“It makes no difference if weapons are carried in the open or concealed,” Ted Jennings writes at timesunion.com asserts. “They are for killing. The size and style don’t matter. Guns are for killing. The what and who and where and why of gun registration don’t matter. The guns and bullets people buy and own and store and even lock up are for killing . . . Of course, ‘Guns don’t kill people.’ But guns and bullets are for killing, and that’s why people buy and own and carry them.”
And? Setting aside any debate over hunting, you’d think recent events would prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that there are evil people in this world who need shooting and killing. If an armed American encounters one of these people doing a dastardly deed — posing an imminent, credible threat of grievous bodily harm or death — the good citizen should shoot to stop the threat. Yeah, about that . . .
The People of the Gun use the phrase “shoot to stop the threat” to dodge public opprobrium and legal blowback from an act of firearms-related justifiable homicide. I mean, God forbid you should shoot someone with the intention of killing them! Even if they’re a terrorist in the midst of mass murder.
Question: are supporters of firearms freedom pussyfooting around? Should we be more rhetorically aggressive with those who think guns are too dangerous for civilian ownership?
Should we say, hell yes, guns kill people. In good hands, they kill bad people. In bad hands, they kill good people. I know which one I am and I’m ready to protect myself, my family, my community and my country. Are you? Well are you, punk?
I’m probably going to catch a lot of flak for this, but Yeager’s been saying this for a long time. The dude might not be the best speaker under certain terms, but a lot of what he says makes sense, and he’s trying to drop the PC mentality.
the bad thing about Yeager is he intentionally creates drama to get clicks. which makes alot of people hate him, and maybe rightfully so. i have picked up quite a few good tips from watching his training videos. Just like with everything, you still have to do your own research to filter out the clickbait.
I do think it is disingenuous to claim that your AR/AK/etc is for target shooting and small game. A good deal of people don’t buy that reasoning and know that we are trying to hide the truth. Let’s be open and honest, it is for killing people in defense of self, family, and country. And in the mean time we’ll enjoy shooting targets and small game. It isn’t PC, but the truth about life and liberty rarely is.
Since they spend most of their time in the safe, my ARs are for target shooting (unless civil war breaks out). They are a little hard to conceal.
Now, my Sig P225, P226, P290 and S&W 649 are for self defense/killing bad guys and for target shooting.
It’s not disingenuous if it’s true.
My AR is for plinking on the range. I don’t hunt, and it’s not the go-to option for home defense in my household.
Can it be used for killing someone? Sure. So can a screwdriver, axe or bare hands … and those latter are a lot simpler to use than an AR and have less to go wrong. But that’s not what any of those things for.
This. And the fact that black guns, and rifles in general are used in such a minuscule fraction of crimes overall is the best argument against laws targeting them. I also suspect justifying their use as a utilitarian object (hunting, target shooting etc) is far easier than justifying their use as a defensive weapon.
Nope, my ARs are for hunting. I got my first AR specifically for pig hunting, and have since used them for coyotes, javelina, foxes, rams of all types, and other game. It’s what they are set up for, and what they are spectacular at. If I was going to build a gun primarily for fighting, I would set up my guns differently.
My guns were made for protecting and saving lives. If that means killing, so be it.
My comment was much longer, and ended up where you did. Your comment is more readable, and rememberable.
I’ll be darned if I can think of a better platform than an AR-15 for varmints and small game.
Hell, if I didn’t live so close to my neighbors, I would use my AR to shoot the raccoons that raid the bird feeders on my back deck.
My AR is purpose-built to scare liberals.
Speak for yourself bud. My AR is for Coyote hunting, target shooting at the range, and for “collector” reasons. If I have to use it one day to defend myself, then so be it. But I hope it remains a hunting and plinking rifle. And I don’t really much care if anyone believes that or not.
I get what you’re saying, but nah. It’s an inanimate object. It has no inherent intentions, despite Nancy here’s screaming about killing. It’s only designed purpose is to shoot. What it shoots, when it shoots, how it shoots, why and where, all up to the end user. They can absolutely be used to kill. But the vast majority of guns in this country never are used for this purpose.
So, rather than conceding that certain types of guns are “designed” to kill more than others, I just like to remind them that nearly any object with some heft or a point on it can be used to kill. And as last week painfully demonstrated, the object used, especially the bigger and faster it is, can even be deadlier than something “designed” for that job.
In self-defense and other fighting firearms, death is an occasional by product of the attempt stop someone from doing something (usually bad for you).
Exactly! That’s why I refer to the little things that go down the barrel of my EDC gun ” “stoppers.” They aren’t bullets they are stoppers. Their job is to get someone to stop what they are doing in as short of a time as possible. They may die and I am prepared for that, but it is not my intent to kill them. I can prove that if they would just stop what they are doing before I pull the trigger. They stop…I won’t shoot.
Now if my intent was to kill someone it wouldn’t matter if they stopped or not.
See? It’s simple.
I also explain to Antis that if guns are only meant to kill people, then they are doing a pretty poor job of it as most who are shot survive the experience. Assuming they have access to modern medical attention.
Here’s the difference: if you were truly shooting “to kill” then you wouldn’t stop shooting until the individual was dead or unquestionably on the way thereto. Which would mean something like Byron David Smith’s “good clean finishing shot” was acceptable; but it’s not.
Once the threat has stopped you have a moral and legal duty to stop shooting. In some cases the threat (to yourself and to others) may not stop until the individual is dead or inevitably on the way to death. But “shooting to stop the threat” instead of “shooting to kill” isn’t just some PR thing, it’s an important distinction for the law-abiding gun user to think about and act on.
Very well said. Thank you!
Funny thing is….. none of my guns or bullets have ever killed anyone. His argument is invalid.
Liberals have never tried to take your guns therefore that argument is moot.
Eh.. Tried? Yes. Liberals have tried NUMEROUS times to take my guns away.
Succeeded? No. Not yet thanks, in part, to people raising the alarm by saying “HEY, THEY’RE TRYING TO PASS A BILL RIGHT NOW TO TAKE YOUR GUNS AWAY, call your Rep!”
Based sheer volume of use, I’d say guns are designed to be “paper hole punchers”. The other uses are secondary.
Eh. None of my fire extinguishers have ever put out a fire. But that doesn’t change what they are for or why I have them.
What guns are designed to be able to do, and how they are actually used most of the time are obviously not the same thing. This includes the times when they are actually used for self defense, which often doesn’t involve firing them, if federal survey data on self-defense uses is to be believed.
Practice may be a lot of fun, but most of us practice with guns so that if we have to use guns to inflict serious damage on something other than inert targets, we’ll be able to do so competently. That ultimate purpose is usually in the back of our minds as shooters, when not at the forefront.
Bad path to go down. Guns can kill, yes, but they usually don’t, and that’s not the point. If you’re trying to kill someone, then you’re a killer, not a defender. Guns are for stopping, not for killing. If you’re a hunter, that’s one thing. If you’re a soldier, that’s one thing. If you’re a defender, that’s something else entirely. Those that see the difference will understand; those that don’t can’t be helped anyway.
This right here
RealityCheck is right on the mark.
Truth. Death is occasionally a by-product of stopping the threat, not the objective. HUGE difference.
Gangland shootings where death is the objective all feature the instigator firing multiple rounds into a non-moving body on the ground. I daresay that’s a pretty self-evident distinction.
This illustrates one of my favorite points that anti’s never stop missing. Hunting firearms are the only kind of gun any of them respect, but they also happen to be the only kind of gun explicitly designed to kill something. Same goes for hunting ammunition. So much for all that “AR-15’s were only designed to do one thing…”
Realitycheck, Guns can not kill, any more than cars drive drunk, people can use them to kill. They are a tool that can be used to kill someone by purpose or with neglect and ignorance do so.
How about just a factual combination.
I realize that if I have to use my firearms to “stop the threat”, there is a good chance that threat will die. If I do what I train to do, it’ll mean at multiple hits in center mass. If the threat dies as a likely result, it is unfortunate for everyone involved.
I think it’s worth noting that most self defense shootings are done with handguns. Most people who get shot with one that make it to a hospital live. So, if i defend myself from “babby dindu nuffin wrong” and call the police and they bring paramedics there’s a very real chance he’ll get to live and think out his life choices. So it’s very important to me that I’m not out to kill people. While death is a very real thing that could easily happen, it’s morally correct to let another human live. Call me crazy but I’d even feel better if they didn’t die.
other chris, please don’t go there. The flipside of what you’re saying would be that someone using a rifle is out to kill people. You’re essentially calling handguns sort-of-less-lethal force, creating a new level in the force continuum between lethal and less-lethal.
In reality people carry handguns for defense not because they’re somewhat less likely to be lethal but because they’re more practical for everyday carry. Using a handgun against a person is still a use of lethal force (ie. force which carries a substantial risk of death), just like using a rifle against a person. If you wouldn’t be justified defending yourself with a rifle then wouldn’t be justified defending yourself with a handgun under the same circumstance. And if use of a handgun is legally acceptable under the circumstances than so is use of a rifle.
Fortunately my opinion doesn’t affect law whatsoever. I’m merely noting my views and feelings based on the odds of a person surviving being perforated by a handgun.
“If the threat dies as a likely result, it is unfortunate for everyone involved.” No, it’s tough on him but good for everyone else. The moral and legal justification for self defense is that the victim’s right to live in peace and safety takes precedence over the criminal’s right to live at all. We should regard a crime followed by conviction and punishment as a failure, not a success. The only success is to prevent the crime in the first place, either by deterrence or by self defense.
“We should regard a crime followed by conviction and punishment as a failure, not a success.”
While I see the point you are getting at, that we should simply have no crime in the first place. But you’re suggesting that it should be enforced by simply gunning down criminals. It is a cheap practical answer but it rings of tyranny, that all crime should be met with cruel punishment. I just don’t feel the same way.
I’m going to have to disagree. That it may be necessary to take a criminal’s life in no way makes him any less a person or the loss of his life any less sad. We really don’t need to cheapen human life further than it already has been.
Good.Bad. I’m the guy with the gun….
This…is my….. boomstick!
Perhaps we should argue that journalists be licensed and trained. After all, those pens they carry around – both real and virtual – seem to be for writing propaganda and spreading ignorance, lies and misinformation. And they all will tell you that the pen is mightier than the sword.
Maybe there outta be a law regulating that.
For the children.
The answer is both yes and no. Most bullets are fired at paper. The next most are fired at wild game with the objective of killing for the purpose eating and finally at a distant third in civilian use is to kill people. Guns are deadly instruments. That is a fact.
The People of the Gun use the phrase “shoot to stop the threat” to dodge public opprobrium and legal blowback from an act of firearms-related justifiable homicide.
No. POTG use the phrase “shoot to stop the threat” because that is legal self defense. As defenders, we are entitled to stop the threat. Period. The BG may end up DRT, but that’s a byproduct of stopping the threat. Even center mass shots may not cause death and many handgun wounds are survivable although they will often stop the threat.
If “legal blowback” means abiding by the law, then yes, POTG are law abiding. We are not bloodthirsty bastards. Polish the guy off after the threat is over and you’re done.
Ralph has this one dead on (sorry, had to). If as a person who has just defended himself and your attacker is down and no longer a threat, you walk up to him and pop him once more, then you just went from reasonable self defense to someone who deserves to go to jail. If the bad guy is no longer a threat, then he no longer needs to be shot, and anyone with a shred of decency knows that.
Rusty Chains stated, “If the bad guy is no longer a threat, then he no longer needs to be shot, and anyone with a shred of decency knows that.” That’s your opinion, if some POS attacks me and I finish them off on the ground that’s their problem, as far as the law would know we went to the ground and he kept attacking me so I did what had to be done to stop them. Bastard should’ve controlled themselves before attacking someone who does’t have a shred of decency.
I think it has become such a polarized issue, why not just dive right in? If you’re evil/crazy/disturbed/violent etc enough to attack an innocent person or invade their home then you deserve to get shot if the threat is escalated enough. I don’t care if so-and-so was an angel their whole life or 10x convicted felon who had never shown remorse- violate the sanctity of someone’s home or person, you’re going down. The anti’s will never understand us, and I think enough people on the fence understand a basic right to defend one’s self, they just may be uninformed or ignorant of the far-reaching real world and theoretical/philosophical arguments for gun ownership.
I own guns for reasons other than self-defense; self-defense is just one of the (primary) practical, obvious reasons for owning a gun.
Yep, like the Steven Crowder put this recently…if you initiate violence and thereby place the victim at risk of serious harm, you give up your right to live until you break off the attack.
Sure, some of my firearms are for doing physical damage to people, if and only if that ever becomes required for survival. Sorry, leftists. Killing isn’t always wrong.
Of course, the leftists don’t really believe that killing is always wrong. They just want to reserve that option for themselves (or their proxies).
“Do not be fooled by a belief that progressives, leftists hate guns. Oh, no, they do not. What they hate is guns in the hands of those who are not marching in lock step of their ideology. They hate guns in the hands of those who think for themselves and do not obey without question. They hate guns in those whom they have slated for a barrel to the back of the ear.”
I shoot to stop the threat. If I happen to save the taxpayers the cost of trial and incarceration that’s a bonus.
“In good hands, they kill bad people. In bad hands, they kill good people.”
Salient point the anti gun tribe fail to understand. Their recourse is ban guns and now bullets, in effort to control bad people who do not yield to laws, which only hurts good people.
“It makes no difference if vehicles are driven in the open or garaged,”…. “They are for killing. The size and style don’t matter. Vehicles are for killing. The what and who and where and why of vehicle registration don’t matter. The vehicles and gasoline/diesel people buy and own and store and even lock up are for killing . . . Of course, ‘Vehicles don’t kill people.’ But vehicles and gasoline/diesel are for killing, and that’s why people buy and own and drive them.” Perhaps we should look at the“intent” as the Director of the FBI expounded on not long ago.
How can a gun be “made to kill” if that’s not really how it’s marketed, sold, bought, or intended? Most people buy these things with the express purpose of never using them. At least not on other people.
I don’t think it’s sugar coating. Maybe we play word games, but not any worse than the other side. And I do think it’s worth pointing out that “our tribe” doesn’t push half truths and lies as our reason for existing. We like guns. We want guns. We feel that they are cool, but we also feel that they protect life in the right hands, and we don’t believe that constitutionally protected rights should be stripped en masse for the bad actions of the few. Especially when those people are actual terrorists.
We should not dance around the fact that concealable pistols, in minor and major calibers, and configurations not especially suitable for sport shooting, our M&P Shields, our Glock 19s, etc, exist in this realm. Firearms designed, marketed, purchased, and carried for the primary purpose of potential use against aggressive two-legged predators. That they can kill is simply fulfillment of the purpose, because more or equally effective non-lethal means are science-fiction.
Guns are designed to project force. The uses of that force vary wildly.
Not even a rhetorical thing. I doubt those massive 22 pistols they use at the Olympics were “designed for killing”. Grenade Launchers with CS gas grenades aren’t designed to kill (the bans on such gas and “destructive devices” make it clear bans aren’t about preventing murders but protecting tyrants). Then you have things that are even looser “guns” like flare guns (signaling/illumination) potato guns (good luck killing with one), railguns (The prototypes that exists now are for neutralizing targets, but one of the most popular proposed uses for the tech is actually shooting things into space relatively cheaply)
What Ralph said. I don’t want to kill anyone. And I haven’t(yet).
A gun is a ranged holepunch. Depending on the situation, the object perforated can be, among other things, a piece of paper or an animal.
Why do you think there are still so many gun-owners in places with restricted civil liberties (some parts of Canada, Greece, etc) where any handgun is required to be stored at a shooting club and is never allowed to leave with its owner? Because there are pieces of paper that need holes punched in them.
Killing people is illegal, and is frowned upon by a majority of the populace. There are times when it’s excusable or justifiable, in protection of oneself and one’s family, but what benefit is there in making the job of the antis (smearing you, me, and every other gunowner in the country as murderous lunatics who should have no say in the legislative process) easier for them?
Guns designed to deal with people, not hunting, are mostly used for persuading. If circumstances lead to fatal injuries then so be it.
Jumping straight to the “guns are for killing” fact, ignores all the other uses. If we are going to do that then we might as well say that the IRS is for killing.
I would be more inclined to point out objects and institutions not intended to be arms, in the U.S., are involved in more deaths in each instance than firearms.. Car murders, healthcare murders. Aren’t those 2 things designed specifically to be benign? They are certainly more regulated and vetted.
Guns are designed to shoot. Period.
Who or what they shoot is purely the shooters’ decision.
If guns are meant to kill, explain to me why I havent killed anyone, ever since I owned my first gun at 7yo?
I’m not much for sugar coating.
When I asked why I carry, my response is usually, “So I can shoot people…” Followed by a straight faced long pause.
I mean, like it or not, that’s why I carry that hunk of steel on my waist.
I disagree with his generalization that guns are designed for killing. I see guns as designed for many things, but their most important purpose being to ignite propellant and guide a projectile. The bullet is what may be designed for killing, but even then, not all bullets are designed for such purpose. Match Grade bullets are designed for punching holes in paper with accuracy, but are a poor design for hunting. Expanding and fragmenting bullets are more designed for killing but also have limitations and specific purposes depending on how used. Without bullets, guns are nothing more than a club or expensive, awesome paperweight. I think POTG just use the words they mean to say, we’re not sugar coating. Shoot to kill game ethically or stop threat of deadly nature immediately, sometimes both result in killing, but not always.
…because what America really needs right now is more stomach churning rhetoric.
No. A thousand times no. We have the advantage of the vast majority of the facts, the ability to expose the vast body of misrepresentations, deceit and outright lies coming from the other side, and 50 years of failed gun control policy here and abroad. I’m so sick of people – on both sides – reducing the entire debate to insufferably ignorant and belligerent one liners and memish appeals to abandon logic.
Saying that guns are just for killing is a blatant oversimplification, like saying that tasers are just for inflicting debilitating pain. They are deliberately conflating function and purpose.
A nuclear missile, when used, functions to destroy entire cities. But no country keeps nukes ‘to destroy cities’. It’s for defense, and moreso, deterrent. (To paraphrase Maj. Caudill) Having the means to end someone, to meet force with force, requires them to persuade you with things other than direct threat of harm. If the victim does not have the means to present a serious threat, then the conflict is decided by whomever is most willing and capable to inflict physical harm. (This is nearly always the aggressor, for many reasons I won’t go into here.) Guns are useful because they can kill. That is not their primary use, though.
Some of my guns aren’t for killing, unless rodents count.
Others are for killing, but for large animals with four feet.
The rest of my guns aren’t for killing, they’re for SCARING — killing is only a last resort.
They must be working, because a lot of liberals are scared even knowing I have guns, they don’t even need to see them.
STOP letting the gun-grabbers define the narrative!!!
Whenever a gun-grabber claims, “Guns are only designed for killing,” they are attempting to evoke an emotional response of utter revulsion and disgust and make firearm ownership morally reprehensible/untenable.
Our response to such a gun-grabber must be:
“And your [gun-grabber] efforts to disarm us guarantee that violent criminals will rob, beat, cripple, rape, and kill us!” This response makes their position morally reprehensible/unforgivable/untenable and shows them to be the real monsters.
And there’s more…
There are those (<- Where have I heard that before?) who kill as the goal. There are others who kill, regretfully, only as a last unfortunate resort. These are those of us who have a gun hoping they'll never use it; who show or carry a gun, stopping violence that never gets reported, because it didn't happen.
The gun of a peaceful, responsible gun owner, though it can be used to kill, won't, unless to stop another killing. These are the ones, who, being among us, with guns, make our world more peaceful.
This is why it is so important when we try to limit the damage that predators, thugs, crazies and terrorists can do, that we remember that guns in the hands of people who don't want to use them, actually help our cause. This is why we have to be so careful, that in trying to limit the damage that predators, thugs, crazies and terrorists choose to cause, we don't demand that someone lie down and die on our behalf.
Huh. It seems that writing that sounds kinda like the voice of President Obama isn't that hard. I wonder why all the praise for it, back in the day. (Aside from "Doesn't sound like George W. Bush.", which I get. I couldn't stand listening to President Bush spoke, regardless of whether I agreed or not. No, it's not "nu-ku-ler.")
Or maybe the whole "Orator" thing was hype.
“STOP letting the gun-grabbers define the narrative!!!”
+1000. The 2nd Amendment was written for the express purpose of giving an armed citizenry the right to defend both themselves and the nation. The politics of gun-ownership and use evolve from that fundamental idea which originated in a revolutionary society. Although there are strong political forces working to change us, we are still a revolutionary society and those established self-defense needs are as valid today as they were at the time of the American Revolution. As far as I’m concerned, that is my narrative when I talk to gun-grabbers. They can go on and on about times being different, “military weapons” being different from muskets, etc., etc., but they can’t get around the fact that when something was put into our nation’s constitution our founders had a good reason for doing so. Current events prove this to be so. Guns are for killing. It’s when you chose to do it that’s important.
Exactly. Their argument for disarmament is alway based on emotion and fear.
They argue with emotions and gun rights advocate argue with statistics.
The emotional part of their argument has to be turned against them.
My MP Shield has one purpose, to protect myself, my kids, and my grandkids.
Not to kill anyone. There may be consequences if I have to protect us.
To take my right to protect my kids away *is* morally reprehensible.
And they will have blood on their hands if they are responsible for leaving innocent people defenseless.
Yes, they are designed for killing. That doesn’t mean a damn thing. There are a lot of things that are designed for killing and we don’t need an excuse to own them. The right to bear arms is about the fundamental right as a living creature to survive. The means we choose to survive is irrelevant; some people choose to rely on society, laws and the hope of a savior in a government agency while others choose to place that faith in his or herself alone.
I thought rifles were for killing and guns were for fun?
My mindset is “don’t draw unless you would be justified in shooting, and don’t shoot unless you would be justified in killing.” In most states, a shot fired constitutes deadly physical force.
If you are going to shoot, you should shoot to kill.
If your attacker wants to kill you, then you should be willing to kill them, or else the deck is stacked against you from the beginning.
I would day two things here.
First, there are guns that are designed as target guns. Tricked out target rifles and pistols in .22LR come to mind.
Second, is a gun “meant to kill”? No. It’s meant to allow you to stop someone or something from doing something that poses a threat to you or some innocent/friendly person without having to close distance to physically touch them or reach them with a handheld impliment such as a knife, sword or bat. If the person you shoot dies, well that sucks for them but I’d they hadn’t been doing what they shouldn’t have been doing they’d still be breathing.
On top of that the majority of people shot, whether in civilian life or on a battlefield do not die. Instead they are wounded and require medical attention. There is, generally speaking, no reason to off them once they’re down because they’re out of the fight and no longer present a threat to you or your “side”. They can be collected by medical personnel, patched up and go on with living. In either case, civilian or military, shooting a wounded person who’s no longer a threat or someone who has surrendered is considered poor form.
Humans have two ways of dealing with each other, pursuasion or force. When pursuasion fails force is the only option. A gun provides both (as statistics show). Death is only a side effect of someone who was so he’ll bent on not changing their bahvior that they got ventilated. A gun is a tool of behavior modification which gives you the chance to use pursuasion and then force without changing the tool at hand.
+1 … especially the remarks about persuasion and force
So is my competition target 22 for killing then? I’ve had this conversation with people of all political leanings throughout my life, and I always stand by my assertion: a firearm’s purpose is to harness the power of a small, controlled explosion to propel a projectile (or projectiles) to something at a distance. What that projectile hits lies squarely on the person using it. I use my AR to punch holes in paper. I use various rim fires and shotguns to hunt squirrel and other small game. I carry a cz 75 rami in case I ever need to protect myself from a sudden and imminent threat. Again, I am responsible to where those projectiles go. It doesn’t matter the caliber, action, or capacity of said firearm.
I only counted 5 shots.
I just tell people straight up that I love guns and want to collect every last gun with an ounce of character.
The term “stop the threat” is perfectly descriptive and logical. If the (deadly) attacker can be stopped by merely seeing the “victim” displaying a firearm, then fine; threat stopped. If the (deadly) attacker can be stopped from attacking by receiving a single “flesh wound”, then fine; threat stopped. If the (deadly) attacker can be stopped by being dead, then fine; threat stopped.
I think all we need do is present the “threat stopper” theme to the anti-gun crowd, while pointing out to gun owners that they must be ready to accept that the death of an attacker may be the only means by which to stop a threat. We should be declaring that guns offer multiple capabilities for stopping a threat, from display to possible death. Guns are a multiple-capability tool designed to defend the owner and the owner’s family. Killing is only one facet (except I don’t know of any hunters who would go out expecting that displaying a gun would cause an animal to calmly surrender, or give up the ghost after a mere “flesh wound”).
When you say “sugar coating guns” it makes me think of g96 triple action… Mmmmmm.
Hmmm… I do not carry to kill. I carry so I do not become the victim.
I NEVER bought any of my guns and thought to myself, “Yep this one will kill someone real good…real good indeed!”, but I never bought a gun where at some point I did not consider its effectiveness at killing living creatures, including, specifically people. So, to my mind, I have never felt I “sugar coated” the fact that firearms are used to kill other Humans and do it very effectively, but I never wanted to kill anyone else and my motivations for selecting various guns I bought never had to do with killing first and foremost.
Start with ending the naming of AR rifles as “Modern Sporting Rifles.” They are weapons of war. That is what the right is about. A right to possess the same basic weapons of war as professional soldiers would use. It is not about a right to guns that “the government approves of for civilian uses.” No more than the right to free speech is a right to speech that the “government approves of.”
The reason for banning cosmetic features of guns is those cosmetics generally apply only to a group of firearms that are seen as too dangerous for private ownership. Why get all tangled up in definitions of “assault weapons”? Simply ban the features that are most common to “scary” guns, and you get all the “assault weapons”. As a bonus, if you write the regulations/legislation properly, you can end up banning all multi-round capable guns (as in semi-auto, no matter the gun). Simple economy of action.
So, “cosmetic features” are definitely important.
Live by the sword, die by the sword. If somebody initiates violence against me, I will show no compunction about returning it in spades, and I have no qualms about killing them. Let’s be honest: most criminals are barely more than rabid dogs, and rabid dogs get put down.
Think of all the people who murdered somebody for their Air Jordans, or because they were “disrespected”. Do you honestly think they’d spare your life if the shoe was on the other foot?
My goal is to kill the enemy. Anybody who tries to take my life, morally speaking, deserves death. But… That isn’t kosher to say. Instead we talk about “foot pounds of energy” and other legal jargon.
One thing we are sugar coating if not misrepresenting is that the AR-15 sold to private citizens is not suitable as a weapon of war knowing full well that US military doctrine is aimed semiautomatic fire because it is more effective, i.e., more lethal. If the gun grabbers were smart they would only allow non select fire ARs to be sold with the weapon set a full auto. Few would be sold because most people couldn’t afford the ammo bill.
If you want an omelette, you need to break some eggs. Did you break an egg in intent to KILL unbegotten chicken, or to FEED your self?
The biggest problem of modern society is that it’s too wimpy to face the fact of egg-breaking rules of nature. They grown up with urban comfort, blister packed sandwiches, Wander(fakken prick)-over-Yonder-style “happy end for everyone” mindset. They aren’t know taste of soil, they aren’t slaughtered livestock.
So, yes, gun-pro society needs to be more straight and clear. The harder we shake they paradigm, the faster it shifts to somewhere. May be it’s not the best way, but I prefer fast and painful cut instead of slowly degenerating tumor. Because there is no cure, there is no “happy end for everyone”. Someone will be supressed anyway. Experience of predecessors said that the future of freedom and rights always screwed up in long terms.