Quote:
|
Originally Posted by AB
I don't argue that my guns were not designed for killing.
|
I don't either,
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by AB
I've heard that, too. "Guns don't kill people, people kill people."
Has that argument stopped a single anti-gun legislative initiative ... anywhere, ever? If not, then I respectfully submit that it's a rather poor counter argument.
|
I don't know whether it has played a role in stopping a single anti-gun initiative. It is simple, and unnuanced, so it avoids two of your objections to more detailed analysis. It also illustrates the salient different between a morally neutral object and a moral actor in just seven words. If explaining that illustrates the problem with neutral object restrictions, then it may be an important part of the conversations that inform public sentiment.
It's a problem when people weigh the truth or accuracy of a statement less than what sort of result the statement will elicit.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by zuk
Why not just say "Guns can be lethal"? That certainly reflects one possible result of use, but it doesn't quite suggest an evil intent.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by AB
Because the anti-gun people don't say "Guns can be lethal," they say "Guns are only good for killing."
|
Why not say "Some modern firearms are optimized for stopping people immediately"? That seems to be the focus of defensive use literature, but "stopping people" doesn't sound all that bad.
Why not say "Firearms are often used to kill people"? That's true, but raises the question about how they are more often used by civilians and police for other purposes. |
I'm sure that someone has asserted that they are only good for killing. My point above is that given so many more reasonable options, "guns are designed for killing" appears to indulge errors so profound that accepting it as true will have you building on those errors.