"The primary purpose of a gun is to kill people" - how to best refute that?

[sleeplessknight]

So I have a friend. He's a sharp cookie, likes guns, etc, but he knows that I've got a much more laissez-faire (sp?) view about firearms ownership than he does. Because he's a sharp cookie, he likes riling me up by baiting me with newspaper articles with an 'anti gun' slant, because he knows that'll raise my blood-pressure something fierce. The latest conversation we had started off with talking about the recent Pentagon nutjob, continued off into the logical fallacy of 'gun free zones', and branched off into "the primary purpose of guns is to kill people". My basic argument was that "The primary purpose of guns is NOT to kill people, it's to put holes in things at a distance". The conversation went downhill quickly from there . I would love to hear the counter-arguments to that statement from folks here, so I can use 'em next time

 

[whatluck]

It's like saying hammers are for hitting nails. They have other uses. Guns are tools.

 

[theGringo]

It's like saying hammers are for hitting nails. They have other uses.

Like putting holes in things up close. I tried to hang a mirror, once ...

 

[Boston_Shooter]

"Dirty Harry said there's nothing wrong with a little shooting, as long as the right people get shot." -Turn (Righteous Kill)

 

[sleeplessknight]

Here's the basic gist of my conversation betwixt my friend and I. For better or worse, I'm not QUITE this gung-ho on the whole ownership/purpose thing "in real life", I was taking a purposely-contrary stance to try and get him to explain himself further, and maybe rile him up a bit too

<friend>: there are far too many irrational people out there who should be absolutely no where near guns
<friend>: there are people with rage issues, etc

<me>: then why are they able to own cars?
<me>: or kitchen knives?

<friend>: with guns in the hands of every good citizen, it then becomes way too easy for the bad citizens to get access to those guns

<me>: how can they drive a 2T frame of steel around, and not go into a rage and smash someone?
<me>: hell, they're MORE MOBILE in cars, <friend>. they can run AWAY from the cops in their 'murder machines'

<friend>: because the car breaks.

<me>: guns jam

<friend>: the gun is designed for one purpose... ending life.

<me>: no, the gun is designed for one purpose: putting holes in things at a distance

<friend>: and i would have more faith in a car failing when driven in a rage into obstacles and people then i would on a gun jamming when used in rage

<me>: really? google-search fatal car accidents where the perp just drove off

<friend>: i'm sorry man... you will never convince me that a gun is a benign instrument designed to simply put holes in things. it's designed to put holes in people.

<me>: no, the hole that the gun puts in something is selected by the operator of the tool
<me>: you squeeze the trigger in a loaded, properly maintained gun (all things being equal), a hole is appearing in something, somewhere
<me>: it does not magically appear in a person
<me>: or a wee baby, or a schoolchild

<friend>: it was designed to be used against a person,.

<me>: no, it wasn't

<friend>: that's what they were created for. a weapon of war and enforcement of people

<me>: it was designed to convert potential energy into kinetic energy
<me>: the tool is USED for war, and social control, yes
<me>: but that use is chosen by the operator

<friend>: ok man... you've officially slipped a couple of rungs too far if you're going to turn THAT callous an eye to not even admit the purpose of a gun is to kill and damage people.

<me>: it's not. never has been, never will be
<me>: the purpose of a gun is to put holes in things at a distance. Full stop.

<friend>: then we've reached stalemate on that topic

<me>: PEOPLE make choices. Punish the people who make bad choices

<friend>: agreed... however...
<friend>: i'm gonna go wash my car up the street

<me>: are you saying it is somehow easier to put a hole in a person with a gun, than it is to put a hole in a piece of paper?
<me>: or in an animal to eat?
<me>: or is the difficulty "about the same", all environmental variables being equal?

<friend>: you will never convince me that the primary use of a handgun isn't for killing humans.

<me>: I'll answer for you: "Yes Lee, upon thinking about it for a minute, it's no harder to put a hole in a person, a piece of paper, or an animal to eat, or heck, ANYTHING, all other environmental things being equal"

<me>: <friend>, when you design something for a specific purpose, you make it EASIER to accomplish that one specific task generally to the exclusion of other, more general tasks

<friend>: so you're saying the primary purpose of a handgun is hunting?
<friend>: or putting holes in paper?

<me>: no
<me>: it puts holes in things at a distance
<me>: the user of the tool chooses the definition of "thing"

<friend>: i find your line of thinking... a little off.
<friend>: a little callous, on this point
<friend>: and don't get me wrong...

<me>: I find your lack of logic... disturbing

<friend>: i believe in gun ownership with controls
<friend>: and i believe in personal protection
<friend>: in some ways i even believe that the people SHOULD gave guns to make their government think twice before trying to pull the wool over their eyes
<friend>: but the purpose of a pistol is to kill humans.

<me>: I'm with you right up until that last sentance.

<friend>: yup
<friend>: so that's that
<friend>: =)

<me>: it makes about as much sense to me as "the primary purpose of a hammer is opening coconuts"

<fin>

 

[JustEric]

I would agree with him, and then point out that there are some people that need killing, like the scumbag trying to rape a loved one at 3 in the morning.

Seriously, this is one point on which I feel we really can't argue. That's what guns were created for. There's no denying it. Do we use them for other things now? Of course we do, but that doesn't change the original intent. All we can do is point out the fallacy in the implied argument that everyone has a right to live; some people voluntarily forfeit that right.

 

[vellnueve]

The primary purpose of a gun is to protect.

Whether it be protecting your health (hunting), protecting your life (self defense), protecting the country (national defense), or protecting you from housework and chores (recreational shooting).

 

[whatluck]

Really, I think the original firearms, just like other projectile type weapons, were for killing food. Necessity is the mother of invention.

 

[sleeplessknight]

The primary purpose of a gun is to protect.

Whether it be protecting your health (hunting), protecting your life (self defense), protecting the country (national defense), or protecting you from housework and chores (recreational shooting).

I really like this one, and will definitely use it should the conversation come up again. In hindsight, I wish I could've gotten the Jeff Cooper quote, "A pistol is for stopping a fight that somebody else started" in there too.

 

[Boston_Shooter]

You can kill a person with anything... but guns were created to kill. period. There really isn't an argument to that. You can argue about who should or shouldn't have access to guns, or if the world is safer with more guns in the hands of good people, but you can't argue on it's purpose. it is a tool. So is a screw driver, it drives screws... it COULD be used as a weapon...but that's not it's purpose. You COULD use your gun as a paperweight or a hammer...but that's not its purpose.

 

[vellnueve]

Weren't guns first created for fireworks/pyrotechnics?

 

[Titan]

I agree with 'JustEric' and others who suggests your friend is right about the purpose.

Disarm your friend by agreeing with him.

Guns were designed for offensive and defensive use. Criminals use them offensively. Law abiding citizens use them defensively.

If you are the victim of a violent street crime or a home envasion, you have a natural right to self defense.
Your fists won't help you if the other person has a knife or a gun.
Although society provides police for your protection, there's a very slim chance that one will be available when you are being attacked.

The best way to defend against a lethal attack in the instant it occurs, is with a handgun.

The more social breakdown occurs in society, the greater the need for defensive use of a gun.

The use of a gun for defensive (or sporting) purposes is what separates law abiding citizens from criminals.

Discretion and measured behavior is totally within the capacity of rational adults. There's no more reason to fear a properly maintained gun in the hands of a law abiding adult, than you should fear the use of a kitchen knife by the same adult.

In MA, you have the added assurance that lawful gun owners have been interviewed and evaluated by the police and issued a license to carry by the Chief of Police, certifying they are not criminals and not mentally unstable.

Gun free zones define places where defenseless people can be easily killed.

Armed citizens in the population guard against 'gun free zones' and killing fields.

Law enforcement is the key to ridding the criminal element of guns, not penalizing law abiding citizens.

Every police officer in a city knows where the criminal element is and that they are armed. Enforce existing laws and remove guns from the hands of criminals.

Leave law abiding citizens alone.

 

[sleeplessknight]

Weren't guns first created for fireworks/pyrotechnics?

I think the Chinese cannon were, yes, but there's arguing what something's "first use" was, and then there's arguing what "primary use" is. Actually, from a pedantic standpoint, maybe making that distinction and then trying to settle on what "primary" means (i.e. is it the intent of the 'original designer of that particular model of firearm', or is it 'what the tool in question is used most for') could be quite useful. The argument for the latter is that 'far more rounds are shot at paper targets in this country (by civilians) than at people or animals', and the argument for the former would go back to the 'right to life' fallacy.

 

[FCI Corp]

As it says in my signature! "You Don't Shoot to Kill... You Shoot to Stay Alive!" Live it!

 

[cekim]

Guns are a tool.

More correctly, they are a force multiplier. They allow you to project your will beyond your physical reach.

What you do with that will and power is up to you:
- Defend your own life
- Defend the lives of those you love
- Defend your rights and freedoms
- Defend the rights and freedoms of your countrymen

The objective of any law abiding, ethical person when firing a gun in self defense is to stop the threat. If death occurs as a result, this is the side effect and the consequence of the violent actions taken against you - not your action to defend yourself.

To blame the object (gun) for death or injury is to willfully ignore the true origin of the violence - the person who created the threat in the first place.

A has been said, it could be a baseball bat, knife, chainsaw, tire iron, cinder block, frying pan, rock, etc...

What matters is the human who uses it. Whether to defend or to kill - the object does not decide.

 

[calsdad]

You can kill a person with anything... but guns were created to kill. period. There really isn't an argument to that. You can argue about who should or shouldn't have access to guns, or if the world is safer with more guns in the hands of good people, but you can't argue on it's purpose. it is a tool. So is a screw driver, it drives screws... it COULD be used as a weapon...but that's not it's purpose. You COULD use your gun as a paperweight or a hammer...but that's not its purpose.

+1

It's very hard to make the argument that guns are not tools for killing things - either people or game (if you are hunting). A simple read thru the history of the gun will tell you that it was not invented and developed to put holes in paper. If you use the "holes in paper" argument you are starting off with a losing hand in any argument you might get into trying to defend gun rights.

The simple fact is that guns were invented to kill people. The question is not whether or not guns are meant to kill people - but since the gun is an invention that cannot just be given back - how do we deal with having a tool that allows a person to kill another person with much more ease than they might otherwise if they did not have a gun. The anti gun control argument is this: MOST people are moral and can be trusted to do the right thing. Especially in a world where there are consequences for one's actions. Since a gun is a device that gives power to the user - and since humans have historically been proven to do bad things to each other when given disparate amounts of power over each other - the only true way in today's world to make sure that bad people don't do bad things to good people - is for good people to realize they must also have the ability to project power.

This means that good people MUST own guns - so that bad people realize there WILL be consequences if they go over the line.

The Founding Fathers knew this by historical example - even before there was the revolution in this country. People who are victims of crime figure this out pretty quickly too. Far too many other people have their heads implanted firmly in their behinds if they think that anybody is going to care for them as much as they should care for themselves - but they still persist in insisting that police and govt. only have their best interests at heart. So they give all the power of the gun to the police and the military - and basically give up their god given right of self defense because they can't come to grips with the fact that they hold the power of death in their hands when they own a gun.

These people are acting like children. Just because you have the power of killing somebody doesn't mean you HAVE TO kill somebody.


The correct answer to your friend's argument is to change the game by not getting suckered into a bogus premise.

 

[Finalygotabeltfed]

Stop arguing with idiots and find a new "friend".......seriously, the one you supposedly have now may be derimental to your health at some point in time.

 

[cekim]

The other thing I like to point out to people who say such things is that their political ideology of using the force of government to restrict the behavior and freedom of otherwise lawful citizens and people has been responsible for more deaths than guns.

In fact, it has been a serious problem for socialist governments in the past century as to how to kill everyone that disagrees with them as the gun is not an efficient enough means of dispatching people when you need to kill millions of them.

This was, according the meeting notes of German government officials, a key driver behind their "innovation" in the disposal of people in the camps.

With a gun, a criminal can kill one or a few. With a government, even a well intentioned fool can kill millions. Upon which tool should we impose more restrictions?

 

[whatluck]

With a gun, a criminal can kill one or a few. With a government, even a well intentioned fool can kill millions. Upon which tool should we impose more restrictions?

Nicely put. +1. Even though you're already World Champ.

Guns don't kill people. Fascist governments kill disarmed people.

 

[JackDaniels]

There is nothing wrong with that statement to begin with. Killing is sometimes necessary. If you don't accept that, there is nothing that is going to convince you the value of owning the tools to do so.

 

[boomerang]

They're not for killing. They're for asserting survival dominance, whether it's for a culture, a small group, or an individual.

 

[wahsben]

The first firearms were very crude and were used as a defensive tool at close range and to penetrate armor and in some instances were more of a danger to the operator than the person being fired upon.
Firearms equalize disparities in age, size, physical abilities etc. without them we would be subjugated more easily by the bullies of the world.

 

[dixidawg]

"Handguns were made for killing. They ain't good for nothing else".

Name that tune.

 

[matt]

I'm sorry, what's to refute? In a somewhat oversimplified way, the statement is correct. Don't apologize for it. Yes there are target guns and hunting guns. But regarding handguns (where most emotion lies) yes they are to kill people.

It's in the judgment around the use of the tool, not the tool itself where there can be debate.

I'll elaborate a little. Most all of my guns are "for killing people". I also enjoy shooting for fun/practice. I own some specifically target guns too. But the reality is most of my guns are for killing.

But killing who?

Not random people. Not people I have disagreements with. They are for killing people who pose an immediate threat to me or my family's life and safety for the purpose of stopping the threat.

 

[wahsben]

"Handguns were made for killing. They ain't good for nothing else".

Name that tune.

Saturday Night Special by Lynyrd Skynyrd. What do I win?

 

[Batbox]

i think if your friend were to learn more about guns, he'd be less able to make such blanket statements. it's an unavoidable aspect of the human condition: the less you know about something, the simpler it seems. some guns are not made for killing (.22 target pistols), some are made for hunting animals (long shotguns), some are made for killing people (short-barreled select-fire weapons), and some are made just because it's freaking awesome (desert eagle).

getting your friend to understand these distinctions is the first step. i don't think distancing yourself from him is necessarily helpful; if we avoid any dialog with anti-gun people, we're not helping ourselves out any.

the harder part is trying to convince someone that sometimes, killing is necessary. i think it helps if we talk more about incapacitating than killing, because really, in a self defense situation, the important part is to make the attacker stop doing what he's doing, it's just a coincidence that dead people happen not to do stuff.

i've noticed that there is some correlation between anti-gun folks and people who say 'the pen is mightier than the sword' and similar sentiments; if this is the case, why are they all in a huff about gun control, and not seriously concerned by freedom of speech?

 

[LKB3rd]

Remove "people," and they are right. They have other uses, but their primary purpose is killing. Save your energy for refuting false statements... which are sure to follow

 

[Kicker96FS]

Guns do not kill people. People kill people, be it guns, knifes, bricks, 2x4's. People do it. Period.

 

[Bob P]

So I have a friend. He's a sharp cookie, likes guns, etc, but he knows that I've got a much more laissez-faire (sp?) view about firearms ownership than he does. Because he's a sharp cookie, he likes riling me up by baiting me with newspaper articles with an 'anti gun' slant, because he knows that'll raise my blood-pressure something fierce. The latest conversation we had started off with talking about the recent Pentagon nutjob, continued off into the logical fallacy of 'gun free zones', and branched off into "the primary purpose of guns is to kill people". My basic argument was that "The primary purpose of guns is NOT to kill people, it's to put holes in things at a distance". The conversation went downhill quickly from there . I would love to hear the counter-arguments to that statement from folks here, so I can use 'em next time

I don't actually have a problem with the statement. When someone says that I respond with, "Yes they are. But just because I have one doesn't mean I HAVE to kill someone." Or 'You don't need a gun to kill someone, it just makes it easier."


Got to say, I enjoy the reactions.

 

[FreeWillie]

The primary purpose of a gun is to protect.

Whether it be protecting your health (hunting), protecting your life (self defense), protecting the country (national defense), or protecting you from housework and chores (recreational shooting).

Well said!