Designed to kill

[Double Naught Spy]

Designed to kill

One of the arguments frequently fielded by people with an anti gun rights agenda is that "assault weapons" were designed to bring about maximum carnage in the least amount of time possible. After thinking about it for a long while, I came to the conclusion that I have never seen a gun slogan that read, "For when you need a kill." or "More time. More destruction." In fact, most are quite the opposite, GLOCK has "Perfection", Sig has "To hell and back", and FNH has "Distinct Advantage".

Company mottos or slogans have nothing to do with a particular model of firearm's design.

I certainly know that when I buy a gun, those are the qualities I am looking for. Anybody else have thoughts on this?

There is a distinct difference between design and application. Guns are designed to launch projectiles down range in a controlled manner. Some are designed to do this faster than others. Ideally, they are designed such that they will do this in a reliable manner.

From a design standpoint, the gun does not care if it is launching projectiles down range at 800 rpm at an enemy combatant, innocent civilians, paper targets, or animals. These are all applications of the design and not the design itself. There is nothing unique about firearms that makes them specifically beneficial for causing death over causing dirt to splatter.

These considerations apply regardless of whether the gun was designed with the purpose in mind that it would be used for combat. We had a discussion in another thread about sniper rifles. kraigwy noted using a REM 700 sniper rifle. Strangely, the model he noted is marketed as a hunting rifle and variants are marketed as hunting, target, sporting rifles. They are all pretty much the same gun doing the exact same thing in the same manner with some slight ergonomic differences. That the sniper version is "designed" to kill whereas the target version is not would be a silly bit of conjecture.

Besides, more often than not, it is the damage of the bullet that does the killing, not the gun itself. Sure, a few people get beat to death with guns, but there aren't many guns designed to be blunt force objects.

[jake99]

We should start calling them 'control weapons'. They control the situation, so it doesn't get out of hand..

[Onward Allusion]

I would most certainly hope that any weapon I have self defense, home defense, or in the unlikely event of civil unrest...etc... would be infinitely reliable and effective in stopping the threat. To think otherwise or wanting to gloss over the true nature of a tool for stopping the threat is stupid, foolhardy, and caters to the gun control crowd.

[ClydeFrog]

We(US Army) were trained(more appropriate conditioned) to aim center mass too & hit the target. It's the largest target area & fastest way to stop the threat.

LTC Dave Grossman a retired US Army Airborne Ranger & PhD explains these points better. He also says the .223/5.56x45mm is NOT a ideal lethal caliber.
The US spec ops & procurement officers T&Eed the larger, more powerful 6.8SPC, .300 Blackout, .458SOCOM, 7.62x51mm etc to provide a more lethal caliber.
Retired US Army General Stanley McCrystal(SF) stated the 5.56mm is a danger to the public but I think his remarks are off-base.

CF

[SHE3PDOG]

We(US Army) were trained(more appropriate conditioned) to aim center mass too & hit the target. It's the largest target area & fastest way to stop the threat.

LTC Dave Grossman a retired US Army Airborne Ranger & PhD explains these points better. He also says the .223/5.56x45mm is NOT a ideal lethal caliber.
The US spec ops & procurement officers T&Eed the larger, more powerful 6.8SPC, .300 Blackout, .458SOCOM, 7.62x51mm etc to provide a more lethal caliber.
Retired US Army General Stanley McCrystal(SF) stated the 5.56mm is a danger to the public but I think his remarks are off-base.

CF

I think I may have misunderstood you the first time. Did you simply mean to say that our goal is not to harm people beyond being incapacitated? If so, I agree wholeheartedly, but I would never aim for a leg or arm in combat simply so I could injure the target.

As for the caliber thing, I completely agree, but that is a different story entirely. It doesn't help that we are restricted to ball and tracer ammo either. Also, it is probably very hard for the military to move away from the 5.56 after having it as the cartridge for both the main service rifle and SAW for such a long time. I'm sure that there is quite the surplus of it in warehouses, just like 30-06 was back in the day.

Also, I like what was said about the 2 different setups of the same model gun. One is clearly marketed as a hunting gun, but somehow adding a pistol grip, rails, and an adjustable stock suddenly makes it a more efficient killing tool? I don't think the justification behind those parts is to make it easier to kill people with the rifle, they are to make the user more comfortable or to provide a greater ease-of-use.

[dakota.potts]

A gun is designed for the sole purpose to destroy and cause damage. This is true of a .22 short or a 20mm Vulcan round. It destroys clay pigeons, paper targets, deer and varmint, walls, humans, animals, soda cans, trees, whatever it happens to hit. Some are designed to be more efficient at it in their specialized roles.

I don't see why we can't just accept that and move on. Yes, they're dangerous. Yes, they could do a lot of damage. Guns are meant to destroy. Gasoline is meant to burn. When it burns in an appropriate manner, there's no problem. When you light a circus on fire and kill 160 people and injure over 600, it's domestic terrorism. Guns are the same way.

More often than not, guns destroy what we all consider to be an appropriate target. Often the target doesn't feel that way but the rest of us agree it's self defense. I have a feeling many anti's would support these people (rapists, murderers, maybe even burglars) being destroyed by the state by means of lethal injection.

It's the nature of society. Things are destroyed. We are given a constitutional right to carry today's most effective means of protection so that we can disable a threat. They're dangerous, good at killing, and that's their point. Everything else (sporting, for instance) is just icing on the cake.

[cgaengineer]

All my weapons are designed for killing paper first...self defense second.

[ClydeFrog]

Knowledge is power.
I saw a recent exchange between a young woman testifying before a panel(US Senate or Congress) & a elected offical where she called the AR(M4 rifle) a "big, scary gun" saying young single moms need ARs to fend off violent attackers in the home, .

As a gun owner & citizen she is entitled to express her opinion or choices but I felt her reasons/rationale were a bit off-base.

To their credit, SIG-Sauer, www.SIGsauer.com , advised new firearm owners to get formal training & understand how to use their new weapons properly(safely).

Gun owners & armed citizens should know what their firearms can and can not do.

CF

[hardworker]

The man who designed the AR did so because one day he had an idea that boiled down to "Hmmm, we need a combat rifle capable of shooting intermedite sized rounds quickly and accurately". To say anything different is an insult to rational thought. ARs were meant for fighting.

[horatioo]

If guns were designed to kill the vast majority of guns are defective.

[ClydeFrog]

Eugene Stoner R&Ded/engineered what is now called the "AR"(Armalight Rifle).

I, personally, do not like the AR/M4 platform for a # of reasons but I understand how & why it has such wide-spread use(military/LE/armed citizens/hunters).

Im surprised no TFLers havent brought up the "Kalish" or the AK47 which is in use world-wide far, far more than M4s/M-16s.

CF

[Apom]

It is my understanding that firearms were invented for the sole purpose of killing fellow men.

I don't think anyone ever invented a gun because someone said.. "hey I need something reliable."

A firearm has no practical use other then killing or destroying something.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Actually, I know one - it might be destroying but not in our sense.

I've read there are special large bore shotgun like things that are made to loosen some scale deposits on the inside of blast furnaces. Some giant gauge by Winchester.

True the tech is derivative of killing guns. Also, cannons are used for dislodging potential avalanches - but they are surplus military weapons. There are compressed air device to do the same.

But I agree with the main thrust - guns were designed as weapons. The sporting uses are derivative of practicing for the weapons use (people or animals as targets). They are protected by the 2nd Amend. as killing instruments.

[Spats McGee]

Originally Posted by Glenn E. Meyer

. . . .But I agree with the main thrust - guns were designed as weapons. The sporting uses are derivative of practicing for the weapons use (people or animals as targets). They are protected by the 2nd Amend. as killing instruments.

I think that even trying to claim that firearms (with the exceptions noted by Glenn and maybe a few other exceptions) are anything but weapons is, in the long haul, a mistake. The 2A does not say ". . . . the right of the people to keep and bear tools . . . "

[Glenn E. Meyer]

I agree - I've had that discussion with folks. The apologist line failed in the UK and Australia.

Modern Sporting Rifle - whatever - it is a modern gun protected by the Second Amendment to protect oneself and defense against tyranny.

Hard to do that with a bowling ball.

[lcpiper]

Exactly, "designed to kill", I just want to look at the speaker and say "Duh !"

When someone comes questioned what guns are for, it's best not to dance around the subject and try to placate them with sporting, hunting, collecting, what have you.

It's best to hit them right between the eyes with a "Of course it's designed to kill, if it couldn't kill someone what would I need it for?"

[dlb435]

Both AK and AR type weapons were actually designed to be LESS distructive than previous military arms.
Lets go all the way back to WW1. The most common cartidge used was something around 30 caliber, the rifles were designed to shoot at ranges of up to 1000 yards. Almost all were bolt action rifles. The killing power was astonishing. Armies had just transitioned from black powder to smokeless powder and no one really understood the power of the weapons being used.
WW2 came so fast after WW1 that military thinkers had not yet come up with an alternative to the devistating 30 caliber rounds. So, we went to war with the 30/06 rounds. The major achievement of WW2 was the M1 Garand. This combined power with auto-loading. However, all sides in WW2 were looking for something smaller to issue to the troops. The US came out with the M1 Carbine, the Germans with the Sturmgewehr 44. Neither was up to the task and both had short production lives.
Finally, Russians came out with the AK-47. It was two years after the war, so it had no impact on WW2. Here was a weapon that was good for 200 yards, used a shortend 30 caliber round, was light weight, cheap to produce and had just enough killing power to get the job done.
10 years later Stoner came out with the AR-15 (latter the M-16) and ten years after that the US military finally accepted this as the standard issue weapon.
Almost all hunting rifles are more powerful than the AK or AR type weapons. Some are even auto-loaders. The only thing that seperates the AK or AR type weapon is the quick change 30 round magazine.
The idea that these are somehow "killer" rounds is rediculous. They were designed to be right on the edge between light weight and effective. At long range neither of these weapons is any good.
Their only attraction to mass killers is the high capacity magazines. Take these away and they will just turn to shotguns, bombs or fire.
I don't know what would be worse: keep what we have (the vast majority of AK and AR type weapons are never misused) or institute a ban and see what happens? Admittedly, a high cap ban would hurt more honest people with little real result for the criminal or insane. I believe they would simpley turn to other methods.

[lcpiper]

Both AK and AR type weapons were actually designed to be LESS destructive than previous military arms.

I know what you mean, I just don't agree with how you are saying it.

The individual round fired from these weapons is less destructive then say a 30.06 round, but the rate of fire and increased amount of ammo a soldier can carry make the soldier more destructive. This is the formula, and this is why it's not just about the weapon, it's about the soldier, or the owner, the shooter, the lawman.

The tools are only enablers and although we keep improving the tools over the years, the roles men play are as old as society and haven't changed a lick.

[manta49]

Both AK and AR type weapons were actually designed to be LESS distructive than previous military arms.

I would disagree they were not designed to be less destructive. They were designed to fire auto and semi -auto. For them to controllable in full auto it required a less powerful intermediate round making it less destructive. It was a by product of the design not a deliberate feature to make it less destructive. The army and manufacturers put out the rubbish about better to wound than kill to get round the criticism of the less powerful round.

[dlb435]

"The tools are only enablers and although we keep improving the tools over the years, the roles men play are as old as society and haven't changed a lick."

Exactly my point. Try to take away high cap mags and you could end up with worse problems. Just tune in the evening news and see what mass killers are using around the world. It's mostly car bombs and suicide bombers. This is the technological break through for mass killing in this century. Add a cell phone and you can do it remotely with little risk to yourself.

Manta - how dead is dead? 30/06 rounds were overkill. The guns were big and heavy. The rounds were heavy. I did point out that the first "assult rifles" were failures because they lacked the power to get the job (kill someone) done. Both the AK and AR type weapons just hit that balance between weight and effectiveness. They are, however, not as powerful as most hunting rifles.
Want quick fire? Almost any semi-auto pistol can pump out as many rounds as an AK or AR in the same amount of time.

You both remind me of the princes in the middle ages that wanted to ban crossbows because they rendered armour useless. They used the same argument. In the end, the crossbow was quickly replaced by fire arms. Knights gave up armour and the killing was just worse.
This is my concern.
What will mass killers turn to next?
What can we do to restrain them?

[manta49]

You both remind me of the princes in the middle ages that wanted to ban crossbows because they rendered armour useless. They used the same argument. In the end, the crossbow was quickly replaced by fire arms. Knights gave up armour and the killing was just worse.
This is my concern.
What will mass killers turn to next?
What can we do to restrain them

I didn't say anything should be banned. And do not think banning certin type of firearms will make any difference in stopping mass killings. But to try and argue that assault rifles are not designed for inflicting maximum casualties in a very efficient manner is wrong. They are designed to kill accurately reliably and are very effective at doing so. PS Should they be banned no.

Almost any semi-auto pistol can pump out as many rounds as an AK or AR in the same amount of time.

True but a hand gun round doesn't come close to the power and effectiveness of a AK or AR round ability to kill in other words.They can be used for hunting or target shooting but that's not what they were designed for.

[SIGSHR]

I was taught "shoot to cause a casualty" in BCT in 1967 and I read they were telling recruits that in 1917. It's the bayonet that's designed to kill.
And yes, my "assault weapon" is the M1888 Rod Bayonet .45-70 I carried up San Juan Hill in 1898.

[Spats McGee]

Originally Posted by SIGSHR

. . . .And yes, my "assault weapon" is the M1888 Rod Bayonet .45-70 I carried up San Juan Hill in 1898.

That would make you at least 114 years old. . . . and that's if you carried it up the hill as an infant.

[lcpiper]

The army and manufacturers put out the rubbish about better to wound than kill to get round the criticism of the less powerful round.

This was standard information taught to soldiers in Basic Training entering the Army in the early 80s. I am sure it started before I went in and continued long after.

It wasn't rubbish because it came from experience learned in the Vietnam war and before. You kill a man the enemy is down a man. You wound him and you take one or two more out of the fight to help get the wounded back to aid.

That being said, no one ever told us not to put several into a guy if you though he could still do damage. And although I am not going to lend credence to the stories of a guy getting shot in the arm by 5.56mm and the round coming out someplace far removed. I will say I hit a deer with .223Rem from about 100 yards, the round struck the deer broadside in the lungs, took a decided left turn up and into the spine, chewed all the good meat up there on that side of the spine that we called the "back strap".

A 5.56mm "Boat Tail" can do some squirrely things.

[manta49]

It wasn't rubbish because it came from experience learned in the Vietnam war and before. You kill a man the enemy is down a man. You wound him and you take one or two more out of the fight to help get the wounded back to aid.

In the big scale of winning the war putting the enemies logistics under pressure makes sense. To the soldier killing the enemy to stop him shooting back and killing him or his comrades is whats importent. PS The big push by the Americans in Vietnam was enemy body counts. Its hard to do that without killing the enemy.