A gun is a tool....
- Thread starter muleshoe
- Start date
What argument do you use for the fact that it is the only tool designed to kill? Whether it be animals or people. I realize there are a lot of sports for shooting, but really all that is practice. Now don't get me wrong. Obviously I am not an anti-gun person if you have seen my other posts. I was just curious what your answer would be.
Andrew, there's a quick and easy comeback to the inane "but guns are only designed to kill" argument.
"Yeah, they are. They're for killing people who are trying to kill ME. Or my wife. Or my kid. Aren't *you* willing to protect your loved ones with all necessary force?"
If they say no, they're hopeless and a waste of oxygen. If they're not willing to kill a psychotic bastard to save their kid's life, then IMNSFHO, they suck and further discussion is useless.
I find that putting them in a "kill or die" mental situation kick-starts their brain.
------------------
http://pub6.ezboard.com/blibertarian
"Yeah, they are. They're for killing people who are trying to kill ME. Or my wife. Or my kid. Aren't *you* willing to protect your loved ones with all necessary force?"
If they say no, they're hopeless and a waste of oxygen. If they're not willing to kill a psychotic bastard to save their kid's life, then IMNSFHO, they suck and further discussion is useless.
I find that putting them in a "kill or die" mental situation kick-starts their brain.
------------------
http://pub6.ezboard.com/blibertarian
I know others differ from me on this issue even at TFL, but I think it's a bad idea to try to claim that guns aren't tools for killing all the time. Sometimes you just have to bite bullet and say:
"Yes, guns are sometimes used to kill. You say that as if killing were not an action that is sometimes necessary, just like building a house. Sometimes a person needs to kill something to eat; sometimes a person needs to kill something that would like to kill him first. The gun is a tool used for that purpose. You may not believe in that and you're welcome to your point of view, but only to live by it, not to force it on me."
The only good argument that doesn't focus on the fact that it's wrong to think that killing isn't sometimes necessary and even good, is to ask them if they tolerate police with guns because they want the police to kill people. If they say no, explore the fact that the police use guns to STOP violence with killing being a last resort.
We had a good discussion of Wyatt Earp's time as an assistant marshal of Dodge City today in history class. The professor pointed out that Earp's popularity was due to the fact that he could handle the wildest cattlemen without shooting them most of the time, which was a fairly new approach. His method was to burst into a place where trouble was reported and aim a shotgun at the troublemaker. When the man stopped, two associates would grab and hold him while Earp cracked him over the head with the butt of his gun. Even most of the men apprehended appreciated the method when they woke up the next morning and realized they could easily be dead.
BUT--notice that this less lethal strategy hinged on the threat of force with a firearm--and if Earp had not proven that he was willing to use the shotgun if he had to, his less violent method wouldn't have worked.
"Yes, guns are sometimes used to kill. You say that as if killing were not an action that is sometimes necessary, just like building a house. Sometimes a person needs to kill something to eat; sometimes a person needs to kill something that would like to kill him first. The gun is a tool used for that purpose. You may not believe in that and you're welcome to your point of view, but only to live by it, not to force it on me."
The only good argument that doesn't focus on the fact that it's wrong to think that killing isn't sometimes necessary and even good, is to ask them if they tolerate police with guns because they want the police to kill people. If they say no, explore the fact that the police use guns to STOP violence with killing being a last resort.
We had a good discussion of Wyatt Earp's time as an assistant marshal of Dodge City today in history class. The professor pointed out that Earp's popularity was due to the fact that he could handle the wildest cattlemen without shooting them most of the time, which was a fairly new approach. His method was to burst into a place where trouble was reported and aim a shotgun at the troublemaker. When the man stopped, two associates would grab and hold him while Earp cracked him over the head with the butt of his gun. Even most of the men apprehended appreciated the method when they woke up the next morning and realized they could easily be dead.
BUT--notice that this less lethal strategy hinged on the threat of force with a firearm--and if Earp had not proven that he was willing to use the shotgun if he had to, his less violent method wouldn't have worked.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>What argument do you use for the fact that it is the only tool designed to kill?[/quote]
You might draw an analogy with door locks: their only purpose is to restrict people's freedom of movement. That restriction can be good (keeping a home secure) or bad (locking someone in a prison cell). And of course it's quite possible to install a lock on a door without ever using it.
BTW, have you ever wondered how many anti-gunners drive around with radar detectors whose ONLY purpose is to thwart the enforcement of speed limits?
You might draw an analogy with door locks: their only purpose is to restrict people's freedom of movement. That restriction can be good (keeping a home secure) or bad (locking someone in a prison cell). And of course it's quite possible to install a lock on a door without ever using it.
BTW, have you ever wondered how many anti-gunners drive around with radar detectors whose ONLY purpose is to thwart the enforcement of speed limits?
I hate name games.
A gun is a weapon.
[noun:] an instrument or device used to attack another or to defend oneself from attack.
Personally, my response to people who make that a gun is only good for killing claim is:
Well... DUH! Did you figure that out all by yourself, or did you need a little help from Rosie O'Donnell?
That's what a weapon does! That's what it always has done and probably what it always will do. That it is used by some for sporting purposes is unimportant to me and it should not even be part of the argument. I gnash my teeth whenever I hear some apologist use that as a rationale for owning a gun.
If you want to call it a tool, then it is a tool of violence. The trouble is that no one wants to acknowledge that violence is sometimes regrettably necessary.
If avoidance or escape are not possible. Or if reason and logic cannot persuade someone from harming another then, as a last resort, carefully directed violence may be the only choice left if you want to survive.
If I ever find myself in that situation, then I want a weapon in my hand, not a tool!
A gun is a weapon.
[noun:] an instrument or device used to attack another or to defend oneself from attack.
Personally, my response to people who make that a gun is only good for killing claim is:
Well... DUH! Did you figure that out all by yourself, or did you need a little help from Rosie O'Donnell?
That's what a weapon does! That's what it always has done and probably what it always will do. That it is used by some for sporting purposes is unimportant to me and it should not even be part of the argument. I gnash my teeth whenever I hear some apologist use that as a rationale for owning a gun.
If you want to call it a tool, then it is a tool of violence. The trouble is that no one wants to acknowledge that violence is sometimes regrettably necessary.
If avoidance or escape are not possible. Or if reason and logic cannot persuade someone from harming another then, as a last resort, carefully directed violence may be the only choice left if you want to survive.
If I ever find myself in that situation, then I want a weapon in my hand, not a tool!
Yes, and ones hands can be weapons too, along with gasoline, shovels, rocks, rope, cord, knives, bandanas, et cetera. The things that can be used as weapons are as limitless as ones imagination. There are some things that lend themselves more easily to use as a weapon, and EASE is a preoccupation in todays society - that is the problem. It is why the gang banger takes what he thinks is the EASY way out and uses a gun because someone "dissed" him, instead of doing the WORK to think about what he is doing, and why he would even give a rats a$$ about the diss. It is why many people take the EASY way out and blame an inanimate object for societies ills, instead of doing the WORK to stop and research and THINK about the real reason. It is why many politicians take the EASY way out and pass impotent feel good legislation against lawful gun ownership.
To get out of this rut is going to take some hard work, Which runs contrary to the convenience - ease orientation of the great average. When I heard people at the last election complaining of actually having to drive to the polls to vote (instead of doing it from behind a computer screen) I didn't know what to say. About the best I could do was "people before us did a lot more than drive to the polls in order to ensure that we could vote, I would consider it a salute to them not to complain about it". Or something to that affect, considering my anger I thought I did pretty well.
(Sigh) rant mode off
I once saw a guy use a high powered rifle to split the limb of a tree that fell on a power line.
To get out of this rut is going to take some hard work, Which runs contrary to the convenience - ease orientation of the great average. When I heard people at the last election complaining of actually having to drive to the polls to vote (instead of doing it from behind a computer screen) I didn't know what to say. About the best I could do was "people before us did a lot more than drive to the polls in order to ensure that we could vote, I would consider it a salute to them not to complain about it". Or something to that affect, considering my anger I thought I did pretty well.
(Sigh) rant mode off
I once saw a guy use a high powered rifle to split the limb of a tree that fell on a power line.
I like the police analogy. When most people think of someone carrying a gun, they think of some low-life drunken scum, not the police, and certainly not a room full of people at a PTA meeting, but it can be all of those things.
I like taking people down that path by getting them to think where they'd feel safest if someone were trying to kill them. If given a choice between a high school where guns aren't allowed, or a police station, they usually choose the police station. I won't go into detail, but you can see how you can quickly make them see that the reason that they feel safe in a police station is that if worse came to worse, the police can shoot the neanderthal who is trying to kill them. Therefore the place that they feel safest is a place full of young men with lots of guns.
Unfortunately, some people can't get beyond the "yea, but they're police" thing, as if the police are some angelic entity, and everyone else, if given a gun, would shoot the person to their left.
There's a good come-back to several issues on this site: http://www.shotgunnews.com/members/fred/pages/Freds8.html
His response to this one is as follows:
WE SHOULD SAY: "Your claim that
'they're only for killing people' is
imprecise. A gas chamber or electric
chair is designed for killing people, and
these devices obviously serve different
functions than guns. To be precise, a
high capacity military-type rifle or
handgun is designed for CONFLICT.
When I need to protect myself and my
freedom, I want the most reliable, most
durable, highest capacity weapon
possible. The only thing hunting and
target shooting have to do with freedom
is that they're good practice."
I like taking people down that path by getting them to think where they'd feel safest if someone were trying to kill them. If given a choice between a high school where guns aren't allowed, or a police station, they usually choose the police station. I won't go into detail, but you can see how you can quickly make them see that the reason that they feel safe in a police station is that if worse came to worse, the police can shoot the neanderthal who is trying to kill them. Therefore the place that they feel safest is a place full of young men with lots of guns.
Unfortunately, some people can't get beyond the "yea, but they're police" thing, as if the police are some angelic entity, and everyone else, if given a gun, would shoot the person to their left.
There's a good come-back to several issues on this site: http://www.shotgunnews.com/members/fred/pages/Freds8.html
His response to this one is as follows:
WE SHOULD SAY: "Your claim that
'they're only for killing people' is
imprecise. A gas chamber or electric
chair is designed for killing people, and
these devices obviously serve different
functions than guns. To be precise, a
high capacity military-type rifle or
handgun is designed for CONFLICT.
When I need to protect myself and my
freedom, I want the most reliable, most
durable, highest capacity weapon
possible. The only thing hunting and
target shooting have to do with freedom
is that they're good practice."
Guy B. Meredith
New member
None of my guns are weapons. They were intentionally selected for recreational purposes: moderately long barrel for accuracy, adjustable sights, etc. They are intended for distances beyond those considered typical of combat and are too awkward for concealed carry.
The baseball bat originated as a club which was a weapon. Their current development has removed them from their origin, but they can still be used for that purpose. Some clubs of the weapon variety may still be available.
Shooting sports originated in combat, but many are now highly "sanitized" and stylized versions of that function. Some guns which are designed for the weapon function are available.
I expect that the majority of the ammo on the market and handloaded for handguns is not considered good for use in a weapon. I have fired well over 11,000 rounds of .38 spl/.357 magnum ammo in my 2 year handgun experience, but have fired relatively few that could qualify for weapons use. I typically have 1000 or so rounds at a time, being used up and replentished on a monthly basis. I typically have 20 to 30 rounds of Hydra-Shok weapon grade ammo which get cycled every few months.
The baseball bat originated as a club which was a weapon. Their current development has removed them from their origin, but they can still be used for that purpose. Some clubs of the weapon variety may still be available.
Shooting sports originated in combat, but many are now highly "sanitized" and stylized versions of that function. Some guns which are designed for the weapon function are available.
I expect that the majority of the ammo on the market and handloaded for handguns is not considered good for use in a weapon. I have fired well over 11,000 rounds of .38 spl/.357 magnum ammo in my 2 year handgun experience, but have fired relatively few that could qualify for weapons use. I typically have 1000 or so rounds at a time, being used up and replentished on a monthly basis. I typically have 20 to 30 rounds of Hydra-Shok weapon grade ammo which get cycled every few months.
A lot of good reasoning going on, and it makes me think of other things. I guess most people don't want to hear the rest of it. I have always justified my owner ship of guns for protection and for sport. I accept the fact that they are meant to kill or at the very least do damage. I guess the arguments that follow that line of thought is what get me too. I cannot answer the guy that asks why should you have the right to own a gun. I have that right, and it should be enough. Why don't they licence everyone that owns a gun? Well my initial response is why not? Why not have a state run licence for those that can own a gun. Not that do, but those that can. Just like a drivers licence. Because that is where the argument went for me. A car is not designed to kill, it does by virtue of the fact it is a 2 ton piece of steel moving at 55 mph. (With or without drunk behind the wheel.) And everyone that drives(legally) must pass a proficency test and written test to drive. Now I understand one is a privillage, the other a right. And I see how it can be used against gun owners and twisted to prevent ownership, but so can a lot of things. In its truest form, I see no reason to why people should not prove they understand basic gun saftey and proficency prior to owning a gun.
jeffelkins
New member
"In its truest form, I see no reason to why people should not prove they understand basic gun saftey and proficency prior to owning a gun."
Try re-reading the 2nd. Amendment.
Try re-reading the 2nd. Amendment.
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
This is what I said about the tool analogy in
January in a similar thread:
****
This is all very nice but it is a concession to the antis. The reason for the 2nd was to have instruments of lethal
force. By avoiding the issue with euphenisms, you go right down the path that the UK did - no guns.
It is the RKBA, not the RKBTools. I want a gun as it is a weapon that I can use to defend myself and my loved ones.
It is not my bowling ball. I don't care if you use them for sport. If we lose the RKBA, they can ban hunting and skeet
shooting for all I care.
Your logic and rhetoric should be able to overcome this inflammatory BS without falling for it. By avoiding the
issue, you concede the point that guns are inherently evil.
I don't support CCT laws although you should keep your tool concealed
So Dennis, about this? Glenn
****
I stand by that. I own guns to prevent grievoulsy bodily harm and protect my rights.
Sporting use in a nice side benefit.
Don't give in to the demonization of the right to have a gun, weapon, or the like.
January in a similar thread:
****
This is all very nice but it is a concession to the antis. The reason for the 2nd was to have instruments of lethal
force. By avoiding the issue with euphenisms, you go right down the path that the UK did - no guns.
It is the RKBA, not the RKBTools. I want a gun as it is a weapon that I can use to defend myself and my loved ones.
It is not my bowling ball. I don't care if you use them for sport. If we lose the RKBA, they can ban hunting and skeet
shooting for all I care.
Your logic and rhetoric should be able to overcome this inflammatory BS without falling for it. By avoiding the
issue, you concede the point that guns are inherently evil.
I don't support CCT laws although you should keep your tool concealed
So Dennis, about this? Glenn
****
I stand by that. I own guns to prevent grievoulsy bodily harm and protect my rights.
Sporting use in a nice side benefit.
Don't give in to the demonization of the right to have a gun, weapon, or the like.
You're right, I omitted the part about explaining the weapon thing. Short answer, yes I agree that a gun is a weapon. Target rifles, skeet guns, etc. are weapons adapted to new purposes, not the other way around. People didn't develop guns to have fun target competitions and then someone one day said, "Hey! I bet the military would be interested in this!"
jeffelkins- As I said. I understand it is a right not a privilage. And perhapes Glenn is right I am conceeding something to the anti's to make them go away. I have been badgered recently by people with all this recent hubbub, and perhapes took a step back. I am a protector of the Constitution. I swore an oath, and even though I am not in anymore, still abide by it. I do not take things like that lightly. IT should be enough that it is a right. No more, no less. They are tools designed to kill, or threaten greivous bodily harm. To keep me safe, protect my family, and keep America free. To some, that sounds like crazy fanatic talk. I have had some laugh at me about the idea of the government turning on the people. I try to point out history and currently no one wants to listen. Sorry I will get of my soap box. Thank you all again for getting me thinking on the right track.
Andrewh,
The next time someone laughs at you for believing that a government can turn on its own people, ask them if they've ever heard the word Democide?
Nearly 170 million people have been murdered by their own governments in the 20th century alone!
http://www2.hawaii.edu/~rummel/welcome.html
The next time you think that licensing gun owners wouldn't be too bad, ask yourself if you would mind being licensed in order to speak your own mind freely or attend the church of your choice.
No matter how much some people might wish otherwise, there are some dangerous people running around loose in this world. Not all of them are wearing gang colors and cruising around in low-riders either!
The next time someone laughs at you for believing that a government can turn on its own people, ask them if they've ever heard the word Democide?
Nearly 170 million people have been murdered by their own governments in the 20th century alone!
http://www2.hawaii.edu/~rummel/welcome.html
The next time you think that licensing gun owners wouldn't be too bad, ask yourself if you would mind being licensed in order to speak your own mind freely or attend the church of your choice.
No matter how much some people might wish otherwise, there are some dangerous people running around loose in this world. Not all of them are wearing gang colors and cruising around in low-riders either!
Geeez, some of you guys need to relax a bit. It was just a quote from IMO one of the best westerns ever made.
I'm not sure how you can argue that a gun is not a tool. You use a hammer to pound nails. You use a gun to shoot things. Doesn't matter what you're shooting, you are still using a tool to propel that little hunk of lead in hopes of putting a hole in your target, whatever the target may be. It's just an inanimate object that has a purpose just like any other tool. Yes it can be used as a weapon, but a weapon is just another tool. According to the definition by Karanas, a gun is not a weapon until it is "used to attack another or defend oneself from attack". I'd agree with that definition Karanas, although I don't think that was your intent.
I think most of you have missed the point of the quote. Shane thought of his gun as a tool to make a job easier. His job just happened to be to kill Jack Wilson.(Jack Palance, didn't he make one hell of a BG?) That did not make his gun evil. No more than a shovel would be considered evil, even if he would have hauled one into town and beat Wilson to death with it.
------------------
bullet placement is gun control
I'm not sure how you can argue that a gun is not a tool. You use a hammer to pound nails. You use a gun to shoot things. Doesn't matter what you're shooting, you are still using a tool to propel that little hunk of lead in hopes of putting a hole in your target, whatever the target may be. It's just an inanimate object that has a purpose just like any other tool. Yes it can be used as a weapon, but a weapon is just another tool. According to the definition by Karanas, a gun is not a weapon until it is "used to attack another or defend oneself from attack". I'd agree with that definition Karanas, although I don't think that was your intent.
I think most of you have missed the point of the quote. Shane thought of his gun as a tool to make a job easier. His job just happened to be to kill Jack Wilson.(Jack Palance, didn't he make one hell of a BG?) That did not make his gun evil. No more than a shovel would be considered evil, even if he would have hauled one into town and beat Wilson to death with it.
------------------
bullet placement is gun control
I guess it has alot to do with attitude. Many of my guns are tools. Muti-function tools. Capable of hunting, self defense, sport or pleasure depending on the current need.
Some of them are toys. Of no real use other than the simple pleasure of shooting them.
And some of them are without doubt pure weapons. Intended solely for the purpose of killing any human being who dares to threaten me or mine.
Exactly which is which is dependent on the task at hand.
BTW: I love Shane. A true classic.
------------------
Politically, Fashionably and Aerodynamically Incorrect!
Some of them are toys. Of no real use other than the simple pleasure of shooting them.
And some of them are without doubt pure weapons. Intended solely for the purpose of killing any human being who dares to threaten me or mine.
Exactly which is which is dependent on the task at hand.
BTW: I love Shane. A true classic.
------------------
Politically, Fashionably and Aerodynamically Incorrect!
Personally, I don't care if you call it a "tool" or a "weapon" or whatever other label floats your boat. In the grand scheme of things, does it REALLY matter? We're in here bantering back and forth about what word to use when describing our firearms (or guns, or.....), and the anti-freedom crowd is out there trying to figure out how to take them away from us and deny us our basic freedoms as Americans.
Methinks that there are certainly MUCH more important items to be discussed.
</rant>
Methinks that there are certainly MUCH more important items to be discussed.
</rant>