Reply #8: Very weak analogy.

[Straw Man]

Many hobbyists do in fact use screwdrivers for entertainment. Are they kidding themselves? Deluding themselves into thinking that they are enjoying themselves, when if fact they are just obsessively screwing things? Screwlust? Furthermore, while they are in fact "screwing" for enjoyment, millions of people use firearms recreationally without killing a single thing.

Of course the shooting sports have their origins in preparations for hunting and war. But I challenge you to watch an NFL game and deny that football also has its origins in combat. Baseball too, and soccer, and lacrosse, and don't even get me started on polo.

This thread is rife with tortured semantics: "The purpose of a gun is to kill." The indefinite article "a" denotes "any." This shotgun



is designed for, intended for, marketed for, purchased for, and used for knocking down clay discs that are flying through the air from a distance of 16 to about 100 yards. How is that not its "purpose"? It is capable of killing, certainly, but I would venture that few if any have been used for that. It is not a hunting gun, and it is not a combat weapon. There are guns that are much better suited to those purposes.

Hunting guns are most definitely designed for and used for killing. The best hunting gun is the one that kills most quickly, both to spare the animal from prolonged suffering and to save the hunter a long and possibly unsuccessful trek after wounded prey. A very large and powerful cartridge is desirable. Combat weapons, however, are designed with other considerations in mind, such as how much ammunition a soldier can feasibly carry. The purpose of a military firearms is to render an adversary unable to fight, and killing may not be necessary or even desirable. Lethality must be balanced with logistics, which explains the universal move to smaller-caliber infantry weapons after WWII.

Let's talk about defensive weapons for a moment, shall we? Is their "purpose... to kill"? I would say that their purpose is to project violence or the threat of violence onto an aggressor for the purpose of halting aggression. If actual violence occurs, it may or may not be lethal; the threat of violence is obviously not lethal, yet it may be sufficient to achieve the desired purpose, which is to ensure personal safety. Of course, the same gun could be wielded by the aggressor for offensive purposes, which may or may not include killing. I would venture that the purpose of the tool depends on the intention of its wielder, but of course your camp doesn't like that formulation.

What I'm hearing is a lot of sloppy language and sloppy logic being used to promote an agenda. Good luck with your yawn... doublespeak.