Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

beevul

(12,194 posts)
24. No, not 2 things.
Tue Aug 23, 2016, 10:37 PM
Aug 2016
But first you back track here by admitting design is independent of use, the point I tried to make in my original post.



Backtrack? Hardly, though I expect that attributing to the words others your own choice of sentiments, has won you many a battle in your own mind. Bravo.

I didn't say design was independent of use, I said that the amount of force applied and the target of that force was independent of (mechanical) design, by (mechanical) design.


Yes I get your non-argument. If a gun is intended to project force, would that force include lethal force? If lethal force is one of the types of force a gun is supposed to project, then that lethality has to be included in its design.


Such a non-argument that you just had to reply, right?

Up to and including potentially lethal force? Sure. I've never said otherwise. But theres a whole lot of room between pointing a gun at someone that needs a gun pointed at them implying that 'bad things will happen if you come any closer to me in my home', and putting a gun against a known lethal point (head/heart) and pulling the trigger. That 'whole lot of room' is dependent on the user, by (mechanical) design.

Your problem is you are trying to defend personal protection guns, "We're trying to stop the threat not kill". A brief survey of popular defense guns and the popular cartridges they are chambered for, demonstrates their lethality.


Except it isn't a problem. Lethality is generally in the aim, and generally not simply in the firearm. I would say the amount of woundings you lot regularly like to bring up, is proof positive of that point. Had they been shot with weapons that were strictly and specifically designed to kill, they'd all be dead.

And, even the guns you mention, do not fail to project force when simply pointed and not fired.



Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Like I said in the thread in the group Duckhunter935 Aug 2016 #1
Just like a computer is designed... beevul Aug 2016 #2
Indeed so Duckhunter935 Aug 2016 #9
Depends on the gun doesn't it? Buzz cook Aug 2016 #3
"What was this gun designed to do?" beevul Aug 2016 #5
The intent of the user has nothing to do with the design of the device. Buzz cook Aug 2016 #11
It has EVERYTHING to do with it. beevul Aug 2016 #12
You're just being silly now. Buzz cook Aug 2016 #13
No, I'm saying your example doesn't apply. beevul Aug 2016 #15
Now you're talking argle bargle Buzz cook Aug 2016 #18
Clean your glasses. beevul Aug 2016 #19
2 things Buzz cook Aug 2016 #23
No, not 2 things. beevul Aug 2016 #24
" Lethality is generally in the aim, and generally not simply in the firearm." Buzz cook Aug 2016 #25
That is because "usage" is dependent on a human user. oneshooter Aug 2016 #27
So, your point is what? Buzz cook Aug 2016 #34
That is correct. beevul Aug 2016 #28
"Yes, a victim with gun shot wound to the foot is a dead person." Buzz cook Aug 2016 #35
Then don't label it a gun death. Assign it to malpractice. Nuclear Unicorn Aug 2016 #38
Um, the past is in the past. Buzz cook Aug 2016 #39
have you ever seen beergood Aug 2016 #16
Most weapons originated from the desire to feed/defend oneself. Vilis Veritas Aug 2016 #4
My copy/paste response to this insipid "argument": pablo_marmol Aug 2016 #6
A theory regarding the psychology behind this "argument": pablo_marmol Aug 2016 #7
No different than a knife or bow n arrow. JonathanRackham Aug 2016 #8
"Olympic shooting sports = sniper training?" beergood Aug 2016 #41
Mine are for saving lives... ileus Aug 2016 #10
whoa wait beergood Aug 2016 #14
Who cares? I have numerous guns - designed to kill, designed for sport, designed for jmg257 Aug 2016 #17
"when you need to punch holes in things." beergood Aug 2016 #20
Ha - nice! :) nt jmg257 Aug 2016 #21
My last use of a "killer" firearm Mugu Aug 2016 #22
that sounds beergood Aug 2016 #42
That would be correct. Mugu Aug 2016 #43
Your false equivalency analogy is deeply flawed. procon Aug 2016 #26
No, it really isn't. beevul Aug 2016 #29
Still flawed. procon Aug 2016 #30
Awful lot of people have concealed carry permits - 5.2% of population , plus numerous states jmg257 Aug 2016 #32
re: "A person using a computer poses no threat to me..." discntnt_irny_srcsm Aug 2016 #33
+1,000 pablo_marmol Aug 2016 #36
My update/paraphrase of an old saying discntnt_irny_srcsm Aug 2016 #37
Damn. That's good. Saving! NT pablo_marmol Aug 2016 #44
You're just full of assumptions, which is the problem, and the fatal flaw of the entire argument. beevul Aug 2016 #40
Message auto-removed Name removed Aug 2016 #31
"a computer is designed to download and view porn" Nuclear Unicorn Aug 2016 #45
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Gun Control & RKBA»"A gun is designed to kil...»Reply #24