Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Gun Control & RKBA

Buzz cook

(2,804 posts)

18. Now you're talking argle bargle

Reply to beevul (Reply #15)

Mon Aug 22, 2016, 03:17 PM

Aug 2016

The argument I'm making is that some guns are designed to kill and some guns are not. I go on to say that I own a gun that was designed to kill, but that has been re-purposed as a sporting device.

The argument you seem to be making is that no guns are designed to kill until someone uses them, has the intent, and the skill to kill.

Your position is untenable.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

45 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

"A gun is designed to kill"... [View all] beevul Aug 2016 OP

Like I said in the thread in the group Duckhunter935 Aug 2016 #1

Just like a computer is designed... beevul Aug 2016 #2

Indeed so Duckhunter935 Aug 2016 #9

Depends on the gun doesn't it? Buzz cook Aug 2016 #3

"What was this gun designed to do?" beevul Aug 2016 #5

The intent of the user has nothing to do with the design of the device. Buzz cook Aug 2016 #11

It has EVERYTHING to do with it. beevul Aug 2016 #12

You're just being silly now. Buzz cook Aug 2016 #13

No, I'm saying your example doesn't apply. beevul Aug 2016 #15

Now you're talking argle bargle Buzz cook Aug 2016 #18

Clean your glasses. beevul Aug 2016 #19

2 things Buzz cook Aug 2016 #23

No, not 2 things. beevul Aug 2016 #24

" Lethality is generally in the aim, and generally not simply in the firearm." Buzz cook Aug 2016 #25

That is because "usage" is dependent on a human user. oneshooter Aug 2016 #27

So, your point is what? Buzz cook Aug 2016 #34

That is correct. beevul Aug 2016 #28

"Yes, a victim with gun shot wound to the foot is a dead person." Buzz cook Aug 2016 #35

Then don't label it a gun death. Assign it to malpractice. Nuclear Unicorn Aug 2016 #38

Um, the past is in the past. Buzz cook Aug 2016 #39

have you ever seen beergood Aug 2016 #16

Most weapons originated from the desire to feed/defend oneself. Vilis Veritas Aug 2016 #4

My copy/paste response to this insipid "argument": pablo_marmol Aug 2016 #6

A theory regarding the psychology behind this "argument": pablo_marmol Aug 2016 #7

No different than a knife or bow n arrow. JonathanRackham Aug 2016 #8

"Olympic shooting sports = sniper training?" beergood Aug 2016 #41

Mine are for saving lives... ileus Aug 2016 #10

whoa wait beergood Aug 2016 #14

Who cares? I have numerous guns - designed to kill, designed for sport, designed for jmg257 Aug 2016 #17

"when you need to punch holes in things." beergood Aug 2016 #20

Ha - nice! :) nt jmg257 Aug 2016 #21

My last use of a "killer" firearm Mugu Aug 2016 #22

that sounds beergood Aug 2016 #42

That would be correct. Mugu Aug 2016 #43

Your false equivalency analogy is deeply flawed. procon Aug 2016 #26

No, it really isn't. beevul Aug 2016 #29

Still flawed. procon Aug 2016 #30

Awful lot of people have concealed carry permits - 5.2% of population , plus numerous states jmg257 Aug 2016 #32

re: "A person using a computer poses no threat to me..." discntnt_irny_srcsm Aug 2016 #33

+1,000 pablo_marmol Aug 2016 #36

My update/paraphrase of an old saying discntnt_irny_srcsm Aug 2016 #37

Damn. That's good. Saving! NT pablo_marmol Aug 2016 #44

You're just full of assumptions, which is the problem, and the fatal flaw of the entire argument. beevul Aug 2016 #40

Message auto-removed Name removed Aug 2016 #31

"a computer is designed to download and view porn" Nuclear Unicorn Aug 2016 #45