Stop talking and start doing!!!!!!

[Slartibartfast]

No, I'm pointing out, correctly, that it is designed to propel a projectile. It can be USED as a weapon, just like a tire iron can be.

It is designed to be a weapon, thats not refutable.

Yes. Do you not understand what a claw hammer is?

It is a hammer that also pulls up nails.

 

[Rucker61]

That's fine.

Weapon control.

I am not a lawyer, but I believe so. However, the argument is not whether something can be used as a weapon but whether the primary purpose of the thing is a weapon. A hammer is primarily for construction. This is essentially the same argument as the car argument and it fails for the same reason the car argument does. Cars and hammers are not designed to be weapons.

If there isn't then I will just continue using mine as I believe it is the most correct and continue to make my points.

So let's assume you've defined all firearms as "weapons". Now what ?

 

[Slartibartfast]

And the portion directly after the bolded part you left off, refutes your position.

Again, it supports my position.

 

[rahl]

The bolded actually supports my position as the intended design of a firearm is to be a weapon.

and the portion after the bolded, refutes your position.

If you want to use a firearm to build a house, that's up to you, but I hope you do not hurt yourself trying to use a weapon that is damaged as a result of misuse.

It's not my fault you made a hilariously moronic argument, and have now been painted into a corner, because you didn't think anyone would notice the rest of the definition YOU posted, after the word "or" lol

 

[rahl]

Again, it supports my position.

nope, as you've been shown. For 2 reasons. Firearms are not "designed" as weapons. And anything can be used as a weapon, such as a pencil, hammer, softball bat or golf club.

 

[Rucker61]

It is designed to be a weapon, thats not refutable

I have multiple firearms that I've designed and built solely for the purpose of engaging steel and paper targets at distances up to 1300 yards. By your definition these are weapons, and in reality their design intent and sole use is for long distance shooting on targets that have no flesh. In these cases the use of these weapons are not for killing at all. Is that an acceptable use case for you?

 

[RF667799]

I prefer this one

weap·on
/ˈwepən/

noun
noun: weapon; plural noun: weapons

a thing designed or used for inflicting bodily harm or physical damage.
"nuclear weapons"

That's fine. By your definition, a Ford Explorer can be a weapon.

How do you determine that a gun is designed for inflicting bodily harm or physical damage? I really believe you are focusing on one thing that a gun can be used for, and declaring that is the purpose of all guns. I don't believe anyone put you in charge of determining the purpose of things other people own for their own purposes.

 

[Slartibartfast]

So let's assume you've defined all firearms as "weapons". Now what ?

Then the conversation moves forward honestly and without whataboutism surrounding things like cars, hopefully to take a good honest look at the fact that these things are weapons and to honestly consider their role in society.

 

[Slartibartfast]

That's fine. By your definition, a Ford Explorer can be a weapon.

How do you determine that a gun is designed for inflicting bodily harm or physical damage? I really believe you are focusing on one thing that a gun can be used for, and declaring that is the purpose of all guns. I don't believe anyone put you in charge of determining the purpose of things other people own for their own purposes.

A ford explorer is designed for transportation, not as a weapon. Try again.

 

[Slartibartfast]

I have multiple firearms that I've designed and built solely for the purpose of engaging steel and paper targets at distances up to 1300 yards. By your definition these are weapons, and in reality their design intent and sole use is for long distance shooting on targets that have no flesh. In these cases the use of these weapons are not for killing at all. Is that an acceptable use case for you?

Uh huh, and those bullets would just bounce off a person?

 

[Slartibartfast]

nope, as you've been shown. For 2 reasons. Firearms are not "designed" as weapons. And anything can be used as a weapon, such as a pencil, hammer, softball bat or golf club.

The entire purpose for the technology is to be a weapon, that's already been shown. Other devices can be used as a weapon, but that is not what they were invented or designed.

I have already pointed this out to you.

 

[RF667799]

A ford explorer is designed for transportation, not as a weapon. Try again.

weap·on
/ˈwepən/

noun
noun: weapon; plural noun: weapons

a thing designed or used for inflicting bodily harm or physical damage.
"nuclear weapons"

A Ford Explorer fits the definition you supplied. You don't like that definition now?

 

[Slartibartfast]

and the portion after the bolded, refutes your position.

It's not my fault you made a hilariously moronic argument, and have now been painted into a corner, because you didn't think anyone would notice the rest of the definition YOU posted, after the word "or" lol

The bolded part confirms my position. Do you need to review the meaning of the word "designed" maybe?

 

[RF667799]

Uh huh, and those bullets would just bounce off a person?

With that, you are back to "can be used as" for your definition.

 

[Slartibartfast]

A Ford Explorer fits the definition you supplied. You don't like that definition now?

It fits the second half, but not the first half. A ford explorer is designed for transportation. However, the first part is what has been bolded.

 

[Slartibartfast]

With that, you are back to "can be used as" for your definition.

I already pointed out the purpose of the technology.

 

[RF667799]

It fits the second half, but not the first half. A ford explorer is designed for transportation.

The definition you supplied doesn't say that a weapon must fit both. That's why it says "or".

 

[Rucker61]

Then the conversation moves forward honestly and without whataboutism surrounding things like cars, hopefully to take a good honest look at the fact that these things are weapons and to honestly consider their role in society.

Let's honestly consider their role in society, which according to the Gun Control Act of 1964 includes "...hunting, trap shooting, target shooting, personal protection and any other lawful activity".

 

[Rucker61]

The bolded part confirms my position. Do you need to review the meaning of the word "designed" maybe?

What was the design intent of my semiautomatic 6.5 Creedmoor?

 

[RF667799]

I already pointed out the purpose of the technology.

As a function of its "technology", a Ford Explorer can be used for mass murder.

 

[Slartibartfast]

The definition you supplied doesn't say that a weapon must fit both. That's why it says "or".

Go back and reread it with focus on the word "or"

 

[Slartibartfast]

Let's honestly consider their role in society, which according to the Gun Control Act of 1964 includes "...hunting, trap shooting, target shooting, personal protection and any other lawful activity".

That is not a role I agree with and these things are cultural with laws being after the fact.

 

[Slartibartfast]

What was the design intent of my semiautomatic 6.5 Creedmoor?

As a weapon. The manufacturer may lie and say its for something else, but being a weapon is the essential nature of a gun.

 

[Rucker61]

That is not a role I agree with and these things are cultural with laws being after the fact.

Boo hoo.

 

[Slartibartfast]

Boo hoo.