This is nonsense. The purpose of a gun is to kill. It serves no other purpose. The purpose of a car is to transport people and goods. Deaths may occur as a result of their use, predominantly through accidents. We seek to minimise those accidents by training drivers and by better safety measures in cars to allow people to survive accidents. Cars are also logged, insured, maintained by law and so on. There is far less regulation around guns - there was a specific correlation made between cars and rifles when then shooters rifle was found ie finding the rifle would not necessarily be of much use as ownership is not recorded as stringently as a car.
There is no specific need to own a gun. It’s only function is to kill or wound people, and both these activities are illegal. You can argue in rural areas a farmer may need a weapon, but even here it’s a stretch. If a legitimate case can be made - protecting livestock from predators - then exceptions can be made, but these should be exceptions not the rule and there should be strict control over the type of weapon and mandatory training of use of the weapon. No one needs to own an assault rifle.
The car example can be applied to other activities. We consume food, sometimes that food can lead to death by choking or be contaminated. ‘But we have decided the benefits of eating out weigh the possibility of death’ ergo we should allow people to carry deadly assault rifles whose only function is to kill or wound people?
Finally, ask Charlie Kirk how he views gun ownership and the right of people to carry them. Oh, wait. You can’t because he is fucking dead.
So, you reckon Kirk won the gun debate?
"This is nonsense. The purpose of a gun is to kill. It serves no other purpose."
False. Guns are tools with multiple uses beyond killing. For example:
Self-Defense. Many people own guns to protect themselves or their families. The intent is to deter or stop a threat, not necessarily to kill. The 1995 study by Gary Kleck, estimated there were 2.5 million defensive gun uses annually in the U.S. often without firing a shot.
Sport & Recreation.
Hunting.
Law Enforcement. Police use guns to maintain order and protect public safety, often aiming to subdue rather than kill.
"The purpose of a car is to transport people and goods. Deaths may occur as a result of their use, predominantly through accidents."
A gun’s purpose is shaped by the user’s intent. A hammer can kill, but its primary purpose is to drive nails. Similarly, a gun’s purpose varies—whether it’s for sport, protection, or harm depends on the wielder. Claiming all gun use is about killing ignores these distinctions.
So it's not "vile" to accept there will be deaths due to car ownership but "vile" to accept that deaths will result from gun ownership? Strange logic.
"There is no specific need to own a gun. It’s only function is to kill or wound people"
False. As rebutted above.
"‘But we have decided the benefits of eating out weigh the possibility of death’ ergo we should allow people to carry deadly assault rifles whose only function is to kill or wound people?
False equivalence. We would die if we didn't eat. Similarly, a gun can save someone's life from an attacker.
"Finally, ask Charlie Kirk how he views gun ownership and the right of people to carry them. Oh, wait. You can’t because he is fucking dead."
So ask someone's who's life was saved because they carried a gun. What do you think the answer would be?
A county prosecutor said the woman acted in self-defense and ruled it was a case of justifiable homicide in a case review.
www.nbcnews.com
Your argument fails because it generalizes a gun's function and ignoring diverse uses, user intent, or specific designs. Guns can kill, but their purpose is not inherently or exclusively to do so.
