HOLY 4-YEAR-NECRO-POSTING, BATMAN!!
Well... What can I say. Since you came along and offered a zero-science, non-evidence based rebuttal, I guess you win. I mean, I can't exactly argue with a "Everyone knows that!" kind of statement, can I? I suspect you offered zero evidence because you actually HAVE none. Since "guns are designed to kill people" ('& I mean, come on, EVERYONE knows THAT!!'), what exactly is the designing process for ensuring that a GUN is capable of killing a person? How does one design a firearm to KILL?? Your lack of experience & knowledge is evident in your lack of a valid reply. Being that I posted that going on 4 years ago, you have essentially had 4 years to come up with a better reply. This is what you provide?? Does your Google not work? This stuff is not hard to research.
First, most firearm manufacturers do NOT produce, market nor sell ammunition. Now, other than being used as a club to bludgeon someone to death, HOW are firearms lethal (let alone DESIGNED to be) with a lack of ammo? Do you know something that the firearms manufacturers don't? I bet the U.S. military would be very interested in your magic weapon which doesn't need 'b0olItZ'.
In all seriousness, nearly ALL ammunition is designed, marketed and sold by ammunition manufacturers. For instance, Gaston Glock (of the GLOCK firearms manufacturer located in Austria) designed his first model (the GLOCK 17 or G17) to use an existing cartridge, the 9x19mm (also known as 9mm Luger or 9mm Parabellum). There are FAR too many types and varieties in this caliber alone to list them all. Though, of all the design types, there are full-metal jacketed bullets (which are lead with a copper jacket offering very little transfer of energy to the target and are designed primarily for target shooting) hollow-point bullets (which transfer a large portion of their kinetic energy to the target by way of using the materials of the target to force the bullet to expand, not unlike how a parachute works, these are primarily designed to expand in human tissues using the principles of hydraulics because we are mostly water) & BLANKS (which do NOTHING but make a loud "BANG" & throw a bit of muzzle flash). Now, Gaston Glock did NOT invent any of these types, nor did he even fine-tune any of the plethora of varieties within these 3 types. He simply designed a firearm to use this caliber (which has been around since 1908) as it allowed him to squeeze in 17 rounds into the magazine (you know, that thing you erroneously call a "kLyP"?).
At the time (mid-1980's) there weren't many firearms that were small enough to be concealed & light enough to be carried comfortably while also providing this many rounds of ammunition to its operator. Now... GLOCKs have been used by various militaries, police, civilians & criminals the world over. LOTS of people have been shot by bullets launched from the barrel of a GLOCK. In WHAT way is the manufacturer liable for those deaths? I mean, that was the whole point of my argument about the film (just in case you missed that in your rush to say "Come on! Everyone knows THAT!"). GLOCK does not, nor have they ever sold ammunition.
Their guns can be used exclusively with any of the types or varieties of ammo mentioned above, which includes BLANKS (this is the cartridge type that does NOT actually contain a BO0L3T). HOW is the GUN designed in such a way to ensure death? I mean, if guns really ARE designed to KILL people, they need to go back to the drawing board, because death is NOT assured with any of the thousands of firearms designs around today. Perhaps a firearm designed to self-destruct and explode with a force of 1-kilo ton would TRULY be a gun that is "designed to kill people", as this would terminate its operator.
But being that firearms natively lack the explosive charge (gun powder) to do anything other than being a heavy piece of materials, should the blame really be placed on the manufacturers of the ammo? I mean, after all, you CAN design a bullet to perform a certain task once it terminates into a target (this is called "terminal ballistics" and is an entire science all on its own). Bullets (also known as projectiles) can be designed to explode, fragment, ignite flammables, mark the target, punch holes in paper, fly faster than sound (super-sonic), slower than sound (sub-sonic), MELT (Mythbusters' Ice Bullet) & so forth. You people, very typically, place blame, responsibility and culpability wrongly. All due to a lack of understanding basic physics.
There actually was a case of a bullet designed (in principle & theory) to inflict more bodily harm than anything on the market at the time which was re-branded due to the political climate. It was called the Black Talon. I suggest you read all about it on its Wiki page. The medical examiner who performed the autopsy on people killed in a 1993 spree-killing found the wound trauma to be unremarkable. Meaning that the bullets did not actually do anything vastly different from other bullets on the market at the time. Why didn't Winchester know this when they designed the bullet? Because we haven't yet legalize the testing of bullets on human subjects. I wonder why!
At any rate, only the thing that actually ENTERS a human body can be "designed to kill people". Firearms CAN be designed to use certain accessories that may make shooting easier (scopes, red dots & other optics for easier, more precise aiming). They can be composed of certain light-weight materials which would allow less muscular people to wield them (aluminum, polymers, titanium, etc.). They can even be designed for concealment (smaller objects are easier to hide & carry). But they abso-LUTELY can NOT be designed to kill, unless they are designed to explode and kill its operator.
Lastly, going brain-dead political ("...the conservative version of liberal nonsense") illustrates a lack of scientific understanding and political motivation. You literally hit me with the anti-Galileo argument of, "Of COURSE the Earth is flat! EVERYONE knows THAT!". Simply stating something with no evidence is the reason we have a judicial system in the first place. You probably also believe the U.S. is a democracy because you've heard it on the TV & read it on the iNTerWeBZ a bajillion times. But a simple reading of the pledge of allegiance would indicate otherwise. I'm done with you.
PS. This reply was for anyone else with an interest in this subject as education is more important than blindly & mindlessly regurgitating the verbal diarrhea of those who refuse to educate themselves due to an irrational fear of an inanimate object. This disorder has a name - hoplophobia. Goodnight, hoplophobes!!!
reply
share
Augustus_Octavian
8 years ago
Oh, I have no intentions of actually engaging you in the specific merits of your position. I am sure your position can be argued, very few positions are internally so inconsistent that they cannot be argued at all.
But as pointed out by literally every single other poster here (unless I missed anything), your definition/concept of the word "design" does not fit that of the vast majority. Of course, you are entitled to propose your own definition/concept, but as you may have noted, it has been universally rejected.
Really, I am not sure what you hope to achieve with your unique definition/concept. Communications essentially require that everyone use the same language, the same definition of concepts.
reply
share
realeveryday2005
8 years ago
Jesus Christ...
You now want to pretend like it's an issue of semantics? Just... YO! Is there one, single, solitary example anywhere in this thread, your OWN pointless posts or ANYWHERE on the ENTIRE internet of a single firearm that was designed to kill? Do you have a make, model, caliber, date or production, patent number... ANY-****ING-THING???
"...very few positions are internally so inconsistent that they cannot be argued at all.". Can YOURS be argued at all beyond "Everyone knows that already!"? WHAT is your argument? NOT your statement ('GUNS KILL PEOPLE AND THAT IS WHAT THEY ARE DESIGNED TO DO!'). What are your points? What is your evidence that guns even CAN be designed to kill? I am not asking (nor daring) you to challenge what I know. I am calling you out directly and challenging what you THINK you know. WHAT can a firearms designer do to make their GUN more lethal? And more to the point, how do you make a gun LESS lethal. Since you seem to think it all comes down to what the designer had in his head... what would be an example of a firearm (semantics ARE important here because we have laws written in a language that must be uniform, otherwise no law would apply) as defined by 18 U.S. Code § 921, which was designed to be LESS than lethal? Oh wait! That's those rubber boolit thingamajiggerdoodads that I saw on da TV! The ones that they use in prisons & during riots. Hmmm... are those guns different from the ones that shoot da WEELY weel boolits? Or is it the SAME firearm loaded with... wait for it... A LESS-THAN-LETHAL ammunition cartridge?! Ever heard of those things before? Yeah, they work in REGULAR firearms.
Now, when they designed, invented, came-up with, produced, manufactured, conceived of, brought into existence (or whatever you want to pretend I mean here) those shotguns, did they even THINK about those rubber slugs? IDK... most likely not since the designs of those weapons that use those rounds are about 50-100 years OLDER than any of the less-than-lethal cartridges.
So now let's say I go out of my way to make a new, single-shot (this means it can only fire one round before it has to be reloaded), crack-barrel shotgun intended to ONLY be used with the less-than-lethal projectiles (da rubba boolits frum da mooveez) already on the market. Because those cartridges are designed to work with existing firearms, they can be used interchangeably with standard lethal ammo. Therefor, my design will also have to permit the use of the standard lethal rounds too. That is, unless I design a NEW less-than-lethal round as well. One that can ONLY be used in my design & one that I would have to sell WITH the gun as no one else makes nor produces/sells it. What's happening here? Am I designing something to kill people, or am I designing something to launch a projectile? Do I have ANY control over what the projectile consists of & how much gun powder is behind the payload, ultimately determining the minimum range it can be fired safely without splitting a human skull (that is how those things work... to be effective at decent range, even they can be lethal up close)?
If I allow my design to utilize existing less-than-lethal rubber projectiles, it would HAVE to also allow the use of the lethal rounds that they are interchangeable with. So, I make SURE that I market & advertise my shotgun as "Designed for less-than-lethal cartridges only!", instruct the use of LTL ammo exclusively in the manuals & so forth. Then someone decides to load it with a lethal round & kill someone. Am I to blame? Should I be sued because my shotgun allowed the use of lethal ammo already on the market? T-shirt cannons can be loaded with arrows, nails, glass, grenades, etc. Were they designed or intended for it? Does the allowance constitute culpability? Negligence? WHAT IS YOUR ARGUMENT & WHAT IS YOUR EVIDENCE???
BTW, the flat Earth myth too was universally accepted for how long before everyone ended up looking dumb & feeble minded?? Hmmm... I am telling you STRAIGHT up that your "[position is] internally so inconsistent that [it] cannot be argued at all". I am challenging you to show otherwise.
You come along and try to get into a debate that is quickly becoming 4 freaking years old & the BEST you have is, "You have a different definition. Everyone always knows this! It's universally accepted! I think like every other brain-dead idiot, so I must be right for being in the majority!". For the love of ****! I genuinely feel dumber for having responded to your absolute pointless drivel.
Remember to spay & neuter your little numbskulls. Hoplophobia begins at home.
reply
share
Augustus_Octavian
8 years ago
It is not merely semantics. You wish to define the word in a way that suits you, everyone else here has rejected this definition of yours. Simple as that.
In this specific case, majority wins. In language/definitions, the majority is right.
The mainstream definition of the word "design" simply requires that its primary function be that of X, whatever X may be. Do you accept this definition, without any qualifiers or restrictions? Yes or no?
reply
share
realeveryday2005
8 years ago
I don't know how you managed to make it seem like I don't know what "design" means. Did you actually read the last post? Did you see the different ways I phrased it? I have been asking for 4 years & STILL,, despite you arguing the point that EVERYONE agrees, not 1 single answer has been given to explain HOW someone can make, design or otherwise create a firearm to kill people. Do YOU know WHY? Because the GUN does NOT actually INFLICT the DAMAGE! Oh, I know... this makes NO sense to you because "Everyone already knows that guns cause damage!" & this is the fallacy of your lunacy.
I realize why you cannot separate these things. You have the same mindset as the people who want to ban guns because they cannot separate the behavior of the person who commits the crime & the tool they used to facilitate it. As far as you & every other zombie is concerned, the power lies in the gun. This is why, fortunately, we are NOT a democracy. For if we were, than the ignorant majority would always win. There are 3 sciences here: INTERNAL BALLISTICS, EXTERNAL BALLISTICS & TERMINAL BALLISTICS. It is impossible to "design" a firearm where the function is to directly affect the TERMINAL ballistics. This is because it is ONLY the function of the projectile to perform its task where it terminates, NOT the gun. It would be like praising the launch pad at Cape Canaveral for getting men & women safely to & from space when it is the function of the shuttle.
The primary reason neither you nor anyone else here can wrap your minds around the concept is because you TRULY BELIEVE there is a such thing as a "powerful gun". If there are powerful guns, then there are super-sonic launch pads too. The firearm is literally the platform from which a projectile is expelled. Until you understand this concept, you will never learn. I didn't come here to debate the merits of the 2nd Amendment or firearms laws; rather only the physics & sciences behind it. And I couldn't be FURTHER from a Conservative. You people are no different than the idiots who continued to perpetuate the flat Earth myth. And that is the reason there are a number of zombies in this country who continue to believe that nonsense.
The truth is, everyone does NOT know that guns were/are designed to kill people. Everyone that has this view adopted it from someone else who already had it. I am merely looking at the facts of how firearms function & pointing out the fallacy in your flawed logic. Jesus must have REALLY walked across water & had wine parties because enough people believe it.
THE FUNCTION OF A FIREARM IS TO ALLOW (not even to PERFORM the function of) A PROJECTILE TO BE EXPELLED FROM ITS BARREL'S BORE. THE GUNPOWDER PERFORMS THE FUNCTION OF CREATING PRESSURE. THE BARREL SIMPLY CONTAINS THE PRESSURE & FOCUSES IT FORWARD. IT IS THE FUNCTION OF THE SIGHTS TO ALLOW (again not to PERFORM the function of, merely to ALLOW the function of) AIMING AT A TARGET. IT IS THE FUNCTION OF THE USER TO DETERMINE WHERE TO AIM IT! THEREFOR, THE OPERATOR IS SOLELY RESPONSIBLE FOR WHAT THE BARREL IS AIMING AT!!! Get it? I SERIOUSLY doubt it. This is like debating Darwinism with a creationist. You already have a flawed foundation... what can you possibly learn by building on it?
reply
share
Augustus_Octavian
8 years ago
So... do you agree or disagree with the definition of the word "design" as outlined by me?
Once again, I wish to point out that the majority is right by definition (without needing any justification) for this very specific issue of word definitions. You are not permitted to define words as you wish.
reply
share
realeveryday2005
8 years ago
I not only agreed that "design" means "to perform a function of X", but I tried to illustrate that WHAT you people THINK that function is, is erroneous. The function is NOT to kill a human being. It is LITERALLY only to allow the launching of projectiles. THAT is the function, that can BE the only design. Firearms are legally defined as:
The term “firearm” means (A) any weapon (including a starter gun) which will or is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive...
The legal definition is NOT "something designed to kill people" because the solitary action of launching a projectile does NOT ensure that someone will or even CAN die.
So, I once again, and for the LAST time state: Firearms are designed to perform the function of (designed for) launching a projectile, NOT the killing of a human being. To state otherwise is to have a conflation of function & "the end result of a specific set of circumstances" which is the application. IE: confusing WHAT may happen when a bullet of a certain type (blanks & less-than-lethals wouldn't count here) terminates into human tissue versus someone TRYING to cause a projectile of a certain type to terminate its trajectory into human tissue. Do you STILL not see the distinction? I mean, I'm not speaking 'Merican.
This is REALLY not that hard to understand. Set your FEELINGS about guns aside & think logically, CAN someone be harmed if NO projectile is launched? IF not, then the firearm HAS to be primarily & totally designed to allow the expulsion of an explosive to be contained, while directly the pressure towards the muzzle, thus propelling the projectile towards the muzzle, but NOTHING MORE. AT THE POINT THE BULLET LEAVES THE MUZZLE, THE GUN CAN NOT DO ANYTHING TO ALTER THE TRAJECTORY OF THE BULLET!!! IS THIS MAKING SENSE TO YOU YET??? I STILL challenge ANYONE to provide the name, make, model, caliber or SOMETHING of a firearm that was irrefutably designed to kill people.
reply
share
Augustus_Octavian
8 years ago
So... to confirm, you completely agree with my definition, with no qualifiers or reservations whatsoever. Yes?
reply
share
PlateStacker
8 years ago
realeveryday2005
This is like debating Darwinism with a creationist.
Ha! I knew it. With the amount of intelligence, critical thinking, and evidence based logic.. I knew you were against silly religious nonsense too. Same here. Just like with religion, this debate is all emotion based. No facts or evidence to the contrary will ever sway them to the truth of reality. You can sit and explain to them (like you have) a hundred times how their logic if flawed, they don't care about facts.. just what feels good to them.
Everything you've said it spot on. You seem very knowledge with field of firearms. As am I. Huge enthusiast myself. Collector, personal seller, builder.. etc
You are making these anti-gun sissies look bad. Their logic is so beyond flawed, it's insane. Fallacies and factual errors galore.
But let's say firearms WERE "designed to kill". What does that have to do with suing the manufacturer? That makes it even MORE stupid than using a car that "wasn't designed to kill". In their mind, they bad guys are using guns.. in their intended manner. So how is that grounds for lawsuits? That's the same as suing Ford for driving a F-150 down the road... in the manner is was designed for!
Going with the logic that firearms are for killing.. then the good guys should absolutely have them! To protect themselves and theirs. There will always be bad guys. What is the best way to stop them from harming others? How about a tool designed for killing? So you should be FOR firearms!
reply
share
mallaverack
8 years ago
I'm genuinely starting to feel sorry for you
You have now, over a period of four years, attempted to convince all that guns are not designed to kill. A very large number of people will never be able to agree with you. A very large number of people will see the posts on this subject as no more than a linguistic or semantic duel.
Obviously, most respondents to your claim are delighting in baiting you and it seems that you are finding it hard to let go.
For your own good, give it a break.
As for my own thoughts on the matter, if I were to strictly apply the logic as practiced by Aristotle, your argument is commendable and convincing.
If I were to rely mainly on anecdotal evidence, historical fact, pragmatism and a bit of common sense then any purely logical explanation would be of no interest to me.
Whatever your critics say, you do show a good amount of intelligence as well as being generally well-informed.
Did you enjoy the movie?
reply
share