Anti-Gunners are Unable to Separate Guns From Killing

[Gallstones]

Hunting guns good, all others bad.

What would I rather be shot with, my S&W M&P AR-15 22LR, or my Weatherby Vanguard?

 

[ZeSpectre]

Jath said: I'm practicing to kill things. ... Guns are for killing. No getting around that fact.

At it's most basic, a gun is a long range hole punch. Nothing more, nothing less. The decision as to what we punch holes into...that's a human thing.

 

[AethelstanAegen]

I think the bigger problem isn't that the Antis can't separate guns from killing, but the fact that they can't, or refuse to separate gun owners from murders.

The people who look the silliest are those holding signs saying things like "NRA has blood on their hands"

They look even sillier when they claim that the NRA is the voice of the "gun industry" instead of the gun owners. Never mind that the NRA has 4.5 million members

I agree with you 100%.

 

[Shadow 7D]

If you look where all of these murders are happening, the cities, the "culture" is the major issue. I'm talking about fatherless children, poor or no role models, no discipline, no god, cycle of poverty, not cool to talk right or be successful, gang culture, etc... There are all sorts of hurdles to go through before having an honest dialogue about such topics (cries of racism etc.). It will not be discussed on a national level and the situation will continue to deteriorate. I would not want to be anywhere near a city should a national or man-made disaster take place...

This is pretty much all the woes the Temperance movement claimed that banning Alcohol would fix....

 

[JustinJ]

Most gun control advocates simply think gun control can make us a safer society and reduce violent crimes. That's it. I don't agree with thier position but that is no reason to invent false motives for them in an effort to validate my own beliefs.

 

[ediogenes]

The reason that the Second Amendment says 'arms' is to allow the people to use any available modern weapon to defend ourselves against tyrannical government, foreign or domestic. That was the intent of the Founders, plain and simple. They knew firearms would evolve.

The problem with anti-gunners is that they cannot understand the concept of personal responsibility. Guns are evil, the guy had a gun, ergo the gun made him shoot all those people. They don't understand that evil existed in the world before guns, or any weapons at all. The Bible doesn't say how Cain killed Abel, just that he did. The evil was in the actor, not the means. The weapon was irrelevant.

 

[Cosmoline]

and those are MOST CERTAINLY meant to kill people.

Meant, BY WHOM? By the inanimate object? By the long-dead inventor? That's the problem with these statements. If guns are "meant to kill," then why aren't you killing with them? If guns were "invented to kill" then you're misusing them by not killing with them. Firearms are designed to throw projectiles. What happens past the crown is no longer part of the design, invention, purpose or whatever else you want to call it, of the firearm. That realm belongs to the SHOOTER. The human wielding it. WE are what's dangerous. WE are the source of purpose, intent and plan. And that's as it should be. The firearm is just a tool. The RKBA doesn't protect the rights of firearms, it protects our rights.

Otherwise you're ascribing PURPOSE AND INTENT to a mere object of steel and wood. Which is just what the antis do all the time.

 

[pahmie]

selling my car, it is out to kill someone!!

I am new here, but dont cars kill more people than guns? I don't remember who said it on TV, but, we as a society chose to allow motor vehicles even though we knew that people would be killed by them. The anti guns love to make such a deal out of 1 innocent persons death by gun, and of course it is horrible, but so is the death of a little one in a car accident. I believe that if they outlaw any gun,then "only the outlaws will have guns." BTW. are those the same folks that don't want to protect our children at schools with guns?? Our money is protected that way, so is our president, but not our precious children? Go figure!:
Also, now that I know, I am dropping my AARP (I will find Dennys discounts elsewhere lol) and joining the NRA!

 

[JustinJ]

I am new here, but dont cars kill more people than guns? I don't remember who said it on TV, but, we as a society chose to allow motor vehicles even though we knew that people would be killed by them.

The difference is that essentially everybody agrees that the benefits cars provide to society far outweigh the negatives. One could also easily argue that cars preserve far more lives, mostly indirectly, than they cost. The automobile is essential to the operation of our modern society by making food, medicine, jobs, etc far more readily available to more people. In a nation as spread out as the US the economy is in fact heavily reliant on the mobility provided by cars.

One could however make a strong argument that cars that exceed 40 mph are not essential so why not require that limit be built into all vehicles. Alcohol is also a better analogy as it is obviosly not critical and one can argue that the deaths it contributes to are not justified by it's only real benefit; recreation.

 

[AethelstanAegen]

Meant, BY WHOM? By the inanimate object? By the long-dead inventor?

By both the inventor and the original users. The fact that I'm not killing with them doesn't change the nature of their original intended function. It simply shows that even though they were designed from the ground up to be the most efficient killing machine they could be (for the technology of their time), I have free will and can decide to absolutely not use them for that purpose.

I think we're in agreement more than not, but I guess go about it differently. I would admit that the old rifles I have were designed to be killing machines because that's simply fact (I can't go back in time to ask the designer to make them shoot flowers or something). I would then follow up to say that the rifles are very good for x, y, and z purposes (say history, target shooting, and hunting) which is what I choose to use them for...though they still do retain the capacity for lethal use which I'm fine and dandy about if I ever needed to defend myself. I guess my point it, we need to be honest and say yes, the gun was designed for x, but they can't do anything by by themselves (as they are an inanimate object) so I choose to use them y and z.

 

[Cosmoline]

By both the inventor and the original users.

How do you know this? And how did THEIR INTENT or PURPOSE magically transfer to the firearm you now own?

I can't go back in time to ask the designer to make them shoot flowers or something

I suspect a lot of the folks who designed and worked on these firearms would tell you they were designed to MAKE MONEY.

The firearm is nothing. It has no purpose, no rights, no nothing. The focus of the Second is you and me. The people. In essence it preserves our right to be dangerous. To be dangerous to the government. Firearms are the tool of choice in that purpose, but the purpose is ours alone. Not the tool's.

Think of it this way. The firearm is a deadly weapon, to be sure. But only when in the hands of someone. Barring extraordinary circumstance which always still relate back to some human act, the weapon doesn't just go off. And it doesn't point itself. The act of killing, by intent or accident, is the human's act. Not the weapon's. The firearm, in and of itself, is devoid of any inherent purpose or intent.

I have some firearms that I keep handy in case I have to shoot someone in self defense. A few others are for bruins or hunting. The rest are for fun exclusively.

 

[AethelstanAegen]

How do you know this? And how did THEIR INTENT or PURPOSE magically transfer to the firearm you now own?

What else was the M1 Garand rifle designed for? The Mosin-Nagant? My rifles were made in 1943 in those two instances. They absolutely were designed to kill and I see no reason to make excuses for them. You're right that the designer's intent doesn't magically transfer to my intended use...that's kind of my point. It doesn't change the fact that they were designed to be the most effective battle rifles they could be. That is a simple statement of fact. You are fooling yourself if you don't think these WW2 milsurps were made with the intention of killing an enemy.

As the owner of these rifles, far removed from the original end-users, my uses for the rifle are very different. That doesn't change the original designed purpose. They may be technologically lagging now, but they are still every bit as deadly and I don't see the point in pretending their not. My primary uses for them are target practice, historical appreciation, etc but I do like the fact that they absolutely could be used to stop threat if need be. I really don't get what we're trying to prove by saying they weren't designed to that purpose because it's simply fact that they were.

You're not going to convince an anti-gun person that many types of firearms aren't designed to effectively deliver damage down range. Throughout history (and up to now) most guns are designed either for military applications or hunting. I'd say target sports like trap/skeet/precision shooting are picking up but still most guns are sold as effective hunting or self-defense tools. They are thus designed to help you stop threats or drop game as effectively as possible. It makes no sense to try to argue that it's not an intended and desirable quality for a firearm to be able to kill. If you try to argue that they're not designed to kill and you just target shoot, then the anti-gunners can justifiably say, that you don't need guns in deadly calibers and that the only guns available should be Volquartsen 10/22s or something.

Don't buy into their logic. We don't have to try to justify our guns as being non-lethal because that historically and still generally speaking is the whole point of firearms ownership and 2A. So guns can kill and many are designed to do so efficiently. So what? The fact that they are designed that way means that millions and millions of gun owners treat them with a great deal of respect and do not use them to kill randomly. We don't have to be apologetic about our firearms. The fact that there is not more gun violence is a testament to the safe use by the overwhelming majority of gun owners who choose to use their guns for non-lethal means.

 

[Shadow 7D]

Intent is a HUMAN condition, you are ascribing a motive to an inanimate object (that is an anti tactic)
inanimate objects LACK intent

please don't humanize a hunk of metal
By your though process, Guns like the garand were designed to SAVE LIVES
(guess you have never been to war)

 

[Jath]

The point isn't that gun can kill, everybody knows this. The point is that people can kill with or without a gun. The most important point is that large people with ill intent are more effective at killing then the small people they would tend to victimize. The gun is just as effective in a small person's hand as it is a large person's hand. That is the key.

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 2

 

[Cosmoline]

What else was the M1 Garand rifle designed for?

To shoot bullets. Ascribing anything else to a piece of steel is a mistake. Because once you go down that road, then suddenly you have firearms that are "weapons of war" and why do civilians need "weapons of war." See how it works?

but they are still every bit as deadly

YOU are deadly. The firearm gives you greater reach if you use it in that manner. But it's all about you. The firearm is a mere tool. The firearm itself will just sit there until and unless someone takes it up.

You're not going to convince an anti-gun person that many types of firearms aren't designed to effectively deliver damage down range.

They're designed to let YOU effectively send bullets down range. It's a subtle but critical distinction. The arm itself is not the issue, and never has been. It's the measure of power the citizen has relative to his government that's important.

You are fooling yourself if you don't think these WW2 milsurps were made with the intention of killing an enemy.

Some firearms were no doubt made with the intent to do horrible evil. So what? The intent of those people is irrelevant. They are long gone. There was no magical process transferring the evil intent of a worker at Mauser into the K 98k he made. Or the good intent for that matter.

 

[Manco]

Hunting guns good, all others bad.

By the way, I just watched a press conference in regard to Christopher Dorner, and the deputy who spoke seemed to place the most emphasis on the deadliness of the .308 "sniper rifle" Dorner had. Funny, the example they showed looked just like a hunting rifle to me. What's the difference? Just the label until they start coming after these, too. I wonder if they'll eventually go with "sniper rifle" or reserve this term for government agents and call them "assassination rifle" when in the hands of civilians instead, per their tendency to use "rifle" for police and "assault rifle" for civilians.

 

[76shuvlinoff]

Sometimes killing is necessary so I don't know for 100% if it's the killing the antis can't separate from guns.

I think what they can't separate from guns is the murdering. All they see is a murder tool and that is not truth.



.

 

[jamesbeat]

I have a 12 gauge shotgun loaded with 00 buck specifically for killing.
I hope I'll never have to use it for its intended purpose, ie killing a violent home invader, but I love my wife and children very much and I would use it if I had to.

Let's not try to pretty it up, this is not about putting holes in paper.

 

[jamesbeat]

I think what they can't separate from guns is the murdering. All they see is a murder tool and that is not truth.



.

^ This.

 

[larryh1108]

Most Americans who fear guns do so out of ignorance. Our major cities are home to millions upon millions of people. Outside of the crime ridden neighborhoods, most people have never seen a gun. I grew up in surburban America. My parents came from the city and moved to the suburbs. My father served in WWII but other than that he had no interest in guns. We didn't hunt. We didn't have land to hunt small rodents. We didn't have acreage to go shoot with our buddies. I never saw or handled a gun until I was in my 30s. I was always fascinated by them but never had access to any and never had a "need" to get one.

Most city dwellers are exposed to guns in movies and on tv shows and the news. The news is always about the bad things guns do. TV cop shows always show the bad guys shooting someone and the good guys shooting them to capture or kill them. In the movies, guns are shown to be weapons of mass carnage. I just watched (for the nth time) one of the Die Hard movies the other night. Shooting action from the first minute to the last. All the bad guys shot automatic weapons with probably 100+ rounds per mag. The guns looked like the evil black guns. Cars looked like swiss cheese, houses get shot full of thousands of holes, etc. The good guys always have a pistol with about 30 rounds in the 15 round mags. The good guys kill one guy with each 2 or 3 shots and the bad guys kill no one with thousands of shots. Typical Hollywood.

So, Mr and Mrs Urban Dweller only see guns as evil (news, movies and tv shows) and they always have hundreds of rounds in their mags. Guns are evil. Only bad guys and cops need them.

These ignorant (not used as an insult) people never see guns like the country people do. To rural Americans, guns are tools and are used as tools. You don't see many rattlesnakes in urban American and Mrs Urban doesn't need firearms to hunt or to protect their livestock from predators. Also, in the city, the cops may be a block or three away and in rural America they may be a half hour away.

My point is, Urbanites never see guns used as they were intended. To them, guns are only used by bad guys and cops. They don't know any better or different. These people aren't trying to be evil in trying to take guns away from us. They associate guns with bad people and people who carry a gun must be evil because why else would they be carrying one? They fear guns because they've only seen guns used to kill other people on tv and in the movies. They are truly ignorant and when a mass shooting comes along, they ask themselves why we need to have guns.

How do we educate Mr and Mrs Urban? Well, until we figure that out, we will continue to struggle keeping our rights. Video games has brought us quite a few new shooters who will take the place of the old dogs who move on but until we convince the masses in the urban areas we will fight every election and after every mass shooting.

Gun makers have also catered to the chic market and the female market with "cute" CCW guns. These folks will vote our way too but we need to figure out how to get the masses to not fear guns.

 

[r1derbike]

Weapons of war. Someone please tell me where to get some when our government turns tyrannical and starts killing its own citizens.

I have never seen weapons of war in citizens' hands unless they had an incredible amount of money, been investigated thoroughly, fingerprinted, and made to jump through hoops for quite some time. In fact, the only place I've seen a weapon of war was at a range, where they were gathered for a legal meet.

My, how our own CIC has spread the misinformation to the ignorant?

I may also see how those in metro areas of violence only know what they see. Too bad that rat infested urban areas are deciding the entire issue for the country. If those same urbanites could only be introduced to rural America and taken to a range or two, my how their views would change...right-up to the point they had to return to the crime capitals of the country.

 

[greenmtnguy]

Well, by the same line of logic as outlined in the OP, the exact same thing can be said about bows and arrows, spears, and swords.

Yet, we have many people all around the world who get exercise and compete at local, collegiate, national and international levels in archery, javelin, fencing and sabre events, not to mention all the target shooting events with firearms. ALL OF THESE THINGS ARE SIMPLY TOOLS. THEY WERE ALL INVENTED ORIGINALLY TO KILL, BUT THEY CAN BE USED FOR PLENTY OF NON-LETHAL ACTIVITIES TOO!

This is how I generally respond to the idiots who insist that guns are for killing and nothing else. Most of my guns have never killed anything more than pieces of paper or clay targets, while some have taken a share or game animals. I can still use any or most all of them in various competitive events.

 

[Gallstones]

The reason that the Second Amendment says 'arms' is to allow the people to use any available modern weapon to defend ourselves against tyrannical government, foreign or domestic. That was the intent of the Founders, plain and simple. They knew firearms would evolve.

The problem with anti-gunners is that they cannot understand the concept of personal responsibility. Guns are evil, the guy had a gun, ergo the gun made him shoot all those people. They don't understand that evil existed in the world before guns, or any weapons at all. The Bible doesn't say how Cain killed Abel, just that he did. The evil was in the actor, not the means. The weapon was irrelevant.

I don't think it is so much they think that the gun is possessed and makes people do bad things (except for the really stupid ones). It's more any person can be bad and having a gun makes it possible to be really bad. This is a fear of one's fellows and oneself.

 

[Gallstones]

I am new here, but dont cars kill more people than guns?...snip...

Tobacco kills more people than either.

 

[Nickel Plated]

To shoot bullets. Ascribing anything else to a piece of steel is a mistake. Because once you go down that road, then suddenly you have firearms that are "weapons of war" and why do civilians need "weapons of war." See how it works?

This is essentially saying that "weapopns of war" are a bad thing and we need to try to convince people that our guns are not weapons of war and thus shouldn't be banned.

In reality it is the exact opposite. The guns specifically protected by the 2A are ones that would be considered "weapons of war" and there is no shame in that. When an anti says "Your AR-15 was only designed to kill people, it's a weapon of war" I say "Yes it is and that's EXACTLY why we need them" Saying otherwise is playing into the anti's "Sporting use" nonsense. If all you need is a "long distance hole-punch" then a 10/22 can serve your purposes just fine. So might as well ban the AKs and ARs.
The discussion here isn't what you do with it. It's what they were ORIGINALLY designed to do.

The AR-15 was first and foremost designed for sale to the military. Then once the military decided they didn't want them Armalite sold it as a civilian rifle just so the whole thing wasn't a complete waste of time. Until a few guys in the gov't really took a liking to it and pretty much forced the military to adopt it.

You can't tell me that the designers of the Garand, Mosin, AK-47 or M249 though "Wow these guns have such a plethora of totally peaceful uses" no they thought, "Wow these will give our military a huge advantage"