The most bizarre component of Colonel Craig Tucker's testimony in favor of California's unconstitutional "assault weapons" ban is his repeated rhetoric that the guns are designed to kill, not injure.
No shit.
This is the first thing that you learn in regard to firearms. If you have a gun, and you point it at something, and pull the trigger, you'd better be ready to destroy that thing.
There's a reason why .223 ammo is banned for deer hunting in ten states -- it's too underpowered to reliably take down a deer in one shot. It's more humane to kill the deer quickly than it is to wound the deer and let it bleed out.
Killing isn't always immoral.
If you're shooting a would-be rapist, I should hope that you kill him rather than wound him.
What's more, people (including Col. Tucker) don't seem to understand the resilience of human beings. One of the reasons why the FBI spent as much time and money on ballistics research as they did was because there was a shootout in which the criminal was fatally shot in the heart, but still kept fighting and killed two agents. The guy was fatally wounded.
The bad guy was a dead man walking (and shooting) while he killed two agents.
Killing another person isn't a pleasant idea; but, some people -- like Joseph Rosenbaum -- deserve it.
The fact that guns are designed to kill isn't an argument for banning them. The fact that guns are designed to kill is the reason why people should be trained and educated.