
In Praise of the AK-47 - ingve
https://deardesignstudent.com/in-praise-of-the-ak-47-a24cc8a46c13
======
lifeformed
This is not a good post. It's saying that AK's are poorly designed because,
_obviously_ , one of the core axioms of good design is that you're not
supposed to design weapons.

Design is an amoral tool to use as you see fit. If you think all wars are bad,
blah blah, then whatever. But if you're trying to justify that by poorly
linking it to whatever unrelated field you specialize in, then you better
explain it using the language and concepts of the field, not because you
simply don't like it.

EDIT: also, it's saying everyone who designs guns are bad people, and are
responsible for every death? What? I understand that there are complexities
with guns being used by civilians, but surely there are reasonable uses? Yes,
hunters and farmers who provide sustenance for the country are evil people. So
are all the French soldiers who used guns when Germany invaded. All weapons
are bad and killing people is never justified! What a ridiculous view.

------
fuzzywalrus
This article is base pandering at best. Even as someone such as myself who has
quite strong pro gun control views can make the intellectual distinction
between a well designed weapon vs the morality of creating one. Viewed from
the lens of weaponry, the AK-47 usually is well regarded.

This is no different than how One can appreciate a well engineered computer
malware attack in the same regard. Even things that are destructive can be
enhanced by the rigors of design.

------
chmielewski
"If a thing is designed to kill you, it is, by definition, bad design."

Guns aren't designed to kill you. They are designed to eliminate others whom
pose a threat to you. If it were you vs another gunman, you would praise
superior design if it saved your life.

"You can’t separate an object’s function from it’s intent."

You most certainly can. First I was coming up with examples to enumerate here
but now this sentence is hardly making logical sense to me when I read it.

~~~
PhantomGremlin
_They are designed to eliminate others whom pose a threat to you._

    
    
       God made men
       Sam Colt made them equal
    

Hyperbole, but I love it.

------
OedipusRex
"Mikhail Kalashnikov is responsible for as many deaths as the people who
pulled those triggers."

Spoons made me fat.

~~~
sabertoothed
You bring forward the typical NRA argument. It's not quite accurate though.

(I don't agree with the article OP linked. So it is not my point to argue in
favour of it.)

Your argument is: A weapon is just a tool. A weapon does not kill. It's people
that kill. Someone who created a weapon cannot be held responsible if someone
else gets killed.

But what about the abundance of weapons? Or the ease of use? Or the
accessibility of weapons in situations where you are emotionally unstable?

Maybe a better comparison would be the abundance of sugar in pretty much every
type of food (from ketchup to some meat products) - instead of the spoon you
used in your example. And the comparison becomes less ridiculous.

~~~
OedipusRex
"But what about the abundance of weapons? Or the ease of use? Or the
accessibility of weapons in situations where you are emotionally unstable?"

The designer (in this case Kalashnikov) had no control over the abundance of
his design or who gets access to them. As for ease of use, if you want to
learn how to use a firearm (or any skills for that matter) you can. Ease of
use is not a deterrent.

~~~
sabertoothed
I see your point but one could argue that someone who creates a weapon is - to
some extent - responsible for what happens with it.

The big problem I see in the text that OP linked is that the author did not
define what he means by good design. If you assume good design must
incorporate a moral dimension, then I could easily follow his arguments.
Personally, I would think an object could be brilliantly designed but
completely immoral or unethical.

I mainly used the abundance argument to counter the either naive or malicious
statement of "blaming the spoon for being fat". This is being used by gun
nuts. It is not a fair comparison.

------
yellowapple
> If a thing is designed to kill you, it is, by definition, bad design.

Which definition? _Whose_ definition?

This entire article hinges upon this assumption - that good design cannot
coexist with something designed to kill living creatures (humans included,
though the article also conveniently leaves out the use of guns in hunting) -
without making any attempt whatsoever to actually back this up, instead
resorting to nonsense like how design is an "ethical trade".

> nothing whose primary purpose is to take away life can be said to be
> designed well

Again, says who? The author? On what grounds? The only grounds I can think of
involve an apparent squeamishness about death on the part of the author.

Of course, this is very obviously an opinion piece, and this "design student"
is entitled to that opinion. Presenting such opinions as facts, however, is
not helping one's already shaky case.

------
gaius
I read an interview with MK where someone asked him if he felt guilty for
designing the AK47, he just said something like, he created a tool for
fighting Fascists and he was proud of that.

------
justignore
Great opinion piece.

Garbage fact piece.

