So do you not consider hunting for food productive? What about sporting purposes?
There’s a very real reason I’m digging in on this. You can’t just arbitrarily say a certain thing isn’t what it clearly is, because it suits your purposes. A gun is still a tool, even if it’s quite regularly misused. You lose nothing by classifying it as a tool, and by seeking to reclassify it as something else, you open the door to a host of legal fuckery.
Further, we regulate tools all the time, so it’s not like saying it’s a tool means we can’t, or shouldn’t, regulate firearms. Just look at cars. Definitely tools, and regulated to high hell. It’s important to be specific, though, if we’re proposing to regulate things. If you’re not specific, you end up with dumb things like certain kinds of nail guns being regulated as firearms.
I’m not some crazy gun nut. I think there should absolutely be some more regulations on guns. I think they should make sense, though, and to do that you have to define your terms rigidly.
Well, three of them are construction workers, and one is a kid misusing a tool, is what you want me to say. If you want an example of what I’m talking about, though - three are white, and one is black. Three are facing left, and one is facing right. Three have their arms up, and one had their arms down. All of those are valid answers to your question. This is why definitions, agreeing on them, and sticking to them, are important.
There, you got my response, now go engage with my argument, instead of deflecting.
Well, three of them are construction workers, and one is a kid misusing a tool, is what you want me to say.
Snatched defeat from the jaws of victory. Great job.
Hey you know what has never happened to me? I have never been attacked by people in sheer terror when I handled a multimeter during a riot. Funny story I did have to go to a customer site very close to a BLM protest. No problems, guess when you are holding tools in your hand and have a hardhat on you are invisible as you present zero threat. Some people are trying to keep civilization going and others are waving guns around, what can I say.
Fine but yeah let me engage with your “argument”. As I noted before the use cases for a gun are an almost invisibly small fraction of what they actually get used for. For every guy out there who needs to use one to hunt or will starve there about 1 million out there who are wannabe tough guys with small dicks or school shooters. When something is used as a weapon 99.999999% of the time it is not a tool.
And weapons are tools. We’ve come full circle. Appeal to emotions all you want. That’s all your argument boils down to. It’s fuckin hilarious to me that you seem to think this argument is about whether or not guns are a good thing. That’s NEVER been the argument here. Guns aren’t good or bad, they’re simply tools. Treat them with respect and seek actual understanding, and maybe we can actually effectively regulate them.
You clearly don’t care to listen to any of the heaps of evidence that points to the contrary. If you’re not arguing with the intention of actually hearing anything your opposition is saying, why argue? Just like wasting time?
So do you not consider hunting for food productive? What about sporting purposes?
There’s a very real reason I’m digging in on this. You can’t just arbitrarily say a certain thing isn’t what it clearly is, because it suits your purposes. A gun is still a tool, even if it’s quite regularly misused. You lose nothing by classifying it as a tool, and by seeking to reclassify it as something else, you open the door to a host of legal fuckery.
Further, we regulate tools all the time, so it’s not like saying it’s a tool means we can’t, or shouldn’t, regulate firearms. Just look at cars. Definitely tools, and regulated to high hell. It’s important to be specific, though, if we’re proposing to regulate things. If you’re not specific, you end up with dumb things like certain kinds of nail guns being regulated as firearms.
I’m not some crazy gun nut. I think there should absolutely be some more regulations on guns. I think they should make sense, though, and to do that you have to define your terms rigidly.
I will play the Jeopardy theme song while I wait. Dun dun dun du dun dun…dun du dun du
Well, three of them are construction workers, and one is a kid misusing a tool, is what you want me to say. If you want an example of what I’m talking about, though - three are white, and one is black. Three are facing left, and one is facing right. Three have their arms up, and one had their arms down. All of those are valid answers to your question. This is why definitions, agreeing on them, and sticking to them, are important.
There, you got my response, now go engage with my argument, instead of deflecting.
Snatched defeat from the jaws of victory. Great job.
Hey you know what has never happened to me? I have never been attacked by people in sheer terror when I handled a multimeter during a riot. Funny story I did have to go to a customer site very close to a BLM protest. No problems, guess when you are holding tools in your hand and have a hardhat on you are invisible as you present zero threat. Some people are trying to keep civilization going and others are waving guns around, what can I say.
Fine but yeah let me engage with your “argument”. As I noted before the use cases for a gun are an almost invisibly small fraction of what they actually get used for. For every guy out there who needs to use one to hunt or will starve there about 1 million out there who are wannabe tough guys with small dicks or school shooters. When something is used as a weapon 99.999999% of the time it is not a tool.
And weapons are tools. We’ve come full circle. Appeal to emotions all you want. That’s all your argument boils down to. It’s fuckin hilarious to me that you seem to think this argument is about whether or not guns are a good thing. That’s NEVER been the argument here. Guns aren’t good or bad, they’re simply tools. Treat them with respect and seek actual understanding, and maybe we can actually effectively regulate them.
Nope. Weapons are weapons, tools are tools.
Pretty sure definitionally speaking, you’re wrong, as evidenced above.
No. An AR-15 is not in the same category of a claw hammer.
You clearly don’t care to listen to any of the heaps of evidence that points to the contrary. If you’re not arguing with the intention of actually hearing anything your opposition is saying, why argue? Just like wasting time?