- Joined
- Jan 23, 2015
- Messages
- 52,192
- Reaction score
- 26,841
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Great
I don't know about great. It's just a fact.
Great
That is stupid. The soldiers engaged in "covering fire" are shooting at people that are shooting at them or trying to shoot at them. Soldiers shoot at them to kill them and remove the threat.
Evidently a hell of a lot better than yours... but I doubt you will share yours. Those that post as much hypocritical crap as we see here never do.
That is the point. NONE are used as boats because that is not their designed purpose. Guns are though, designed to kill.
End of story. We are done here.![]()
I don't know about great. It's just a fact.
Nope. Not quite how that works. Why would you advance on troops in the open? Modern warfare isn't Braveheart, with the two sides running at each other.
What does any of this have to do with hypocrisy?
You said 7 are used as boats. Now you're changing your story.
And you edited my post. Here is the whole of what you're responding to:
How about if 99.98% of cars were used exclusively as boats? Is land tranportation still their primary purpose? No.
Just because you lied? It's okay. I'm used to that.
There are different battle scenarios. When we talk about armies of equal technical equipment, where both sides use the full range of modern weapons, with the exception of nuclear ones... In fact, face-to-face shootings are very rare indeed.Nope. Not quite how that works. Why would you advance on troops in the open? Modern warfare isn't Braveheart, with the two sides running at each other.
No it's covering meaning defensive.Covering fire is offensive.
Well if you have a vehicle with it mounted and a battery connected to it to operate it yeah. You're able to kill somebody with it.I'm not talking about typical use, I'm talking about the ability.
No firearm ever in existence has the ability to kill people. People can kill people with most firearms. But otherwise the firearm is just a hunk of metal.And most firearms have the ability to kill a person, probably all if the circumstances and situation are right.
Great
A machine gun can fulfill its military function without a single person being killed. Covering fires for the advance, and area denial for the defense.
Yes, if you want to use that term. Or at the very least, I'm not using them for their primary role.You have documented hard evidence to support that? If not, it is speculation.
So you're misusing them?
M249 could certainly be argued that it was designed to kill humans. A Glock 19, not so much.It depends on the era, but we're to take modern firearms, most firearms designed for killing humans are designed to be fired in rapid succession, easy to reload, easily portable and maneuverable, come in calibers often designed or adapted to kill humans, and tend to have anywhere between 5 to 30 rounds in capacity. Compare that to say a three-gun match shotgun with the mag tube extending past the barrel itself, the similarities overlap in a lot of cases, however it's their differences that make the difference between a firearm designed for self defense and a firearm designed for competition. We can get into the minutiae of what is or isn't a firearm designed for killing if you want and there will certainly be overlaps and grey areas, but if you're going to claim that the M249 SAW wasn't designed to kill, I'm going to question your intellectual honesty.
Speculation.According to whom, because it seems pretty obvious what were they initially invented for.
![]()
Gun - Wikipedia
en.m.wikipedia.org
You’re falling into special pleading, which is what inevitably happens to people who like to claim all guns are designed to kill.True, but that doesn't take away the softball's original purpose and that's what OP and I are saying.
The overwhelming vast majority are not designed for killing.I'm not even saying that it's a bad thing. I'm simply saying to deny the fact that a lot of firearms are designed to kill is short sighted at best.
Name the specific brand and model, and then show how it is specifically designed to kill.I own several firearms, all of which are designed to kill.
User determines the purpose. That’s the whole point.However I use them for target practice and hopefully that's all I'll ever have to use them for.
I understand why you can’t answer the question. So does everyone else. But I won’t let you keep dodging.You need to read this again...
M249 could certainly be argued that it was designed to kill humans. A Glock 19, not so much.
Speculation.
You’re falling into special pleading, which is what inevitably happens to people who like to claim all guns are designed to kill.
The overwhelming vast majority are not designed for killing.
I have an FN15 Military Collector's edition as a home defense weapon. It's supposed to replicate the military issued M4A1 with all the same specs with the exception of the of the capability of going full auto or three round burst and a pinned and welded 14.5 barrel. It's ergonomics and caliber was designed to be used to kill, particularly humans since it's supposed to mimic the M4 as close as it can legally get away with.Name the specific brand and model, and then show how it is specifically designed to kill.
No, design determines purpose. How the user uses it is irrelevant. A race car was designed to race on a designated track. The fact that you use it as an everyday commute to work is irrelevant.User determines the purpose. That’s the whole point.
Yes, self defense weapon.The Glock 19 was designed to be a lethal self defense weapon.
No, that it could be used to kill. The user determines the purpose.Meaning that it was designed to kill, particularly humans.
Of course it is not irrelevant. The user determines purpose.Whether or not you personally only use it to go to range or whether or in the event that you do defend yourself with a Glock 19 and don't kill the assailant is irrelevant to its design.
Of course it is.It's not special pleading to point out the purpose of a weapon.
No it isn’t.In fact I'm some cases of murder, the hinge of differentiating between a crime of passion and premeditated is whether or not the perpetrator chose a weapon of opportunity or a dedicated weapon meant to kill.
Goal post moving.That's simply not true unless your local FFL solely sells range toys. Most FFLs will have weapons built for self defense, hunting, or the aforementioned range. If your FFL sells weapons made for self defense or hunting (which is likely 2/3 of their inventory) then most of the firearms on the shelves will be for killing if some kind, and that's ok.
We can’t move on until you and other proponents of the “designed to kill” stupidity, stop doing it.The sooner we admit this, the sooner we can move on to say "so what? Do you have a proven policy that'll reduce gun crimes that doesn't infringe upon the rights of law abiding citizens?"
It wasn’t designed to kill humans.I have an FN15 Military Collector's edition as a home defense weapon. It's supposed to replicate the military issued M4A1 with all the same specs with the exception of the of the capability of going full auto or three round burst and a pinned and welded 14.5 barrel. Its ergonomics and caliber was designed to be used to kill, particularly humans since it's supposed to mimic the M4 as close as it can legally get away with.
No it doesn’t.No, design determines purpose.
It’s the determining factor.How the user uses it is irrelevant.
It’s entirely relevant and why your position is so absurd.A race car was designed to race on a designated track. The fact that you use it as an everyday commute to work is irrelevant.
Yes, self defense weapon.
No, that it could be used to kill. The user determines the purpose.
Of course it is not irrelevant. The user determines purpose.
Of course it is.
No it isn’t.
Goal post moving.
We can’t move on until you and other proponents of the “designed to kill” stupidity, stop doing it.
It wasn’t designed to kill humans.
If you're using something for anything other than it's intended purpose, you are either misusing it or repurposing it. There's a whole thesaurus that you can use to describe what you're doing with an object meant for a specific task other than actually doing the task. Hell, if you want to say that a Glock 19 was built to accommodate multiple functions, including killing, that's fine. But to deny one of the main purposes of it just to "own the libs" isn't a hill worth fighting over. Own the fact that a lot of firearms are meant for killing and move on to more tangible things.No it doesn’t.
It’s the determining factor.
It’s entirely relevant and why your position is so absurd.
Nope, it’s designed for self defense, not killing.It's a lethal weapon designed for self defense. In other words, a weapon designed to kill in the event you need to defend yourself.
No, it’s relevant.Yes it is irrelevant.
Already answered.How so?
No it isn’t.Yes it does. Anyone familiar with criminal law will tell you that in some cases, the weapon's built purpose determines the charge.
Already answered.How?
Yours.The FN15 or the M4A1?
Your claim remains demonstrably false. Sorry.If you're using something for anything other than its intended purpose, you are either misusing it or repurposing it. There's a whole thesaurus that you can use to describe what you're doing with an object meant for a specific task other than actually doing the task. Hell, if you want to say that a Glock 19 was built to accommodate multiple functions, including killing, that's fine. But to deny one of the main purposes of it just to "own the libs" isn't a hill worth fighting over. Own the fact that a lot of firearms are meant for killing and move on to more tangible things.
Look, I'm not gonning to go back and forth with your little quips, so have a good day.Nope, it’s designed for self defense, not killing.
No, it’s relevant.
Already answered.
No it isn’t.
Already answered.
Yours.
Your claim remains demonstrably false. Sorry.
I meant the ability to kill people if used for that purpose.Well if you have a vehicle with it mounted and a battery connected to it to operate it yeah. You're able to kill somebody with it.
No firearm ever in existence has the ability to kill people. People can kill people with most firearms. But otherwise the firearm is just a hunk of metal.
There’s nothing to go back and forth over. You are demonstrably incorrect.Look, I'm not gonning to go back and forth with your little quips, so have a good day.
If you think so.There’s nothing to go back and forth over. You are demonstrably incorrect.
No it's covering meaning defensive.
I understand why you can’t answer the question. So does everyone else. But I won’t let you keep dodging.
If all firearms are designed to kill humans,
who specifically is a browning BT99 designed to kill?
Oh by the way Bodi. The middle quote you deliberately take out of context to the point it becomes a lie. Utterly outside any attempt to debate in good faith. Losing must hurt very badly.