Gun Control & RKBA
Related: About this forumIs the cart in front of the horse?
....
No, because no matter the stated reason for buying a gun,
the purpose of a gun is to kill.
I infer here that the message is that it is less evil(?) to buy an item, with murder as a reason for the purchase, than it is to design an item which has that act as its intended use.
jmg257
(11,996 posts)Now guns usually all get classified as "deadly weapons", compared to say "dangerous instruments", so legally they may have a point when one is actually used.
Yet there are numerous guns whose purpose is clearly not to kill. And though capable, some in fact would be a comparatively poor choice for that.
As for your "evil" comment, hard to know without context, such as "Suppose a family of guns..."...compared to what?
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,577 posts)jmg257
(11,996 posts)Of course most agreed that yes indeed - in general guns were designed to kill.
I think the message is: if you are a gun owner, and you simply accept that generally guns are designed to kill (no matter how you use yours), that all is good. And if you choose to promote some sort of carry, you should double-dog accept that as fact.
I am ok with that.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)Let's assume the respondent's point: All guns are designed to kill.
The question then becomes: Is killing ever justified?
If the answer is, "Yes" then the respondent is stating that civilians should never be allowed to do that which is justified.
If the answer is, "No" then the respondent is stating civilians should be subjected to a state that possesses a monopoly on wielding that which is never justified.
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,577 posts)A less elegant phrasing:
ileus
(15,396 posts)discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,577 posts)...as criminal unless sanctioned by the state or a designated actor or agent thereof.