Welcome to new members who, just coincidentally, use assault rifles to hunt!

[AtheistCrusader]

326. Yes I do.

"So you have guns that won't kill a person, even in the "best case" scenario?"

Sure. There's lots that aren't suitable for that purpose. On both ends of the spectrum. On the upper end of the spectrum you likely cast doubt upon yourself that you were engaged in a justifiable homicide, and also put a hole in anything standing downrange behind your target. The police spend quite a bit of time and effort selecting weapons and ammunition that don't over-penetrate for this reason. My deer rifle doesn't just penetrate a deer or a bear, but the passage of the bullet is measured in 'dwell time' within the animal. It'll go right through a 400lb deer. It'll go right through a 600lb bear. The only time it was ever considered suitable for human, was in WWI, and that's because people standing behind the person you were shooting at probably needed to be shot anyway.

On the lower end of the spectrum, there are some that I would not cheerfully ask you to shoot me with to prove my point, but they cannot be reasonably considered to be useful for the purpose of killing humans. Injuring, at best.

"It's still killing somebody, and you're still just agreeing with my point."

Not necessarily. More of those lawful DGU's involved injuries than fatalities.

But lets assume the worst. A lawful DGU in which the attacker was correctly identified as presenting a reasonable apprehension of death or grievous harm to the armed victim, and the victim shoots the attacker and kills him or her outright.

We would be splitting metaphysical hairs if I said the firearm in question was used to preserve human life, and you said the firearm was used to kill human life.