|
Attn: Subbywan | by Allandaros | 2007-07-29 10:54:03 |
|
People hold guns to be this magic device | by subbywan | 2007-07-29 11:23:47 |
|
Guns raise the stakes. | by Didactylos | 2007-07-29 11:33:38 |
|
not really. | by subbywan | 2007-07-29 11:37:43 |
| What else are they designed for? |
by Didactylos |
2007-07-29 12:08:23 |
Note my words: the only use they are designed for. I'm sure you can use a gun as a bottle opener, but that's hardly within the design parameters.
Any non-lethal application of a gun is purely dependent on chance, and the person pulling the trigger.
Recreational use? Again, not what they're designed for. People can turn anything into a hobby; that doesn't make the hobby a reason for the thing. Even guns designed for sport are intended to be able to kill.
Be careful not to warp my words again, or I will have to mock you severely. |
|
[ Reply ] |
|
Airguns aren't designed to kill. | by CynicalRyan | 2007-07-29 12:14:01 |
|
Now you're being silly. | by Didactylos | 2007-07-29 12:41:21 |
|
They aren't? The only difference is how the | by CynicalRyan | 2007-07-29 12:49:31 |
|
Sorry, I'm not going to | by Didactylos | 2007-07-29 12:58:06 |
|
How are my questions only relevant | by CynicalRyan | 2007-07-29 13:05:33 |
|
They are guns and have a riffled barrel. | by joecrouse | 2007-07-29 15:47:08 |
|
Guns were designed for a variety of reasons | by subbywan | 2007-07-29 12:39:24 |
|
Strictly speaking, guns are designed | by subbywan | 2007-07-29 12:43:14 |
|
Everything | by Didactylos | 2007-07-29 12:55:12 |
|
Your post in a nutshell: | by CynicalRyan | 2007-07-29 12:57:29 |
|
I wonder if this means we can discount TNT | by subbywan | 2007-07-29 12:58:41 |
|
We can. | by CynicalRyan | 2007-07-29 13:02:58 |
|
Okay, if you don't want to debate | by Didactylos | 2007-07-29 13:09:32 |
|
Yes, it is | by subbywan | 2007-07-29 13:14:46 |
|
Nice. | by CynicalRyan | 2007-07-29 13:15:17 |
|
That is an incorrect assumption on your part | by subbywan | 2007-07-29 12:57:43 |
|
and then we explore the fringe cases | by robertltux | 2007-07-29 17:53:33 |
|
Show me a gun designed to prevent killing. | by Didactylos | 2007-07-29 12:49:01 |
|
Wait ... it's about *your* choice? | by subbywan | 2007-07-29 12:55:20 |
|
So many red herrings! | by Didactylos | 2007-07-29 13:07:18 |
|
Post hoc, ergo propter hoc. | by CynicalRyan | 2007-07-29 13:13:02 |
|
Wait, what? What have you been smoking? (n/t) | by krikkert | 2007-07-29 13:13:59 |
|
*grins* | by subbywan | 2007-07-29 13:14:07 |
|
One failure to reason | by Didactylos | 2007-07-29 13:28:37 |
|
Then you are incredibly naive | by subbywan | 2007-07-29 13:36:23 |
|
You don't see the point. | by Didactylos | 2007-07-29 13:52:34 |
|
There is no contrast there | by subbywan | 2007-07-29 13:58:07 |
|
I believe I have made my point. | by Didactylos | 2007-07-29 14:02:40 |
|
You have. Post hoc, ergo propter hoc FTW! (n/t) | by subbywan | 2007-07-29 14:04:43 |
|
Hasn't. | by CynicalRyan | 2007-07-29 14:08:58 |
|
Yeah, but you can still kill with it | by subbywan | 2007-07-29 14:23:02 |
|
Ah, dang. | by CynicalRyan | 2007-07-29 14:27:45 |
|
Sorry, but wrong. | by CynicalRyan | 2007-07-29 13:43:14 |
|
Cold war worked out VERY well (seeing as | by joecrouse | 2007-07-29 15:48:46 |
