The only purpose of a gun is to kill

[SAB215]

I wish I had a GunLawyer app, I could just turn to that when I needed to completely shut down someones argument.

[streaker69]

I wish I had a GunLawyer app, I could just turn to that when I needed to completely shut down someones argument.

If there was one, it would be free to download and install but cost you $500/use.

[rmagill]

My guns have never killed. No animals, no people.

That being said, if you are of the school of thought that paper targets are "living" you might want to look at things differently.

The purpose, and design of a firearm is to expel a projectile. High velocity, low velocity, buck shot, or rubber. Doesn't matter to the antis though. What with all our heat seaking bullets that cook the animal. Our hi capacity assault pistols, and voodoo curses we place on our barrels to always point at an innocent.

The anti's will almost certainly be anti for as long as they are alive. Unless something significant occurs to change their outlook. I have stopped trying to argue with them.

"If guns kill, then mine are all defective"

I think you hit the nail on the head with the fact that not all guns have killed.

I 100% agree with your explanation of what guns do. They propel things. What they propel and for what purpose is up to the person shooting it. not the gun.

Just point out that not all homicides are wrong. There is such a thing called justifiable homicide, and that's what guns can be used for. As long as you concede that some homicides are just (and therefore the right thing to do), then of course guns have justifiable and legitimate uses even when used to kill.
Ast I checked, there are situations in which deadly force is the right action to take. Firearms enable effective means for resorting to deadly force. Therefore, firearms can be used for just and moral purposes (especially when they are used to save your life, your family, and everything you hold dear).

I have had antis occasionally counter this point by telling me that the police are there to stop by bad guy. I found that an effective counter is to ask them what the police will do when they get there if the bg tries to attack the cop. Someone's getting shot. If it is justifiable for the cop to shoot the bad guy, then under certain circumstances it is appropriate to kill. Antis understand this, they just need it to be drawn out for them. Each person must decide where they draw the line. It might be "never for me" or "only the government", but I have yet to meet someone who honestly thinks that killing is always wrong no matter what.

[Yachera]

Technically a firearm's mechanical function is to propel a metal slug at extremely high velocities, what is placed infront of the firearm is incidental.

On a side note cigarettes cause sooooo much more deaths than firearms, which is great when an anti is sucking on a *** ranting to you about how guns are the bane of society.

[scruff]

I have had antis occasionally counter this point by telling me that the police are there to stop by bad guy. I found that an effective counter is to ask them what the police will do when they get there if the bg tries to attack the cop. Someone's getting shot. If it is justifiable for the cop to shoot the bad guy, then under certain circumstances it is appropriate to kill. Antis understand this, they just need it to be drawn out for them. Each person must decide where they draw the line. It might be "never for me" or "only the government", but I have yet to meet someone who honestly thinks that killing is always wrong no matter what.

If the police are there to stop the bad guy, ask them what they should do for five minutes until the police get there. The police are there to clean up the mess, and their guns are used more to protect themselves than to protect you, because you're already victimized.

[legendarylorot]

If the user has no intent other than learning the skills needed for marksmanship and the art and science of ballistics, then the gun's purpose is no more evil than a textbook.

Don't forget you're dealing with people who have banned books ranging from the Anarchist's Cookbook to Harry Potter because they're "evil".

[FNG19]

I have had antis occasionally counter this point by telling me that the police are there to stop by bad guy. I found that an effective counter is to ask them what the police will do when they get there if the bg tries to attack the cop.

I found an effective counter is to tell them that the police have no individual duty to protect you, according to the US Supreme Court. When they object, and they always do, I ask them -- can you sue the cops for not stopping your daughter's rape or your son's murder? Can you sue them for not preventing your house from being broken into while you were on vacation? No? Right. Of course you can't... because they have no duty to you, individually, to protect you. They have a collective duty to society at large, and as long as they generally preventing crime and generally catching bad guys, they're doing their job -- the same kind of 'collective' they want the Second Amendment to be, in fact.

[camper]

OK, fine.

The purpose of guns are to kill. Let's say that is true.

So, because guns exist, and criminals and people who will NOT abide by the law--especially any type of gun ban--will obtain guns strictly for nefarious purposes, that is even MORE INCENTIVE for law abiding citizens to own these killing devices, because when faced by some nefarious individual determined to use the device for its intended purpose you stand NO CHANCE unless you are able to level the playing field by using a tool of 'evil' for good.

And, by trying to prevent law abiding citizens from owning firearms, all you are doing is ensuring that firearms are ONLY in the hands of people who seek to harm others. Since we all agree that the police cannot be everywhere at once, as evidenced by EVERY large scale shooting incident in history, than it is even more critical that all private citizens own firearms.

camper

[rmagill]

This is another good approach. I find that by following the anti's poor logic for a little bit serves to show the anti where their logic is short and meets them where they are at - their emotions. A person could stomp their feet all they want about the police's duties and if they will be there or not (or if citizens should even have firearms). However, when they realize that at some point killing may be necessary and it simply a matter of who does the killing, and then realize that the police probably won't be there, the reality of the situation seems to settle in a little better... but ymmv.

[Brick]

Camper what you say is true.

Sometimes the only defense against evil is the use of force. Equal force if possible, superior force if neccessary. I believe there is even a Talmudic passage about rising up to defend yourself when threatened with violence.

But, all in all there needs to be a sea-change in the thought processes of our citizenry and our government officails (of all types at all levels). The people need to realize that they are the font of all power and the dispensers of all justice. The politicos, the government officials and the police need to understand that they are only authorized the temporary use of the power of the people. They are not a law unto themselves, and their misdeeds shall lead to their dismissal and their incarceration if and when needed.