I think cooch has made the best point in this argument so far.
And since we're arguing semantics anyway, let me delve a little deeper... (and apologize in advance, as this could get long...)
There are three basic arguments going on here:
1. Are guns designed to kill?
2. Is killing necessarily a bad thing?
3. Is RKBA about weapons or sporting tools, and does either argument jeopardize our RKBA?
All three can be answered if we break the tool and its designed purpose argument down futher. Instead of looking only at
the tool, and
its designed purpose
Let's look at
The user's intent / purpose / goal in using the tool
the tool itself
the tool's design, and
the mechanism by which the the tool helps the user achieve their intent / purpose / goal
I think we can all agree that the intent of the user can be either good or evil. The tool itself being inanimate is only a tool, and is therefore neither good nor evil. Likewise, the mechanism is neither good nor evil, because the same mechanism can be used to achieve both the good or the evil intent of the user. The design of the tool is totally irrelevant, as the actual use may or may not corespond to the designers intended putpose for the tool.
Note that when they designed it, the designer of the tool also had an intent / purpose / goal in mind, which could be good or evil, but the design itself is merely the mechanical means by which a tool is capable of executing a mechanism.
Example: A CCW holder using a gun in self defense. The intent is to stop their attacker. The tool is, obvioiusly, the gun. The mechanism can be killing, wounding, intimidating, or deterring the attacker to the point that he stops.
The design of the gun is simply to propel a bullet out of the barrel to a point aligned with the sights (as well as various safety features to prevent it from doing so before the user intends to).
Even the original design intent of guns was not to kill. It was to defeat opposing armies. Whether that was acheived via the mechanism of killing, maiming, wounding them to the point that they could no longer fight, or simply scaring them off, the desgn was not to kill.
Modern military weapons are desgned likewise - with the intent of defeating the enemy.
But even if a tool is designed to kill, both the tool and the killing are independent of the user's (or the designer's) intent. Only the intent can be good or evil.
So, when an anti says that guns should be banned because they are "designed to kill," we can respond by saying something like this:
Anti - "But guns are designed to kill!"
GunGuy - "Yes, guns are capable of killing, and any life taken needlessly is a tragedy. However, both guns and the act of killing can be used toward either good or evil ends. <insert example of killing being a good thing, if you like>"
Anti - "But look at how many people are killed with guns"
GunGuy - "So, your goal is fewer lives lost?"
Anti - "Yes."
GunGuy - "Well, gun control has repeatedly and reliable been shown to raise the crime rate, and increase the number of lives lost. So isn't gun control counter to your goal?"
Oh, and I almost forgot. Guns, and our RKBA are the tool by which we maintain our goal of liberty, through the mechanism of deterring a government from becoming tyrannical, or defeating it if it does.
Thanks for your patience while I waxed philosophical...