SouthernStyle,
I’ve got my Dad’s Remington Model 11, made on the Browning patent, that he bought used in 1951(?). It has the barrel recoil. A lot of rounds have gone through that thing, resulting in a rebuild of the firing pin and extractor, which just wore out (unfortunately they don’t make parts for those anymore, had to get it gunsmithed.) Every now and then I take it with me to the trap range and put a box through it. Never fails to draw a crowd! My trap gun is a Russian over/under, and my clays gun is a Beretta A303, too schwweeet…
As a licensed Professional Mechanical Engineer and a Person With Common Sense I can tell you that to claim that “guns are designed to kill people” is a misleading and strange statement. Your qualifications for making it are…?
Ah Jeeze. There’s two kinds of stupid in this World, and I’m pretty sure what you just said is one of them.
Well, it bothered you up till this point. Why stop now?
fnord1966 wrote:
Um, you do realize that as of January 1, 2000, California has effectively banned all high-capacity magazines, regardless of when said magazines were manufactured. (This was part of California’s SB 23, which was passed into law last year.)
Actually, I believe I said it was a violent country. Meaning that we Americans are more prone to violent acts then England, not just violent acts involving guns.
Apparently Mr Nuke confused the two of us.
Actually, California banned the sale trade and exchanging of all “hi cap” magazines. If I have them, they can’t do a thing about it, as long as they have no proof of how I aquired it.
I can even hunt with it. The ban was on the sale, not the use.
Uh, guys - that Nuke person’s right, at least slightly. Guns are designed for killing. It’s their entire raison d’etre, their purpose on earth. Airplanes are made for flying, lightbulbs are made for producing light, firearms are made for causing pain and, preferably, death. That’s just the way it is.
Don’t get me wrong: I like guns a lot. I’m considering getting one (as soon as I have time for the hassle). But I’ve used guns, many different kinds, and I know what thy’re for. A weapon that’s not designed to kill is a poorly designed weapon.
I’m sorry I had to intrude. Please get on with your conversation - I may chip in later with an amusing (darkly amusing) Glock story.
Alessan…
Guns, nowadays, fall into two categories: Ones manufactured for military purposes, like submachine guns, which are built for lightness, strength, and accuracy. The other category is for the guns meant for the average Joe, which are designed for safety, efficiency, and simplicity. Guns are designed for ease of use. Guns are designed for self-defense. Guns are designed for recreation. There is not a single civilian gun manufacturer on the planet that works the kinks out of a safety lock or a bullet pin thinking, “Now, how can we improve this to make it kill better?”
Now, on to Nuke’ems, so’s I can finally rip him a new one…
Relatively? Try “very”.
No, you’re only making biased arguments. Here’s a tip… don’t throw words like “fanatic” around and expect to be considered unbiased.
In which case their beef shouldn’t be with guns, but with those who misuse them.
Do you care about the difference between The Cartoon Channel and The Playboy Channel? Or maybe the difference betwen pizza and hamburgers? I’ve said it a million times before, and I’ll say it again… guns are recreational tools. It’s FUN to go out to the shooting range and fire a few rounds, just like it’s fun to go swimming or racing or skydiving. THAT’S why we care about the difference between a .375 and a .38… different feels, different kicks, different firing conditions. Variety.
What, you’ve never had a hobby? Who, then, is the sad, boring individual?
Oh, please, be bothered. Then I get the joy of “bothering” to show you wrong.
Tell me something, sport - just what is a Glock or a Sig designed for if not hurling bullets as quickly and accurately as possible at a person? They’re no use for hunting. They’re badly designed for target shooting. They make an absolutely useless TV remote. I mean, I have no issue with firearms - love them to bits, I really do. But let’s be honest here - when we say self defence, we’re talking in Napoleonic ‘best defence/good offence’ terms.
They’d damned well better or they’re not doing their jobs. If I purchase a weapon for self defence, I want it designed for that purpose.
Look, you’re trying to argue that people who dislike guns are wrong because there’s nothing intrinsically dangerous about guns. Well there is - that’s their very nature. But cars are intrinsically dangerous too, and we don’t try to say otherwise. We just try to make sure that people who can’t handle them safely aren’t allowed them.
Depends upon how you define “violent”. In England, “criminal behavior” has long been popularly associated with property crimes (burglary, vandalism), whereas in America, “criminal behavior” has long been associated with crimes against persons (robbery, assault). The reason for the change in preference from personal to property crimes in England probably has something to do with the country’s broad past use of the death penalty for a wide range of personal crimes, forcing criminals to channel their energies into crimes that wouldn’t risk their necks.
I’m too sleepy at the moment to look up references, but if you want 'em, I’ll provide 'em.
Here you go, Sport… they’re for Mr. Joe Average to keep in his bedside drawer for those emergencies when Mr. Bob Lawbreaker intrudes in his house for purposes of plundering his riches and rapin’ his wimmin. THEN they take on the role of “instrument of potential death”.
Saying that “A gun is designed to kill” implies an active use for going out to eliminate others, while in actuality the best legal use for a gun is a passive, defensive existence (recreational use aside).
No, you probably want a gun that’s light, easy to use, easy to take care of, inexpensive-yet-good-quality, and reliable. If “death-making factor” is at the top of your list, your priorities are misplaced, IMHO.
Au contraire. In all the other Gun debates, I’ve openly admitted that guns are extremely dangerous. However, I’ve also gone on to say that, because of this “intrinsically dangerous” nature of guns, a great responsibility comes with owning one. Guns should be treated with respect, not fear. That is what I’m arguing… that just because they’re dangerous, that doesn’t mean they should be put in the light of the modern-day boogeyman.
Question for you - what does a gun do? Please try to answer this in a concise, to the point manner, without waffling on about people’s bedside drawer. When considering your answer, please remember that the weapons that were mentioned in the OP (a 9mm or .40 chambered Beretta) were designed as combat handguns.
Accelerates a projectile to extremely high speeds.
Look, I know what you’re getting at: Guns were originally designed for military purposes. Well, of course. But so were computers. Saying that “Guns are designed to kill” is roughly equivalent to saying “Computers are designed to blow up cities”… that is, it takes one of a myriad of uses for the object and ignores all others.
Point 2: To say that a gun’s defensive faculties rely solely on using one to kill an intruder is folly. A huge number of cases involve a gun merely being shown and the intruder in question fleeing. It’s as much a passive deterrent as it is an active one.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by SPOOFE Bo Diddly *
**
Accelerates a projectile to extremely high speeds.
Look, I know what you’re getting at: Guns were originally designed for military purposes. Well, of course. But so were computers. Saying that “Guns are designed to kill” is roughly equivalent to saying “Computers are designed to blow up cities”… that is, it takes one of a myriad of uses for the object and ignores all others.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by SPOOFE Bo Diddly *
Bad analogy. Computers were designed to do maths. They were initially used to crack codes in WW2, mainly to get advance warning of German bombing targets. That would give computers first application as saving lives (how nicely Asimovian). Either way, you can’t really compare them - one has a multitude of possible uses, the other is fairly dedicated in purpose (hurling chunks of metal of a size designed for human damage as fast as possible in a straight line).
Of course it would be folly. Of course, I didn’t say that either. As an offensive device designed to kill, it has great deterrent value. Nuclear missiles had great deterrent value, purely on their destructive capability. The whole idea of a deterrent is you don’t want to use it, unless absolutely necessary. That doesn’t change the underlying purpose of the device.
As stated before, I have no issue with firearms at all. I just hate it when we get clever about their purpose, and try to justify them through wordplay. I have owned many guns. Some of them (Franchi Spas 12, Sig Sauer P226, FN SLR) were designed for combat. I had legitimate reasons for owning them, from hunting to entertainment. That’s all the justification I think is needed.
fnord got it right. Thanks for reading through the bad grammar.
Browning bought the patents many years ago. In fact, most people don’t know that the Auto-5 was ever manufactured by Remington. When hunting with a new people it’s commonplace for someone to enquire about my “Browning”. When I correct them by telling them that it’s a Remington I have to prove it by showing them the name and date stamped into the gun.
SPOOFE Bo Diddly said:
"Saying that “A gun is designed to kill” implies an active use for going out to eliminate others, while in actuality the best legal use for a gun is a passive, defensive existence (recreational use aside)."
You seem to be interpreting “designed” as “intended”. Guns are designed, as in engineered, to kill people.
We have many things which are engineered to fulfil their function as well as possible, while at the same time hoping they will never be called upon to do so. Fire escapes are a good example.
The hell with fire escapes. How about nukes?
SPOOFE, at one point you said that guns were meant to be kept in your nightstand incase of emergency. Replace “nightstand” with “silo” and you get basically the same thing. After all, guns are used to kill far more often than nuclear weapons. Nukes, after all, are mainly used to intimidate. Are you claiming that they’re not designed to kill? If you’d have asked the good folks in Los Alamos whether they built their new toys to kill thousands of people or just to intimidate nations, they would have looked at you like you were out of your mind, and then asked you what the hell the difference was. And then Feynman would have tricked you into locking yourself into a safe.
SPOOFE, all my experiece with firearms is through the military, so permit me a little cynicism. If someone had given me a weapon that was no designed to kill (and like mat, in design I mean from a purely technical viepoint) I would have been mighty pissed.
A gun’s value comes from its ability to kill.
A blanket statement such as “Guns are designed for killing” is bound to be misleading. It is like saying “cars are built for racing.”
First of all there are many kinds of guns. A single shot BEnchrest rifle, is clearly designed only for target shooting. A glock pistol is designed for self defense which means stopping an aggressor. A Fireball .223 pistol is designed for either long distance target shooting or, IMHO, for killing woodchucks.
Some shotguns are designed for Sproting clays, some for trap, others for killing ducks. A full choke 20 guage is not designed to kill people, though it could conceivably be used for that.
Since ther eare different uses and different makes of gun, saying “all guns are designed for killing” is patently false.
But All kniives are meant for stabbing people in the chest. 
Yes, very true - but are we talking target guns here, or weapons for self defence (Hint, Beretta 92 v Beretta 96)?
You folks have destroyed a wonderful thread. Take it outside.
sigh…
since this is in GD now, Nukeman, it’s time to talk:
To preface, I first fired a weapon under the supervision up a Deputy who happened to be close friends father. My family has no military background or history of weapons-keeping. I spent 6 years in the Marine Corps, the last two being selected as one of 40 reservist nationwide to try out for the Marine Corps Rifle and/or Pistol team (I misses pistol by 3 points both times & rifle by a bit more, damn 600 yard line). I own a Springfield Arms .45, a Colt AR-15 and am having a custom long-rifle built as we speak (it takes 8 months), and in the past have had a Francci Spas 12 gauge and a USP. I’m all for gun safety, responsible ownership and manufacturers programs encouraging safety.
Some of this has been mentioned before, but just so we’re all talking the same language:
Have you ever been startled awake? I don’t mean waking up and wondering why your awake, I mean, waking up thinking “What the fuck was that?!” If so, you know your reactions are anything but slow. Adrenaline is a wonderful thing. As mentioned by others, but worth repeating, is that burglars are there to steal (or burgle) and most likely will bolt at the first noise. I believe it highly unlikely that a common thief is going to venture into a room with a sleeping person unless they know there to be something of great value there, and in that case, they’d be more likely to make an approach when the residence is unoccupied. I go to the range infrequently, but I, at my worst, hit the paper at 50 feet and mostly black at 25. I’d be willing to wager that most shooters, even those infrequent as I am now, could do the same. What does this mean? It means that even having not been to the range in 3 months, I am pretty sure I could knee-cap or gut-shoot an intruder that happened to make the mistake of stopping by.
Huh? I know you go on to talk about education being the key, but that is not what you are talking about. You waffle between Americans having too any guns and that being the problem and then Switzerland having a gun per person and that being a good thing. Firearms education works for those the use the firearms, not those who break into someones house and end up looking down a barrel. FYI – many nations require military service, Holland and Russia come to mind. Crimes a’plenty there, too. I’m reticent to bring that up, since, like you, I don’t have firm figures to back that particular statement up, save my actual time spent in the Netherlands and relatives living there. Anyhoo…
Gary Kumquat, to address you for a moment or two:
Actually, not true. Modern weaponry is quite well designed for target shooting, but even if you insist on saying it’s strictly for shooting people, then isn’t it in the manufacturers interest to make it the most accurate piece of equipment around? With the exception of military purchases, most people purchase weapons for one of two purposes: 1) home defense, or 2) target/competition shooting (and technically, the American weapons are for National Defense, so those might fall into a much larger 1)). To take a totally rabid and radical approach to this would be to make the leap to cutlery: it’s used to slice flesh. A filet knife is a sword is a throwing star is a dagger. I’m going to leave it at that, it’s too much of a can of worms and I have another fish to fry…
Actually, you are correct, of course, that they were/are used for mathematical computation, but they were initially used to more rapidly figure ballistic trajectories. Sorry, but code breaking was a welcome off-shoot (no pun intended).
fnord1966, have you looked at the new Baretta 9000s? I haven’t seen it IRL, but on paper it looks pretty darn nice. Like many others have mentioned, but again, it bears repeating: Glasers. It is the home defense round. I have three of those followed by Hydro-Shok rounds. I figure that’ll do the job, but if not, I’ve got a few more magazines with in reach and easy to transport. I live alone and I don’t figure my cats are going to be much trouble, but I would highly suggest a gun safe as well. It’s just good sense. You seem to have a pretty good direction yourself, and certainly others have given plenty to look/think about.
Safe and happy shooting.