We all know that guns could be used for defense or murder. We know that other things could kill, most likely less but sometimes more effectively than guns; For example: knives, baseball bats, cars, chainsaws, etc. The difference is that guns have the intended purpose of effectively killing people. But is that "intended purpose" enough to justify prohibiting its use by anyone who freely wishes to use one or two?
2007-10-17 21:50:13 · 6 answers · asked by Idontknow 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
They also have the intended purpose of effectively killing deer, ducks and geese.
So no, that should not be enough to legally prohibit their use.
2007-10-17 23:36:08 · answer #1 · answered by pepper 7 · 4⤊ 0⤋
If that's the intended use I must be miss using my .45. I've never shot anyone. Don't really for see doing it either. Most gun owners don't buy a gun to use it (I mean other than criminals)
There are plenty of people that are target shooters and that's all they use their firearms for (see Washington DC where law abiding citizens must have their firearms disassembled).
Then there are the Single Action Shooters Society. A Peacemaker isn't concidered a good defensive weapon if going up against combat tupperware, those that shoot for competitions.
Some enjoy firearms due to the mechanism, like some like cars (which some have wielded as a weapon and has a million times the foot pounds of force that my .45 has.)
2007-10-18 07:20:56 · answer #2 · answered by .45 Peacemaker 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I own 38 rifles, shotguns, and handguns. None of the weapons "intended purpose" has anything to do with murder or killing people. I hunt with rifles and shotguns, I compete with rifles, shotguns, and handguns. My duty handgun and my concealed carry gun are for my personal protection and my family's safety.
My gun is a defense against your chainsaws, cars, baseball bats, and knives.
2007-10-18 06:38:16 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
Since the majority of guns are not used to kill people then it would be intellectually dishonest to say that the intended purpose of the gun is murder.
The majority of guns are used for recreational purposes such as hunting or target shooting not to kill people.
Even if they are it is the natural right of all people to defend themselves against criminals and tyrannical governments. Anything less is slavery.
2007-10-18 05:22:47 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
Your statement that a gun's "intended purpose" is to kill people is wrong.
A gun is a tool, it does not have an intended purpose to kill.
A car does not intend to have wreck, or run out of gas.
Using your premise people should be banned.
2007-10-18 09:55:34 · answer #5 · answered by lestermount 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Guns must not be prohibited if for legal use by qualified owners.
2007-10-18 05:14:55 · answer #6 · answered by FRAGINAL, JTM 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋