Reply #72: That's an *ahem* interesting definition.

[X_Digger]

Not one rooted in law, or common sense, but hey, you stick with it if it works for you.

All weapons can be used in an offensive or defensive manner. Tasering someone who has a heart condition, or is in a precarious position can lead to death. Shooting the throat or face of someone with rubber bullets can lead to death. Macing someone who is perched on a ledge can lead to them falling to their death.

Defensive weapons are designed to defend not kill.

Semantic masturbation. It is the use to which people employ an item that determines its role. A kitchen knife at dinner is neither an offensive or defensive weapon. A kitchen knife wielded by a madman is an offensive weapon. (Ask the parents of the students in China.) A kitchen knife wielded by a person in response to a violent home invasion is a defensive weapon.

Some weapons aren't particularly suited to a defensive role, at least not in self-defense (a singular person). A bomb may be part of a defensive perimeter in combat, but its indiscriminate / area effect nature doesn't lend itself well to self-defense.

Using a handgun to stop an attack is a defensive use. The goal is to stop the attack. A consequence of stopping a threat may be death of the attacker. That's true of all weapons, regardless of some nebulous 'intent' of a designer, far removed from the uses to which people put them.

I really wish you'd spit out whatever moral stand you're trying to make. If you're trying to tar people who carry firearms for self-defense as wannabe killers, then speak up. Your vague moral flailing is getting tiresome.