"GUNS WERE INVENTED TO KILL PEOPLE!" - REALLY?

Of all the predictable and tedious claims of those hoplophobically opposed to firearms ownership, there is one I consider a real standout for the level of inane stupidity it betrays...

“Guns were invented to kill people!”  

The claim is of course ludicrous, but as with so many of the Antis' mantras, it may not immediately appear so to those who lack any real motivation to interrogate its veracity.

The Antis deploy these statements in the knowledge that those they’re intended to influence – the general public – lack sufficient stakeholdership in the gun debate to explore the issues thoroughly.

The vast majority of Australians don’t own guns and may never have even seen a gun close up.  As a consequence, when they hear the claim “Guns were invented to kill people” alternative applications for firearms don’t automatically spring to mind. 

Because the proposition is succinct and appears a reasonable assertion at first glance, the public is apt to accept it, if only as the trite mantra it is. 

This is the Antis' goal!

Of course guns were not invented to kill people. They came about as the result of technological evolution, as an improvement on preexisting hunting tools, just as the spear superseded the club and the bow superseded the spear as a means of dispatching quarry. 

Their purpose was harvest, not murder or war.

The fact that the original purpose of clubs, spears and guns would come to be perverted, does not mean they were invented to kill people anymore than it is reasonable to suggest the hammer was invented to kill people by virtue of its current popularity as a murder weapon, or that screwdrivers were invented as offensive weapons simply because they’re so often brandished by junkies robbing 7/11s.

The fact that some guns have been developed specifically with military applications in mind is undeniable, however, on the whole these are not firearms most Australians wish to, or indeed may legally, own.

All this stuff may seem remedial and in fact it is, but it does not always appear so to people who lack any 'stake' in thinking things through. For this reason it is important to patently and politely repeat the obvious whenever necessary. Not to the inveterate hopolophobe, but to those who are open minded and therefore prone to the influence of ludicrous propositions effectively sold. 

As is so common among our fraternity, my love of hunting is just one facet of a broader life-long interest in self-reliance. Once known as the self-sufficiently movement, it has been re-birthed in the 3rd millennium as 'Homesteading'. 

It was during a recent visit to one of my favourite Homesteading websites that I happened upon a typical example of the activity outlined above. 

Homesteaders are often torn – in my view unnecessarily – as to whether there is a legitimate place for firearms and hunting in a life that strives to be simple, responsible in the use of resources, and humane in the management of livestock.

Homesteader websites are favoured territory for anti-gun campaigners seeking to sell their message to what is often a reliably stereotypical audience i.e. well educated, well intentioned yet often naive young couples with a social conscience, fleeing the rat-race to live a simpler life in the bush where acreages upon which simple homes may be built are still ‘affordable’.

The Antis favour these sites all the more for the fact the chances of being rebutted by opponents well informed about gun issues are relatively slim.  

It was on just such a site that I watched a discussion that began reasonably enough, descend to plumb the depths of insanity and extremism after being hijacked by a rabid hoplophobic animal rights activist. 

Rather than going into detail I will simply say that every nonsensical “the sky is falling” statement and false statistic drawn from Emotional Blackmail for Dummies had been deployed to bludgeon an audience whose position on responsible firearms ownership had been, at worst, ambivalent prior to the arrival of Chicken Little.

Of course I couldn't resist engaging with the forum and with a little effort I was able to turn things around to the point that, while not yet sold on the indispensable value of firearms to the serious homesteader, they were at least considering the proposition on merit rather than emotive and erroneous propaganda.

I did this in the way I have always found most effective; by engaging directly with everyone except Chicken Little, whom I ignored to the point of provoking a stress induced molt I’m sure. 

It wasn’t long before emulation of this strategy made it obvious everyone approved. 

While I had the forum's attention I thought I’d have a crack at explaining why it had been so easily subverted by extremist influences, in the hope this might serve as a means of identifying and avoiding repeat performances.

I did this by explaining the principle of 'stakeholdership' in contentious debate, using the statement “Guns were invented to kill people” as my focus, simply because it was a statement that had received almost unanimous support.

I explained that it is easy to denigrate and demand the abolition of something one has no personal stake in. If one doesn’t own a gun it is easy to disregard or simply overlook its practical and ethical value, while subconsciously absorbing ridiculous claims as though they are undisputed facts. 

It is also easy to demand the abolition of something one does not own nor see any future need to own; totally disregarding the value the subject item might have to other people and the hardship they may suffer for its loss.

Conversely, it is dead-easy to defend something harmful and even deadly, provided we approve of its responsible use in our own hands.  

The example I used was something everyone these days can related to – mobile-phone cameras.

Used safely and ethically, they are a very useful gadget, but when put to purposes for which they were never intended, they have the potential to inflict great misery and even death.

This statement drew cries of “How can you even suggest cameras are as dangerous as guns?” from Chicken Little, whom I promptly ignored except to thank her for being so accommodatingly predictable as to ask the desired question on cue.

Mobile-phone cameras are handy for taking family snaps, capturing glorious sunsets, recording the details of traffic accidents etc; they are even handy for the ubiquitous narcissistic pouty-mouthed selfie, but their presence in communications devices has also made them a favourite tool of paedophiles.

Perverts looking to share images of naked little girls and boys captured at the beach, in school sports and public pool changing-rooms, in the toilets at pre-schools and in a hundred other places my mind is insufficiently bent to speculate on, once had their efforts hampered by camera bans. 

However, no one is ever asked to surrender a phone before entering these places of vulnerability and since cameras became standard with even the cheapest disposable phones, there has been a quantum increase in discreetly obtained 'pornographic' images uploaded directly to the internet from the location they were captured.

Once uploaded, the paedophile can delete the images from his/her mobile device, thus destroying all evidence of their activities, making them difficult to nail with the goods so to speak.

As the passage of time is revealing, children who’ve been abused and/or exploited often grow into very troubled and vulnerable adults, some of whom will develop chemical dependencies, depression, eating disorders, habits of self-harm and so on, often culminating in the ultimate act of self-harm, suicide.

To paraphrase the claim often made about the purpose of guns, surely it is reasonable to assert then, that “Mobile-phone cameras were invented for child pornography".

It seems an absolute no-brainer that banning cameras in mobile devices would be an appropriate step to take in the interests of child protection. After all, a ban on mobile-phone cameras does not mean anyone would be deprived of either a phone or a camera.

They just wouldn’t be available in one device, therefore the loss is simply one of convenience and a very recent convenience at that.  

As little as 10 years ago phone cameras were the stuff of Sci-Fi novels and our lives were in no way diminished for that fact.

Yes, no matter how one looks at it, banning mobile phone cameras is a small price to pay to combat the scourge of child exploitation...yet who would agree to such a ban without bitter complaint and protests focusing on the unfairness of punishing the innocent and responsible for the sins of a relative few criminally deranged perverts? 

I can answer that question for you.

The people who’d complain the loudest would be the very same people who believe it is perfectly fair and reasonable to punish a majority of innocent and responsible firearms owner for the sins of a relative few criminals who use guns illegally!

I’m happy to say the forum took on an entirely different tenor by the end of our brief exploration of stakeholdership. 

It goes without saying tho', Chicken Little’s opinions were not changed one iota for the exercise and that’s to be expected. But at least now a number of open minded, intelligent and practical young people are aware of the dynamic of naive ignorance anti-gun campaigners strive to manipulate and exploit for their own advantage.

If you can think of any analogies similar to the mobile-phone camera example I outlined above, why not let us know in the comments section below. A compilation of such examples may prove a useful resource for anyone involved in future debates.

Anyway, I’ll get outaya way now...

©gmallard2016 all rights reserved

Follow the Hunters' Stand on Twitter @Hunters_Stand

If you'd like to share this post the link to cut & paste is http://thehunterstand.blogspot.com.au/2016/05/guns-were-invented-to-kill-people-really.html

For those wishing to leave comments either anonymously or under their own names (go-orn, I dares ya!), please select the 'Name/URL' option from the drop down menu beneath the comments section at the bottom of this page. You do not need to enter a URL.


If you would like to receive notifications when new posts are uploaded to the Hunters' Stand, send your name and email address to thehunterstand@gmail.com This service will not include notification of new comments. 

All information provided will be treated with the utmost confidentiality and discretion.