Re: [JohnRich] Freefalling Bullets

[skydyvr 0]

Quote

Are you claiming that a bullet fired from a target rifle is not a killer projectile?

Would you claim that a car moving at 65 mph is not a killer projectile?

. . =(_8^(1)

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

All firearms are designed to kill, even if you can use one without killing anyone. All tools are not designed to kill, even if you can kill someone by hitting them with a hammer.

I disagree. Some firearms are designed for targets shooting and make for poor killing tools. The bullet is too small at too low a muzzle velocity to be an effective killing tool.

By using 200 fps at the definition for a killing tool, paintball markers would be considered lethal. Clearly they are not.

Knives were originally designed to kill, right? Does that mean that all knives are lethal killing tools?

Derek

[billvon 3,119]

>By using 200 fps at the definition for a killing tool, paintball markers
>would be considered lethal. Clearly they are not.

That's my point; low muzzle velocities make a gun less lethal. And a paintball gun is not a firearm. And by your definition, a gun that had such a low muzzle velocity (so low it wouldn't likely kill anyone) is not a gun.

>Knives were originally designed to kill, right?

Uh, no - they were used to chop stuff up. Ever tried to tear up a chicken that hasn't been cooked without a knife? It's hard to do. The first knives were flaked obsidian, used to carve up meat. It took the advent of the metal age (i.e. bronze) to make blades of sufficient length and strength to kill people. After that, of course, swords became popular. (And swords _are_ meant to kill people, although since they are pretty pitiful when put up against a gun, not many people use 'em nowadays.)

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

Quote

Are you claiming that a bullet fired from a target rifle is not a killer projectile?

Would you claim that a car moving at 65 mph is not a killer projectile?

yes, it's just a car.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

>You must also think all chairs are designed to kill.

All electric chairs are designed to kill - even though you can sit in them and not die. All CHAIRS are not designed to kill, even though you can hit someone over the head with one and kill them.

All firearms are designed to kill, even if you can use one without killing anyone. All tools are not designed to kill, even if you can kill someone by hitting them with a hammer.

All bombers are designed to destroy, even though I watch B-2's in airshows and have jumped from B-17's. All airplanes are not designed to destroy, even if 767's are sometimes used to destroy buildings.

All nuclear bombs are designed to destroy, even if some have been used as excavators. All nuclear reactors are not designed to destroy, even though Chernobyl did a lot of damage to the Ukraine.

Pretty straightforward, and I think 99.99% of the people in the US would agree with the above definitions. I think people have gotten emotional about this issue, and don't want to call guns deadly weapons because that makes them sound bad. But that's exactly what they are. Doesn't make them evil, of course. They have no innate good or evil. But they are excellent at killing - which is why they are popular with armies, insurgents and criminals.

Excellent and oft used argument billvon but you leave out one very important fact (but you dance around it kind of). None, not one of the "tools" you list above will kill anything unles a human is involved.

Just that dispove your points? No, but it does put things in a different context.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

that she felt that guns were invented solely for killing and were bad.

You do realize that is not the same thing right? The fact that guns were invented for killing doesn't necessarily make them bad.

[bch7773 0]

I think i see where this argument is having trouble... lemme try to sort this out.

guns are lethal weapons. Even guns not designed for killing people CAN kill people.
that being said, cars are lethal weapons. They can and do kill people everyday.
Electricity is a lethal weapon too. This does not mean that guns, cars, or electricity should be labeled KILLER. Thats sensationalist BS.

Almost any item could be considered a lethal weapon. The problem is that anti-gun people want to attach the word "lethal" or "killer" to the word "gun".
Of course, the pro-gun people think its wrong to label guns, without labeling the other items that can kill. You never hear about "Killer Cars" or "Killer Pocketknives"

And its irrevalent to discuss whether or not guns were originally designed to kill. They were invented like 700 years ago, who cares? A lot of stuff invented back then is much different from what the product ended up as today.

MB 3528, RB 1182

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

And its irrevalent to discuss whether or not guns were originally designed to kill.

Great, so the majority of firearms in circulation in the world are for what?

The majority of cars in circulation in the world are intended to be used as transportation.
The majority of hammers in circulation are actually used to hammer nails.
The majority of firearms in circulation are used or intended to be used for killing.

Now, this does not make firearms bad. Claiming that firearms are not lethal, or claiming that cars can be lethal is just silly. The majority of firearms, if used as intended are lethal.

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

I think i see where this argument is having trouble... lemme try to sort this out.

guns are lethal weapons. Even guns not designed for killing people CAN kill people.
that being said, cars are lethal weapons. They can and do kill people everyday.
Electricity is a lethal weapon too. This does not mean that guns, cars, or electricity should be labeled KILLER. Thats sensationalist BS.

Almost any item could be considered a lethal weapon. The problem is that anti-gun people want to attach the word "lethal" or "killer" to the word "gun".
Of course, the pro-gun people think its wrong to label guns, without labeling the other items that can kill. You never hear about "Killer Cars" or "Killer Pocketknives"

And its irrevalent to discuss whether or not guns were originally designed to kill. They were invented like 700 years ago, who cares? A lot of stuff invented back then is much different from what the product ended up as today.

I'm not aware of any cars , swimming pools, skydiving rigs, etc. being designed for the purpose of killing people. That whole line of argument is sophomoric.

"Stopping Power" has a very different meaning for cars than for guns.

If you had a home invasion and only your target rifle handy for defense, would you decline to use it because "it wasn't designed for that"?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[bch7773 0]

Quote

or claiming that cars can be lethal is just silly.

cars can be lethal. Its not silly, its the truth.

and i DID say guns are lethal.

MB 3528, RB 1182

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

cars can be lethal. Its not silly, its the truth.

sigh, why yes they can be....but it has nothing to do with the firearms debate.....

See, I'll highlight with some questions that hopefully you willl answer:

What are the majority of cars currently in circulation used for?

What are the majority of firearms currently in circulation used for?

(and I just know some smart ass is going to answer....fire bullets)

[bch7773 0]

Quote

I'm not aware of any cars , swimming pools, skydiving rigs, etc. being designed for the purpose of killing people. That whole line of argument is sophomoric.

"Stopping Power" has a very different meaning for cars than for guns.

If you had a home invasion and only your target rifle handy for defense, would you decline to use it because "it wasn't designed for that"?

I agree guns are lethal.
BUT SO ARE cars, electricity, swimming pools. But I don't see you calling cars "lethal". It doesn't matter the original design intent... LETHAL MEANS LETHAL.

what i am arguing is the double standard applied to guns. anti-gun people are happy to label guns "leathal weapons", but you don't see "leathal pocketknives" ever talked about. or "lethal trucks"

you COULD kill a baby, kallend... so should we label you "killer kallend"?

MB 3528, RB 1182

[billvon 3,119]

>What are the majority of firearms currently in circulation used for?

Providing fodder for endless arguments on internet forums.

[billvon 3,119]

>or "lethal trucks"

That's because trucks are designed to NOT be lethal. If they were, they'd have no brakes, spikes sticking out of the steering wheel and big blades on the front. Instead they're designed to transport stuff, and keep the driver (and other motor vehicle users) alive in the process.

[bch7773 0]

Quote

>or "lethal trucks"

That's because trucks are designed to NOT be lethal. If they were, they'd have no brakes, spikes sticking out of the steering wheel and big blades on the front. Instead they're designed to transport stuff, and keep the driver (and other motor vehicle users) alive in the process.

i don't think it matters if it was designed to be lethal or not.

look at the definition of lethal:
1. Capable of causing death.
2. Of, relating to, or causing death.
3. Extremely harmful; devastating

I don't see "Designed to kill animals"

I'll say it for the 5th time... Guns are lethal. So are dogs. So are pocketknives. So are humans. So are shards of glass. So are school busses.

stop singling out guns for a label.

MB 3528, RB 1182

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

what i am arguing is the double standard applied to guns. anti-gun people are happy to label guns "leathal weapons", but you don't see "leathal pocketknives" ever talked about. or "lethal trucks"

it isn't a double standard:

What are the majority of trucks intended to be used for?
What are the majority of pocket knives intended to be used for?
What are the majority of swimming pools intended to be used for?
What are the majority of firearms intended to be used for?

See.....

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

Quote

I'm not aware of any cars , swimming pools, skydiving rigs, etc. being designed for the purpose of killing people. That whole line of argument is sophomoric.

"Stopping Power" has a very different meaning for cars than for guns.

If you had a home invasion and only your target rifle handy for defense, would you decline to use it because "it wasn't designed for that"?

I agree guns are lethal.
BUT SO ARE cars, electricity, swimming pools. But I don't see you calling cars "lethal". It doesn't matter the original design intent... LETHAL MEANS LETHAL.

what i am arguing is the double standard applied to guns. anti-gun people are happy to label guns "leathal weapons", but you don't see "leathal pocketknives" ever talked about. or "lethal trucks"

you COULD kill a baby, kallend... so should we label you "killer kallend"?

Can you name one brand/model of passenger car that was designed specifically to kill people?

Autos can kill people despite the best efforts of designers to make them safe.

All guns are lethal, and the overwhelming majority are designed for that specific purpose.

Would you refrain from using a target rifle to defend your home if that were the only gun available to you, on account of it's not being designed to kill?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[bch7773 0]

Quote

All guns are lethal, and the overwhelming majority are designed for that specific purpose.

Would you refrain from using a target rifle to defend your home if that were the only gun available to you, on account of it's not being designed to kill?

first ill answer your question, although its totally irrevalent.... I would use the gun.

now, ill show the definition of lethal AGAIN
i don't think it matters if it was designed to be lethal or not.

look at the definition of lethal:
1. Capable of causing death.
2. Of, relating to, or causing death.
3. Extremely harmful; devastating

I don't see "Designed to kill animals"

THE DESIGN OR INTENT OF AN ITEM DOES NOT DETERMINE ITS LETHALITY!!!!

MB 3528, RB 1182

[billvon 3,119]

>Guns are lethal. So are dogs. . . .So are school busses.

A gun that is often lethal is a good gun. A school bus that is often lethal is a terrible school bus. A gun that cannot be lethal is an awful gun; a school bus that cannot be lethal is an excellent school bus.

Comparing guns to school buses - and claiming their lethality or design goals are similar - is asinine.

[skydyvr 0]

Quote

If you had a home invasion and only your target rifle handy for defense, would you decline to use it because "it wasn't designed for that"?

This whole debate gets sillier ever day.

If you had a home invasion and only your target rifle brass candelabra handy for defense, would you decline to use it because "it wasn't designed for that"?

. . =(_8^(1)

[winsor 236]

Can you name one brand/model of passenger car that was designed specifically to kill people?

Quote

According to Ralph Nader, the Corvair. How about the Pinto?

Would you refrain from using a target rifle to defend your home if that were the only gun available to you, on account of it's not being designed to kill?

[bch7773 0]

Quote

Comparing guns to school buses - and claiming their lethality or design goals are similar - is asinine.

sigh. once again i say... Design goals do not matter in regards to lethality. Read the defintion i've posted twice now.
Did i say they were of equal lethality... No.

Quote

A gun that is often lethal is a good gun. A school bus that is often lethal is a terrible school bus. A gun that cannot be lethal is an awful gun; a school bus that cannot be lethal is an excellent school bus.

Irrelevant AND asinine. Your terrible bus and your excellent school buses are both capable of causing death... so they are both lethal.

MB 3528, RB 1182

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

Can you name one brand/model of passenger car that was designed specifically to kill people?

Quote

According to Ralph Nader, the Corvair. How about the Pinto?

I wondered if someone would bring up the Corvair.However, I don't think its lethality was deliberate.

Quote

Would you refrain from using a target rifle to defend your home if that were the only gun available to you, on account of it's not being designed to kill?

No, I would refrain from using it because I tend to have a slingshot w/ball bearings handy - not to mention EZ-Off. Either of these is a much better choice in dealing with a miscreant than is a cumbersome 35# single-shot. You also do not need earplugs.

Winsor, I would expect nothing less from you, but we all know you're wierd even for a skydiver.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Are you claiming that a bullet fired from a target rifle is not a killer projectile?

Correct, it it's being used to shoot at targets.

Many bullets are custom designed for target shooting only, and are not intended to be used for hunting. Hunting bullets require different designs which expand upon impact to provide clean kills of game, and to bust through brush without deflection. Target bullets, on the other hand, have different designs to maximize accuracy, shoot flat, and minimize wind drift. These two goals between targets and hunting are not always mutually compatable.

See these two bullet designs:
Sierra MatchKing
Sierra GameKing

Why do they have two different types of bullets? Because one is specifically for target shooting, while the other is specifically for hunting. More proof of this is provided in the attached FAQ image.

So you see, all bullets aren't designed "to kill". Likewise, all guns aren't designed "to kill" either.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

The majority of firearms in circulation are used or intended to be used for killing.

That may be a true statement, depending upon whether you are talking about total production, or the number of unique model designs. Obviously, military production dwarfs civilian target-shooting production.

But, being only a "majority" does not support the orginal statement that started this thread, that: "all guns are designed to kill."

Thus, by using the word "majority", you are implying that you agree that the "all" statement is incorrect.

Likewise, the majority of parachutes manufactured around the world are for the purpose of inserting trained military combat infantrymen into battle. From that statement, you wouldn't conclude that all civilian skydivers are trained military combat infantrymen practicing for battle, would you? I doubt it. And therefore, you also shouldn't say that all civilian target shooters are practicing to kill.

You, kallend and billvon should refrain from extrapolating from "majority" to "all". It's incorrect to do that, and the world of shooting sports is too varied to be lumped together under a "kill" characterization. You need to acknowledge that there are many firearms designed and marketed specifically for target shooting only, and that they shouldn't all be lumped in together under some arbitrary "killer" category.