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.
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.
"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.
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.
"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.
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.
> 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.
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.
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.