"But guns were MADE for killing"

[ROSANGHAL]

Dr. Jones

If you are getting into a discussion that touches on Self-Defense like when I do and get slammed with that statement I just say, "No, my guns OR any guns used in Self Defense are used to stop a violent action that'll be used against you or someone you care for. If the attacker dies then it's a by-product of HIS action not me or my gun. I was forced to use my gun by HIM. So the gun's purpose isn't to kill. It is to stop a violent action and if a death occurs it isn't b/c of the gun it's because of the aggressor."

It mirrors BogBabe's number 7 very closely.

Originally posted by BogBabe

7. In self-defense mode, guns are made for stopping the attack. If the attacker is so determined to commit violence on my person that only killing him will stop him, that's his fault, not mine, and I'm glad I have my "killing" gun to stop him.

Ross T.

 

[m.i.sanders]

Guns are tools. It's up to the user to decide if it's going to be used to kill. I guess from the anti's point of view, if the potential for harm is there, then it must be evil an must be banned. I just haven't figured out why they haven't decided to ban themselves.

 

[gorf]

Guns are designed to initiate or stop aggression. Where is an aggressor likely to go to flex his muscles, a place with a lot of firearms or a place where there are few? The more firearms society has, the safer everyone will be.

 

[Stephen A. Camp]

Hello. In my opinion, Mr. Sanders has it just exactly right.

Best.

 

[Grady]

Not only is my handgun a tool it is also another form of insurance, life insurance to be exact. I know I won't have to explain why.

 

[55645]

Guns were designed to make a 100lb woman the equal of a 200lb man and they do that very well.

 

[dd-b]

It's probably true that the people who first invented guns actually were thinking of killing. So I avoid the "origin" part of the argument as much as possible, and if my opponent insists on it, I suggest that potential and current use are much more important than original intention in deciding how to view something today.

Machetes did most of the killing in Ruwanda, but the victims are just as dead. Cars kill *far* more than guns do in the US each year.

In terms of actual use, guns are used for target shooting, by a statistically massive amount. That's pure hobby/sport activity, very low risk, etc.

Guns were *made* for sending lumps of lead downrange at high velocities.

They're also the center of a massive "collecting" hobby that doesn't even require shooting (in fact the best examples are *too good* to shoot).

 

[John G]

These people really hate reality. Man's first tool was a weapon, it was used to defend and yes, to kill.

 

[dog3]

My guns have killed fewer people than
Ted Kennedy's drinking.

 

[ninenot]

Originally posted by Preacherman
Drjones, we need to frame the debate a bit more tightly. If someone says to me "But guns were made to KILL! ", I say "Well, WHAT were they made to kill?" We can then define hunting, target-shooting, warfare, self-defence, etc. It often boils down to the fact that the anti-gun type hasn't thought through his/her position at all - they just have a knee-jerk reaction that "killing is bad, guns are designed to kill, therefore guns are bad".

HTH.

Following on: after target-shooting, we get to the good stuff. Further analysis: a gun is a tool for killing. Thus, the gun, in and of itself, is a tool . Now we must examine the hands holding the tool.

If your friend agrees that there are good people and bad people, we can go to the definitions of "good" and "bad" use of tools for killing.

Self-defense (in the gravest extreme), for example, should be a "good" use of a killing tool. DEFENSIVE warfare is obviously a "good" use of killing tools.

"In the gravest extreme" is a moral imperative. One may CHOOSE to be a martyr for some worthy cause, but defense of self (and family) is a moral imperative, not an option. Both the Talmud and Thomas Aquinas agree on this; thus, we go back to the "good man."

Now you ask your friend: is a good man, properly trained, and who is "in the gravest extreme" justified in killing?

Since possession of guns is distributed randomly between "good" people and "bad" people, and since the TOOL for self-defense (defense of family, country) is now the question, then we frame it as such:

What is the logical choice of killing tools for legitimate purposes?

It is necessary to utilize tools which can do the most good in the most efficient manner. Unlike knives and bats, the gun (properly used) can achieve either disabling an attacker, or killing the attacker. Further, guns can do this in a very efficient manner. The choice, of course, is to disable rather than kill. But, whereas a bat or knife MAY disable the attacker, a gun, properly used, WILL disable the attacker. Similarly, while a bat or knife MAY kill the attacker, the gun WILL.

From the natural law of self-defense with the proper understanding of the requirements for exercising same, and from the natural law of using the most appropriate TOOLS for any work, we can conclude that guns are optimum.

 

[Dave R]

I disagree with the statement that ALL guns were made for killing.

A "full-race" handgun is made to win IDPA matches.

A slicked up 1911 is probably made to compete in IPSC matches.

A "tricked out" AR is probably made to compete in High Power 1000 yard matches.

A $2k over/under is made to do well in sporting clays.

A well-tuned SA revolver is probably made for Cowboy Action shooting.

None of these guns have death as there primary purpose. They were designed by the maunfacturer, or modified by the owner, for a specific sporting purpose.

As I look through my safe, a smal minority of my guns are primarily to kill things. And those are either hunting arms or personal defense arms.

If guns are made only for killing, why are only a small fraction of 1% of them involved in crimes/killing people?

A larger % of them are used for hunting, but I'll bet that's still less than half of overall guns in the USA. The rest are used for shooting sports. Or just plain fun.

 

[Traveler]

Yes, guns were originally invented to kill. So were clubs, knives, and the bow and arrow. And yet all of these have a sporting purpose today even though they are sometimes used for their original purposes.

It is only in the last 150 years (or less) that our country has become rich enough to support a considerable number of people to whom death is not an everyday occurance. We don't have kill the food before we prepare it any more. We don't have to depend on ourselves to restrain the majority of the criminal element. For a large number of people the only only way they have to face death is with the passing of a family member or a pet.

So now we sit at a pinnacle of weath denied to 99% of the people on earth, in luxury your great grandparents could only imagine. And because you think your safe you no longer see a need for owning a gun. What you don't see is that you are protected by those same guns you despise. This countries police, military, and private protection sevices work for you. And the guns you pay them to carry so that your hands won't get dirty allow you to believe in your moral superiourity.

Well, God help you if that pedestal ever falls, or if someone less fortunate climbs the walls you've set up. Be sure to hold your beliefs up and see how they protect you without the will and way to enforce them.

As for me, I'm content to live at a level of civilization somewhere below you. I kill my own food, I served my country honorably to feel entitled to it's benefits, and I depend on myself for personal security. This does allow me a much greater range in where I can live and visit although the world's a little more dangerous out here. I guess you could say I prefer greater freedom to safety.

Now you just stay in your guilded birdcage. Death will find you there too.

 

[HS/LD]

Arguement:
But guns are MADE for killing!!!


Reply:
"Yep, you are very perceptive. So you point is?"

Ask questions to regain control of the discussion.

Gun ARE made to kill.
To harvest game.
To be used in defense.
To be used in offense.

So whats the arguement now??

Regards,
HS/LD

 

[Yohan]

Guns weren't made for killing. They were made to spit out lead. Can't help it if a person or two gets in front of them from time to time. Cars were made for transportation but people still get hit.

 

[larryw]

That's a common form of argument used by liberals to illustrate and "prove" their shallow point of view: "<noun> is <adjective>". They seem to feel that these short sound bites are all anyone needs to form a balanced world view, they'll repeat them ad-nauseam, and its up to everyone else to refute. They don't need no stinkin' proof (or, it seems, reason).

Fine. There are lots of great suggestions here and they form strategies can be used to break down any similar argument.

I've found the easiest means is to ask "what's wrong/right with that?" Break the statement/argument into its component pieces and they fall apart. Thought and discussion is what the liberals want to avoid, so the "smart" ones launch into belittlement, deflection and other childish behavior to avoid such discussion.

"Guns are made for killing."
"What's wrong with that?"
"Killing is 'bad'"
"How's your steak?" or "Nice leather belt/shoes/jacket." (use that one to really piss off PETA clowns) or a whole litany of other comments.
"Fine" or "Thanks" (or, PETA: "%#*!-off jerk!")
"So not all killing is 'bad'?"
"Not all, I guess"
Gotcha!

 

[Yohan]

Here's another one

"But guns were made for killing"
"Was your mouth made for complaining?"
"Well no"
"Then shut up"

 

[Brian Maffei]

Hahaha. Good one, Yohan.

 

[P12]

Damn right! That's why I carry a 45 with JHP. When someone is attacking me, I want the attack stopped ASAP!

 

[Yohan]

"But guns were made for killing!"
"Yeah and my hands were made for slapping little cry babies *SLAP*"

mmm.. maybe not.

 

[dairycreek]

The statement that guns were meant to kill............

is absolutely true. The historical veracity of the statement stands without challenge or equivocation. A fact of life as it were. When a person makes that statement he/she is absolutely right. It is when he/she makes the next statement which draws some sort of unrelated/unsupported conclusion that conversations usually go to hell in a handbag. For instance, "Guns were made to kill" and people who like guns are killers. Clearly, the conclusion is not related to the premise and you can usually make conversational mince meat out of these kind of people. If , on the other hand, they are the true blue, liberal, zealot then, in my experience, no amout of logic makes any difference. I just smile, nod my head, and try to move in some other direction. You can't win 'em all and some aren't worth trying to win.

 

[Calamity Jane]

Originally posted by P12
Damn right! That's why I carry a 45 with JHP. When someone is attacking me, I want the attack stopped ASAP!

Yuppers. As far as self-defense efficacy goes, harsh language really won't do much.

Sheesh. Blissninnies. Whatareyagonnado.

 

[hansolo]

While reading all the above posts, a thought was forming in my head of a simple example: the next BlissNinny who starts on an ainti-gun tirade will get something like this:

"Remember the Manson-directed murders in 1969? Let's focus on the Sharon Tate murder; I think we all agree that was a horrible nightmare." At this point, all BlissNinneys would be nodding in agreement. "You know what? It could have been avoided." Huh? "If any one of the guests at that house was a halfway trained shooter who was carrying, they could have possibly killed/wounded the Manson Gang enough to send them running."

I know the truly hardcore Liberals would still say, "No guns, no way. The Police would have saved them if they had called in time" -- Yes, if their car was about 30 seconds from the house.

 

[Kevinch]

As mentioned, they were invented as weapons and are still used as such.

But we also use them for sport, as they have been forever. Their use in sport, and in a defensive role as a weapon, is easy to understand.

My response would be "so what's your point?"

 

[Blackhawk]

Actually, guns were originally made for war. The most highly trained, therefore most expensive, warriors were bowmen. It took lots and lots of practice and skill to hit a specific target with an arrow.

When gunpowder was used to launch a projectile over long distances, accuracy wasn't any better than that of a proficient longbowman, but it was really CHEAP to teach somebody to load and shoot the machine. Plus, when the shooter became a casualty, it was covnenient to give the gun to the next shooter, etc.

It was a long time before guns became usable as personal weapons.

Guns were made to win wars. And war implements do not have the primary purpose of killing. Their primary purpose is to wound, maim, or otherwise take a combatant out while terrorizing his fellows. Bacteria and blood loss generally did most of the killing started by guns of old.

In any event, your answers to this point address your real question pretty well.

 

[G-Raptor]

Thou Shalt Not MURDER


Murder is the taking of a life without just cause. Killing is different. The killing of animals is necessary for survival. The killing of another human being may also be necessary for your survival. Killing quickly and efficiently, when it is necessary, not only helps to ensure your survival, it is also a humane act for the P.O.S. that tried to take your life.

A gun is quick and efficient.

"But guns are made for killing..." is an emotional argument. My response would be:

"Do you oppose killing under any circumstances or do you just prefer a slower, more painful method?"