons. No one saw any conflict with the Second Amendment. As a matter of fact, most of the few people who considered the question at all believed amendments to the U.S. Constitution did not apply to state laws.”[61]…
State v. Buzzard (1842, Ark), the Arkansas high court adopted a militia-based, political right, reading of the right to bear arms under state law, and upheld the 21st section of the second article of the Arkansas Constitution that declared, “that the free white men of this State shall have a right to keep and bear arms for their common defense”,[68] while rejecting a challenge to a statute prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons. Buzzard had carried a concealed weapon and stood “indicted by virtue of the authority of the 13th section of an act of the Legislature prohibiting any person wearing a pistol, dirk, large knife or sword-cane concealed as a weapon, unless upon a journey, under the penalties of fine and imprisonment.” The Arkansas high court further declared:

"That the words "a well regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free State", and the words "common defense" clearly show the true intent and meaning of these Constitutions [i.e., Ark. and U.S.] and prove that it is a political and not an individual right, and, of course, that the State, in her legislative capacity, has the right to regulate and control it: This being the case, then the people, neither individually nor collectively, have the right to keep and bear arms."*

But here’s what’s critical:
*Presser v. Illinois

Main article: Presser v. Illinois

In Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252 (1886), the Court reaffirmed Cruikshank, holding the Second Amendment to limit the authority only of the federal government.*

In other words, in order to claim protection under the Federal 2nd Ad, it’d have to be a federal law that was broken, and AFAIK, there are no Federal laws that restrict nunchuks or swordcanes, etc.

So, if you were arrested for your poleaxe or dirk, or morning star under some State or local law, you could fight it if your State had an analog to the 2nd Ad. But you could not fight it under the Billof Rights 2nd Ad.

Thus, there would not seem to be any way to claim 2nd Ad rights for an edged weapon.

I guess if you were arrested for your Swiss Army knife by the TSA, then maybe, but that’s a restricted area, which is an entirely differnt kettle of fish. But AFAIK, they just confiscate it and if you refuse, they won’t let you board.

77

That’s an especially fascinating question when you consider the origin of the nunchuk. It originated as a farm flail (for separating chaff from wheat), and was thus a tool that peasants were expected to have. But they weren’t allowed anything which was designed as a weapon, so the peasants learned to use their farm tools such as nunchuks as weapons. So the only reason a nunchuk became a weapon in the first place was because it wasn’t a weapon and was therefore allowed. And now they’re banned in some places.

78

I asked if there was a body of case law on an issue. You answered that the Supreme Court had only heard two cases on this issue. So I was pointing out that there are other courts besides the Supreme Court so a substantial body of case law might exist even if the Supreme Court had never addressed the issue.

79

:stuck_out_tongue: Leaving aside the weighty aspects of your opinion on this question, you realize that according to some a RvW vote would come out similarly…i.e. 5 to 4 against. So…does that mean that striking down RvW is legitimate, since it’s a mere one vote from law??

Muskets were designed for (mostly) military purposes…but rifles were designed as multi-use tools, as were shotguns. Handguns were designed for self defense type roles mostly…and mostly for self defense against other humans.

Again, guns are tools designed to kill…period. Some guns are designed to kill only people…but some aren’t. Regardless though I don’t see how this is a basis to ban them. I’ve seen no good arguments for an out and out ban of guns…mostly just appeals to emotion (‘oh noses! They are DESIGNED TO KILL PEOPLE!’) that hinge on peoples fears and a poor understanding of probability statistics and risk analysis.

-XT

80

The first order Colt had was from Zachary Taylor. I suppose he was protecting his home from the Mexicans by taking troops across the border. That is the genesis of guns. There was no target practice and they were not designed for self defense. Really XT try harder.