So, guns don’t kill people, the byproduct of their existence kills people. Good to know.
I still think the gun helps.
The gun has no independent desire to help or hurt. It’s a tool, used by people to accomplish their end.
It’s fair to say that guns kill people, as long as we understand that the meaning of that line is that people decided to use the gun to kill, and the gun was the tool to accomplish that end.
So we’re all agreed that guns are inanimate objects. Glad we’re on the same page.
It’s not fair to say that people decided to use guns to kill.
It’s fair to say that people decided to kill, so they made guns to make killing easier.
This is why I started with acknowledging that I wasn’t sure if it was simply a semantic quibble, or an indicator of an underlying genuine belief in something factually untrue. If it was merely poor phrasing on your part then it is a semantic quibble - poorly chosen phrasing that conveyed something you didn’t intend. Based on this response, it seems that’s not the case.
Your inititial statement that prompted the comment was the assertion that:
(my bold)
This is false and you are wrong. Not ackowledging that is willful ignorance.
OK, what’s their ‘other purpose’ that isn’t based on their potential lethality? 
If I’m being unprovokedly attacked by someone a lot bigger than me, or by a group of people, hell yeah I want something that will make killing them easier. Or more to the point, something that they know would make killing them easier so they don’t attack me in the first place.
See post #534.
But even still, what you say above is different than what you said originally. First you said that firearms “serve no purpose other than to be dangerous.” Now you are asking what their other purposes there may be that isn’t based on their potential lethality [dangerousness].
The semantic quibble you’re making here is so fine that I can’t see daylight between the things you claim to be distinguishing.
And with respect to post 534:
They are useless for self-defense unless they are dangerous.
They are useless for hunting unless they are dangerous.
Their dangerousness is at the heart of these uses.
It’s true that they can still be collectibles without being dangerous, but any damn thing can be collected, so the fact that guns are collected too says nothing about guns.
And you’re a freakin’ idiot.
Nervous Nellie.
Although I’m hesitant to participate in a gun thread in the Pit, is this a whoosh?
If we could invent a taser with the range and firing rate of an AR-15, would you be okay with banning gunpowder-and-lead AR-15s?
Most people aren’t terrified that they’ll get attacked every time they leave the house. Or the shorthand version, Nervous Nellie. Its not normal to be shitting yourself in fear every time you poke your head out of your front door.
My position is correct if I can identify a single purpose for firearms that is not ‘being dangerous’. The fact that a firearm may remain dangerous while fulfilling another purpose is irrelevant to disproving your claim.
Firearms can serve the purpose of competition target shooting. You’re claim is false.
So you agree with me: guns are tools for killing. They may have utility, but that utility lies in their very nature as dangerous weapons. It is not, as Bone claims and Bricker appears to support, a tool with its own utility that also happens to be dangerous
I think the targets would describe the guns as dangerous if you asked them. What if instead of saying that the only purpose is to be dangerous, the claim was that their only purpose is to destroy what they are aimed at. Is that also objectionable?
Unless it’s the *primary *purpose of a weapon someone is carrying in public, no, all you’ll have done is acknowledge the main point.
This is such a weird formulation of the case that I’d like to ask a few questions to understand it better.
Does a knife also have a very nature as a dangerous weapon?
How about an arrow, or a compound bow with arrow?
I’m pretty sure they don’t *care[/] what YOU think either.
No. Get used to living in a nation of laws that guarantees the right to bear arms and if you want the law changed so that people cannot carry otuside the home then get 2/3rds of each chamber of congress and 3/4ths of the states to agree with you, okay?
cite.
You’re an idiot. This is why you can’t hang in great debates. Your arguments are shit. You are very stupid and if you didn’t happen to be parroting liberal, you would be wrong most of the timke about everything.
“Depraved indifference to human life”. Look it up. You won’t be able to understand it, being afflicted by it, but do look it up.