[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.

[AnthonyMouse]

Cities like Chicago and Detroit really do represent a disproportionate number of homicides in the US. Baltimore is at more than 10 times the (already high) US national average, meanwhile states like Iowa and New Hampshire have a lower homicide rate than Canada.

More than 77% of homicide victims in the US are male.