If the purpose of guns were to kill, cops would not be allowed to have them

because, in civilized countries contrary to James Bond movies, they don’t

have a license to kill.

A tool or instrument, observed Friedrich Hayek, cannot be defined outside

of human purposes. For example, the definition of a hammer must include
what most people want it for, that is, as the online Merriam-Webster
dictionary tells us, “for pounding.” In his 1942 Economica article
“Scientism and the Study of Society” (reproduced in his The Counter-
Revolution of Science), Hayek noted:

Take the concept of a “tool” or “instrument,” or of any particular tool

such as a hammer or a barometer. It is easily seen that these concepts
cannot be interpreted to refer to “objective facts,” that is, to things
irrespective of what people think about them. … If the reader will
attempt a definition he will soon find that he cannot give one without
using some term such as “suitable for” or “intended for” or some other
expression referring to the use for which it is designed by somebody.
And a definition which is to comprise all instances of the class will not
contain any reference to its substance, or shape, or other physical
attribute.

An automobile is, to quote Merriam-Webster again, an “automotive

vehicle designed for passenger transportation.” People use it to go from point
A to point B. Under this general purpose lie many specific ones. For many, A
will be mainly their homes and B, their workplaces. Some, no doubt, will use
their car to go and commit a bank robbery, and escape afterwards. For
terrorists, the space between point A and point B may be any place where
there are pedestrians to crush. Collectors and museums may even dispense
with the transportation function, although the original purpose remains part of
the attraction.

Now, consider a gun. The most general definition of Merriam-Webster is “a

device that throws a projectile.” Some individuals may use the projectile-
throwing power to kill—a killer-for-hire or a terrorist, for example. But most
will use it for another purpose: to assure their own self-defense or to defend
others against criminals, or even to protect their property or their customers’
property. Armored truck personnel carry guns as a disincentive to would-be
robbers. When they own or carry a gun, some individuals are buying peace of
mind, knowing that they have an efficient means of self-defense in case they
ever need it. Collectors do not even use a gun to throw a projectile, but
instead to showcase it.

The purpose of a gun is not generally to kill. A handgun is designed for self-
defense at short distances. Hitting a target farther than 100 feet or even just
50 feet is difficult: by then, the bullet has lost much of its speed and energy,
and dropped significantly. Although a handgun may kill or maim an
aggressor, its purpose is to stop him, to stop the threat. Hence the discussion
of the “stopping power” of caliber (diameter of the bullet) versus velocity.

Criminals use handguns to commit aggressions, as they can use cars to travel
where their victims are. But killing is not the (general) purpose of a car, nor is
it really that of a handgun. If one is intent on killing, a long gun (rifle or
shotgun) is more convenient. In the state where I live (as I suspect in many
other states), one may carry a loaded handgun in a car but not a long gun. The
reason is that a long gun is not efficient for self-defense, especially in a
confined place, while it would be very effective at ambushing somebody (or
indiscriminately shooting people).

Even in the case of long guns, it is at misleading to state that the purpose is to
kill—at least to kill another human. For many if not most owners of long
guns, the purpose is to hunt animals or for protection against four-legged
predators such as brown or white bears. Even if many owners of long guns
probably think that they could come handy during civil (or government)
disturbances, the main purpose would remain to stop the threat, not
necessarily to kill the threatening individuals.

Thus, the purpose of guns is not to kill, except in particular, and often
criminal, circumstances. The purpose of a gun is to neutralize threats and
deter aggressors. Even if we assume that allowing guns results in more
murders than banning them (which I don’t think is supported by available
evidence), it does not follow that government should ban them, whether
abruptly or stealthily. We encounter here the general problem of cost-benefit
analysis: What allows us to say that preventing the possible killing of some
unknown Mr. and Mrs. X in the future is worth more than prohibiting a
known Miss Y from owning or carrying a gun for self-defense hic et nunc?
Moreover, it does not take much imagination to include in the calculus the
detrimental consequences of raising children in a society where the idea
prevails that state agents have rights that their subjects don’t have.

The mantra that “the purpose of a gun is to kill” is used by those who think
that ordinary citizens should be prevented from having guns because they
don’t have the right to defend themselves, that such rights belong exclusively
to government agents. The British and Canadian experience shows that the
ultimate purpose of most gun control proponents is to disarm ordinary people
and abolish their right of self-defense—and, perhaps unconsciously, the
underlying sentiment of self-reliance and independence. Once this becomes
clear, one realizes how crucial is the Second Amendment in defining
America, an exceptional land where ordinary citizens (and all legal residents)
have the right to own and, in many cases, to carry guns just like government
agents do. In truth, government agents have a moral right to carry guns only
because private individuals have it.