"Guns are only usable as weapons!"


December 26, 2007, 01:04 AM
Just wanted to share a counter-argument that I thought of, to the above statement. Putting it in activism, because hey, we can all use "ammunition" when dealing with the antis. So everyone, post a good counter-argument you've thought of.

Well, my real feelings are that, yes, that may be true, but some people need killin'. Still, that doesn't really fly with the blissninnies. So, instead, competetive and recreational sports usage.

Plenty of people shoot recreationally. And several firearms shooting things are Olympic events. It doesn't get much more sport-like than the Olympics.

So by the logic that guns are weapons only, so are a lot of other sporting equipment. Baseball bat? Usable only for recreational or competitive sports, or as a weapon. Golf club? The same. Hockey sticks? Geeze, hockey sticks are used as weapons all the time during hockey games! So if you ignore the sporting applications of firearms, you must, necessarily, also disregard the nonviolent usage of other potentially lethal sports equipment, which are also used as weapons pretty frequently. Especially since the recreational and competetive use of firearms far outweighs the criminal usage (not even getting into the use for self defense), much like other sporting equipment.

Otherwise, anyone can call hypocrisy on that.

If you enjoyed reading about ""Guns are only usable as weapons!"" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
December 26, 2007, 01:19 AM
Gun laws are only followed by the law abiding citizens.
Passing laws only concerns those who plan to obey them.

December 26, 2007, 01:35 AM
The argument in the OP seems applicable; if you remove the (IMO idiotic) "sporting purpose" thing from firearms, then yes, they are weapons--and you should apply the same standard to every other sport.

Obviously, they're more than just sporting, but anyway....it's 1:30 AM and I shouldn't be typing :P

December 26, 2007, 02:31 AM
The argument in the OP seems applicable; if you remove the (IMO idiotic) "sporting purpose" thing from firearms, then yes, they are weapons--and you should apply the same standard to every other sport.

That reminds me, if the same ridiculous "sporting purpose" laws were applied to other sporting equipment, it'd be pretty terrible. Yes, professional athletes use very expensive, high-quality equipment which conforms to certain standards. However, people who play sports recreationally often use very different equipment. They also usually use significantly lower priced stuff, with fewer features. If the ATF regulated baseball bats the same way they do guns... well, seeing kids playing baseball in the park would be a thing of the past. After all, those small, light youth bats are too easy to conceal, and can be weilded in one hand by an adult, and can be swung much faster than a regular bat (and their ignition temperature is too low!)...

Robert Hairless
December 26, 2007, 07:37 AM
My own view is that things aren't weapons unless and until they are employed for that purpose. Stay with me for a minute so I can explain?

A baseball bat used to play baseball or thump tires (I've seen it done) is not a weapon but it does become one if it's used to club people. Although it can be used that way, who would say that the New York Yankees have a stash of weapons in its clubhouse or that the batter up is approaching home plate with his weapon? I understand Ryan's thoughts about kids playing baseball with these things.

Many years ago I bought a new M1 bayonet on the surplus market. It's never been attached to a rifle and I used it only as an inexpensive hefty knife on camping trips. Although it was designed and produced as a weapon, I never used it for that purpose and never had the intent to do so. If you had seen me then weighed down with a heavy camping pack walking through the woods with the knife on my belt, I doubt that you'd have thought it was a weapon either: not in my hands it wasn't. Sometimes I also had an improvised hiking staff that was a dried tree limb. It wasn't a weapon either.

Travel around and observe the many automobile dealers. Cars driven from one place to another aren't weapons, but drive one at a police officer standing in the road and you are committing assault with a deadly weapon. Still, nobody would accuse automobile dealers of having arsenals for sale.

It might be argued that Hummers are civilian versions of a military assault vehicle. That's the same logic used to argue that an AR-15 is the civilian version of an M-16. If one was designed as a weapon, so was the other. But if neither is used to harm people one is no more a weapon than the other.

The "sporting purposes" approach is nonsensical, especially when it is used by the same people who argue that the Second Amendment protects only guns that could be used by the militia. The logic fails if the argument is that only military firearms are protected but only sporting firearms are legal.

Many people I know own M1 Garands and M1 Carbines that presumably were used as weapons by the military during World War II and later. But they aren't used as weapons by their present owners, who use them in competition and for fun.

I don't know if "for fun" is or isn't a "sporting purpose," but I do know it isn't a lethal purpose. If "for fun" does not take an object made for use as a weapon out of that class, then surely something should have been done about the PT boats converted for use as charter fishing vessels when I was younger. I don't know if any survive. I do know, though, that there are still a few World War II military fighters and bombers at air shows. Nobody uses them to shoot down other planes, strafe ground troops, or drop bombs. They were weapons but aren't used that way now, although maybe they could be used as weapons again.

An old man I knew some time ago had a demilitarized World War II captured Nazi pistol on his desk at home as a paperweight. Its barrel had been filled with lead and I don't know what else had been done to it. It was a weapon, wasn't a weapon, but could be a weapon if he hit someone over the head with it.

Some museums I've visited have displays of medieval lances. They were weapons long ago but haven't been for centuries.

A mystery novel I read a while back involved a murder committed by a character who dispatched his victim with a frozen leg of lamb, then roasted it as the police looked for clues. Then he served the weapon for dinner with mint jelly and green peas.

Mr. James
December 26, 2007, 11:57 AM
Robert, I stayed with you, and it was a minute well spent. An excellent post, truly.

Thank you, sir.

I am more a product of the "it-ain't-about-duck-huntin',-stupid" school, but the OP's original concern is well taken and pithily addressed above.

Guy B. Meredith
December 26, 2007, 12:24 PM
Anyone that uses the statement that guns can only be used as weapons is speaking from ignorance, ignoring the major recreational (not sporting) venues, the huge market of firearms destined for those venues and the fact that a great number of regular firearms users reload ammunition specifically designed for recreational venues.

As stated above it is legitimate to point out that kitchen knives (meant to cut flesh), baseball bats, golf clubs and all were designed as weapons at one time but have become either recreational or utilitarian tools.

In these conversations I think of the image of two men in early Scotland challenging each other to see how far they can hit a rock with their war clubs, then how accurately.

December 26, 2007, 12:35 PM
The nature of the object should make no difference; whether or not an object is a weapon depends on the wielder's intent and application of the object. If you use your object to initiate an attack on another it is a weapon in that context; if you use your object to defend yourself it is a weapon in that context; if you are declaring your intent to find the SOB and beat the crap out of him with your object it is a weapon in that context. If you are peaceably using your object with no intent of using it to injure another it is not a weapon in that context. If you injure someone with your object with no intent to do so you have an issue of convincing the victim, authorities, jury.

December 26, 2007, 01:02 PM
Well, my real feelings are that, yes, that may be true, but some people need killin'.

I'd say go with your real feelings. I don't like to even pretend that gun rights should be protected because I enjoy their recreational purposes.

I loved playing with lawn darts when I was a kid, but those have long since been banned.

We look kind of silly if we try to argue that guns aren't as potentially dangerous as lawn darts.

Also, just because we can argue a point, doesn't mean we should. I like to try to find points I can agree with them about. I think you need to find some common ground before you can really hope to be understood.

Anti: "Guns are only usable as weapons!"
Gunner: "Actually, millions of guns in America are only used for recreational purposes, but you are right, they make very effective weapons and that is exactly why I believe we should have them."
Anti: "What?!!"
Gunner: "Do you believe there is evil in the world?"
Anti: "Yes"
Gunner: "So do I. I want to be able to defend myself, my family, and even my community from evil. So I believe it is prudent to have a good weapon."

December 26, 2007, 01:32 PM
"Sporting Purpose" is one of the lies; that, if repeated often enough, will become an accepted condition.

December 26, 2007, 01:40 PM
The constitutional protection for firearms comes from their use as weapons.

The sporting uses are derivatives or transforms of practice for their use as weapons.

Talking about how they are primarily not weapons but sporting implements or tools leads to them being banned.

Check out the UK and Australia. The Australians specifically made the sports argument as they are a country of sportsmen and thought by appealing to 'sport', it would carry the day. Didn't work. The Aussies who advocated the now banned firearms were not seen as sportsmen by most but as 'nutters'.

Except perhaps for archery, fencing, javelin throwing or something else obscure and obsolete, most of the sports implements used as blunt force weapons were not primarily design as weapons. Guns are - even sporting and target guns are derivatives of the primary weapons purpose.

It's really that simple. You don't have the Constitutional right to bowl. It's a bad and dangerous argument.

Travis Lee
December 26, 2007, 01:57 PM
I think it is sophmoric and disingenuous to try arguing from the position that your guns are "not weapons".

If you claim that the ONLY reason you have a M-1 Garand is to "feel its history" or some such blather that you think will soothe some gun-grabber, you just open yourself for the argument of why "they" should not destroy its internal mechanism and leave you with a useless relic.
If we accept the enemy's ruse of "sporting use" to justify our guns, we'll be manouvered out of it just like the Brits and Australians.

I have firearms (and edged weapons) BECAUSE they are weapons. I won't mince words or dodge argument, or prevericate on their nature.

My firearms were not invented or manufactured to hold flowers, hang in a picture frame, or plow a field. I have WEAPONS which were made specifically for combat, and some of them almost certainly were used to kill people.


They may be used that way again.... If I didn't want them FOR THAT VERY PURPOSE I would have bought plastic replicas.

Some people need killin'.

I'm not buying into the liberal ethic that "every life is sacred" (except mine)

If your pistol is not a weapon, why you carrying it around all day in a holster, Bunky?


December 26, 2007, 03:48 PM
Well, as I stated in the second paragraph of my post, yes, I do personally believe that most guns are designed as weapons first and foremost, and that frankly, their use as such is entirely justifiable under some circumstances, like lawful self-defense. However, stating this typically gains you absolutely no headway when debating with the blissninnies.

The "sporting purpose" angle, so long as you stress that guns should not be regulated any more than any other potentially deadly sporting implement, is useful in converting antis into recreational target shooters. From there, you can go on to introducing them to the concept of self defense rather than reliance on the government to protect them.

That's the main purpose of the "both a weapon and a recreational/competetive sporting implement" argument.

For instance, Robert Hairless, great example. In a recent "debate" I brought up the 1918 "trench knife," and asked if that should be regulated the same way as guns, since it's obviously designed and intended as a weapon, first and foremost. No, it's still usable as a tool, even if that's not what it's made for. So how are guns different?

Changing someone's mind is not something that can be done in the space of a single conversation. You have to make your points slowly and gradually, carefully chipping away at the wall of ignorance these people surround themselves with. Break it down too fast, and they run away and make a new one. It's like boiling a frog in a pot.

December 26, 2007, 04:32 PM
so long as you stress that guns should not be regulated any more than any other potentially deadly sporting implement


While the tip may not be sharp enough to be obviously dangerous, when misused, these darts can cause skull punctures and other serious injuries.

On December 19, 1988, all lawn darts were banned from sale in the United States by the Consumer Product Safety Commission[1]. Shortly after, in 1989, they were also banned in Canada.[2] Lawn darts, used in an outdoor game, have been responsible for the deaths of three children, the latest being in early 1997 near Elkhart, Indiana.[1]

They do ban potentially deadly sporting implements.

I can see the logic of the argument you suggested, but I really don't think it gets us where we want to be.

I think we need to stop thinking of them as blissninnies or frogs in pots that we want to boil. Let's think of them as our future shooting buddies and treat them with honesty and respect and that will do a lot more to stop the wall building you referred to. When we try to make someone look foolish as we debate with them they are going to put up a wall. Especially if we can in any way be perceived as being sneaky in our argument.

December 26, 2007, 04:42 PM
Americans shoot nine billion rounds of ammunition a year.

There are only 15,000 deaths a year from firearms.

Demonstratively, the primary purpose of firearms cannot be to kill people.

December 26, 2007, 05:03 PM

Here's another good one for you.

I just did a quick google search and learned that the average man will produce as many as 12 trillion sperm cells in his lifetime. In America he will on average have less than 3 children.

Demonstratively, the primary purpose of sperm cannot be to reproduce.

Prof. A. Wickwire
December 26, 2007, 05:48 PM
I have used the following in the past.

Them: "Guns kill people!"

Me: "Have you ever even fired a gun?"

Then: "Yes I have!"

Me: "Oh, how many people did you kill?"

Them: "What?!?"

Tends to hurt their closed minds.


Prof. A. Wickwire

Ed Ames
December 26, 2007, 06:37 PM
Guns are like swords, axes, knives, etc. -- they are weapons which are primarily used for sporting and other peaceful purposes.

There are millions of swords in the world. Most of them are fencing blades (with the little button on the tip for electronic scoring) and decorations (with unsharpened blades) but even those can be deadly. A few every year are used in crimes or for self defense.

The main difference between the sword and the gun is that guns are more accessible. I mean that in the disabilities/ADA/windows accessibility sense. More people can use them because they accomodate physical problems better. That's why I own and practice with a gun instead of a sword. With enough practice I may be able to get good with a sword and be able to defend myself from an attacker so long as I'm healthy, but I will always be more vulnerable with a sword than with a gun because the sword requires a lot of physical ability which I'll lose if injured or sick.... or old. A weapon which is only accessible to the young and fit leaves everyone else at a disadvantage. Firearms are accessible to everyone. An old lady and a fit young man are far more equal when facing each other with guns than with most other weapons. They are clearly more equal with guns than with swords or knives or even bare hands.

It's silly to try and talk around the fact that firearms are weapons. They are weapons. They were designed to allow a wide range of people to apply lethal force. Weak people, old people, ugly people, black people, deformed people, healthy people... people in general. All people.

Any argument which tries to deny that guns are weapons is destined to fail and leave you looking dishonest.

December 26, 2007, 07:23 PM
I agree with Ed, they are weapons and one of the most recognizable and effective weapons. Attempting to make them out to not be weapons will make whatever other point you are trying to make seem dishonest.
Yes they can be used as sporting equipment and for recreation. So can swords, javelins, spears, flails, and thousands of similar items whose primary use is as a weapon.

Axes, makeshift tools, ice picks, tire irons, bats, canes etc are usualy not primarly a weapon, they are designed for cutting wood, playing baseball, changing tires, help walking, chopping ice etc . Some are intentionaly designed from the start as weapons. Most however are primarily designed for another purpose and simply make effective and lethal weapons.

Using guns in reinactments, mock battles, hunting, target practice etc does not make them not weapons. The purpose even in those events is usualy as a weapon, to practice to use as a weapon, or in displaying the use of weapons.
The role of a firearm is primarily as a weapon, that you can find other uses for them does not change the fact that use as a weapon is the reason they were invented, improved, and are protected under the constitution.

December 26, 2007, 07:49 PM
Chess is a game with so many permutations that only in the last decade -- after years and years of trying -- was anyone able to design a computer capable of competing successfully with a human master player.

I once had a book of chess openings; said book was an inch thick (more, actually). It started off with standard "centerline" moves and their counters, then went to common gambits and their counters, then on to more unusual and obscure openings and their responses and their variations and responses.

An inch+ thick.

And the essence of the book was, if he does this, then you do that, and if he does this other thing, then you do that other thing.

Hundreds of pages. Exhaustive treatments of certain opening patterns and supporting reasoning behind each.

So, here we sit, with a game set up on the board, and a common gambit is played: "Guns are only usable as weapons!"

And we consider the possible responses and counters and the rationale behind each.

Remember, this is a GAME to those who attack us. Remember, THEY have nothing, really, to lose. They have no stake that they're aware of. It is only we who have something to lose -- a real stake -- in the game. It really doesn't matter if our opponents are risking their freedom and liberty, because -- from their side of the board -- they simply don't perceive that risk. It really doesn't matter WHY they don't see it, what matters is that they don't, and therefore they're willing to treat as a game something that matters dearly to us, something with far-reaching consequences.

I will stipulate that there are those among the opposition who know exactly what's at stake and who know what they risk and what's to be gained. For them, this is not a game. For all that, they will nonetheless stage it as a game -- much in the way a litigator refuses to concern himself with the rightness or wrongness of his client's position, seeking only to contrive matters so that he wins.

It is important to understand that truth, merit, right, wrong, logic, reason, and so on, have very plastic meanings when the opponents of civil rights take the podium. All that matters is winning the game. Remember, if they lose, nobody's going to show up at 3:00am to confiscate their stuff. At least not in their world.

So, when structuring an argument against the advocates of civil tyranny, you have a handicap: your argument must not only conform to the rules of truth, merit, logic, and reason, your argument must also refute their position and constrain further lines of development.

Depending on how committed your adversary is, you might illustrate that his position is anything from silly, to harmful, to ignorant, to stupid. I would note that "proving stupid" would not be appropriate for winning friends and influencing people. It might be appropriate to simply neutralize.

One possible response to the "only usable as weapons" gambit is the "why does that matter" counter-gambit.
They're only for use as weapons.
Why does that matter?
Well, weapons kill people!
All weapons?
(Hmm, blocked line of attack, switch attack lines) . . . Well, they have no legitimate use outside of killing. I mean, knives can be used in the kitchen, but you can't use a gun in the kitchen.
You also can't use a bulldozer in the kitchen, nor a jack hammer for that matter. What do kitchens have to do with defining legitimate use?
(Hmm, blocked again, switch lines of attack) . . . Well, guns make killing easy and you can kill someone at a distance.
I see. So killing someone is okay as long as it's difficult and close-up?
(Dang, blocked again) . . . Well, it's been proven that people are more violent around guns. (This is false, but remember, false doesn't matter.)
Why would you use an argument that has been completely debunked by Harvard? (False argument fails.)
(Crap, this isn't going well) . . . Well, guns are frightening and just having them around can lead to emotional trauma, and children shouldn't have to be exposed to dangerous things.
(Finally, an opening . . .) So, you're advocating the destruction of our culture by seeing to it that children grow up unable to cope with the violence and barbarism that more primitive, aggressive cultures will bring to bear. Kind of like Rome.
You can place yourself at a disadvantage by becoming wedded to one kind of argument. Remember, it's a game. White moves first and generally establishes the mode and overall line of play. If you only know Queen's Gambit Declined and you've never learned the Reti transposition, you can find yourself floundering, even though you know you're right.

Being right isn't useful. It's only worth moral points, and those don't count in this game, unless they're moral points derived from emotions and feelings.

You're accustomed to honest discussion, which places you out of your element in these games. Find someone who's willing to play "the black pieces" and practice those moves, then you play "black" for a while. Role playing can be very educational.

Sometimes you can open with a counter gambit that completely ignores their opening. That's risky, but played well it can kick butt.
Guns can only be used as weapons.
You're right. The Nazis should never have been allowed to have them.
I'm not talking about that.
Oh. You're more worried about the guns owned by the police?
No, the police are trained and can be trusted.
Ah. So we don't need the Fourth Amendment any more?
And so on.

The book of openings and their resolutions is at least an inch thick.

There's no one-size-fits-all argument.

Expand your openings portfolio.

Yes, learn the basic truths. Then learn debate. With a little skill, you can actually start to enjoy these encounters.

Oh, and don't forget the end game. You can't count on your opponent's resigning when it gets bad. Sometimes he'll play to the bitter end.

Be prepared for that.

December 26, 2007, 08:39 PM
Screw it - mine are primarily weapons with some recreational utility. Ain't apologising to nobody for that - they can KM skinny white A.

December 26, 2007, 08:47 PM
"Guns are only usable as a weapon!"

"A weapon? What are you talking about, how could you use a gun as a weapon? Wait, are you talking about aiming the gun at a PERSON? Holy crap, what kind of sick $*&^ are you? Who comes up with these sick ideas? Yeah, that would probably hurt someone really bad! You are scaring me! Get away, psycho!!"

Robert Hairless
December 26, 2007, 09:54 PM
It's interesting that so many of you think I tried to construct some kind of pro gun argument instead of explaining a concept.

I have heard that guns are potentially dangerous instruments and that cars aren't. That's why I don't stand in front of guns and why I don't care whether you stand in front of cars. I'm easy.

So I won't challenge your belief that all guns are weapons and that their only purpose is to kill people and that it's real good to say so a lot.

Most days I carry a gun without killing even one person. I am a wimp. It's so embarrassing to be the only wimp among all the macho gun owners. :)

December 26, 2007, 10:35 PM
The primary purpose of my guns is to save lives - mine and my loved ones'.

One can call them weapons, tools, sporting goods, or whatever, depending on what they're being used for at any given time. And some would rather say their only purpose is to "kill." Well, if one must kill to save one's live, then I can't disagree.

Be that as it may, my guns are for saving lives and need no further defense. Saving lives trumps all other purposes. In a way, I see them as equivalent to surgical tools in the hands of a physician or to a defibrillator in the hands of an emergency responder.

December 26, 2007, 10:45 PM
Guns are for making holes in things, Fast! It is the user who chooses to make said holes into what objects that they choose. The liability rest upon the tool holder, not the tool

December 26, 2007, 11:10 PM
Of course firearms are dangerious weapons. Wouldn't do much good if they weren't.

December 27, 2007, 06:44 PM
bannign bats and hockey sticks seems far fetched and extreme utnill you see things like this

The Home Office has confirmed plans to outlaw the weapons in England and Wales after putting forward the idea earlier this year.

Home Office minister Vernon Coaker said there was a clear danger to the public posed by easily-available swords.

The proposal is expected to stop short of banning genuine Japanese swords held by collectors or genuine enthusiasts.

In March 2007 the Home Office proposed banning imitation Samurai swords after representations from both MPs and the public. Ministers in Scotland had proposed a similar move in 2006.

In the wrong hands, samurai swords are dangerous weapons

Vernon Coaker,
Home Office minister

Defending the sword

Calls for a ban came after a number of high-profile incidents in which cheap Samurai-style swords had been used as a weapon.

The Home Office estimates there have been some 80 attacks in recent years involving Samurai-style blades, leading to at least five deaths.

While genuine Samurai swords are part of Japanese history and change hands for large sums of money, there is a trade in imitation blades which can be bought over the internet for as little as 35.

Jail threat

Under the proposals, the government will ban the import, sale and hire of Samurai swords from April 2008.

Anyone breaching the ban will face six months in jail and a 5,000 fine.

However, ministers say they have recognised there is a special case for exemptions for genuine collectors of the original weapons and acknowledge there is a legitimate role for the blades in some forms of martial arts.

Vernon Coaker said: "In the wrong hands, samurai swords are dangerous weapons - there have been a number of high profile, serious incidents involving samurai swords in England and Wales in recent years.

"It is therefore crucial that we take this action to tackle the menace of violent crime.

"We recognise it is the cheap, easily available samurai swords which are being used in crime and not the genuine, more expensive samurai swords which are of interest to collectors and martial arts enthusiasts

December 28, 2007, 11:19 AM
"Guns are only usable as weapons!"


And? What else would you like me to use to defend myself and my family? Be kinda silly to do it with something that wasn't a "weapon" now wouldn't it?

December 28, 2007, 02:13 PM
"Guns are only usable as weapons!"
Not true. You can make a leg splint from two M16s and a few trouser belts.
You can use a gun as bottle opener if you're a good shot.
I've also heard that you can use a shotgun as a lug wrench

December 28, 2007, 05:17 PM
"In the wrong hands, samurai swords are dangerous weapons"
In the wrong hands, a cotton ball is dangerous. You know how many people have died from pillow smothering?? How about instead of banning every inanimate object know to exist, let's just ban "the wrong hands" .
A gun is a weapon, yes, it's a tool. A fishing pole is essentially a weapon since it's objective is the same as guns and hunting.
Go one further, a fly swatter is a weapon. It's intended purpose is to kill. What all this means, I don't know, but it's sad that people are being paid to tell us "guns are weapons".
Here's an interesting definition of weapons:
"A weapon is a tool employed to injure, defeat, or destroy an adversary.[1][2] Weapons may be used to attack and defend, and consequently also to threaten or protect. Metaphorically, anything used to damage (even psychologically) can be referred to as a weapon. A weapon can be as simple as a club or as complex as an intercontinental ballistic missile"

Anonymous Coward
December 29, 2007, 01:43 PM
The primary purpose of my guns is to save lives - mine and my loved ones'.

That's my response, also.

tasco 74
December 29, 2007, 02:41 PM
i guess my primary use for my guns is to shoot at targets because i find it fun to do... that's because i live in a small community where i don't feel all that threatened by anything... if i need the gun to put holes into a threat at high velocity i do have that capability........ i suppose if i lived in detroit or some other city where there is more of a threat things might change but for now i like shoot at a target to see just small a group i can get! but i still believe THE 2ND AMENDMENT IS NOT ABOUT HUNTING!!

Ed Ames
December 29, 2007, 03:11 PM
To me shooting is like any other martial art. Judo, fencing, or whatever. You can be an extreme enthusiast, practicing several times a week and enjoying every minute of it, and never want to hurt anyone. In fact the people you practice and compete with develop into dear friends and you would feel terrible if a mistake left them injured. You would be devastated if anyone was killed. Same with shooting. You shoot at paper and practice breath control and self control for the same reason another person goes into a dojo and practices judo throws. In both cases you are practicing fighting and the skills you learn can also be used against people who try to kill, rape, or rob you. In both cases a sensible person hopes never to be forced into using those martial arts against another in earnest. In both cases the real gains come not from skill in the dojo/shooting range but from the self-discipline and attention -- the self-mastery -- needed to become good in your chosen martial art.

Anonymous Coward
December 29, 2007, 03:50 PM
In the wrong hands, a cotton ball is dangerous. You know how many people have died from pillow smothering?? How about instead of banning every inanimate object know to exist, let's just ban "the wrong hands" .

I don't know if you'd change any minds with the "cotton ball" argument, but let it be said there's no legal demand you should make a fight for your life a fair one. Lots of people get strangled with their own underwear.

December 29, 2007, 08:31 PM
MMM, my Dad, 55 years ago, after recently recovering from a heart attack, was attacked by 5 teenagers with a baseball bat while walking our dog, and sent to a hospital. He died years later and possibly this aggrivated his condition. The culprits recieved only a legal slap. Once I was 16 and driving, always had a lug (tire)wrench under the seat. Now I carry at 65.

Any man who is under 30, and is not a liberal, has not heart; and any man who is over 30, and is not a conservative, has no brains.

December 31, 2007, 05:30 AM
I just did a quick google search and learned that the average man will produce as many as 12 trillion sperm cells in his lifetime. In America he will on average have less than 3 children.

Demonstratively, the primary purpose of sperm cannot be to reproduce.Well, if you want to go down that road, the sperm can be the bullets, and the "tool" can be the gun. The gun was invented as a better way to kill. No doubt. However, it is not the only use for it. We can't argue the fact that even though the male 'body part' was there for the sole reason of reproduction, that isn't to say there aren't "recreational" uses for it ;)

It just depends on what "target" we want the "bullets" to hit. A "Human" target, or a non-human target. This goes for both bullets and sperm if you didn't get it :D

December 31, 2007, 05:46 AM
I would agree that the PRIMARY purpose of a gun is as a weapon, so what?

We shouldn't have to use sporting purposes to defend our rights to gun ownership. We were meant to posses the tools of resistance equal to any standing government army, so that we'd be greater when in mass numbers.

December 31, 2007, 06:06 AM
What good would they be at killing targets and 4 legged critters if it wasn't a weapon? Geez, some people :neener:.

January 1, 2008, 08:03 PM
Join the International Drilling Practice Association. On each stage, you will run up to a 2 by 4 with a sheet of plywood attached. Drill two holes in the plywood and then one in the top of the two by four.

You will have to have an appropriate tool belt from Home Depot and be able to carry an extra battery. All drills will be carried with a battery installed. The DO (drill officer will tell you when to insert the battery on the line). The drill diameter will be a minimum of .35 inches.

This competition is not protected by the Constitution. It is approved by Joe Biden.

January 1, 2008, 10:56 PM
It's simply an improvement on an ordinary hole puncher to allow you to work at a distance. How can you get more innocent than that?

Two Cold Soakers
January 2, 2008, 08:26 PM
Yes, weapons.

No apologies, no regrets.

January 2, 2008, 09:49 PM
tell em how wonderful guns are. i love mine and can't wait for tax returns, this year+ has been my most heavily taxed and my best earning, so i'm hopeful i'll be able to get a decent AR 15, a carry gun (G27, P2KSK or CZ RAMI) and mebbe a little ammo to go with... at the least i know i'll be able to get an AR from CMMG, looks like great service grade weapons

January 3, 2008, 03:39 AM
Firearms are useful because they are dangerous.

They are used as weapons because they are useful.

Anyone who thinks they are only useful as weapons has no imagination.

Sport is fine, but there is no better reason for any tool than to protect life.

January 4, 2008, 11:43 AM
My firearms are tools used to end sufferring like a horse with a broke leg, protect my investment in cattle from coyotes, eradicate vermin infesting my land like gofers who make those pitfalls, and to put food on the table. I see them as just another useful implement like a tractor or a hammer.

January 4, 2008, 11:49 AM
"Guns are only usable as a weapon!"

"A weapon? What are you talking about, how could you use a gun as a weapon? Wait, are you talking about aiming the gun at a PERSON? Holy crap, what kind of sick $*&^ are you? Who comes up with these sick ideas? Yeah, that would probably hurt someone really bad! You are scaring me! Get away, psycho!!"

I read this yesterday and today I'm STILL laughing.

January 5, 2008, 12:48 AM
I like to think of having a gun as keeping up with the criminals. If I ever have to fight for my life, I want to be fighting on, at worst, an equal playing field, and at best: him running away without anyone dying and without any of my stuff that I paid hard-earned money for.

also, as someone said: "so what?" I honestly dont see the problem. Some people take guns too seriously in my personal opinion and overlook actual important issues (like actually refining our culture and systems other than just blaming it on a gun). Besides, the only difference between a knife and a gun is that...if you're a good runner...you never run out of ammo with a benchmade.

January 14, 2008, 05:43 PM
It seems that everyone here is agreed that guns are weapons when they are employed as such, and that my/your guns are for hunting, and/or self defence, and/or competition.

This brings me to my next point: Why are the anti-gun sheeple still anti-gun sheeple? Where is the breakdown in communication.... do they seriously seriously think that the statistics are wrong? That a gun ban would actually stifle crime, that making it harder to buy guns will actually keep criminals from being able to get guns, that CCW carriers are a threat to everyone around them, even though they went through a background check and voluntarily put themselves on the grid by submitting thier fingerprints? Do they really think that terrorists currently have no access to .50 BMG rifles and ammunition but if they did they would be shooting down planes left and right?? It is absolutely stupifying that they could walk around feeling so highly of themselves with thier noses in the air and tell me that no matter what proof is put infront of them, no matter how many people save lives with guns, that they are still evil and must be removed from the planet. I feel like a Jew in Germany. I believe it was Heinrich Himmler that said something to the effect of "Civilians don't need guns. If you want to shoot guns, join the military." I feel like the left-wing SS is coming after my guns in a round-about way to TAKE my liberty away. You don't see them going after child molesters the way they go after guns. Am I ranting, or does this make sense? God Bless America for giving them the right to do whatever they want, but damn them to hell for trying to take away my right to defend myself and live a free happy life.

In Idaho, we register sex offenders, not guns.

Edited to include:
My firearms are tools used to end sufferring like a horse with a broke leg, protect my investment in cattle from coyotes, eradicate vermin infesting my land like gofers who make those pitfalls, and to put food on the table.

They call it a mini 14 ranch rifle for a reason. Do they think I'm mass murdering on my farm?

A friend of mine's father went on CNN a few years ago when they re-introduced wolves to Northern Idaho, he told the world he was going to kill as many wolves as possible so they would stop eating his cattle. Every tree humper in the US cried foul because "Wolves are beautiful animals." Give me a break. I would want to protect the wolves if I was blindly inconsiderate, ignorant, and they aren't eating my way of life. But I'm ranting again, appologies.

January 14, 2008, 06:05 PM
to answer your orignal question: the breakdown begins with irrational fear, is caused by irrational fear, and thus gives you bad laws and agendas that share the same cause of communication breakdown: fear.

Such fear is obvious when they keep referring to things like Cho's VTech massacre. It's funny how they keep playing on that one incident, because, if you were to go by the laws of even distribution and probability and apply them to NJS's 2004 brief, 48 other people died in the US on that day from gun-related accidents, violence, or suicide. Then with further application from there, about four other VTECH massacres happened in the form of people dying in car accidents, but nobody ever gave prayer to those tragedies, now did they...? The whole thing is just stupid to me no matter how I approach trying to listen to them without laughing.

January 14, 2008, 07:25 PM
the breakdown begins with irrational fear, is caused by irrational fear, and thus gives you bad laws and agendas that share the same cause of communication breakdown: fear.

Well said, RP88. In addition, there are some politicians who have a rational fear of an armed population. Those are the ones we really need to watch out for. Let them fear, that is the purpose of the 2nd amendment.

January 14, 2008, 07:53 PM
back to the OP;

Geeze, hockey sticks are used as weapons all the time during hockey games!

that is absolutely false, and hurt your arguement from the start. don't be anti and tug at the heart strings with over the top ranting.

January 14, 2008, 08:59 PM
I avoid telling people that firearms have non-critical uses, or at least that they are primarily for a hobby of any kind. This allows for the argument that the potential danger they impose is not worth my hobby.

Every gun I have is a weapon. If they weren't, I wouldn't own them. The question is, do I employ them in a non-violent way, or a way to increase safety rather than increase violence. My car is more likely to kill someone than my gun.

Why do I need them? Duh, in case I need (or want) to shoot something.

January 14, 2008, 09:02 PM
Duuuhhhh, lol.

January 14, 2008, 09:28 PM
So what's the problem? Guns ARE weapons and that's their primary use. Recreation is secondary and a plus. When you need a weapon to prevail over superior force, as in a predator wanting your money or your life, or you--you REALLY NEED a weapon. Your wife, your child or your grandparents may need that weapon someday and thank God who gave us the right to have it, and use it, in the first place.

If you try to justify gun use as merely recreational, you've created a major tactical error in the war of words with the antigun fraidycats. Their next words will be, "Sooo...Is your right to play with guns greater than the right of a child to live in a safe home and a secure world, free of gun violence?" It worked pretty good in Merry Old England.


If you enjoyed reading about ""Guns are only usable as weapons!"" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!