The fuck? Vets do much, much more than just euthanize animals. What do guns do other than shoot projectiles intended to kill?
How do guns defend without using the threat of violence? How do they act as a physical shield?
Yes, it’s possible to practice using tools designed specifically for killing. Cars are tools designed specifically for transport, and people have contests for driving those, too.
Why is it so hard for you to accept that guns are tools designed specifically for killing? That’s literally just what they are.
The fuck? Vets do much, much more than just euthanize animals. What do guns do other than shoot projectiles intended to kill?
Just using your silly logic…you know vets have captive bolt guns and suppressed firearms as well, does that make their tools pointless because they only kill?
How do guns defend without using the threat of violence? How do they act as a physical shield?
Same way a sword or knife can be used to kill and also defend, its a force multiplier.
Yes, it’s possible to practice using tools designed specifically for killing. Cars are tools designed specifically for transport, and people have contests for driving those, too.
Glad you’re grasping it
Why is it so hard for you to accept that guns are tools designed specifically for killing? That’s literally just what they are.
Because I’m not the one that suggests magically thinking banning them all will make the world a safer place. Do you think the 100lb woman can defend against a 250lb man? Or what about minorities who are threated by a few racist fucks? Or an LGBTQ+ person who has a bunch of bigots trying to kill them? Should these people just not get a gun because it’s designed to kill? What tool do you suggest they use?
This entire thread chain is in place to suggest that only guns which are designed to kill, should have their manufacturs liable for what other people do with the product. No other industry was brought up, just guns. Why? Because at the end of the day, you’re all for complete bans, and no amount of “nuh uh, we’re fine with hunting rifles” or whatever else bullshit, that’s the end goal…you just try and sugar coat it so you can try and gain some support for the idea.
Naa that’s literally the end goal. It’s pointless to sugar coat it.
Because I’m not the one suggesting that companies be liable for what people do with their products. Way more people a year die from alcohol than guns (it’s like a 3xs as many) and alcohol has no other purpose but a vice, yet you’re probably not going to suggest that companies be liable for drunk drivers who kill people, nor are you going to suggest that they cover all the alcohol related health issues…are you.
Uh, I started this thread, and I brought up other products: electric chairs and the guillotine.
And, no, hunting rifles are the worst kind of guns. They are definitely designed for killing. But my point was that not all guns are designed for killing.
The fuck? Vets do much, much more than just euthanize animals. What do guns do other than shoot projectiles intended to kill?
How do guns defend without using the threat of violence? How do they act as a physical shield?
Yes, it’s possible to practice using tools designed specifically for killing. Cars are tools designed specifically for transport, and people have contests for driving those, too.
Why is it so hard for you to accept that guns are tools designed specifically for killing? That’s literally just what they are.
Just using your silly logic…you know vets have captive bolt guns and suppressed firearms as well, does that make their tools pointless because they only kill?
Same way a sword or knife can be used to kill and also defend, its a force multiplier.
Glad you’re grasping it
Because I’m not the one that suggests magically thinking banning them all will make the world a safer place. Do you think the 100lb woman can defend against a 250lb man? Or what about minorities who are threated by a few racist fucks? Or an LGBTQ+ person who has a bunch of bigots trying to kill them? Should these people just not get a gun because it’s designed to kill? What tool do you suggest they use?
Where did I suggest magical bans? You’re projecting a ton of your own insecurities onto me.
None of your rant contradicts the fact that guns are tools designed specifically for killing.
This entire thread chain is in place to suggest that only guns which are designed to kill, should have their manufacturs liable for what other people do with the product. No other industry was brought up, just guns. Why? Because at the end of the day, you’re all for complete bans, and no amount of “nuh uh, we’re fine with hunting rifles” or whatever else bullshit, that’s the end goal…you just try and sugar coat it so you can try and gain some support for the idea.
It was a single example as a thought exercise.
All the rest are words you’re putting on other people’s mouths.
No I’m not, that’s literally the end goal of all people who are anti-gun.
There you go again, putting words in even more people’s mouths.
Anyway, what would that have to do with the fact that guns are tools.designed specifically for killing?
Naa that’s literally the end goal. It’s pointless to sugar coat it.
Because I’m not the one suggesting that companies be liable for what people do with their products. Way more people a year die from alcohol than guns (it’s like a 3xs as many) and alcohol has no other purpose but a vice, yet you’re probably not going to suggest that companies be liable for drunk drivers who kill people, nor are you going to suggest that they cover all the alcohol related health issues…are you.
No, guns are just tools designed specifically for killing.
Uh, I started this thread, and I brought up other products: electric chairs and the guillotine.
And, no, hunting rifles are the worst kind of guns. They are definitely designed for killing. But my point was that not all guns are designed for killing.
Thread chain == thread. I was talking about noodle…and wtf why are hunting rifles the worst type?