As we’re sure you know, guns are tools. Unlike the bleats blurted by the panty-wetters, they’re not designed to kill – they’re designed to shoot. But that doesn’t mean a gun can’t be used for other purposes, too. When you’ve shot your last round and there’s still a bad guy bearing down on you, a long gun makes a pretty fair club. And while we wouldn’t do it, you could probably use that Vaquero to drive a nail or two in a pinch. But just cause you’re using your gun for something other than shooting doesn’t mean those four rules go out the window . . .
Which, according to newslite.tv, is something an un-named Canuck forgot when his campsite developed a mouse problem. He grabbed his gun, intending to apply rifle (butt) to rodent.
The man was reportedly intending to crush the rodent with the weapon at a camp on Anjigami Lake in Ontario, but didn’t know the gun was loaded.
Those darned bullets get ’em every time, don’t they? When he lunged at the mousey, his gun – which was pointed back up at his forehead – went bang.
As such he got quite a shock when the gun fired, with the bullet grazing his forehead but luckily not causing too much damage.
Police say the man was admitted to and released from the hospital, before being charged with careless use of a firearm.
Unfortunately, we don’t know the wounded Canadian’s name. So if you north-of-the-border types will keep an eye out for a guy with a brand new part in his hair, we’d appreciate it. We’d like nothing more than to send him the IGOTD hardware he’s earned and to find out low long it took for the mouse to stop laughing.
And the RCMP makes sure that he is charged with a crime, that might be a good thing in this case.
Y’see, this is why we do not care for mouse guns.
Wow. +1 interwebz.
Wow, that could have ended badly…
i’m sorry, i know there’s a safety lesson and a moral in there somwhere’s, but i’m just laughing to hard to look for it.
In a very similar vein-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9R7IlTHaee8
No one was harmed in the making of this video, but some articles of clothing may have been stained.
quite definitely no one was harmed in the making of that fake video.
“As we’re sure you know, guns are tools. Unlike the bleats blurted by the panty-wetters, they’re not designed to kill – they’re designed to shoot.”
I take issue with this, on it’s most basic level. Yes the function of a firearm is fire a ballistic projectile, but it’s function is to fire at something. A gun is not designed solely as a proof of concept that an excelerant can fire a projectile at sonic and supersonic speeds, if that were the case they wouldn’t manufacture firearms with sights. The purpose of a gun is to fire a projectile accurately AT something. Whether it is deisgned to accurately fire projectiles at paper or steel targets (ie. Olympic Target guns, and the LLArms .308) or they are designed to shoot projectiles accurately at soft targets (ie. the M1 Garand or the Ar-15 ) the function intended by the designer was to fire on targets of the operators choosing.
Bullets on the other hand are designed specifically to used in firearms to create the maximum amount of damage while also flying accurately at given distances. Bullets are designed to kill. A hollow point is not designed to be an accurate target round, ballistically it’s shape is not as arrow dynamic as a round nose. Hollow points are designed to open up upon contact with hydrostatic material. They are designed to kill.
Bullets like hollow points used in conjunction with arms like the AR-15 or the Glock 22 are to be used with the intent to kill. So why skirt the issue? Yes firearms can be used for other things, but they were designed to kill. Stoner’s AR-10 and AR-15 wasn’t designed with the express purpose of continually putting lead into the air in a non-specific location. He designed them to be used in combat and with the express purpose of killing the object for which the object was aimed at. To say otherwise is a misrepresentation.
Guns are, and have been since their inception, designed to kill. They were first developed as a battlefield killing tools, they have been implemented for many generations as killing tools for our food or our defense. As gun-owners we don’t need to pretend that they aren’t killing tools, we know they are, and the Second Amendment established our right to use them for that purpose.
>Guns are, and have been since their inception, designed to kill.
Yet they now have other purposes than to kill. Howitzers blast avalanches, Ramsets secure foundations. Based on your argument, nuclear power plants are also meant to kill, since their inception came from nuclear weapon technology.
As long as there are recreational uses for guns, restrictions based solely on their killing potential will not adequately address everyone’s needs.
No nuclear power plants are designed to generate power.
I stated that a gun is designed toshoot at something. Bullets are designed to kill. Regardless, howitzers were designed to kill, you can’t go back in history and change the designers intent based on its current application. Ramseta, howere arent fireaems and are designed specifically as fasteners.
Bullets are designed to fly consistently. /Some/ bullets are designed to expend as much energy as fast as possible when they come in contact with soft tissues.
Words mean things–it’s important that you remember this, even when leaving comments on the Internet.
“… a gun is designed to shoot at something. Bullets are designed to kill.”
Yet virtually all of the guns and bullets put to use each day don’t kill anything.
Are you saying that 60,000 rounds fired downrange at your typical Appleseed event are wasted because the students aren’t killing with them?
What’s wrong with usurping original design? That’s exactly what recreational shooters are doing, under your definition.
Now you’ve gone and done it. You have demoralized not only my rifles, but my handguns as well. I raised them from pups. Always telling them that would be respected, and only used within the very strictist limits of the law.
Now you come along and read where you say they were designed to kill. They have been pouting since reading this. Firearms have feelings also. Why my pet CZ 75 D PCR has been cuddling next to me all day long. His poor little face is tear stained.
You should be ashamed of yourself! Telling poor innocent firearms that they will kill someone. It’s beasts like you, that give these poor defenseless creatures a bad name. SHAME, SHAME SHAME ON YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Irock, I’ve been shooting for over 50 years, have fired many thousands of rounds per year and haven’t killed anyone yet. What am I doing wrong?
Ralph I would hope practicing for they day you might have to use the gun for the purpose the designer intended.
I have agree with lrock350. They were weapons first and foremost. When Ralph shoots at paper it’s certainly hobby and sport, but it is also inherently training with a tool originally designed with the ability to do harm against another.
Regardless of their design intent, using them to harm others is the intended use in the hands of would be criminals. Bad people will always find a way to acquire or manufacture weapon to do harm unto others. The police cannot and are not responsible for our individual safety. That’s why individuals should be empowered with the choice to carry the same tools for personal protection.
My trap gun was definitely not designed to kill. It was designed to bust clays. It is designed to cycle light target loads, typical full power self defense rounds will overgas and damage it. It *could* kill, but it is a very poor choice of firearm for that. There are much better firearms explicitly designed for that purpose.
My flare gun is also a decidedly poor weapon for killing.
Too much time on my hands…
Just think about the story that mouse must be telling–a true “mouse tale!”
‘Guns are designed to Kill’
Aw come-on, don’t be so harsh. Guns have feelings and rights too you know.
I take the stricture to “shoot to stop the treat” seriously. In that sense, guns are designed to incapacitate.
Guns incapcitate victims by poking holes in their bodies with lead projectiles. If the goal was simply to incapacitate the victim then Tasers, or rubber bullets are far more efficient. Guns are designed to kill, why do gun onwers have to skirt the issue by disregarding the lethality of the tool? You may use a gun to “stop the threat” but you doing so may likely result in death.
Guns can be used for other things, my NAA deringer makes a handy fishing weight, my Winchester 94′ could be a great canoe paddle, but neither were designed to be used as such. They were both designed to be deadly tools, and they should be treated as such, and described as such. Yes guns are designed to kill, but the are all also great hole punches and bell ringers. The skills we hone punching paper and ringing steel are used by some of us to take those same hole punches and kill with them. sometimes the things we kill are used to feed our families. Sometimes the things we kill we attemting to harm us so we used our killing tool to protect what is dear to us, and sometimes we use our guns to kill innocent men wom and children.
Gun kills because they were desgied to, but they don’t kill without someone behind the trigger. Its not the gun, but the person behind the trigger designating the targets that has the design flaw.
Wow. Your knowledge is so deep and unassailable. You have an answer for everything and every one.
Why don’t you have your own blog?
“shoot to stop the treat” I would never stop a treat, that is supposed to be a good thing!
Shoot to stop the threat,,,,,,,,,,, there, fixed it.
Sorry Robert, just couldnt help myself! LOLs
Jeez, how did we get so serious on an IGO topic…
I’ll play: Lots of “tools” started out for killing or wounding (hunting or personal combat) but have evolved. Yes, some still have features specifically designed for that purpose alone (hollow points or broadhead arrows). But consider the Japanese concept of the “Life-Giving Sword.” The weapon evolves for defense over offense, then as an implement for self perfection (mental, physical, even spiritual), for peaceful competition (arguably a replacement for combat). Even the manufacture evolves from just efficiency to artwork, creation out of the destructive aspects of our nature. (Are martial arts just for beating the crap out of someone? Arguably, many aren’t that good for “real” fighting anymore; they’ve evolved for sport, performance art and self-improvement. The only difference here is the potential for accidental or intentional lethality, therefore requiring much greater responsibility, self-control, awareness and compassion–all virtues if I’m not mistaken…) I guess it all depends on how much faith you have in your fellow man (or yourself).
I can see the mouse with his other mice friends.
“The hoser had a gun THIS BIG a! And he still missed me!”
Pass another round of Molson on this one!
His name is Dale Whitmell of Goulais River, Ontario.
Strange name for a mouse.
wow, Paul, I love your reply.
Comments are closed.