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

[jcr]

"the primary purpose of guns is to kill people"

And the two police used theirs, and killed him in self-defense. It is a good thing. They saved their lives.

"Guns Save Lives" -- and that is a specific example.

"A gun is a tool, Marion. No better and no worse than any other tool - an axe, a shovel, or anything. A gun is as good or as bad as the man using it. Remember that." --Shane, in the eponymous movie.

--jcr

 

[ochmude]

They primary purpose of a murderer is to kill innocent people. The primary purpose of a hunter is to take game. The primary purpose is a soldier is to defend the country. The primary purpose of a gun is to shoot things, period, no more and no less. Guns have no ideology. They don't protect or attack. They just go bang. They are a machine, and therefore they make it easier for the three types of people previously mentioned to act on their intentions. There's no point in denying that.

 

[center442]

+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.

I think calsdad is spot on in summarizing the core of the issue.

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

To a pro-gunner, this is the obvious solution. But an anti-gunner is a person who looks at the issue, but has reached a totally different conclusion. In their mind, if no one owned a gun then the problem wouldn't exist in the first place. This logic is alien to most of us here, because it is the same thing as saying that if we eliminated cars, we would eliminate deaths and injuries from drunk drivers. The anti-gunners reponse is to say that cars have many other good uses. They either cannot, or will not, agree that guns have many other uses, aside from their primary one, which is, IMHO, killing people.

I've never met an anti-gunner who advocated the elimination of all guns from everyone - including agents of the government. What they usually advocate is disarming the "ordinary citizen." Some would allow certain subsets of citizens to own some guns, under some conditions. (hunters, target shooters, etc.) But every anti-gunner I've ever met would allow the government and its agents to be armed. The logic of this totally escapes me, especially when you look at history. If you add up all of the lives taken by murderers, serial killers, spree killers and so on, I don't think it would come anywhere close to the numbers of people killed by governments. If you want to kill millions, you really need an armed government to do it. Statistically, if you really wanted to prevent unnecessary deaths and murders, give every citizen a gun and totally disarm all governments and their agents.

I don't agree with anti-gunners, but I could respect their position more if they were consistent and wanted to disarm every single person and entity, but they don't. What they're really advocating is a form of discrimination. They want an elevated privilege for certain people while denying common people that same right.

I find it infuriating.

 

[K-DUB]

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

Refute with a one word answer: DUH!

 

[btnh6668]

A knife/dagger was initially created to kill for food then later against other people. Now its primary function is to cut the food we eat. Still can be used to kill another but that is not why most of us own knives.

 

[cekim]

Refute with a one word answer: DUH!

Actually, if you look at wound survival rates today - or even in Vietnam/WWII, clearly, if "killing" is their only function, they are not terribly successful. I would argue that at best you can argue that guns only function is to intimidate with the threat of pain and the possibility of death.

Wars usually do not end with everyone from the other side dead - rather the other side usually concedes at some point as a function of their overall casualty rate and ability to wage future war.

Given the number of guns that exist without ever being fired in self defense (or for murder), the statistics simply do not support the conclusion that their "primary function" is to kill.

 

[K-DUB]

Quote Originally Posted by K-DUB
Refute with a one word answer: DUH!

Actually, if you look at wound survival rates today - or even in Vietnam/WWII, clearly, if "killing" is their only function, they are not terribly successful. I would argue that at best you can argue that guns only function is to intimidate with the threat of pain and the possibility of death.

Wars usually do not end with everyone from the other side dead - rather the other side usually concedes at some point as a function of their overall casualty rate and ability to wage future war.

Given the number of guns that exist without ever being fired in self defense (or for murder), the statistics simply do not support the conclusion that their "primary function" is to kill.

Is that you, Buzz Killington?

 

[economist]

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.

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.

Refute with a one word answer: DUH!

Well said all.

The implicit assumption is that killing people is necessarily a bad thing. It is not. One can quibble over the difference between killing and "stopping" or play stupid word games, but the best response is yes, guns make killing easier, and that is a good thing when decent people own the guns.

 

[Batbox]

Actually, if you look at wound survival rates today - or even in Vietnam/WWII, clearly, if "killing" is their only function, they are not terribly successful. I would argue that at best you can argue that guns only function is to intimidate with the threat of pain and the possibility of death.

Wars usually do not end with everyone from the other side dead - rather the other side usually concedes at some point as a function of their overall casualty rate and ability to wage future war.

Given the number of guns that exist without ever being fired in self defense (or for murder), the statistics simply do not support the conclusion that their "primary function" is to kill.

i agree with what you're saying, in-so-far as the 'typical result' of a gun is not killing; many (if not most) guns haven't been involved in killing anything. however, i think even if a gun is never used to kill, it can still have killing as a 'primary function,' much in the way a seat belt's primary function is to keep you alive in a car accident, not be vaguely uncomfortable.

 

[n1zfg]

Guns weren't invented to kill people.
Guns were invented to project deadly (military) force.

Guillotines, electric chairs, gas chambers, and lethal injection machines were invented to kill people and are far more effective than the lowly firearm. The survival rate of getting hit by a bullet, is still far better than anyone who has had to "ride the lightning". Even if you only count bullets launched in anger that actually hit someone it is still no where near the lethality of a real killing machine. As a "killing machine", guns aren't all that great.

That's not to say that deadly force is something to be dismissed as a good thing. It is nasty. It is a nasty solution to an even nastier problem. But there are other arguments involving the justification for the existence of police forces, and armies.

For the "Guns Kill" argument, I usually start with by pointing out that they are not made of plutonium. Their mere proximity won't cause injury or death.

For the "Guns are evil" argument, I usually start by pointing out that they are not "The One Ring". They don't get people to just start shooting each other, otherwise why would you want anyone, including the police and military to be carrying them.

As for the "Guns are nasty and should be eliminated" argument, I first have to say "good luck un-inventing the device." On this subject, I'm actually starting to think that the widespread availability of firearms caused the elimination dueling as a means of settling disputes. But that theory isn't ready for active debate yet. (Dueling didn't get banned until too many people were getting killed at 10 paces instead of getting a chance to "yield").

As for the current gun control agenda the moonbats are pushing these days, it really lacks one thing. It lacks disarmament by the government itself. They only do one thing. They put control of the guns into the hands of a central authority. There is an old saying: "Power Corrupts". If guns had some sort of corrupting power is it wise to concentrate all of that corrupting power into some central authority? Such a place will invariably attract every megalomaniac lusting to rule over everyone else. I'm of the opinion that such a power is best distributed as thinly as possible. In the case of guns, that is best served by getting everyone who is mentally, emotionally, and morally capable, armed and instructed as well as an ordinary infantry soldier.

Of course, not everyone has the mental capacity, emotional stability, or moral fiber to safely carry. These people probably also shouldn't be allowed to wander around without responsible supervision.

And I haven't even touched the sporting activities that have made guns so much more than the weapons that they were invented to be. I often compare the target sports to bowling and golf, because marksmanship really is about accuracy and consistency.

 

[cekim]

i agree with what you're saying, in-so-far as the 'typical result' of a gun is not killing; many (if not most) guns haven't been involved in killing anything. however, i think even if a gun is never used to kill, it can still have killing as a 'primary function,' much in the way a seat belt's primary function is to keep you alive in a car accident, not be vaguely uncomfortable.

The seat belt's primary function is to control the rate of your deceleration - period. Keeping you alive is a side-effect of doing so. In fact, the function of a seat belt goes beyond just what happens on impact, but also extends to keeping you in position to control the vehicle even before/without collision.

I see your point, but I'd counter with considering the measured lethality of a gun is generally/rarely, if ever, a primary design constraint with handguns. If it were, there are a great number of guns that would have never been made/sold in smaller calibers and shorter barrels which impede both their accuracy and lethality.

To put it bluntly, there are a number of guns that are designed primarily to be a bluff when you consider their actual effectiveness in a violent encounter. Too few rounds, too much recoil for their size, short sight radius, feeding reliability, small/ineffective caliber for the purposes of penetration, etc...

In the case of rifles where this has been a factor, lethality (of humans) is not the primary concern so much as creating the largest most devastating wound for the purpose of taking the subject "out of the fight". In the case of game animals - there you have the best case of rifles being design specifically to kill as effectively as possible.

Then there is the matter that if guns' only purpose is to kill, then why do police officers need them? Are they killers?

What about the security details for politicians and celebrities? Are they killers too?

It's sort of like saying nuclear weapons only exist to blow up cities. There you have the best match of design constraint, function and intent. However, in practice their primary function was political leverage...

 

[Titan]

cekim,

I've seen posters that say..."Seatbelts save lives!"

I've never seen one that says .... "Seatbelts slow deceleration!"

Sometimes I think we overanalyze.

 

[glostamon]

Freedom requires guns.

Unfortunately todays society finds two men holding hands more acceptable than holding guns.

 

[cekim]

I've never seen one that says .... "Seatbelts slow deceleration!"

Sometimes I think we overanalyze.

Nah, more an issue of "them" oversimplifying...

They think (perhaps correctly) that "Seatbelts reduce the rate of deceleration and prevent secondary impact of your body parts on internal components of the car" wouldn't be very compelling. It doesn't change the reality that the seat belt is designed to keep you in your seat. Even more so now than before as the airbag can be dangerous if not used in conjunction with the seatbelt...

I didn't bother pointing this out before, but there is a problem with the seatbelt analogy.

Most guns are not configured or located to function "in case of attack". The vast majority of guns are sitting in drawers, safes, lockers, cases, boxes, etc...

Unlike seatbelts which are used every time you get in the car and buckle them in.

So, I refer back to my prior argument... Much like the hammer, the function of an object is determined by its use. How are the 100's of millions of guns in America used most of the time?

Those on police officers are used as much as anything as part of "uniform" to signify authority. There are plenty of officers who never fire them on duty in their career.

Those in collections are there for the amusement and enrichment of their collector.

Those configured for target/sport shooting are there to put holes in paper.

And so on...

 

[theGringo]

They think (perhaps correctly) that "Seatbelts reduce the rate of deceleration and prevent secondary impact of your body parts on internal components of the car" wouldn't be very compelling. It doesn't change the reality that the seat belt is designed to keep you in your seat. Even more so now than before as the airbag can be dangerous if not used in conjunction with the seatbelt...

<snip>

And so on...

Cekim ... you are so damned analytical. You must've been a hoot on a date, back in the day. I get an image in my mind ... oh, forget it!

And ... Happy Birthday!

 

[cekim]

Cekim ... you are so damned analytical. You must've been a hoot on a date, back in the day.

Sorry, I am taken...

 

[theGringo]

Sorry, I am taken...

Um, that's NOT the image that came to mind ...

 

[Batbox]

this might be getting completely off topic, but i thought seat belts just kept you from being decelerated by the steering column or windshield, and instead you have a relatively, but equally immediate, deceleration by strap. do they actually allow you to decelerate at a lower rate?
i'm not arguing it, i'm genuinely curious.

 

[cekim]

this might be getting completely off topic, but i thought seat belts just kept you from being decelerated by the steering column or windshield, and instead you have a relatively, but equally immediate, deceleration by strap. do they actually allow you to decelerate at a lower rate?
i'm not arguing it, i'm genuinely curious.

It's not equally immediate - the key thing that you are trying to control is the speed at which your brain specifically, but your internal organs generally hit the front of their container...

The seat belt is supposed to be a little loose and its internal locking mechanism has some "delay" to it (which translates to slack). Further (though it may not seem it) it and/or its mounts do stretch. So, you go from traveling at the same speed as the car to hitting the seat belt in the moments after the impact - but at that point, the seatbelt (along with the portions of the car that are not touching the immovable object) is still moving forward, but decelerating with the now crumpling frame of the car...

So, you hit the belt with far less than the full brunt of the impact because you are not scrubbing all your speed off at once - only the difference between initial velocity (prior to impact) and the non-zero velocity of the compressing car (which is still a lot, but every little bit counts). You still have to get from speed to rest, but every millisecond you can add to the process translates to a lower rate of deceleration which (F=MA) means less force applied by your skull on your brain...

Alternatively, if you are loose in the car - you maintain your initial velocity until the first impact with the wheel/window which has had far more time to decelerate before you hit it (thus the velocity differential is much larger).

This all makes much more sense in "slo-mo"...

 

[seanc]

It's not worth arguing the point there. Yes, guns were made to kill things.
Fine.

A shotgun can kill a duck, goose, pigeon, turkey so that you can eat it.

A rifle can be used to kill a squirrel, a deer, an elk so you can eat it.

A rifle, shot gun or pistol can all be used to kill a coyote, a rabid skunk, rattle snake, or bear so that you can keep living.

A pistol, in the hands of an 80 year old wheelchair bound woman, can kill a 250lb musclebound 18 year old trying to kill or rape them so they can survive.

A pistol in the hands of a 19 year old 87lb woman can kill an in shape 25 year old man in her house in the middle of the night, before he is able to rape, kill or kidnap her sleeping 2 year old.

A rifle, pistol or shot gun in the hands of a home owner can stop 4 thugs from perpetrating a home invasion, saving theiself and family.

What is their point??