Thursday, November 19, 2015

Guns have only one purpose

One of the standard arguments that pro-gun supporters make against the gun control crowd is that "[Gun control freaks] know nothing about guns. If [gun control freaks] knew how to shoot a gun, they would be pro-gun, and support open carry, and support assault weapons and high capacity magazines, because they would know that they would be able to protect themselves with a gun."

Ok...if you insist.

But here is the thing, I grew up around guns and was taught how to use them and I am a member of the gun control crowd. I also received a certain amount of military style training. With practice, I am quite sure that I could hit the broadside of a barn. Yet I turned into someone who would like to see the existing gun control laws actually enforced properly.

And I know exactly why.

I was taught that hunting rifles and shotguns have a purpose, primarily hunting tasty meat, but can be misused to KILL other human beings. And that all other guns (handguns, assault weapons) have a single purpose: To KILL other human beings. I was taught never to pull out a gun and point it at another person unless I intended to KILL them.

Yes, I was taught that if a gun is involved in a non-hunting situation, then someone is going to die. Period. End of story. Because guns outside of a wilderness situation only have one purpose--and that is to kill.

When you argue self-defense, you are arguing that you should be allowed to kill someone. When you argue that you need a gun to protect yourself from the government, you are arguing that you should be allowed to kill someone. When you argue that teachers should carry guns, you are arguing that they should be allowed to kill someone. And adding more guns to a situation just means that more people are going to die.

Please note this is why I am never surprised when a cop kills someone. In my mind, the instant a cop pulls a gun out, someone is going to die. Because a gun only has one purpose---to KILL. In fact, I am surprised that more people are not killed by cops.

And yes, by this same thought process (intended purpose determines lawfulness), I do not believe that we need to outlaw axes, cars, airplanes, fast food, etc. Because axes have a purpose other than killing. Cars have a purpose other than killing. Airplanes have a purpose other than killing. Fast food...well, I would like to think that Burger King is not trying to kill their customers.

But I would like to see laws enforced to make sure that people do not kill others using these other technologies. For instance, drunks should not be allowed to drive cars or other vehicles.

Of course, if you really want to argue that we need to outlaw everything that can kill---because you have a gun fetish---well, that is simple: outlaw humans. Because the number one cause of murder and terrorism just happens to be...humans.

So just remember that when you argue for your rights to have a gun, what I hear is that you believe that you have the right to kill other people, including me and my loved ones.


SeekInfinity-ICTX said...

I value freedom more than life. So I will say yes, one does have the right and I believe it is right to kill those who directly threaten ones freedom because a life without freedom isn't worth living.
Are you a true pacifist who believes violence or killing is unjustified under any circumstances whatsoever?

Und jetzt auch noch das... said...

Interresting that you mentioned threats to your freedom and not threats towards your life. So what freedoms you are talking about that would justify you killing someone?

SeekInfinity-ICTX said...

1. I would like a quick way to kill MYSELF rather than be forced by court order to regularly be injected with medication.

2. I support armed anarchist revolution if the people in general are ready for it; as they currently are not and are not inclined to take up the black flag of anarchy this is not currently a concern. You can't force anarchy on people, the concept makes no sense/contradicts the definition of anarchism as understood by anarchists(most people have a completely distorted idea of anarchism based it seems on what can be considered a form of society-wide Stockholm syndrome). Peaceful revolution would also be preferable but it's unlikely the current system will let go peacefully even if the majority of people did wish to be rid of it. I do support anarchists taking and attempting to hold and defend small amounts of 'free territory' if this does not involve imposing anarchy on anyone, but it would be difficult to do this and have a functional anarchist society because there would be constant attacks from outside the territory and attempts to ruin what is trying to be built there.

3. Attempts at enslavement and human trafficking still happen; if someone attempts to enslave you killing them is not a bad thing, and in fact it is a joyous occasion for the world to be rid of slavers.

4. ANY freedom, freedom in general; oppression can only exist where there is an imbalance of power. Being capable of killing ones oppressors is a great equalizer.
5. The freedom to not be raped.

6. The freedom to not be locked up.

7. The freedom to not be killed if that is not ones wish, and be able to die if that's what one wishes.

The ocelot said...

I do agree - a handgun, to quote Skynard, is for killing. However, someone who appears ready and willing to seriously harm or kill me or anyone I care for is someone I'll take the karmic hit for killing. If I can stop then with a non-lethal shoot, fine - but I think they'd better hope the cops come to collect them before I decide to patch them up so as to make cursing the ever-living beejezus out of them more convenient.