But Guns were Designed For Killing!

Before you read this, go read "Should we have gun control? More guns, less? No matter what your opinion is, please read".

Another good video is "But Guns Were Designed For Killing!".

I get the point of this type of argument, along with its bastard relatives such as "no sporting purpose" but how much water does it really hold?

Let's take sports cars, for example. If they were originally made to drive at speeds higher than what is safe or legal for most roads, does it mean that most people who own or drive them do such a thing? Should we refuse to register them as street legal just for that? Or should we restrict people who prove themselves to be a unnecessary danger to others from operating vehicles on public roads?

Another example: everyday items, such as knives, baseball bats, hammers, screwdrivers, etc. They are designed to do things other than attack people. So, does it mean that it would be rare to nonexistent that such items would be used to attack others? Heck no! They are commonly used to attack other people. Yet should they be classified as highly restricted weapons (such as missile launchers & fragmentation grenades) for this? Or should we allow law enforcement & private security to keep doing their jobs, perhaps improve security at public places, & maybe, just maybe, expand background checks for arms & perhaps armor (which, as long as it's quick and accurate, I don't mind) to these items?

Yet another example is military surplus weapons & civilian-purposed weapons. Specifically, let's take the M1 Garand & the M1 carbine, 2 rifles designed & put into mass service in early World War 2 & before the Korean war. Back then, they were commonly used to kill fellow human beings. But, fast forward a few decades, what are they used for now, especially since the former uses an 8 round en-bloc clip that is loaded from the top & the latter uses very small short-range cartridges? Hunting, recreation, & collecting, mainly. It is pretty rare to see the M1 carbine being used in crime anymore, & I have not found any violent crimes or terrorist incidents, except for Charles Whitman's attack, where the M1 Garand was ever used. Though now not often used in this role anymore, the M1 carbine was, more or less, the AR-15 of its day: a semi-automatic rifle commonly held by the good, the bad, & the ugly for many reasons.

Similar case with the Lee-Enfield, which is a bolt-action main battle rifle with a 10 shot magazine that is detatchable (some earlier variants had a chain to the magazine to keep it from being lost). It was originally designed before World War 1, & was also used to kill people. But, the situation is the same with the M1 Garand, except that it is occasionally encountered in places like Pakistan & Afghanistan, but still, most of today's owners aren't shooting innocent people with it. They were all originally designed to kill, but is it their purpose now? There's something call "repurposing".

What else do these 3 rifles have in common? They're obsolete, outdated & inadequate for mainstream military use. Also not the best choices for carrying out mass civilian-on-civilian killings (except maybe for the M1 carbine, albeit not being very powerful).

A similar example can be seen in civilian-purposed hunting rifles, which are meant for target shooting and for hunting. Does it mean that military or law enforcement couldn't use them as sniper rifles? Again, heck no! In fact, the Winchester model 70, for instance, was made primarily as a hunting rifle. But it wasn't long until militaries & law enforcement paramilitary (ie SWAT) teams got ahold of them, & you know what they used those for.

Interestingly, the action of the Winchester model 70 came from the Gewehr 98 Mauser-rifle action, which was a weapon of war, mainstream for the militaries of the day. Yet does the same perfectly hold true for its mechanically related offspring?

Lastly, there are many millions of land vehicles on the road today. If their purpose is transportation, then is that their only use? No. There have been many rampages with vehicles before, & many more wrecks & accidents, proof that design of an object has little to no real control on intent of the operator or user.

If design had real control over intent, then does it mean that if you found a bonesaw, would it make you want to cut off a limb with it?

Now, decide for yourself what's more important: design, or intent?

Bonus:
Here's my response to Rant: Obama Administration Reverses Course, Forbids Sale of 850,000 Antique Rifles.

I agree with your views in this video almost 100%, but not with your logic perfectly. The way I see it, M1 Garands and M1 carbines are deadly weapons that makes it easier to kill people. In comparison with the piece of wire (which is not so easy to kill people with), if someone gets their filthy hands on one of these, they can do damage. But here's the kicker; not only are these firearms antiquated (the M1A, for example, would work better than the M1 Garand becuase it is fed by a detachable box magazine), but also, VERY few people get killed by rifles. According to the FBI's Expanded Homicide Data Table 8, out of the 8,855 victims of firearm related homicide, only 322 of those were rifles. Divide 8,855 by 322 and we get 27.5% of firearms homicides being committed with rifles, less than 3 out of 10. What really gets interesting is that if we divide some exaggerated numbers, like, say, 290,000,000 people being the population of the Corporate United States of America, and 30,000 of them are being killed in something related to firearms each year, BOTH homicides and suicides. Divide 30,000 by 290,000,000, and your overall chances of being killed in some firearms related incident is like 0.00010344827. And becuase these are exaggerated numbers, the real figure is probably going to be even lower. Besides, I agree that self defense is a human right, and the right to keep and bear arms goes hand in hand with that. I am STRONGLY pro self defense and the right to keep and bear arms, and so is tens of millions of brothers and sisters not only in America, but throughout the world. Heck, it is a huge priority to me (being a close 2nd to spreading political truth and awareness). Otherwise, I agree with you perfectly, and I appreciate that you are awake and distrust both the Democrats and Republicans, and realize that we are living in a country that has been sold out to corporations and foreign interest groups by its own government. It feels good to find another awake human being out there. Hoorah!