I’ve got no problem saying a lot of guns aren’t designed to kill people. Guns overall are good tools for killing, because the general history of their development has been for killing purposes. It’s that plus the efficiency required in hunting or target shooting overlapping with killing efficiency in some cases which means a gun can be a pretty lethal weapon. In comparison to, say, a fencing foil and a standard sword, a gun used for sport rather than killing doesn’t lose a whole amount of effectiveness because what’s required of it in one is required of it in the other; a foil can have a blunt edge and sensors stuck on the tip, but a target-shooting rifle can really only use smaller bullets, and a hunting rifle not necessarily even that. Specific guns may certainly not have been designed nor developed with killing in mind, and would be inferior in that purpose to other weapons. But the history of that development and the similarities between killing and other purposes mean that there’s enough overlap that it pretty much makes the question a moot one. Sometimes they are, sometimes they aren’t, and even if they aren’t that doesn’t mean what you have is a sligshot equivalent.
I don’t consider myself a novice, and I think it’s a completely meaningless distinction to make. I can’t imagine a firearms discussion where context wouldn’t immediately clue anyone into whether the debate was about loaded or unloaded weapons - just as discussions on traffic planning doesn’t start out by settling on a definition of “car” that specifies a 4-wheeled vehicle with actual fuel in the tank and a functioning engine.
In fact, one can make a pretty strong argument that it’s precisely because guns are designed to kill that their ownership is protected in the Constitution. A baseball bat can also be used both for violence and for sport, but nobody thinks there ought to be a Constitutionally-guaranteed right to own a baseball bat. As I understand it, the Founding Fathers wanted gun rights to be protected, because they wanted the common citizenry to be as capable at fighting (and killing) as the military. They didn’t care if the common citizenry were on an equal playing field for sporting events.
Headline for 2024: “Army baseball’s win record skyrockets after civilian ownership of bats banned.” 
Then why didn’t they mention “guns” (rifles, muskets, pistols) by name rather than “arms” which includes swords, pikes, etc?
Is this the new argument now that the “militia” argument is history? Guns are not “arms” because if they were they would have been mentioned as such in the Constitution? Please tell me that you have something better than this.
Guns were invented for war, pure and simple. Just because they have a non-war practical application doesn’t mean that the bulk of research into building a better gun is meant for bringing down a pheasant.
Get real.
Guns ARE designed to kill people. The vast majority of them anyway.
But a “well regulated militia” isn’t just some weekend warriors in Northern Michigan tooling around in the back of someone’s F-150.
None of the guns sold at Walmart are designed to kill people. The majority sold at Academy Sports aren’t. Not at Gander Mountain either. Only one of my guns is a ‘man killing gun.’ Every gun that either of my grandfathers owned weren’t either. I’d put forth that the majority of non-military small arms weren’t designed for killing people.
I’m not completely sure what point you’re making.
You are somehow equating a global TOTAL war against an enemy that was systematically committing genocide against millions of people without any protest from its own population,though the sheer numbers involved with the transportation,paperwork and the process of guarding and murdering the victims made it an open secret.
An enemy that had bombed the civilian population of Guernica during the Spanish civil war,a Dutch city(Rotterdam?) and a good many British cities before the R.A.F. and the U.S. Army Airforce retaliated in kind.
(Sorry but inspite of good intentions even the norden bombsight wasn’t any where near accurate bombing from the heights that A/A, and fighters directed by amongst other things Radar, that the U.S.A.A.F.were forced to bomb from)
You are somehow equating this with people who commit murder with privately owned firearms?
Or not?
I honestly cant see what point ,if any ,you’re attempting to make.
Don’t you have to include the people being killed in Iraq and Afghanistan. That is many thousands and thousands more being killed by guns used as designed.
Did you include suicides in your numbers.? Those too and guns used to kill.
I have to give you credit, you’re persistent. Didn’t anybody tell you that the “militia argument” is dead and buried? It was kinda big news this summer, you might have heard about it.
Microwave emitters were invented for war, pure and simple. Just because they have a non-war practical application doesn’t mean that the bulk of research into building a better microwave emitter is meant for cooking a pheasant.
Get real.
I’d say the opposite. The reason gun ownership is a guaranteed right is not because the founding fathers wanted to protect our right to go skeet shooting. The reason was that under some circumstances, people have to kill other people and they needed the means to do it.
The point I was making is that the RAF saying they were blowing up houses instead of blowing up people was weaseling away from the truth. And I believe that saying guns are not primarily designed as a tool for killing people is also a weaseling away from the truth.
No, no, I was replying to the argument that the second ammendment refers *specifically *to guns; it does not.
So presumably a citizen does have a second ammendment right to own a baseball bat (or at least a club). ETA: in addition to guns.
It’s not necessarily the “militia argument” that I’m trying to put forth. Guns are designed to kill people. Under a well-regulated militia, I’m completely fine with them, not just because it’s there in the Constitution, but because it makes decent sense.
Like I’ve said many times before, I personally don’t like guns. If I could wave my hands and get rid of them all overnight, I’d do it. However, because I don’t like them doesn’t mean that nobody should. With that being said, there is definitely a middle ground to reach on the topic, and I think we should be actively working to get that middle ground instead of the two extremes. Furthermore, gun control means different things in different places. Is there a need for a person in a city to have a rifle? Not really. Is there more of a reason for someone in the country to have some kind of rifle? Yes. There is. That’s also not to say that the person in the city shouldn’t have a rifle, we just need to find an intelligent solution. How many times have we revisited this? How often do we all butt heads over this? You can’t un-invent a gun, but can we get to a middle ground?
I would absolutely agree that the Second Amendment protects pikes and halberds just as much as it does guns. But it’s more relevant for guns, because very few armies or militias nowadays choose to wield pikes or halberds.
That, I’m not so sure of: Yes, a club is a weapon, and a baseball bat can be used as a club, but then, anything can be used as a club. I can’t see arguing that there’s a right to own anything you want, so long as it can be used to inflict blunt trauma. Of course, I don’t think that the government would choose to ban baseball bats, but there are many other things that they could and have banned.
Radars were designed to put holes into living things and everything microwave related is fully capable of doing that, right? I mean you could turn your kitchen microwave on an intruder and kill him, right?
I just don’t get the denial that some people go through to insist that guns aren’t purposely designed to kill things. I suppose a .22 target pistol may have been designed to put holes in a target, and a 12-gauge might have been designed to kill rodents, but like it or not, both are perfectly capable of putting holes into human beings. This is, of course, the entire reason guns were developed in the first place.
I like this angle. The Second Amendment guarantees my right to own a shirt!