Arguments Against: Guns are only designed to kill?

imported post

A gun is designed to kill people like a spoon is designed to make people fat.

imported post

They are designed with killing in mind, I wouldn't be carrying one for defense if they tickled someone. But it isn't their only function. They can have uses beyond that. Hunting, sport, ect.

imported post

Liko81 wrote:

Orygunner wrote:

Something I hear or readoften from the anti-gun (or otherwise ignorant) people is that "guns/assault weapons/handgunsare only designed to kill (people)." It was stated in theFX show "30 Days" this Tuesday and the pro-gun guy didn't have a good response if I remember correctly.

How do you argue against something like that?

I would tend to point out the 2+ million defensive gun uses in the US without even firing a shot, but what if they don't believe the studies?It would be hard for me to sufficiently argue that a firearm is designed to "defend" and not "attack."

Or perhaps a comparison of other objects and their "intended" uses? A gun is simply designed to fire a projectile, and can be used for good or evil, the same as a computer is simply designed to move bits of data around, and can be used for both as well? Pencils make lines on paper, cars move along carrying people & cargo, etc.?

I would like to know if anyone has had a good comeback for this that actually seemed to change someone's belief that "Guns are only designed to kill."

Thanks,

...Orygunner...

Click to expand...

It's quite simple, really. They're exactly right; guns are designed for the sole purpose of destroying what they are fired at, and thatincludes killing living things that are targeted. That's why you have one; so you have the opportunity to kill the other guy before he can do the same to you. It's naive to think that a gun is anything less than a deadly weapon, and that buying one, training with it and carrying it is anything less than making the decision to kill if you have to.

However, the question is largely irrelevant. Like anything else, the devil is in the details, but I will simplify; the proper question, whose answer willdetermineacceptance or condemnation,is not the purpose of a gun, but the intent of the user. All specifics aside there are two reasons to use a gun against another human; to gain, and to avoid loss. The first use is generally wrong, while the second is generally right. You as an LAC carry a gun for the second reason, because other people carry a gun for the first.

Click to expand...

Awesome! There does not exist a better way to throw it down than that!

imported post

My guns were designed to poke holes in objects, just like my power drill. Which object it pokes a hole in is entirely up to the operator.

Saws are designed to cut stuff, it's the operators choice if it cuts trees, 2x4s, or human legs.

Cars are designed to move themselves and their contents across the land. It is the drivers choice if it is loaded with family members going to the beach, or packed with explosives driving to a crowded street market.

Blaming objects for peoples actions is stupid. Any object can be used for good or bad purposes, it is not the object that determines which action is taken.

imported post

I'd just say "Well, I've never killed anything with my gun but I've had lots of fun shooting the hell out of old furniture, appliances, and paper targets. I suppose it could be used for killing, but that's a last resort."

imported post

BobCav wrote:

Snip
Some thoughts: Cameras weren't designed for child porn, but they are used for that. Knives weren't designed to kill people, but they do. Should they be banned? Ridiculous and no one would stand for it. Many things with innocent designs and uses can also hurt orkill, yet their utility far surpasses the detriment.

Click to expand...

I beg to differ.

UK Knife Ban

Click to expand...

Posted By: Pete <Send E-Mail>
Date: Mon 14 Jan 2008 8:17 am

Click to expand...

From The Times
London, UK
January 14, 2008
Government crackdown on knife crime in cities
Philip Webster, Political Editor

Click to expand...

Anyone caught carrying a blade will be prosecuted and will not be allowed to escape with a caution under a crackdown on knife crime promised by Gordon Brown.
Police must prosecute those of any age who are found in possession of a blade in areas where knife crime is high. London, Liverpool, Birmingham and Greater Manchester are among the 12 priority areas.
Mr Brown is bringing forward a Violent Crime Action Plan which will be announced by Jacqui Smith, the Home Secretary, early next month.
The Government may also introduce an outright ban on some hunting knives.
In an interview with The Sun today, Mr Brown says: “You cannot be casual or cool about knives. Society cannot cope with people carrying guns and knives and threatening to use them.
“There are boundaries you cannot cross and one is this country’s zero tolerance on knives. It is neither cool nor does it make you safer to carry a knife. We must ease people’s fears. They deserve freedom from fear about their safety on the streets.”
Faridon Alizada, 18, from Bexley, southeast London; Bradley Whitfield, 16; and Nassirudeen Osawe, 17, were all murdered recently in stabbings.
Mr Brown wants the 12 worst-hit areas to receive a zero-tolerance message. In the interview he says: “It is completely unacceptable to carry a knife or a gun. We are to step up action. Where the police have previously been cautioning people there now has to be a presumption of prosecution. We will charge, not caution.”
The Prime Minister also expresses concern at computer games that show characters surviving being stabbed, but he cannot ban them. “I am very worried about video and computer games,” he says. “The industry has some responsibility to society and needs to exercise that responsibility.”

Click to expand...

I know that's the UK, but we're only about 25 years behind them. Knives will be banned in this country in my lifetime.

imported post

According to the Kleck study, guns are used defensively thousands of times a day, yet they are fired in less than 1% of cases. In the instances which they are fired, they are usually not fatal. If they're only designed to kill, they're doing a terrible job.

A hammer doesn't work unless you swing it. A fire extinguisher doesn't work unless you pull the pin and squeeze the handle. A seatbelt doesn't work unless you put it on. But in over 99% of cases a gun does its job - keeping the owner safe - without ever being fired.

How many other tools can you name that do their job without even being operated?

imported post

MetalChris, thanks for that reminder! I was referring to ALL knives, kitchen knives included. I wasn't even thinking of the UK public knife ban.

imported post

There was a movement back in '06 in the UK to ban all knives over 3 inches, including kitchen knives. I'll see if I can dig something up on it.

imported post

They are used in completion, including The Olympics, just like other weapons, namely swords, javelins,and the bow & arrow.

imported post

MetalChris wrote:

BobCav wrote:

Snip
Some thoughts: Cameras weren't designed for child porn, but they are used for that. Knives weren't designed to kill people, but they do. Should they be banned? Ridiculous and no one would stand for it. Many things with innocent designs and uses can also hurt orkill, yet their utility far surpasses the detriment.

Click to expand...

I beg to differ.

UK Knife Ban

Click to expand...

Posted By: Pete <Send E-Mail>
Date: Mon 14 Jan 2008 8:17 am

Click to expand...

From The Times
London, UK
January 14, 2008
Government crackdown on knife crime in cities
Philip Webster, Political Editor

Click to expand...

Anyone caught carrying a blade will be prosecuted and will not be allowed to escape with a caution under a crackdown on knife crime promised by Gordon Brown.
Police must prosecute those of any age who are found in possession of a blade in areas where knife crime is high. London, Liverpool, Birmingham and Greater Manchester are among the 12 priority areas.
Mr Brown is bringing forward a Violent Crime Action Plan which will be announced by Jacqui Smith, the Home Secretary, early next month.
The Government may also introduce an outright ban on some hunting knives.
In an interview with The Sun today, Mr Brown says: “You cannot be casual or cool about knives. Society cannot cope with people carrying guns and knives and threatening to use them.
“There are boundaries you cannot cross and one is this country’s zero tolerance on knives. It is neither cool nor does it make you safer to carry a knife. We must ease people’s fears. They deserve freedom from fear about their safety on the streets.”
Faridon Alizada, 18, from Bexley, southeast London; Bradley Whitfield, 16; and Nassirudeen Osawe, 17, were all murdered recently in stabbings.
Mr Brown wants the 12 worst-hit areas to receive a zero-tolerance message. In the interview he says: “It is completely unacceptable to carry a knife or a gun. We are to step up action. Where the police have previously been cautioning people there now has to be a presumption of prosecution. We will charge, not caution.”
The Prime Minister also expresses concern at computer games that show characters surviving being stabbed, but he cannot ban them. “I am very worried about video and computer games,” he says. “The industry has some responsibility to society and needs to exercise that responsibility.”

Click to expand...

I know that's the UK, but we're only about 25 years behind them. Knives will be banned in this country in my lifetime.

Click to expand...

:?

In for UK fist ban. Punching could hurt someone. We want people to live in a society free from fear of aggression. Let's get out the protective bubbles and ban all human-to-human, human-to-animal, and human-to-objectinteraction!

imported post

In all fairness, we need to call a spade a spade. Guns were and still are designed to kill. They're not a toy that only kills on Tuesday mornings. Yes, contrary to all the cute explanations for target-shooting and such, guns are designed to kill.

The two questions we must ask is: Is this a bad thing? And, is this relevant?

Many members so far have posted why the former is false. "Killing" is either a net "good" or "bad" based on who is doing it. Killing an immediate threat to one's life? Good, in the long run. But it's still killing.

Which brings me to the latter point. The whole "argument" is an appeal to emotion. So, guns are designed for killing... how is that relevant to whether or not private individuals should be allowed to have them? Sometimes killing must be done... this is why the police and military are allowed to have guns. And other products are designed to kill... take insecticides and other poisons. At any rate, the "guns are designed to kill" statement requires a bit more information to really form an argument, and isn't one in and of itself. I'd inquire to get the rest of the argument, if there is one.

imported post

VAopencarry wrote:

The same could be said for a bow and arrow.

Click to expand...

+1

Bow & Arrow, Slingshot, Knife, Spear, Rock You name it, there is literally no limit to what can be used as a weapon.

Heck you could even kill someone with a piece of ice.

imported post

imperialism2024 wrote:

In all fairness, we need to call a spade a spade. Guns were and still are designed to kill. They're not a toy that only kills on Tuesday mornings. Yes, contrary to all the cute explanations for target-shooting and such, guns are designed to kill.

The two questions we must ask is: Is this a bad thing? And, is this relevant?

Many members so far have posted why the former is false. "Killing" is either a net "good" or "bad" based on who is doing it. Killing an immediate threat to one's life? Good, in the long run. But it's still killing.

Which brings me to the latter point. The whole "argument" is an appeal to emotion. So, guns are designed for killing... how is that relevant to whether or not private individuals should be allowed to have them? Sometimes killing must be done... this is why the police and military are allowed to have guns. And other products are designed to kill... take insecticides and other poisons. At any rate, the "guns are designed to kill" statement requires a bit more information to really form an argument, and isn't one in and of itself. I'd inquire to get the rest of the argument, if there is one.

Click to expand...

Well stated.

imported post

Eagleeye wrote:

VAopencarry wrote:

The same could be said for a bow and arrow.

Click to expand...

+1

Bow & Arrow, Slingshot, Knife, Spear, Rock You name it, there is literally no limit to what can be used as a weapon.

Heck you could even kill someone with a piece of ice.

Click to expand...

Bow & Arrow - Invented to kill, primarily as a hunting tool to bring down game but refined to be a offensive weapon of war. Pretty much the only use is to kill.

Slingshot - Can't say that its primary purpose is to kill and that purpose is somewhat limited but was invented as an offensive weapon and for hunting. Not sure which was first, hunting or weapon of war.

Knife - Although knives can be used as weapons, especially bayonets, their primary use is far from being a weapon. Knives are probably considered more of a defensive weapon than an offensive weapon.

Spear - Probably invented as a tool for hunting and although used as a weapon of war it is not nearly as popular as in the past.

Rock - Can be used as an offensive weapon and as ammuntion it can aslo be used as a very good defensive weapon if it is big enough to hide behind. I really don't think the original intent of rocks was to kill people but sort of developed as an afterthought.

Ice - Primary purpose is to cool beer but could be used as a weapon but so can the beer if left in the can. You could be killed by ice and many do each year either from falling on ice, ice falling on them or freezing to death. Not commonly thought of as a weapon but could be used. CSI had a case where someone used an ice bullet. I think mythbusters busted that idea.

Shotguns - Developed for hunting more than anything else. Can be used as both an offensive and defensive weapon but not in common use in the military.

Rifles - Developed for war but very useful in hunting. Have to classify this one as the primary use is killing but not necessarily people. Good for both.

Pistols - Is used some for hunting but it is limited. The primary purpose that it was developed for and still is for killing people. Whether it is a defansive or offensive device is up to you but the main purpose of a pistol is to kill people. If you think that its primary purpose is to scare the BG off when you flash it I recommend you get rid of yours. If you think it is going to protect you then I hope you have enough of them to make a suit of armor out of them. You can teivialize it all you want to and come up with all the reasons you want to but the primary purpose of a handgun is to kill people. If you use it as defense then the person respects that you can kill them with it. If you use it for target practice you are only sharpening your skills to be a better shot when shooting at someone.

imported post

*

imported post

Pointman wrote:

The argument is flawed. A match 1911 is designed for accuracy, not dependability in all weather and climate conditions, and should not be used for daily personal defense because of tight tolerances. A Glock has loose tolerances and "always works," but is not good for several types of matches in stock form. The same holds true of a match AR-15 versus a standard field issue. Many guns are not designed to kill people.

My intent in an attack situation is to stop the threat, not to kill someone. If they die, that is an unfortunateconsequence of their actions, not mine.

Click to expand...

After creating this thread, I finished reading J. Neil Schulman's book, "Stopping Power", which he made available as a FREE download (check out this thread: http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum6/12348.html)

He has a section on the Anti-gun assertion that "Guns are only made for killing":

The section goes further to point out that guns can threaten instead of kill as afunction AND a lawful and moral purpose (such as to PREVENT a crime) for which a person would want to have one.

It makes sense to me that the intent of a firearm is to STOP a threat, not to kill.From one extreme,if stopping the threat only requires SAYING you have a gun (or audibly racking the slide on a 12ga), or goes to the other extreme of having to fire it at the attacker, the same goal is in mind: To stop the threat.

I think agreeing to the argument that "guns are designed to kill" undermines our efforts, because if you agree with that statement, how do you explain the high percentage of Defensive Gun Uses without firing a shot? It's the THREAT of lethality that usually stops the threat, not killing (although it's necessary a small % of the time).

So I think my responseto "guns are designed to kill" has to be "No, A gun's designed function is to fire a projectile. The purpose people use guns for the most is to STOP a violent attack or crime, most of the time just by the THREAT of using that designed function."

...Orygunner...

imported post

*

imported post

Flyswatters are only designed to kill. I've never heard of anyone target swatting. In fact, they are rarely used in self-defense. People armed with flyswatters will kill simply when annoyed. Almost always they are used on unarmed victims.

imported post

*