• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Guns were Invented and Designed TO KILL PEOPLE (1 Viewer)

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.

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.


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.

What does any of this have to do with hypocrisy?
 
That is the point. NONE are used as boats because that is not their designed purpose. Guns are though, designed to kill.

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.

End of story. We are done here. 😂

Just because you lied? It's okay. I'm used to that.
 
GPS was designed to track military submarines. https://aerospace.org/article/brief-history-gps

Why does initial reason for invention matter? If the initial reason for inventing a hammer was to murder old people for their Social Security money, would that change your opinion of hammers being used to hammer in nails?
 
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.

LOL
 
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.
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.

The main means of destruction are now artillery, planning bombs, mortars and, of course, drones. It is from these factors that the main 200th and 300th, and 500th, too, come.
Skirmishes with a visible enemy are trenches and clearing buildings, these are all as close as possible, literally meters, where neither aiming devices nor aiming itself are important, reliability and stability in maintenance-free operation are required from weapons.
Basically, the firefights go in the direction of the enemy, in the direction of his position, in order to deprive him of the opportunity to move, so that drones, mortars, etc. work on him.
 
I'm not talking about typical use, I'm talking about the ability.
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.
And most firearms have the ability to kill a person, probably all if the circumstances and situation are right.
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.
 

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.
 
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.

That covering fire denied the enemy movement because it's shooting lethal projectiles at their general location. Even if you can argue that's not necessarily a killing function of a machine gun, that is simply one purpose of it. The other purpose is causing mass casualties, i.e. killing or wounding a large number of enemy combatants.
You have documented hard evidence to support that? If not, it is speculation.

So you're misusing them?
Yes, if you want to use that term. Or at the very least, I'm not using them for their primary role.
 
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.
M249 could certainly be argued that it was designed to kill humans. A Glock 19, not so much.
According to whom, because it seems pretty obvious what were they initially invented for.

Speculation.
True, but that doesn't take away the softball's original purpose and that's what OP and I are saying.
You’re falling into special pleading, which is what inevitably happens to people who like to claim all guns are designed to kill.
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.
The overwhelming vast majority are not designed for killing.
I own several firearms, all of which are designed to kill.
Name the specific brand and model, and then show how it is specifically designed to kill.
However I use them for target practice and hopefully that's all I'll ever have to use them for.
User determines the purpose. That’s the whole point.
 
You need to read this again...
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?
 
M249 could certainly be argued that it was designed to kill humans. A Glock 19, not so much.

The Glock 19 was designed to be a lethal self defense weapon. Meaning that it was designed to kill, particularly humans. 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.
Speculation.

You’re falling into special pleading, which is what inevitably happens to people who like to claim all guns are designed to kill.

It's not special pleading to point out the purpose of a weapon. 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.
The overwhelming vast majority are not designed for killing.

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. 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?"
Name the specific brand and model, and then show how it is specifically designed to kill.
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.

User determines the purpose. That’s the whole point.
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.
 
The Glock 19 was designed to be a lethal self defense weapon.
Yes, self defense weapon.
Meaning that it was designed to kill, particularly humans.
No, that it could be used to kill. The user determines the 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 not irrelevant. The user determines purpose.
It's not special pleading to point out the purpose of a weapon.
Of course it is.
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.
No it isn’t.
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.
Goal post moving.
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?"
We can’t move on until you and other proponents of the “designed to kill” stupidity, stop doing it.
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.
It wasn’t designed to kill humans.
No, design determines purpose.
No it doesn’t.
How the user uses it is irrelevant.
It’s the determining factor.
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.
It’s entirely relevant and why your position is so absurd.
 

Guns were Invented and Designed TO KILL PEOPLE​

I'm not disagreeing with this but I do not know how you can say this definitively.
Regardless firearms are not used EXCLUSIVELY to kill people

My guess is the development process went something like this,

The invention of quick-burning powder.
Guess 1) bamboo fire stick shooting sparks and flames
Guess 2) exploding bamboo tube sealed on both ends
Guess 3) shooting rocks or sticks out of bamboo fire sticks (so somebody saw value for hunting and or defense or it was just cool)
Fact 1) somebody started launching spears out of fire stick (so somebody saw value for hunting and or defense or it was just cool)
Fact 2) people started using spear fire sticks or gravel-filled fire sticks for hunting or defense or both at this same time

So what is the point?

Hammers
Knives
Dynimaite
Boats
Airplanes
Autos
rockets
Fentenayal
All underwent the same process and can be used for good or destruction. Some people saw it as advancing man positively and some saw these products for war.
 
Yes, self defense weapon.

No, that it could be used to kill. The user determines the purpose.

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.
Of course it is not irrelevant. The user determines purpose.

Yes it is irrelevant.
Of course it is.

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.
Goal post moving.

How?
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.

The FN15 or the M4A1?
No it doesn’t.

It’s the determining factor.

It’s entirely relevant and why your position is so absurd.
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.
 
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.
Nope, it’s designed for self defense, not killing.
Yes it is irrelevant.
No, it’s relevant.
Already answered.
Yes it does. Anyone familiar with criminal law will tell you that in some cases, the weapon's built purpose determines the charge.
No it isn’t.
Already answered.
The FN15 or the M4A1?
Yours.
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.
Your claim remains demonstrably false. Sorry.
 
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.
Look, I'm not gonning to go back and forth with your little quips, so have a good day.
 
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.
I meant the ability to kill people if used for that purpose.

The capacity? The function?
 
Look, I'm not gonning to go back and forth with your little quips, so have a good day.
There’s nothing to go back and forth over. You are demonstrably incorrect.
 
No it's covering meaning defensive.

Shooting a gun at people so that you can get into a better position to attack and kill them is not defensive.

I am about over this stupid shit. LOL
 
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.

Lose? I won this debate long ago and have been bored, interacting with your posts. *shrug*
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom