OK, fair, I oversimplified. Certain guns are designed specifically for military use. No civilian should have a reason to own an AK. You're right, there are guns for hunting and even some guns for practical self-defense. However, the process of gun ownership of these different types is about the same in the US. Acquiring a hunting rifle is not necessarily more difficult than acquiring an assault rifle. It's still a matter of going to the mall, not scouring the black market.dmccune said:No they aren't. They aren't built for the "sole purpose of killing other human beings" any more than a bow and arrow, a knife, or an explosive is built for "the sole purpose of killing other human beings". Guns are built to propel a projectile in a (reasonably) straight line for a determined distance, with a degree of force.mechanixis said:The cultural shift of firearms into entertainment is really kind of twisted when you realize they're built for the sole purpose of killing other human beings.
Certainly, they *can* be used to kill human beings, and do a very good job at that, but they can also be used for hunting or target shooting or even admired for their aesthetic purposes. Hell, the Katana was a military weapon o' death and now we romanticize them (and other swords) as art pieces.
And lets not forget, there's an olympic sport which features GUNS.
Now, none of the above to to say everyone should just be able to buy a gun from their local walmart. Their should of course be regulation given the fact that these are weapons that can kill easily, but to summarize them as existing "solely to kill human beings" is ignorant and hyperbolic.
But while a handful of the most informed civilian gun enthusiasts may be responsible enough to own military-grade weaponry, people who aren't adequately responsible have access to them too.