Gun control debate (merged)

I hope you don't think that I am in any way attempting to dodge any of this debate.
I'm here specifically to generate debate.

Not at all , I would be disappointed since we only see you here once in a blue moon when you find some article you think makes a difference .
 
  • Like
Reactions: luthervol
You said iPhones were designed to send and receive messages.

What are guns designed for?

Hunting , shooting projectiles at high rates of speed , self defensive , offensive if needed to prevent yourself or someone from being harmed . Firearms have a very diverse set of applications . One would think since your diversity tent is so big and welcoming , it would for sure hold a place of admiration under your canopy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rickyvol77
I'm not trying to spin it.
I'm trying to get you to read with understanding. I've said it twice
Maybe the third time is the charm:

All to often people use guns as intended to kill innocent people.
This is just a stupid argument for gun control.

1. There are many things used to kill innocent people such as cars for example. Should we outlaw all cars or certain types of cars such as an SUV because it might cause more death?

2. The responsibility rests on the criminal, not on the gun. Banning guns or certain types of guns simply gives criminals the upper hand.

3. There are over 390 million guns in the US with over 20 million semi-autos. You're never going to confiscate all of them and even if you do confiscate them, criminals will still get their hands on them.

4. There are many other uses for guns besides killing people.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rickyvol77
Hunting , shooting projectiles at high rates of speed , self defensive , offensive if needed to prevent yourself or someone from being harmed . Firearms have a very diverse set of applications . One would think since your diversity tent is so big and welcoming , it would for sure hold a place of admiration under your canopy.
There is nothing outside of maiming and killing that a gun is intended for. Vehicles, while potentially deadly, are used 99.9% of the time for transportation. Knives, while potentially deadly, are used 99.9% of the time for utility cutting applications. Digoxin, while potentially deadly, is used 99.9% of the time for diseases related to the heart.

Acting oblivious to these facts makes anyone look disingenuous and ignorant.
 
  • Like
Reactions: luthervol
There is nothing outside of maiming and killing that a gun is intended for. Vehicles, while potentially deadly, are used 99.9% of the time for transportation. Knives, while potentially deadly, are used 99.9% of the time for utility cutting applications. Digoxin, while potentially deadly, is used 99.9% of the time for diseases related to the heart.

Acting oblivious to these facts makes anyone look disingenuous and ignorant.
Epic goalpost shift to maiming and killing in general rather than what the discussion was about.
 
I'm not trying to spin it.
I'm trying to get you to read with understanding. I've said it twice
Maybe the third time is the charm:

All to often people use guns as intended to kill innocent people.
I'm just trying to wrap my head around you apparently believing guns are intended to kill innocent people. Not defense, not to hunt, nothing beneficial to people whatsoever. Just murder.

And you wonder why people think you're a bit warped...
 
There is nothing outside of maiming and killing that a gun is intended for. Vehicles, while potentially deadly, are used 99.9% of the time for transportation. Knives, while potentially deadly, are used 99.9% of the time for utility cutting applications. Digoxin, while potentially deadly, is used 99.9% of the time for diseases related to the heart.

Acting oblivious to these facts makes anyone look disingenuous and ignorant.
So a gun can't be used as a deterrent to avoid more maiming and killing?
 
Lol, sure it can… the threat of it maiming or killing IS the deterrent. Can’t believe some of you act so dumb about this.
Funny, here I am thinking you're being stupid about it. That maiming and killing can put food on your table or make someone think twice about breaking into your home or hurting your family. It really just depends on whose hands the gun is in. A gun is a tool. It's the intentions of the user you have to worry about.
 
Funny, here I am thinking you're being stupid about it. That maiming and killing can put food on your table or make someone think twice about breaking into your home or hurting your family. It really just depends on whose hands the gun is in. A gun is a tool. It's the intentions of the user you have to worry about.
I understand, my guns put food on my table annually… that’s not the point. You intentionally confuse design with intention, and those are two completely different ideas.
 
I understand, my guns put food on my table annually… that’s not the point. You intentionally confuse design with intention, and those are two completely different ideas.
I don't think I'm the one who confused design with intention. You clearly stated a gun is intended for maiming and killing. Intent is in the possessor of the firearm, not the firearm itself.
 
There is nothing outside of maiming and killing that a gun is intended for. Vehicles, while potentially deadly, are used 99.9% of the time for transportation. Knives, while potentially deadly, are used 99.9% of the time for utility cutting applications. Digoxin, while potentially deadly, is used 99.9% of the time for diseases related to the heart.

Acting oblivious to these facts makes anyone look disingenuous and ignorant.

You talk to about being oblivious and ignorant right after you post.. “ there is nothing outside of maiming and killing that a gun is intended for “ . May I politely say that you are in way over your head in this thread if you can’t do better than that , you’ll get eaten alive in here .
 
You talk to about being oblivious and ignorant right after you post.. “ there is nothing outside of maiming and killing that a gun is intended for “ . May I politely say that you are in way over your head in this thread if you can’t do better than that , you’ll get eaten alive in here .
You make no counterpoint or intelligent contemplation about what I said, just a lot of meaningless words, congrats.
 
You make no counterpoint or intelligent contemplation about what I said, just a lot of meaningless words, congrats.

This entire thread is full of counter points to you liberals that float in here on occasion and post stupid crap like you just did . I could show you examples of why you are wrong , it’s common knowledge to anyone that knows firearms but I’ve learned that making you do your own research so you can’t blow it off is better for teaching purposes . 😂
 
This entire thread is full of counter points to you liberals that float in here on occasion and post stupid crap like you just did . I could show you examples of why you are wrong , it’s common knowledge to anyone that knows firearms but I’ve learned that making you do your own research so you can’t blow it off is better for teaching purposes . 😂
I assume, then, by “eaten alive” you really mean inundated with ignorance. With that, I agree. Experience with firearms has nothing to do with this discussion, but I assure you I have plenty of experience and (no offense) probably a larger arsenal than you do.
 
I assume, then, by “eaten alive” you really mean inundated with ignorance. With that, I agree. Experience with firearms has nothing to do with this discussion, but I assure you I have plenty of experience and (no offense) probably a larger arsenal than you do.

Without knowing anything about you .. I can honestly say ( no offense ) but I highly doubt that you do . I’ll go a step further and say ( with confidence ) that I’ve owned and then sold or traded more firearms than you’ve ever touched . Lol
 
  • Like
Reactions: StarRaider
Without knowing anything about you .. I can honestly say ( no offense ) but I highly doubt that you do . I’ll go a step further and say ( with confidence ) that I’ve owed and then sold or traded more firearms than you’ve ever touched . Lol
Maybe that’s true, maybe that’s not. The point is not a p*ssing contest, the point is I’m correct about design vs intent being two completely different ideas even though they are conflated as the same here quite often.
 
Maybe that’s true, maybe that’s not. The point is not a p*ssing contest, the point is I’m correct about design vs intent being two completely different ideas even though they are conflated as the same here quite often.

You are incorrect and that’s why I was very confident in saying that about the firearms experience we have . Not all firearms are made for the purpose of killing and maiming , some are specifically designed , produced and marketed for other purposes and would never be used for anything but what they were designed for . Do some reading and get back to us we you realize how wrong you were with your original post .
 
  • Like
Reactions: StarRaider
Advertisement





Back
Top