[AnthonyMouse]

Sport (marksmanship), crime deterrent (possible without actual violent use), a store of value (physically small high-value durable good with generally stable value over time), craftsmanship (manufacturing), collecting, psychological security blanket for vulnerable individuals, etc.

[rytill]

Those are just results of its purpose and of human nature. It’s not a very compelling list.

People assault for sport too. And people would make all kinds of illegal things for craftsmanship if they could.

Store of value seems particularly like a stretch.

They are tools for killing. To what extent is it correct to regulate them is the question.

[AnthonyMouse]

Shooting at a target isn't killing anything, it's a competition the same as golf or basketball or archery. People who collect firearms commonly keep them in a display case like vintage toys or sports memorabilia; it's like arguing that the sole purpose of a baseball signed by Babe Ruth is to play catch with. In many cases people manufacture firearms for the exclusive purpose of making a political statement about the ease of doing so (e.g. with a 3D printer) and the manufactured product is never actually intended to be used.

If you want some economic evidence of purpose other than killing, notice that the vast majority of firearms are never actually used to kill anyone, nor do their owners desire to kill anyone with them. Then explain how their owners nonetheless derived enough value from them to justify paying hundreds to thousands of dollars for them.

> People assault for sport too.

Assault is already, independently illegal.

A law against killing people with guns is redundant (killing people is already illegal), but a law against not killing people with guns is incoherent, so what evil is left to prohibit that isn't already illegal?

> And people would make all kinds of illegal things for craftsmanship if they could.

But they can, that's sort of the point. Since individuals can manufacture them on their own regardless, isn't it better that they be available to the people who follow the law and not just the people who don't?

> Store of value seems particularly like a stretch.

There seem to be a fair number of second hand firearms dealers who make their living from it.

[lukifer]

It was a light-bulb moment when I learned that in medieval warfare, battles were relatively rare, and the primary mechanism of military force was the siege: camp outside and block trade/supplies, until the enemy runs out of food and gives up. Even if one has overwhelming force, fighting is expensive and risky, whether for an army or an individual [0]. This pattern replicates throughout nature: many animals develop signals to proxy their fighting strength without having to fight, due to the risk it would incur (such as growling as a signal of chest cavity size).

It's perfectly cogent to own a gun, not with any intent to kill, but to establish a power dynamic, such that one could respond with deadly force if necessary [1]. This is how America projects its military power across the world, through 400+ bases and several aircraft super-carriers, with the majority of that force going unused. It's still a projection of power, and still subject to moral scrutiny; but having a military base parked outside Qatar, just in case, is not the same thing as "that military base is a tool for invading Qatar".

I get your core point; weapons being deadly is the whole point, and even weapons acquired purely for deterrence can lead to a positive feedback loop of escalation, resulting in violence that would not have occurred otherwise. And humans are not purely rational actors; there's a simple numbers game, where the more guns are in a populace, the deadlier a small number of maniacs or extremists are going to be. It's not a problem we should ignore, and it's frustrating that NRA hardliners seem to be fine with doing so.

I don't own a gun, and I'm in favor of something resembling "common sense gun control", as well as other harm reduction interventions (particularly universal mental health care); at the same time, I consider effective self-defense to be an inalienable human right (I don't declaw cats, either). But to say that guns exist only to kill is a little overly simplistic: to take another example, North Korea acquired nukes not to use them, but to dissuade the U.S. but ever thinking about instigating regime change. They know using them can only result in their immediate obliteration; yet owning them tilts the game-theoretic dynamic in their favor.

[0] Aircraft and drones somewhat change the dynamic on this, but we can consider those out of scope in a 2A debate.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credible_minimum_deterrence

[rytill]

What you're getting at, I think, is that the statement "guns are a tool to kill" is a little too simplistic to be helpful.

You might event continue such a statement with something like "guns are a tool to kill, but it's not clear that their existence has lead to more killing than if they didn't exist."

[MaysonL]

Well, if you look at civilized countries that ban or highly regulate them, and those that don't, what's the verdict?

[AnthonyMouse]

Comparing one country to a completely different country doesn't really tell you anything. There are a lot more firearms murders in the US than most European countries, but there are also a lot more non-firearms murders in the US than most European countries, so all you really know is that the US has a lot more murders. (Which are incidentally concentrated in some specific cities.) The proportion of murders that use firearms also doesn't tell you much, because first you'd have to know what proportion of murderers would have just used a different weapon if they didn't have a gun.

The interesting data is what happens following the passage of gun control legislation. The proponents are always happy to point out that the number of murders involving the specific weapons being prohibited goes down, but no kidding. The real question is the effect on the overall number of murders (i.e. the ones that didn't just use a different weapon), and in particular the effect over and above the existing trendline. (You don't get to just take credit when the existing long-term trend of declining violent crime rates continues, you have to move the needle more than it was already expected to move.)

But the effect turns out to be little if anything. It turns out murders tend to be caused by things like drugs, gangs, domestic disputes or revenge moreso than access to firearms. People will use a gun if they have it, but there are a hundred different ways to kill a man and taking away one doesn't change much. Also, a disproportionate number of murders are committed by gangs with no qualms about using prohibited weapons anyway.

It actually has a more significant effect on suicides, because some of the most popular alternative suicide methods aren't as effective (as opposed to the most popular alternative homicide methods which mostly are). But we already separate known suicidal people from guns (and shoelaces etc.), and it seems like the better answer there should have more to do with addressing the fact that so many people are suicidal so that the question of which method they might use becomes irrelevant.

[komali2]

To be fair take look outside the media's favorite cities to pick on for gun violence and start taking a good look at the per capita instances of gun violence, particularly against women.

America definitely has a serious problem with violence in general and we can't just blame Chicago or whatever other flavor of the day the NRA has picked.

[komali2]

The things you said all revolve around the gun's primary purpose and only reason for existing, which is to kill.

Target practice is just practicing getting better at killing.

Crime deterrent is threatening to kill.

It's valuable because it's good at killing.

It's a well crafted killing machine.

It makes one feel less vulnerable because you hold the ability to instantly kill someone.

Why deny the gun's purpose is to kill? It seems to imply you think it's bad to kill people, as if we could demonstrate that yes guns are only good at killing people, it might risk your guns being taken away? Seems the strongest rhetorical position is one that argues in favor of the gun's ability to kill and why people should be allowed to have that ability.

[wizzwizz4]

I'd argue that target practice isn't just getting better at killing (but perhaps it is for many people). And, as a result, "well-crafted killing machine" isn't necessarily all there is to it -- though only specific kinds of guns are good for shooting targets and not killing people. All your other points are valid.

[komali2]

Yes, there are target only guns (Olympics comes to mind), but I bet you still would follow all tenants of gun safety while handling one of those guns...

I enjoy target and clay shooting but I believe they are simply metaphors for the gun's original purpose which is to shoot living things.

We're kinda off track the original topic here though :p

[yellowapple]

I mean, I follow all tenets of gun safety even when I'm handling a nail gun, or a pressure washer, or anything else with a trigger that may or may not seriously injure someone if I accidentally pull the trigger while it's pointed in one's direction (including in my own direction). Taking a nail to the face ain't pleasant.

That is to say, whether or not you do something safely has no bearing on whether or not something is designed for killing.

[AnthonyMouse]

> Yes, there are target only guns (Olympics comes to mind), but I bet you still would follow all tenants of gun safety while handling one of those guns...

Explosives are used by the military to kill the enemy, but you follow all the tenants of explosives safety when you're blasting on a construction site too.

[AnthonyMouse]

> Target practice is just practicing getting better at killing.

Seems pretty farfetched given that nearly all of the people who shoot targets neither intend to nor actually do ever kill anyone.

Would you argue that the purpose of a baseball is killing people because it's practicing getting better at throwing a rock? To say nothing of javelin.

> Crime deterrent is threatening to kill.

Would you say that the purpose of the criminal justice system is to put people in jail and it fails if it manages to deter crime and then doesn't actually have to put people in jail?

> It's valuable because it's good at killing.

Why can't it be valuable because it's good for target shooting or for deterring crime?

> It's a well crafted killing machine.

That's just assuming the conclusion. If it's a killing machine then it's a well crafted killing machine, but if its purpose is to look pretty (or look scary) or satisfy local cultural norms or make a political statement, then it's a well crafted political statement.

> It makes one feel less vulnerable because you hold the ability to instantly kill someone.

Which is a similar situation to serving as a deterrent -- it succeeds even when you don't use it to kill anyone. Especially then.

> Why deny the gun's purpose is to kill? It seems to imply you think it's bad to kill people, as if we could demonstrate that yes guns are only good at killing people, it might risk your guns being taken away? Seems the strongest rhetorical position is one that argues in favor of the gun's ability to kill and why people should be allowed to have that ability.

Killing might be a purpose of a gun, but it's being alleged that it's the only purpose. Which still doesn't make sense given that it's mostly not what they're actually used for in practice.

Killing people isn't even a purpose in general, or if it is then it's a bad one. A purpose is a motive, not a means. Nobody sane has a motive of killing for no reason. Plenty of sane people have a motive of winning a sporting event or not getting robbed.

This is why "guns are for killing" is political rhetoric. Killing is bad and everybody knows it, so if guns are only for killing then guns are bad. But if guns are for deterring crime or similar, deterring crime is good and not deterring crime is bad. It's a much harder motive to argue against because it's a legitimate motive, whereas killing for no reason is just a strawman.

[komali2]

These baseball arguments always fall flat in the face of actual danger to population imo. Yes, a gun is designed to kill, and regardless of caliber, until you get down to a pellet gun, it is especially good at it.

The baseball comparison doesn't stand: in the hands of an adult, a great deal of work is involved in killing someone with a baseball. Threatening to kill someone with a baseball doesn't immediately give you power of life and death over them - they can fight back or run. And in the hands of a child, the baseball is harmless, no matter the harm the child wants to mete with it.

A gun is none of those things. A toddler can kill in an instant with a gun, and this has happened, and will continue to happen.

Guns are for killing. Of all the things just about any American to handle, they are the best at killing. If we stop letting people walk around with guns, there's nothing they could carry instead with even close to the level of accessible (a toddler could use it) killing power.

Like I said before, maybe try acknowledging that and arguing from their killing power perspective? I think there are strong 2fa arguments regarding the ability of minorities to defend themselves that center around the gun's design in making it extremely easy to kill people.