| > 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. |
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.