Losing Arguments

Bit of a combo post. First a reference to a post by Sebastian Talks about the press to revoke Finnish gun rights. The Finns, like most Europeans are quick to fall back on “Sporting” uses of guns. Of course just about any place that still has rural land will have a hunting culture, and things like target shooting and clay shooting are very very old games of skill. But the argument is a looser. I’ll be the first to say that places like Great Briton might as well just cede their remaining gun rights entirely. All they have now are approved sports with approved guns, and things like personal defense are virtually non-existent, and gun ownership comes with such a burden that only the wealthy and well-connected can engage in said sports. So something like trap shooting, that one might find in a rural back yard as commonly as at any gun club out there, is suddenly a wealthy man’s pastime. It might as well be polo. There is no self-defense, but there can still be gun accidents, misuse of guns, and theft by criminals. And of course, like drugs, criminals have resources to acquire contraband from around the world. Heroin comes from central Asia, why not just add a few guns to the shipment?

If the Finns simply hold onto the “Sporting” issue they’re doomed to the same fate. Notice I put “Sporting” in quotes. Well what’s a sport? What will the law recognize as a sport? Were will the law cede? I target shoot with handguns….you can’t do that in England anymore, you need to use a long-gun. You can still target shoot if its rim-fire or center-fire, so why not cede that? Do you need a magazine to shoot targets? Do you need self-contained cartridges?

How about hunting? Lot of people zap deer with rifles, but can’t you do just as well with shotguns? Yeah, and do you really need more than a double-barrel? Single Barrel? Why don’t you just use a black-powder gun? Compound bows work good too….

See? Born loser. Not only that but hunting land, and places where you can shoot can be restricted, until finally you can only hunt or shoot at certain clubs at certain times, and those places might be getting pressure to shut down….

There is NOTHING wrong with sporting with guns, and I think that stuff is great, but if you hang your hat on it, you’ll soon find you have no ground to stand on.

There are all sorts of arguments from the anti-gun side that are born losers too.
“I don’t own a gun because I don’t want to get shot!” (Yeah because all people who were shot had guns)
“I don’t want a gun because I don’t want to be afraid!” (HUH???)
“I don’t NEED a gun because nobody has guns around here.” (How well you gonna fare if a big guy without a gun decides to tune you up with a tree branch?)
“If you draw a gun the other guy will just take it away and shoot you!” (Hmm, why does a gun only work with the other guy is holding it? Can’t I take it back from him? If somebody pulls a gun on me can I just take it away from them? How can you take a gun away from me when I’m shooting you?)
“A gun in your house is 8,652X more likely to kill you or your kids than protect you” (Prove it…I’ll wait!)
“Resisting during a rape will just get your face bashed in or worse. Self defense in reality does not work.” (YIKES, so what should you do, just lay there and think about flowers? Also what about all those murder cases where the corpse showed signs of sexual assault before death….)

I’ve heard all of these, and many more. But Joe quotes a good one here
“Teaching a child to shoot is teaching a child to kill. It’s what guns are used for.”

I actually went back-and-forth a few times with Joe over this statement, but personally I think the “Guns are just made/used to kill” is a winning argument.

Isn’t hunting all about killing a game animal?
Isn’t Clay Shooting simply a variation on bird hunting?
Isn’t Action shooting and Practical Shooting simply training and contests around deadly force self-defense?
Even an Olympic target pistol in .22 LR can kill people and animals.

You can split hairs, but in the end you’ll be arguing minutiae, and you’ll loose.

Bottom line, “What’s wrong with killing?” Obviously murder, accidental death, and destruction of property (such as shooting pets or livestock), and poaching are bad things. But they’re also ILLEGAL things, no matter how society treats guns. Also these laws are independent of the tool used, kill somebody with a rock, a gun, or your car intentionally and maliciously and you’re looking at murder. Poach game with a shotgun, a BB gun, or a snare trap and its still illegal, and you’ll be cited if caught.

But what about Justifiable homicide? Lawful self defense is the big elephant in the room for anybody against gun rights. They’re either unaware of it, or are ignoring it for the sake of their ideology.

I think its 100% OK if a woman is being raped she resist the attack as hard as she can. If the rapist dies in the process, I have no issue with that. Same goes for any other deadly threat.

If the person making the “Guns are Just for Killing” wants to argue AGAINST justifiable homicide, let them, for they just chose a losing argument!

Now Joe and I discussed a bit about stopping power, and lethal force and such. He’s 100% correct, you don’t shoot an attacker to kill them you simply shoot to STOP them. Death is irrelevant in personal defense, the only thing relevant is your safety. If you pull a gun and the attacker runs away. You’re alive! That’s good! Who cares what happens to the other guy. I hope the cops catch them, but for you the scenario is over. Now lets say somebody attacks you and you manage to shoot them in the gut. They then beat you to death, and leave the scene, later to die of blood loss in your stolen car. What good did that death do to you? NOTHING. So only the stopping is important. Even more so, if you shoot somebody and they stop (say due to loss of consciousness) you can’t give them another shot to “Finish them Off”, a Coup De Grace is MURDER in US law, so that death is actually BAD for you.

But the above is only interesting if the subject appeals to you. If you spend too much time arguing stopping shots, and shot placement, and hydrostatic shots, center of mass, limb speed, ect ect, you can loose focus and stray from the subject.

As I said here Just about any shot placed on the body can be fatal, so for the sake of simplicity, you can cede that using deadly force CAN kill your attacker.

So guns ARE just for killing. And there is NOTHING wrong with that, thank you for recognizing my right to self-protection and deadly-force. I’m glad you support my right to keep and bear arms!

This entry was posted in Guns, Politics, Self Defense. Bookmark the permalink.

18 Responses to Losing Arguments

  1. Bob S. says:


    I agree with your points about the “sporting” issue being a loosing proposition — if that is the primary reason.

    I have a firearm that I use primarily for self defense but I am using it for sporting purposes now and will be more so in the future. My right to self defense is augmented by the right to engage in a sport.

    As I said here Just about any shot placed on the body can be fatal, so for the sake of simplicity, you can cede that using deadly force CAN kill your attacker.

    I will absolutely agree that deadly force can kill my attacker — but as you point out — I’m not trying to kill — just stop.

    What I mention over on my blog is that I’m very concerned about not only stopping my attacker but not stopping/killing anyone else. That is why center of mass shots are so important.

    So guns ARE just for killing.

    I’ll disagree with this blanket statement — I think that all guns can be used for killing just like all knives can be used for killing.

    But a specialized .22 rifle used by the TCU rifle team isn’t just for killing. It is for a sporting purpose. Just as a race car is used as for a sport but can kill anyone it runs over. I will agree that I’m okay with all guns being able to kill.

    Just like I’m okay with all airplanes being able to kill.

  2. Weerd Beard says:

    First up, I would say so long as you have defensive guns, “Sporting” falls right into place behind it. I shoot sporting clays with my HD-shotgun. I target shoot, and plan to shoot IDPA with one of my 1911s. And if I have guns to defensively use what harm are my collectibles?

    Also you point is a valid one, but NO ITEM is for just one purpose. We’ve all seen a knife with a snapped off tip because somebody was using it for a screw driver or a pry bar. We unbend paperclips for a myriad of uses. I’ve tossed a sleeping back in the back of my truck and used the covered bed as a tent. Ect ect ect.

    You and I both will agree that a TCU rifle isn’t a killing implement, hell my Mosin Nagant M1891 infantry rifles were made for war, but I don’t even see them as killing tools, but we aren’t anti-gun. I think making that small concession in their favor concedes little on our point, but CRUSHES the core of their argument in one measured swoop.

    • Bob S. says:


      I think that saying/admitting all guns can be used to kill is the concession but forces the reality of sporting purposes.

      I wish you could have met the TCU Rifle team when they came out to talk to our club — a group of mannered, well spoken, educated, young ladies — hardly the typical wielders of death and destruction the antis portray. Just talking to them about politics and life, you wouldn’t know they took the championship this year.

      Seeing them and their rifles, even the antis would have to admit the sporting purpose!

      I think that we need to preempt the arguments like only made to kill by doing this — pointing out what uses they are and what other things can be used to kill. I’m tired of being on the defensive about our rights. I’m tired of trying not to scare the undecided — especially because some many people on our side think ill of the undecided.

      They aren’t sheep, they are uneducated. There is a huge difference. If we treat them with arrogance, then that is the message they get. If we treat them like adults -admit “yes, this gun can kill but it’s purpose is to put holes in the same spot on a piece of paper over and over again” or “yes, this gun can kill but it can also save my life or the life of my family — you don’t have a problem with people protecting their families, do you?”

      Treat them like adults and then show that we expect to be treated the same way.

  3. Pingback: Weer'd World » Gun Control: Works Good!

  4. Pingback: Weer'd World » Gun Control: Works Good!

  5. Pingback: Weer'd World » Gun Control: Works Good!

  6. Pingback: Weer'd World » Gun Control: Works Good!

  7. Pingback: Weer'd World » Gun Control: Works Good!

  8. Pingback: Weer'd World » Gun Control: Works Good!

  9. Pingback: Weer'd World » Gun Control: Works Good!

  10. Wally says:

    I have many many guns that would never kill. The 30″ o/u and 32″ SxS are only for clay birds. The 22 bull barrel pistols only punch paper. The HBAR loves 600yard bullseye. My great uncles Iver Johnson was carried – and used – for protection but now it’s a keepsake.

    The polymer pistols and short barreled rifles, however, are 100% optimized to stop zombies – and will do exactly as they are told.

  11. Pingback: Weer'd World » Zealotry

  12. Pingback: Weer'd World » Zealotry

  13. Pingback: Weer'd World » Zealotry

  14. Pingback: Weer'd World » Zealotry

  15. Pingback: Weer'd World » Zealotry

  16. Pingback: Weer'd World » Zealotry

  17. Pingback: Weer'd World » Zealotry

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.