I said "made for".

Chainsaws were made to cut down trees.
Knives were made to cut food, branches, etc.
Baseball bats were made to hit baseballs.
Cars were made for transporation.
Guns were made to kill.

If a gun were made that could do everything it can currently do other than killing, would that be an improvement?

The answer is yes for chainsaws, knives, baseball bats, and cars.

I have seen and owned many guns that were made solely for the purpose of:
art
being a collectible item
target shooting, both competitive and hobby
skeet shooting
cross country skiing completions
and others
You have no idea of what you speak.

If I promise, cross my heart, to sell, destroy any weapons that I might have, will it stop this horse shit?
Damn. I can't believe folks let kids jack them up. Take a break!

Guns are made for lots of things and not all of them are killing. In fact killing isn't even the main reason guns are made. Those who make claims to the contrary are only displaying their own personal bias and complete ignorance in the matter.

The knife (and in fact all sharp blades) were made for both killing (hunting) and for food preparation. The first knives were made from sharp rocks. Only later were blades used for other things like cutting down trees. This is where the chainsaw came from.

The baseball bat is a modern version of the club which also goes back to caveman days and was also used for the killing of animals, and other cavemen.

Cars were meant for transportation, but like the knife, and the bat, and the gun, it can be made into a weapon. There is no inanimate object that is inherently made for killing. Nuclear weapons weren't even made for killing. They were made for defending, and for letting others know they shouldn't attack us. Nuclear weapons, guns, and all weapons have a main purpose and that purpose is to PREVENT killing by giving us a means to defend ourselves and hopefully scare off would-be attackers.

Actually no, the Nuke was pretty specifically made just to kill and end WWII, and later ADAPTED to use as deterrent.

Guns are made to make money, just like everything else. If there were no profit in it, the only guns would be homemade ones. This may not be a terribly useful thought, but it's another tangent for those grasping at straws to keep this thread going....

here's another.

The constitution gives right to bear arms/bare arms/whatever. Would it be unconstitutional to insist that everyone had a gun? Is there a right to be unarmed? Would gun crime be reduced if everyone were armed?

Uh oh, we've already been down that bumpy, dead-end road. Or maybe it was more of a cul-de-sac, or roundabout.

I have no idea what I speak? Maybe you should try to understand what I say before you rant on something I am not talking about.

I know guns can be used for other purposes, but their main purpose is to kill. In modern day society, the chainsaw's, knife's, and baseball bat's main purpose is not to kill, but for some other reason.

:D

OK let's try the kindergarten approach......

next one to post is a big fat bottom burp :D

Whoops, that's me! I had too much fiber today. :o

I can tell right now where your difficulty lies: you're denying that it is possible to kill rightly, in defense of self or other. That something is lethal, whether gun, sword, or big wet rock, merely suits it to the task, however onerous and troublesome that task may be. But then, it's definitely troublesome to get murdered. And one must never deny that we've the right to self-defense by any means whatsoever -- for to try and put a lid on self-defense only opens up the way for crimes not only by evilly disposed individuals -- as in England-- but by evilly-disposed states like Nazi Germany and the People's Democratic Republic of Kampuchea. Such states present a very large problem, and both their flourishing and their ending are immensely destructive. Germany was left a pile of broken brick, Pol Pot's Kampuchea a ghost town.

In a good many countries, a highly-motivated, well-organized sociopath can go very far -- particularly in countries that are not democracies. The problem with such places is that a sociopathic head of state ends up heading up a sociopathic state. Then you get Amin's Uganda and Saddam's Iraq.

I say humanity does not have to put up with such monsters, and should uniformly hunt them down and kill them off, but I see I digress from the focus of the thread. Nonetheless, there is a simple and clear continuity between what begins this post and where it ends.

Actually, it doesn't "give" the right; it acknowledges that the right exists already, inhering in being a human.

Yeah, but unarmed is also imprudent, assuming (and one is so very often safe in so assuming) the possessor is sound of mind. One can bring to mind many, well, unfortunate uses of the First Amendment right of free speech here in this Cellar -- some have shown the rest of us that they hold to beliefs that turn them into right bastards.

The most careful and largest study says yes. John Lott, More Guns, Less Crime -- very illuminating.