Guns Were Invented TO KILL PEOPLE!!

[RF667799]

Guns can also be used to protect human life or kill game for food.

This is not an indictment against guns. It's just a brute fact, guns were designed to efficiently kill living beings.

Take this fact however you wish!

Why change the tense of your claim at this point?

Did you read my explanation of the design of a BT99?

 

[Grand Mal]

Guns can be used to kill; thus guns are designed to kill.

This seems to be your only argument.

BTW, do you count it as "transportation", when an automobile is designed to only carry one person 1/4 mile and immediately return him to his point of origin?

The title of the thread is, 'Guns were invented to kill people.' That is undeniably true.
It doesn't mean diddly-squat in any wider discussion of guns, but it's factually correct.

 

[quip]

Why change the tense of your claim at this point?

Did you read my explanation of the design of a BT99?

I've changed nothing. It's your perceptions that have been altered.

The BT 99 means nothing in regard to guns writ large.

 

[Bodi]

Please show where you've supported as fact the claim "Guns are designed to kill."

It will be interesting, since you've also denied making that claim.

Right here... it was in the 1st Post of the Thread so I am sure that is why it was so difficult to find.

\/ \/ \/ \/ \/

The invention of guns followed the development of the explosive black powder in China. The first guns were simple tubes from which to shoot explosive charges, but gradually they were made easier to load, aim, and fire. Guns revolutionized warfare and effectively ended the age of the armored knight and the castle stronghold. They have had a profound effect on human history.

The Invention of Guns | Encyclopedia.com

The Invention of GunsOverviewThe invention of guns followed the development of the explosive black powder in China. The first guns were simple tubes from which to shoot explosive charges, but gradually they were made easier to load, aim, and fire. Guns revolutionized warfare and effectively...

www.encyclopedia.com

The first devices identified as guns or proto-guns appeared in China from around AD 1000. By the end of the 13th century, they had become "true guns," metal barrel firearms that fired single projectiles which occluded the barrel. Gunpowder and gun technology spread throughout Eurasia during the 14th century

Gun - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The fire lance (simplified Chinese: 火枪; traditional Chinese: 火槍; pinyin: huǒ qiāng; lit. 'fire spear') was a gunpowder weapon and the ancestor of modern firearms. It first appeared in 10th–12th century China and was used to great effect during the Jin-Song Wars.

Fire lance - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Andrade, Tonio (2016), The Gunpowder Age: China, Military Innovation, and the Rise of the West in World History, Princeton University Press, ISBN 978-0-691-13597-7.

Fire lance - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

These devices which mark the first uses of gunpowder-based weapons and artillery were described in detail in the Huolongling or the Fire Drake manual. ... The cannon became quite popular as it annihilated troops regardless of their fast horses and heavy, steel armor. After the initial invention of cannons, the concept of firing a big fiery ball of lead towards the enemies began to be conceptualized into a device that could be handled and operated by individuals.

The Complete History of Guns

Guns have had played both an indirect yet also tangible role in the rise and progression of global powers and industrial development over the course of history. In modern times, guns and the American gun culture hold an ambiguous role, from being a topic for dinner conversations to heated...

historycooperative.org

The Chinese fire lance, a bamboo tube that used gunpowder to fire a spear, invented in the 10th century, is regarded by historians as the first gun ever made. Gunpowder was previously invented in China in the 9th century. They quickly learned the powder could be used in warfare. The then-reigning Song Dynasty is the first to have used gunpowder against the Mongols, whose constant invasions into the country plagued the Chinese throughout the period.

When Were Guns Invented? A Brief History of Guns

The first gun was created more than 1,000 years ago, effectively changing warfare - and society - in incomprehensible ways. But do we know who actually made the first firearm?

science.howstuffworks.com

Automobiles are categorically designed to kill,

You have a memo from Cugnot, Anderson or Benz to back this claim?

by the same rationale you support your claim that guns are categorically designed to kill.

One who reads very poorly might arrive at that conclusion.

What use is your claim?

Accuracy.

Prove your claim to be accurate and true.

It's your claim, after all.

You claimed that it was sloppy, inaccurate and false. You prove your claim.

You won't. You never do. You will try to be clever and then pivot, as usual.

Well you should have many examples then.

I do.

 

[justoneman]

The invention of guns followed the development of the explosive black powder in China. The first guns were simple tubes from which to shoot explosive charges, but gradually they were made easier to load, aim, and fire. Guns revolutionized warfare and effectively ended the age of the armored knight and the castle stronghold. They have had a profound effect on human history.

The Invention of Guns | Encyclopedia.com

The Invention of GunsOverviewThe invention of guns followed the development of the explosive black powder in China. The first guns were simple tubes from which to shoot explosive charges, but gradually they were made easier to load, aim, and fire. Guns revolutionized warfare and effectively...

www.encyclopedia.com

The first devices identified as guns or proto-guns appeared in China from around AD 1000. By the end of the 13th century, they had become "true guns," metal barrel firearms that fired single projectiles which occluded the barrel. Gunpowder and gun technology spread throughout Eurasia during the 14th century

Gun - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The fire lance (simplified Chinese: 火枪; traditional Chinese: 火槍; pinyin: huǒ qiāng; lit. 'fire spear') was a gunpowder weapon and the ancestor of modern firearms. It first appeared in 10th–12th century China and was used to great effect during the Jin-Song Wars.

Fire lance - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Andrade, Tonio (2016), The Gunpowder Age: China, Military Innovation, and the Rise of the West in World History, Princeton University Press, ISBN 978-0-691-13597-7.

Fire lance - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

These devices which mark the first uses of gunpowder-based weapons and artillery were described in detail in the Huolongling or the Fire Drake manual. ... The cannon became quite popular as it annihilated troops regardless of their fast horses and heavy, steel armor. After the initial invention of cannons, the concept of firing a big fiery ball of lead towards the enemies began to be conceptualized into a device that could be handled and operated by individuals.

The Complete History of Guns

Guns have had played both an indirect yet also tangible role in the rise and progression of global powers and industrial development over the course of history. In modern times, guns and the American gun culture hold an ambiguous role, from being a topic for dinner conversations to heated...

historycooperative.org

The Chinese fire lance, a bamboo tube that used gunpowder to fire a spear, invented in the 10th century, is regarded by historians as the first gun ever made. Gunpowder was previously invented in China in the 9th century. They quickly learned the powder could be used in warfare. The then-reigning Song Dynasty is the first to have used gunpowder against the Mongols, whose constant invasions into the country plagued the Chinese throughout the period.

When Were Guns Invented? A Brief History of Guns

The first gun was created more than 1,000 years ago, effectively changing warfare - and society - in incomprehensible ways. But do we know who actually made the first firearm?

science.howstuffworks.com

I voted yes. This is why the framers of the constitution enshrined the right to own them. Not for hunting, not for target practice but so people could own guns with the potential to use them for protection.

 

[RF667799]

The title of the thread is, 'Guns were invented to kill people.' That is undeniably true.
It doesn't mean diddly-squat in any wider discussion of guns, but it's factually correct.

Maybe. I'm more inclined to look at that claim as speculation. Well informed, considered speculation with every possibility of being true; but speculation nonetheless.

That was the point of my asking Bodi about his claim to know exactly why the first knife was invented, "What was the inventor's name?"

Point being, that because we are reasonably sure that guns were early on used for killing enemies, we can't be sure they weren't adapted to that purpose from some other purpose. Launching burning projectiles in the air for celebratory reasons perhaps. And then some guy said, "Hey....what if we took one of those fireworks mortars, and filled it with rocks?"

Agree with that whole line of inquiry being diddly-squat though.

It still leaves the question why "Guns are designed to kill" is so important to anti-gun advocates, that they won't accept the way more accurate "Virtually any gun can be used to kill."

 

[RF667799]

I've changed nothing. It's your perceptions that have been altered.

The BT 99 means nothing in regard to guns writ large.

You're pretty much saying that the claim is categorical, and the single example of the BT99 falsifies that claim.

It's like Bodi's "Men are taller than women". One example of a woman taller than a man shows the claim to be false.

Interesting to me, is those sorts of categorical claim are often used in the service of bigotry.

 

[RF667799]

Right here... it was in the 1st Post of the Thread so I am sure that is why it was so difficult to find.

\/ \/ \/ \/ \/




You have a memo from Cugnot, Anderson or Benz to back this claim?

One who reads very poorly might arrive at that conclusion.

Accuracy.

You claimed that it was sloppy, inaccurate and false. You prove your claim.

You won't. You never do. You will try to be clever and then pivot, as usual.


I do.

You admitted your claim was sloppy, inaccurate and false. That appears to be how you define "general".

Post 549.

 

[quip]

It doesn't mean diddly-squat in any wider discussion of guns, but it's factually correct.

Mayhap the accepting of this fact be the first curative for gun worship.

 

[Bodi]

It's like Bodi's "Men are taller than women". One example of a woman taller than a man shows the claim to be false.

This pivot is stupid every time you do it...

Interesting to me, is those sorts of categorical claim are often used in the service of bigotry.

...LOL.

The exact opposite, really.

 

[Bodi]

Prove your claim to be accurate and true.

It's your claim, after all.

Redirection. So lame...

Well you should have many examples then.

I do...

Please show where you've supported as fact the claim "Guns are designed to kill."

Same stupid lie that @rahl made...

It will be interesting, since you've also denied making that claim.

Do better...

 

[RF667799]

Redirection. So lame...

I do...

Same stupid lie that @rahl made...

Do better...

Honest responses are more interesting.

 

[RF667799]

This pivot is stupid every time you do it...

...LOL.

The exact opposite, really.

How is your argument, my pivot?

No, categorical claims like yours are often used in the service of bigotry. It's no great distance from "Men are taller than women" to "Men are smarter than women".

 

[Bodi]

Honest responses are more interesting.

I await some from you...

How is your argument, my pivot?

A pivot on a pivot?

No, categorical claims like yours are often used in the service of bigotry.

Statements like that are common usage and understood to not be universal. But you will not make a legitimate case with evidence. Per usual. LOL

It's no great distance from "Men are taller than women" to "Men are smarter than women".

Sure it is... but you go ahead and back up this claim with some evidence... sources, definitions, etc.

But you won't... as usual.

 

[RF667799]

I await some from you...

A pivot on a pivot?

Statements like that are common usage and understood to not be universal. But you will not make a legitimate case with evidence. Per usual. LOL

Sure it is... but you go ahead and back up this claim with some evidence... sources, definitions, etc.

But you won't... as usual.

Sea lioning and denial. Tsk tsk.

 

[Bodi]

Sea lioning and denial. Tsk tsk.

Peacocking and hiding... so silly.

 

[IQ57]

Guns are great.

 

[CLAX1911]

But all weapons are designed to kill or injure or stop somebody. That's the point of them and we've been designing them and perfecting them for our entire existence.

What's the point of making this claim that weapons are designed to be weapons of course they are.

 

[rahl]

Sure you can..We've done it before with fully autos and sawed off shotguns.

No you can't. Both full auto's and shotguns are legal to own.

We can do it again if we wanted to.

if you amend the constitution, sure. Other than that, nope.

You can ban an ar-15 and still own a gun

You can't ban AR15's. The second amendment precludes you from doing so. See DC v Heller.

 

[rahl]

Redirection. So lame...

I do...

Same stupid lie that @rahl made...

Do better...

why do you lie about things that are so easily proven to be lies? This forum keeps a written record of your posts. I've repeatedly quoted the post, where you state flat out that guns ARE designed to kill. That claim has been proven false. Why do you lie about having made the claim, after having it quoted for you numerous times in 3 separate threads now?

 

[Plasmaball]

No you can't. Both full auto's and shotguns are legal to own.

Why is it so hard for you to grasp what I said?
I said we have done it before.
In order to own a fully auto youbhave to jump through regulations..which I'm fine with.

But seriously this is what i meant @Bodi

if you amend the constitution, sure. Other than that, nope.

nah. Just need scotus to swing the other way and change some rulings. There would be nothing you could do to stop them.

See what the current scotus has opened up woth their rulings? Lol..

You can't ban AR15's. The second amendment precludes you from doing so. See DC v Heller.

Sure we could. Who gives a ****ing shit about heller and your opinion.

We can as a society do whatever the **** we wanted to if we wanted to. Your rights are man made up nonsense to give some sort of "order" to the world so society can function and progress.

The reality is the universe doesn't give a ****ing shit about your rights.

Meteor comes down tomorrow and you are gonna be all my rights a God given! Mah rights! And splat.

Rights are whatever we as humans deem we feel they should be. Hence why different countries have different rights for their people..

****ing roe didn't teach you shit huh? Swing the Courts to the left and they can just dismiss heller as a waste of time. All it takes is 5 judges to read the second the way I do. Banning an AR 15 doesn't mean you still can't arm yourself..

That's something none of you can get around. It says ARM not gun, and your opinion of what arm means is subjective.

Lol..****ing people

 

[Bodi]

Waste

Of

Time

 

[Bodi]

Sure we could. Who gives a ****ing shit about heller and your opinion.

We can as a society do whatever the **** we wanted to if we wanted to. Your rights are man made up nonsense to give some sort of "order" to the world so society can function and progress.

Rights are whatever we as humans deem we feel they should be. Hence why different countries have different rights for their people..

I tried teaching some of these guys about the State of Nature vs. the Social Contract but it was far far FAR beyond their ability to understand.

 

[RF667799]

Why is it so hard for you to grasp what I said?
I said we have done it before.
In order to own a fully auto youbhave to jump through regulations..which I'm fine with.

But seriously this is what i meant @Bodi



nah. Just need scotus to swing the other way and change some rulings. There would be nothing you could do to stop them.

See what the current scotus has opened up woth their rulings? Lol..


Sure we could. Who gives a ****ing shit about heller and your opinion.

We can as a society do whatever the **** we wanted to if we wanted to. Your rights are man made up nonsense to give some sort of "order" to the world so society can function and progress.

The reality is the universe doesn't give a ****ing shit about your rights.

Meteor comes down tomorrow and you are gonna be all my rights a God given! Mah rights! And splat.

Rights are whatever we as humans deem we feel they should be. Hence why different countries have different rights for their people..

****ing roe didn't teach you shit huh? Swing the Courts to the left and they can just dismiss heller as a waste of time. All it takes is 5 judges to read the second the way I do. Banning an AR 15 doesn't mean you still can't arm yourself..

That's something none of you can get around. It says ARM not gun, and your opinion of what arm means is subjective.

Lol..****ing people

A hypothetical meteor comes down tomorrow, and I'm not an immediate casualty, I still have my AR-15. And then you better hope I still subscribe to an idea of rights that includes yours.

 

[Plasmaball]

I tried teaching some of these guys about the State of Nature vs. the Social Contract but it was far far FAR beyond their ability to understand.

Grand concepts like that ate hard for people to grasp because it's not your daily grind. Even I reach a point where I go..ok..that's enough of space for me.

That's what is so funny about social contracts and his argument you need to amend the 2nd.

You really don't. Scotus has over turned two major court rulings with this current group.

The other funny thing is watching these folks attempt the literal argument when gun isn't mentioned. Arm is a broad word that can mean many things.