4 ms·

Why did you put designed in quotes? Look - if you like guns, just say you like guns. People are allowed to like guns. But, throwing around an illogical argume

by ap22213 10y ago

Why did you put designed in quotes? Look - if you like guns, just say you like guns. People are allowed to like guns. But, throwing around an illogical argument as a logical one isn't going to help in persuading people - well, at least not people who follow logic.

schismsubv 10y ago
Ostensibly because they're arguing about the weight and intent of the word, "designed". People saying guns are "designed to kill" are attempting to elicit an emotional response that mirrors their own in a fallacious appeal to emotion. No matter their design, guns have use beyond killing humans, and even beyond hunting. Take a knife, for example - designed to kill. Small knives, big knives, single-purpose knives, ceramic knives, and even customizable knives. Cutting living things kills them, so knives are "designed to kill". While not as destructive as guns, they account for a non-negligible ~12% of the annual murder toll. Knives even cause way more serious non-fatal injuries per year than guns, but you don't hear anyone bleating "DESIGNED TO KILL" about them because they're mostly not scary. I like guns, and most of mine _are_ actually designed to kill living beings: animals I am legally authorized to shoot. For 51 weeks of the year I shoot what averages out to 2-3 rounds per day per gun at paper. I do it with my family, my friends, and when I need to settle my nerves and meditate after a rough day. One week a year, I shoot the given gun once, maybe twice. I would argue that while their design certainly involves killing, their purpose to me is practicing fine motor skills and concentration, with an ancillary effect of giving me the excuse to go hiking for a week and put meat on the table for a large portion of the year. As far as smart guns go, it doesn't matter what the use of the gun is. It's an ineffectual feel-good measure that will primarily affect law-abiding citizens. Hell, that's why gun control is such an issue - because most gun owners fall extremely deeply into the "lawful" D&D dimension. If we didn't care, you could pass whatever laws you like and we'd ignore them, but we don't like falling afoul of laws, intentionally or not.
- ap22213 10y ago
  Interesting stuff, especially the part about knives. I wouldn't have guessed that 12% of murders were caused by knives. But, probably that's because I can only think of one local knife murder but countless gun murders. I had to go back through the thread to see who used the word 'design' first, and it was actually me. But, given that I don't have an argument against guns, I'm confused. Is the design perspective one that's frequently used by gun regulation advocates? I used it only because when I thought of the question, 'for what purpose are guns manufactured?', 'killing' was the first thing that came to mind. Actually, now that I think of it, I'm surprised that the gun industry doesn't seem do anything to change people's perceptions of guns. They'd probably have a huge impact with a moderate campaign to soften the image of guns. Also, it may be interesting for you or other readers to know that as a 3rd-party observer, I didn't feel an emotional response to the parent's point. To me, it seemed like a rational argument. On the other hand, your comment actually gave me a very strong negative emotional response. So, if the goal is to convince people like me to side with guns, you may want to alter your approach. Again, it could be extremely effective to your cause to soften the image of guns and gun owners. Personally (as someone who even grew up with guns), guns scare me, and strong gun advocates scare me even more. Where I live, the gun advocates display a very aggressive and dangerous image - from their vehicles, to their clothing and appearance, to their mannerisms and rhetorical approach. Softening that up would probably have a huge impact.
  - schismsubv 10y ago
    Thanks, I take that to heart. I'm not certain what would alter public impression of guns and gun owners, but I'll attempt to think it out. I don't fit your stereotype of gun owners, but that's kind of irrelevant. My guess is my anecdata was a bit over the top. As far as "design" goes, it was just an argumentative tangent. I've had it thrown out at me before, but it's not a major thing as far as I know.
- 8note 10y ago
  how often does a todler accidentally slice and stab their parent to death with a knife, versus shooting them to death with a gun? a knife isn't designed to kill because it's difficult to kill somebody with a knife by accident. A knife is designed to maim, explaining the large number of injuries, but much smaller number of deaths.
Turing_Machine 10y ago
What is "illogical" here? Can you be specific about which specific rule of formal logic I'm violating? Again, even ignoring target shooting and the like, guns are not "designed to kill". They are designed to persuade other people to conform to your will. This can be both legitimate ("stop beating me up/robbing me/raping me/invading my country") or illegitimate ("give me your money/body/country"). Note, and note well, that even most illegitimate uses of guns don't actually require killing. In fact, it is counterproductive. Robbers who kill their victims have to paw over a dead, bleeding body to find the wallet (or have to figure out how to open the safe themselves, or whatever). Most rapists don't want to rape a corpse (yeah, there are exceptions, but most rapists aren't sick enough to do that). Historically, most conquering armies weren't after total genocide -- they wanted to enslave the population and force them to do useful work. Dead slaves don't work. So, no, the purpose of guns isn't "killing", even if you restrict yourself to illegitimate/criminal uses. I can't help but think that you've formed your opinion of guns from watching TV, and have little or no practical, hands-on experience with them. Is that correct?
- DanBC 10y ago
  Your point - that guns are used to persuade, not kill - makes less sense when you consider the fact that it is the killing bit which is most persuasive. You're not going to rob me with a blancmange.
  - Turing_Machine 10y ago
    The IRS uses the threat of prison to persuade you to pay your taxes. That doesn't make the IRS "designed" to put people in prison.
    - DanBC 10y ago
      But in that analogy prisons == guns and the IRS == the person holding the gun. Prisons are very much designed to put people in prison. That's why they're all full.

by ap22213 10y ago

schismsubv 10y ago

Ostensibly because they're arguing about the weight and intent of the word, "designed". People saying guns are "designed to kill" are attempting to elicit an emotional response that mirrors their own in a fallacious appeal to emotion. No matter their design, guns have use beyond killing humans, and even beyond hunting. Take a knife, for example - designed to kill. Small knives, big knives, single-purpose knives, ceramic knives, and even customizable knives. Cutting living things kills them, so knives are "designed to kill". While not as destructive as guns, they account for a non-negligible ~12% of the annual murder toll. Knives even cause way more serious non-fatal injuries per year than guns, but you don't hear anyone bleating "DESIGNED TO KILL" about them because they're mostly not scary. I like guns, and most of mine _are_ actually designed to kill living beings: animals I am legally authorized to shoot. For 51 weeks of the year I shoot what averages out to 2-3 rounds per day per gun at paper. I do it with my family, my friends, and when I need to settle my nerves and meditate after a rough day. One week a year, I shoot the given gun once, maybe twice. I would argue that while their design certainly involves killing, their purpose to me is practicing fine motor skills and concentration, with an ancillary effect of giving me the excuse to go hiking for a week and put meat on the table for a large portion of the year. As far as smart guns go, it doesn't matter what the use of the gun is. It's an ineffectual feel-good measure that will primarily affect law-abiding citizens. Hell, that's why gun control is such an issue - because most gun owners fall extremely deeply into the "lawful" D&D dimension. If we didn't care, you could pass whatever laws you like and we'd ignore them, but we don't like falling afoul of laws, intentionally or not.

ap22213 10y ago
Interesting stuff, especially the part about knives. I wouldn't have guessed that 12% of murders were caused by knives. But, probably that's because I can only think of one local knife murder but countless gun murders. I had to go back through the thread to see who used the word 'design' first, and it was actually me. But, given that I don't have an argument against guns, I'm confused. Is the design perspective one that's frequently used by gun regulation advocates? I used it only because when I thought of the question, 'for what purpose are guns manufactured?', 'killing' was the first thing that came to mind. Actually, now that I think of it, I'm surprised that the gun industry doesn't seem do anything to change people's perceptions of guns. They'd probably have a huge impact with a moderate campaign to soften the image of guns. Also, it may be interesting for you or other readers to know that as a 3rd-party observer, I didn't feel an emotional response to the parent's point. To me, it seemed like a rational argument. On the other hand, your comment actually gave me a very strong negative emotional response. So, if the goal is to convince people like me to side with guns, you may want to alter your approach. Again, it could be extremely effective to your cause to soften the image of guns and gun owners. Personally (as someone who even grew up with guns), guns scare me, and strong gun advocates scare me even more. Where I live, the gun advocates display a very aggressive and dangerous image - from their vehicles, to their clothing and appearance, to their mannerisms and rhetorical approach. Softening that up would probably have a huge impact.
- schismsubv 10y ago
  Thanks, I take that to heart. I'm not certain what would alter public impression of guns and gun owners, but I'll attempt to think it out. I don't fit your stereotype of gun owners, but that's kind of irrelevant. My guess is my anecdata was a bit over the top. As far as "design" goes, it was just an argumentative tangent. I've had it thrown out at me before, but it's not a major thing as far as I know.
8note 10y ago
how often does a todler accidentally slice and stab their parent to death with a knife, versus shooting them to death with a gun? a knife isn't designed to kill because it's difficult to kill somebody with a knife by accident. A knife is designed to maim, explaining the large number of injuries, but much smaller number of deaths.

Turing_Machine 10y ago

What is "illogical" here? Can you be specific about which specific rule of formal logic I'm violating? Again, even ignoring target shooting and the like, guns are not "designed to kill". They are designed to persuade other people to conform to your will. This can be both legitimate ("stop beating me up/robbing me/raping me/invading my country") or illegitimate ("give me your money/body/country"). Note, and note well, that even most illegitimate uses of guns don't actually require killing. In fact, it is counterproductive. Robbers who kill their victims have to paw over a dead, bleeding body to find the wallet (or have to figure out how to open the safe themselves, or whatever). Most rapists don't want to rape a corpse (yeah, there are exceptions, but most rapists aren't sick enough to do that). Historically, most conquering armies weren't after total genocide -- they wanted to enslave the population and force them to do useful work. Dead slaves don't work. So, no, the purpose of guns isn't "killing", even if you restrict yourself to illegitimate/criminal uses. I can't help but think that you've formed your opinion of guns from watching TV, and have little or no practical, hands-on experience with them. Is that correct?

DanBC 10y ago
Your point - that guns are used to persuade, not kill - makes less sense when you consider the fact that it is the killing bit which is most persuasive. You're not going to rob me with a blancmange.
- Turing_Machine 10y ago
  The IRS uses the threat of prison to persuade you to pay your taxes. That doesn't make the IRS "designed" to put people in prison.
  - DanBC 10y ago
    But in that analogy prisons == guns and the IRS == the person holding the gun. Prisons are very much designed to put people in prison. That's why they're all full.