I've seen a pro-gun person, when met with the accusation that the primary purpose of guns is to cause harm to a target, responded with "no, the purpose of guns is to use gunpowder to force a bullet through its barrel at a high speed". Well, yeah, I guess technically that could be true, but doesn't that sound like a huge cop-out? It's like you believe that someone who would even think that the purpose of a weapon is to be used like a fucking weapon was an ignorant, misinformed moron. There were a number things you could've said like "yes, but it was invented for warfare, not for gunning random people", or "yes, but those targets would be people trying to harm you first", or "yes, but those targets can also be animals for food or even inanimate objects, so it's not like their purpose is to just harm people".
Can you imagine that explanation being applied to other things? I saw this exchange a long while ago, but it still bothers me on occasion. I'm sure the pro-gun people here could come up with better pro-gun points.
