Guns are for killing. Nothing else. Unlike cars, trains, planes, knives, axes and lawnmowers.
No. Guns are for projecting lead, usually copper-jacketed lead, at a point in the distance.
That poor defenseless watermelon. Murdered in it's prime.
Killing another human being is, statistically, the least significant use guns are put to.
There are many guns (possibly even most) which have never killed a human being. Almost all of the guns which have are property (or were at the time) of a government. There are, additionally, guns which, despite the relatively high number of times they have been used, have never killed anything, except possibly watermelons.
So?
So your argument is invalid.
In what way?
You said that guns are for killing, and have no other purpose. I showed that guns, first off, do not have that purpose at all, unless given to them by the user (not the manufacturer). To quote William Gibson (from off his twitter feed, just now, @GreatDismal), A gun is like a very long, very fast temporary finger, but of very limited utility: instantly pokes a hole in a distant object.
That's all it does. Secondly, I showed that that distant object is almost never a person. Usually it's a piece of paper, or a fruit, or a milk jug full of water. Once in a while it's an animal.
So guns a) have a purpose which is not killing: Poke a hole in something far away, and b) are rarely used to poke holes in people, and c) almost never are they used by civilians to poke holes in people.
So William Gibson is now spokesperson for why guns are manufactured?
So having devices which allow us to put holes in things at distances for recreational value is worth 12,000 lives per year? Do paintings kill 12,000 people per year? Does playing a violin put people in danger? Do R/C cars cause 12,000 people to lose their lives per year?
Your argument is desperate. Stupid. Comical. Pathetic. Without value.
