Arguments Against: Guns are only designed to kill?

[rodbender]

imported post

Felid`Maximus wrote:

Flyswatters are only designed to kill.

I'm sorry, but I beg to differ with you. My mother used to whip our ass with one, so flyswatters are not onlydesigned to kill, because she never killed any 1 of nine kids. Although,we did think she was going to at times. She still owns that same flyswatter, too. I'm now55 and she's 81, and Ithink she would use it today if one of us riled her enough. Don't reallywant to find out.

 

[ijusam]

imported post

rodbender wrote:

Felid`Maximus wrote:

Flyswatters are only designed to kill.

I'm sorry, but I beg to differ with you. My mother used to whip our ass with one, so flyswatters are not onlydesigned to kill, because she never killed any 1 of nine kids. Although,we did think she was going to at times. She still owns that same flyswatter, too. I'm now55 and she's 81, and Ithink she would use it today if one of us riled her enough. Don't reallywant to find out.

So you feel the flyswatter was designed to swat your ass? Why wouldn't they have called it a "Rodbender Asswatter"?

Of course the flyswatter, like the gun is designed to kill, however they are commonly used for other purposes.
Whether you use a gun to feed yourself, defend your life, target shoot, a display piece, or a paperweight, it was designed for killing. All other uses are just an offshoot, or a misuse of the weapon. Target shooting is the outcome of people who wished to be more efficient at killing. nowadays its used in sport and competition by some who would most likely never have the intestinal fortitude to use it to defend their lives or provide food, BUT that does not detract from it's design purpose. Due to its recognized design purpose, it can be used to provide someone the opportunity to use as a means of forcing others to comply with your wishes be they tyrants, thieves, or someone defending them self either with or without actual use.

Designed to kill, yes.
Designed to kill people, not necessarily.
Designed to help save your life is what I would prefer to say.

 

[Orygunner]

imported post

Felid`Maximus wrote:

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.

You haven't been to Alaska, have you?

They got two kinds of mosquitos up there.

The little ones thatcome through the holes in your screen door...

...And the big ones that OPEN your screen door... :shock:
...Orygunner...

 

[AWDstylez]

imported post

 

[deanf]

imported post

guns/assault weapons/handgunsare only designed to kill (people).

Yes, and under certain circumstances, I have the legal and moral authority to kill a person.

 

[rodbender]

imported post

ijusam wrote:

So you feel the flyswatter was designed to swat your ass? Why wouldn't they have called it a "Rodbender Asswatter"?

Of course the flyswatter, like the gun is designed to kill, however they are commonly used for other purposes.
Whether you use a gun to feed yourself, defend your life, target shoot, a display piece, or a paperweight, it was designed for killing. All other uses are just an offshoot, or a misuse of the weapon. Target shooting is the outcome of people who wished to be more efficient at killing. nowadays its used in sport and competition by some who would most likely never have the intestinal fortitude to use it to defend their lives or provide food, BUT that does not detract from it's design purpose. Due to its recognized design purpose, it can be used to provide someone the opportunity to use as a means of forcing others to comply with your wishes be they tyrants, thieves, or someone defending them self either with or without actual use.

Designed to kill, yes.
Designed to kill people, not necessarily.
Designed to help save your life is what I would prefer to say.

Hey, ijusam, chill dude, it was meant to be satirical. My mother never used a flyswatter on us, although she would whip our assif we got out of line. I thought anyone would be able to see the satire.

I know what the original intent for the use of the gun was.Five of usdid the research back in the early 70's, beforeAl Goreinvented the internet. We spent countless hours at the library andspent a lot of money on books that were out of print. So if you want to get into an argument about the invention of the gun, do the research, then come see me.You'll find it won't be an argument at all.

I don't see any reason to berate anybody for doing what they do with guns other than the criminal element. Why the attack on sport and target shooting? Did one of them piss in your Cheerios?Even most, about 75%,so calledpacifists will kill to defend their life.Proven fact. Did the research on that, too. When one faction of a group starts putting downanother, the anti's see a chink in the armor and goes after it. Please, think before you put things out to be read by all. I have written a lot of condescending remarks about some of the things I've read on this site and others. I always write them, get it off my chest, reflect on it,then delete it. Don't give the anti's ammunition to use. If you do, they WILL use it, no matter how minor.

 

[tattedupboy]

imported post

Yes, guns are designed to destroy what their users (people) aim them at. Because guns can't aim themselves, load themselves, or pull their own triggers, however, how can anyone conclude that they are designed to kill? The fact is they are inanimate objects; they, much like many other inanimate objects, can be used by people, both good and bad, to kill other people. The reason we have some who want to ban their possession is that they happen to be the weapon of choice among criminals and, unlike other objects that can be used to kill, are easily concealable. Where this argument falls apart, however, is that gun control never has and never will make killers less likely to kill. All it does is make them do what they do using other instruments.

 

[PT111]

imported post

Felid`Maximus wrote:

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.

I beg to differ. I know of many children that have been popped with flyswatters and I doubt that their parents intended to kill them. Actually there are lots of uses for fly swatters besides killing.

http://www.crunchgear.com/wp-content/uploads/buggun.JPG

 

[BobCav]

imported post

Design vs application.

 

[polarbz]

imported post

Wasn't the first murder committed with a rock? (Cain and Able [if you agree with the historical accuracy of Genesis]).

 

[rodbender]

imported post

polarbz wrote:

Wasn't the first murder committed with a rock? (Cain and Able [if you agree with the historical accuracy of Genesis]).

Nope, the jawbone of an ass.

 

[PT111]

imported post

rodbender wrote:

polarbz wrote:

Wasn't the first murder committed with a rock? (Cain and Able [if you agree with the historical accuracy of Genesis]).

Nope, the jawbone of an ass.

[suP]

[suP]Genesis 4[/suP]

[suP]8[/suP] Cain said to Abel his brother, "Let us go out to the field." And when they were in the field, Cain rose up against his brother Abel, and killed him. [suP]9[/suP] Then the LORD said to Cain, "Where is Abel your brother?" He said, "I do not know; am I my brother's keeper?"

Doesn't say how he was killed in this version. The jawbone of an ass was a different story.[/suP]

 

[rodbender]

imported post

PT111 wrote:

[suP]

[suP]Genesis 4[/suP]

[suP]8[/suP] Cain said to Abel his brother, "Let us go out to the field." And when they were in the field, Cain rose up against his brother Abel, and killed him. [suP]9[/suP] Then the LORD said to Cain, "Where is Abel your brother?" He said, "I do not know; am I my brother's keeper?"

Doesn't say how he was killed in this version. The jawbone of an ass was a different story.[/suP]

You are correct. That was Sampson. Sorry.

Judges 15:15-16 NIV

Finding a fresh jawbone of a donkey, he grabbed it and struck down a thousand men. Then Sampson said,

"Witha donkey's jawbone

I have made donkeys of them.

With a donkeys jawbone

I have killed a thousand men."

 

[Venator]

imported post

yeahYeah wrote:

True - guns were designed to destroy when they are fired at...BUT.. a gun never kills unless there is a killer pulling the trigger.

cars can kill just as easily. in fact, more people die in a car, then by guns, but the only time a car is deadly is if its misused.

That's not really true, many gun owners have killed people that were not pulling the trigger. Perhaps you meant most gun owners don't kill....

 

[Venator]

imported post

Orygunner wrote:

BobCav wrote:

I would "disarm" them by saying they are absolutely correct! Gunswere/are designedfor killing people, either evil or innocent.

...

While guns ARE for killing people, it is perhaps one of the most noble of weapons ever invented by man BECAUSE it has no other purpose!!. It will immediately bring out either the best in a person....or the worst.

In the hands of evil they are used by criminals to MURDERor threaten to murder innocent life. But their PRIMARYpurpose is that in the hands of good and responsible people they are used toDEFEND and protect innocent life and they do that over 2.5 million times per year!

That help?

However, if we agree that guns ARE designed to kill people, but people use them over 2 Million times a year in self defense without killing anyone, aren't we mis-using them? If guns are really designed to kill, shouldn't we have a lot more deadpeople?

Hey. :idea:That's actually a REALLY good argument... It makesa great point AGAINST the statement "Guns are designed to kill."

Wrong, the gun IS designed to kill and maim, how one uses the gun is a different issue. Many crimes are deterred just by displaying a gun and not shooting it.

 

[Liko81]

imported post

Venator wrote:

Wrong, the gun IS designed to kill and maim, how one uses the gun is a different issue. Many crimes are deterred just by displaying a gun and not shooting it.

You're right, but I think it bears repeating; it is naive to think that all you have to do with a gun it pull it out and point it. Those who think this way will have their guns taken from them because they will not find it in them to pull the trigger, or will be too surprised when it doesn't immediately work.

You draw the second before you need to pull the trigger. If the guy stops and backs down/runs away in that second, all well and good, but if he doesn't, you MUST pull that trigger.

 

[Pointman]

imported post

*

 

[SlackwareRobert]

imported post

No, guns were designed to put a check on power hungry government
from enslaving the population.

It's amazing less than 5 days apart, an officer serving a warrent is shot,
all $#% breaks lose against SKS, less than a week later another one run down serving warrent and not one complaint against chevy's.
It's a double standard.

 

[Overtaxed]

imported post

One question the anti-gunners never seem able to answer is:

"If I'm confronted by multiple assailants, or one assailant who is physically much stronger/tougher than I am, or an assailant with a gun, and it's more likely than not that their intention is to harm me, and a quick retreat is not an option, what exactly do you propose I defend myself with, if you would rather I not carry a gun."

They are NEVER able to come up with anything more than, "well, learn martial arts" or "just give them what they want."

 

[Venator]

imported post

Overtaxed wrote:

One question the anti-gunners never seem able to answer is:

"If I'm confronted by multiple assailants, or one assailant who is physically much stronger/tougher than I am, or an assailant with a gun, and it's more likely than not that their intention is to harm me, and a quick retreat is not an option, what exactly do you propose I defend myself with, if you would rather I not carry a gun."

They are NEVER able to come up with anything more than, "well, learn martial arts" or "just give them what they want."

What if they want your life, are we supposed to just give them our life?