Target shooting? Pretty sure more ammo is spent putting holes in paper every day than ammo spent trying to kill someone. So yea…common use says, target practice.
Better ban alcohol then, it kills more people than rifles of any kind used in homicides by around 5xs the numbers…knives as well, since they kill around 2 times what rifles of any kind do… hilarious that you bring up lawn darts though…do you want to wrap everyone in bubble wrap? Let’s keep all drugs banned as well since they kill basically more people than anything else.
Living life to it’s fullest can be dangerous…if you want to live in a nanny way, do it to yourself but leave the adults the fuck alone.
Hold on I did some similar math to this the other day…
How many gun owners become mass shooters? Lets see, 333,287,557 people, 50% (generous, it isn’t quite 50 but for easy math) ownership for 166,643,778.5 people owning guns, and I’ll be generous and include gang shootings (because I know the number) at 547 for the year, turns out, 547 is 0.00032824507756826% of 166643778.5, meaning 0.00032824507756826% of gun owners are likely to pull off a mass shooting in any given year.
S’not exactly what you asked but we have almost no way to ever figure out the answer you seek. We’d need to know how many range trips they make and count their ammo off video surveillance, assuming we can get the angle, and they never shot off camera on private land or something. Or look at their ammo purchases, find a roundcount from their shooting, find out what’s at home, and the difference is the estimation. That stuff just isn’t tracked like that.
How many drunk drivers end up killing people? Considering how often I see the parking lots of bars full, I’d say the vast, vast majority don’t. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t make drunk driving illegal.
I don’t think guns should be illegal, but that’s not a good argument.
Of course, murder is illegal, I wasn’t suggesting we legalize it. I’m saying we don’t need to ban alcohol simply because some people drive drunk, and we don’t need to ban guns because .0003% of people who have them “mass shoot.”
And I’m saying we regulate cars and part of that regulation is taking away people’s right to use a car when they do reckless things with it. That is becoming less true of guns with virtually every high court ruling. I would say that most Americans do not want guns completely banned, we want them to be out of the hands of people who would go out and kill innocent people with them. And that can be mitigated with regulation.
And we also take people’s guns for doing reckless things with them. Hell, if you are reckless enough with your car to get a felony they’ll take your guns about it, and they don’t take your car if you have a negligent discharge with your gun.
Your making this into an argument about what the legal status of guns should be, and that is a good and separate argument to have, but the entire point of my original comment was just pointing that the article’s use of the words “sole purpose” is opinionated and inflamatory (and objectively wrong). “Sole” means “one and only” and so that’s obviously ludicrous given that the vast majority of gun owners aren’t using them for their supposed “sole purpose”.
I shoot long range mainly, it’s a lot of fun trying to hit a small target at hundreds of yards. It’s not easy at all. It’s a hobby, people shoot bows for hobby as well, or slingshots or air rifles.
I also hunt and own a farm. I keep an AR10 in the utv Incase of wild boar, which are fucking scary… I’d rather face a bunch of pissed off coyotes than a single wild bore.
They are useful for defending a medium sized area, versus pistols which are useful only for defending a small area. They are simply more effective defense machines.
I explained it well enough already. But since you want to be pedantic about it, defense would be using the rifle to eliminate threats to your life or the lives of others.
We are all doing fine as for me and mine, so you have no need to worry about us. The overall society is something I have zero control or influence over, so it’s basically none of my concern.
You seem to be looking at the big picture like you’re meditating on it from Cloud 9 and imagining the way things could be if you had the powers of a magical genie to reform everything into a peaceful Zen tranquility. That’s simply not reality, it’s wishful thinking.
I explained it well enough already. But since you want to be pedantic about it, defense would be using the rifle to eliminate threats to your life or the lives of others.
Shooting down a tree limb to recover a stuck ball or boomerang or drone from up high. A small bore shotgun like a .410 is pretty good for taking down tree limbs like that.
“Destruction of life” - we are talking about a branch or two on a tree, so what? Trees get trimmed and pruned all the time out of necessity of landscaping.
Imagine the countless microorganisms that live and die each day, whose cellular membranes could be disrupted by the soap you bathe with. There could be billions or more living things that you murder on a daily basis by washing yourself. Imagine if your house was infested with roaches and fleas and you had to hire an exterminator to exterminate those lives.
Death and taking of life is simply a part of life, and we are inherent members of the food chain which perpetuates it, so it’s not productive to worry about every minuscule effect that every action has as a result.
Hey, you’re right. I also use my butter knife for a lot of things other than butter, such as: brie, jelly, jam, nutella, spreading mayo, cutting my over-easy eggs, etc. Yeah, it turns out it’s useful for a lot more than just butter. It’s almost as if it’s a multipurpose tool that has many different and acceptable uses. I think you’re on to something.
I already replied to a similar comment hours before you posted this one. In summary, you are moving the goalposts of the specific comment chain I replied to, and in any case pretending these are not weapons designed to kill doesn’t strengthen your argument, it makes it look disingenuous.
If you want to argue in favor of gun rights, be as honest as the other guy. You are arguing for the right to kill people in specific situations. I’m not saying there isn’t some merit to that argument, I’m saying be honest about it, because this whole “nuh-uh they weren’t really designed to kill people” thing is dishonest and doesn’t serve your purposes.
What are the six uses of your semi-automatic rifle that don’t involve the threat of killing people? Because I can think of two- target shooting and hunting. And neither of those require the sort of rifles or handguns used in most modern mass shootings.
Please define your new take in the interpretation of the word “sole”.
The actual sole purpose of what most people refer to as an “assault rifle” is just to be a modern, reliable, modular platform that can be customized to fit the needs and use cases of the owner. It’s good at that, and so it’s good at being customized for a lot of different uses.
The hunting argument you make is dumb. You would need to turn around and argue that any advancement of any produce anywhere that allows it to perform even marginally better than absolutely necessary needs to be undone. The fastest posted speed limit in the united states is 85mph, and yet every modern vehicle can exceed that by a lot…some of them by double. It doesn’t mean the sole purpose of the car is to break speed limits.
If you break it down by time used for any one specific purpose, then the primary use case of an assault weapon is to be stored in a box or a case, unused (that is what the vast majority are doing the vast majority of time). I would argue the primary purpose is synonymous to the use case of an insurance policy (something you have in case you need it but don’t actually ever use it). The next most common use (by time spent performing in the role) is to exist solely as a show-of-force without even being fired -and that seems to work pretty well because just imagining the appearance of one tends to get people upset and agitated. For the rifles that actually get used regularly, practice is another common use (using it to maintain proficiency with marksmanship skills) and also shooting for fun (which isn’t always/necessarily practice) is a common use case. In the past, I have used mine for both hunting and for protection against potentially dangerous wile animals while hiking through the vast wilderness of the pacific northwest - I personally don’t like the idea of having to mess around with a clumsy bolt action in the event I might need to fire multiple shots.
From the gun manufacturer’s perspective, the ‘sole purpose’ of “assault rifles” isn’t to “kill people as fast as possible”, it’s to: sell weapons and make profit. The “sole purpose” of a thing is defined by the user…and at least in the united states that means a lot of things other than killing people.
I didn’t say anything about purpose. I specifically said use. As did you. So that’s all irrelevant. You named six uses for a butter knife. You have not for a gun. I wonder why?
I don’t care whether you said “purpose” or not. RTFA - “sole purpose” came from the article, and that is what I my original top level comment was challenging.
First, let’s be clear about something…my originaal comment was challenging the article’s assertion that they only had a “sole purpose”. That’s their quote. If you believe that words still have meaning, then you should understand that “sole purpose” means “one and only one purpose”. So I don’t need to name 6 other purposes, I just need to name 1 other purpose. But I’m going to smash your naive challenge anyway and give you multiple.
From the perspective of the people who built them (the manufacturer), the “purpose” is to sell guns, not to kill as many people as fast as possible. They build what is popular and likely to sell.
For the vast majority of people that buy them, the sole purpose is to sit in a box or a case and never be used. People largely buy them the way they buy insurance policies. You buy an insurance policy because if you need it but don’t already have it then the consequences are catestrophic. So this is just people getting it before they need it hoping they never have to use it. The reality is that most people just buy them to have them without ever using them.
Recreational shooting (not to be confused with target/practice shooting). The modern AR15 is just a fun gun to shoot. This is one of the most common uses. What makes it so much fun? The action is usually very reliable, you can shoot a lot before having to change or reload magazines: It’s got the perfect amount of recoil - you can feel it but it’s pretty light. Ammunition, compared to other firearms, isn’t cheap but also isn’t super expensive, and it’s also a popular enough cartrige size that it isn’t hard to find. It’s lightweight and has great balance. It’s just a very fun gun to recreationally shoot.
Marksmanship and Training (target practice). This is another very common purpose. The AR is well suited to this because of how modular it is. As a platform, it can accommodate a large number of accessories and has a lot of options. Example: longer heavier barrels with more riflings for better distance accuracy, a wide variety of scopes and sighting devices, many options for different sizes and shapes of stocks to accommodate the needs of the owner.
Hunting (animals). This is a common use. It’s popular because it’s relatively light (which means it’s not a huge burden to carry it all day hiking/scouting), it’s a large enough caliber to be useful for a wide variety of hunting, and because of #4 above, it can be modified to fit the need of the hunter.
Defense (against potentially dangerous animals). This is a common use case for me. I do a lot of trekking in the mountainous wilderness of the pacific northwest. I do occasionally come across mountain lions, bobcats, black bears, and even occasionally bull elk/moose who can be aggressive toward humans during some parts of the year (like during mating season). I’ve never had to shot an animal in defense yet, but I have had to discharge a round on many occasions to de-escalate a close encounter.
Defense (against potentially dangerous people). Related to #6 above, an unfortunate part of the modern world affecting our beautiful wilderness and forests. While out experiencing our great natural wilderness, I have come across many illegal marijuana grows in the middle of our state and national forests. I’ve also come across many inactive or recently vacated meth operations and even one active one. You obviously don’t engage, and you get away as quickly and quietly as possible, but there is a very real threat to your own life when coming across something like this. I would not consider not being armed for these scenarios.
Show of force. Next to #2, this is probably the most common purpose. To be worn/carried and displayed as a show of force without ever actually being used. People go into a frenzied panic just at the sight of a modern AR15 (I mean, just look at you, your comments, and the comments of a lot of other people here just upset they exist). This is the actual most common use case and fate for a lot of these firearms…just carriedd and displayed as a show of force without ever being used to “kill as many people as fast as possible”.
Building/assembly. This is an aspect that a lot of people really enjoy - the building/tinkering aspects of the platform. There are so many internal parts and so many parts options, and a lot of people just like to start off with a registered lower receiver and then spend a lot of time thinking about the build, acquiring the parts and then building it out exactly as they intended…only to disassemble/reassemble for the pure enjoyment of it. It’s a bit like modle building, only instead of plastic or wood you have the feel of the metal, the sounds of the action moving andd sliding, the smell of the lubricating oil. This is a very common and popular use case and a lot of these are disassembled/reassembled more than they are fired. This one also appeals to me…probably thanks to all the time I spent in the US Marine Corps doing this and now it brings me a sense of nostalgia and is a very pleasant activity for me later in life.
Get back to me when a butter knife hurts someone from a range more than 50 feet. We’re not talking about butter-knife-to-paint-can people; we’re talking about “shoot the lock” types.
I’m surprised the ar15 is so light. My c7 was 7lbs.
Interesting philosophical debate. Is it not for whatever I’m using it for, regardless of its designated purpose? If I have a lighter, and someone asks “what’s that thing for,” and I answer “lighting candles,” am I wrong because the bic was designed with tobacco smokers in mind? Would I have to have answered “to expend and ignite butane” to be correct? If I have a bottle of booze and someone asks what for, am I wrong if I say “Tom’s party” instead of “consumption and subsequent expellation?” I say that butter knife is “for opening paint cans.”
Also, do you have a designated poop paint knife, or do you use a random one every time? If it is designated I’d argue that is yet another reason to say it is for opening paint cans.
The fact that I have found an alternative purpose for the butter-knife does not satisfy this phrasing from the comment you replied to:
each designed with a single purpose — to kill lots of people as fast as possible
My butter-knife was designed to cut and spread soft food that does not require anything sharper to work with. Those guns are designed and marketed to kill.
By the way, I’m not anti-2A nor anti gun. But I am anti-deflection, among other things. An AR-15 is designed to kill people. Pretending it’s not doesn’t strengthen your position, it makes your argument seem disingenuous.
An AR-15 is a completely modular rifle platform so that you can build it for your needs. Of which yes, building one for killing people is one. But it is definitely not the only one.
Oh well my actual argument is “some people need killin’ it’s called self defense.” But I’m more interested in if things are “for” something other than their designation if they’re being used for it and are now designated for it by it’s actual end user.
For sure no problem. I’m definitely a proponent of the right to self defense, but also a proponent of imbibing on whatever substances please you so long as you don’t hurt others. Substances which may or may not make one interested in pondering on things like fate even concerning inanimate objects, I suppose.
The sub-headline of the article claims there is no purpose for “assault weapons” other than killing people.
Is this article trying to tell me I’m using mine wrong? Because I use mine only for things that don’t involve killing people.
Removed by mod
Target shooting? Pretty sure more ammo is spent putting holes in paper every day than ammo spent trying to kill someone. So yea…common use says, target practice.
Removed by mod
Better ban alcohol then, it kills more people than rifles of any kind used in homicides by around 5xs the numbers…knives as well, since they kill around 2 times what rifles of any kind do… hilarious that you bring up lawn darts though…do you want to wrap everyone in bubble wrap? Let’s keep all drugs banned as well since they kill basically more people than anything else.
Living life to it’s fullest can be dangerous…if you want to live in a nanny way, do it to yourself but leave the adults the fuck alone.
Removed by mod
That’s probably true, but what percentage of that shooting range ammo is used in preparation for shooting people (whether offensively or defensively)?
Hold on I did some similar math to this the other day…
How many gun owners become mass shooters? Lets see, 333,287,557 people, 50% (generous, it isn’t quite 50 but for easy math) ownership for 166,643,778.5 people owning guns, and I’ll be generous and include gang shootings (because I know the number) at 547 for the year, turns out, 547 is 0.00032824507756826% of 166643778.5, meaning 0.00032824507756826% of gun owners are likely to pull off a mass shooting in any given year.
S’not exactly what you asked but we have almost no way to ever figure out the answer you seek. We’d need to know how many range trips they make and count their ammo off video surveillance, assuming we can get the angle, and they never shot off camera on private land or something. Or look at their ammo purchases, find a roundcount from their shooting, find out what’s at home, and the difference is the estimation. That stuff just isn’t tracked like that.
How many drunk drivers end up killing people? Considering how often I see the parking lots of bars full, I’d say the vast, vast majority don’t. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t make drunk driving illegal.
I don’t think guns should be illegal, but that’s not a good argument.
Of course, murder is illegal, I wasn’t suggesting we legalize it. I’m saying we don’t need to ban alcohol simply because some people drive drunk, and we don’t need to ban guns because .0003% of people who have them “mass shoot.”
And I’m saying we regulate cars and part of that regulation is taking away people’s right to use a car when they do reckless things with it. That is becoming less true of guns with virtually every high court ruling. I would say that most Americans do not want guns completely banned, we want them to be out of the hands of people who would go out and kill innocent people with them. And that can be mitigated with regulation.
And we also take people’s guns for doing reckless things with them. Hell, if you are reckless enough with your car to get a felony they’ll take your guns about it, and they don’t take your car if you have a negligent discharge with your gun.
Your making this into an argument about what the legal status of guns should be, and that is a good and separate argument to have, but the entire point of my original comment was just pointing that the article’s use of the words “sole purpose” is opinionated and inflamatory (and objectively wrong). “Sole” means “one and only” and so that’s obviously ludicrous given that the vast majority of gun owners aren’t using them for their supposed “sole purpose”.
Way way way less than .00000001%
People don’t practice suicide at the range
Cops who on average kill 1k civs a year also practice very little
And gangs and drug violence is the same… you’re not seeing them go to the range.
I mean, what are you practicing for?
I shoot long range mainly, it’s a lot of fun trying to hit a small target at hundreds of yards. It’s not easy at all. It’s a hobby, people shoot bows for hobby as well, or slingshots or air rifles.
I also hunt and own a farm. I keep an AR10 in the utv Incase of wild boar, which are fucking scary… I’d rather face a bunch of pissed off coyotes than a single wild bore.
They are useful for defending a medium sized area, versus pistols which are useful only for defending a small area. They are simply more effective defense machines.
Removed by mod
I explained it well enough already. But since you want to be pedantic about it, defense would be using the rifle to eliminate threats to your life or the lives of others.
Removed by mod
We are all doing fine as for me and mine, so you have no need to worry about us. The overall society is something I have zero control or influence over, so it’s basically none of my concern.
You seem to be looking at the big picture like you’re meditating on it from Cloud 9 and imagining the way things could be if you had the powers of a magical genie to reform everything into a peaceful Zen tranquility. That’s simply not reality, it’s wishful thinking.
Removed by mod
Can I get one of those defence rifles? All I see is assault rifles.
I explained it well enough already. But since you want to be pedantic about it, defense would be using the rifle to eliminate threats to your life or the lives of others.
I use a butter-knife to open paint cans with, but that’s not what it’s for.
Removed by mod
Shooting down a tree limb to recover a stuck ball or boomerang or drone from up high. A small bore shotgun like a .410 is pretty good for taking down tree limbs like that.
Removed by mod
I’m talking about higher up than any stick or ladder reaches you goof. Embarrassing is you not being able to imagine that.
Removed by mod
“Destruction of life” - we are talking about a branch or two on a tree, so what? Trees get trimmed and pruned all the time out of necessity of landscaping.
Imagine the countless microorganisms that live and die each day, whose cellular membranes could be disrupted by the soap you bathe with. There could be billions or more living things that you murder on a daily basis by washing yourself. Imagine if your house was infested with roaches and fleas and you had to hire an exterminator to exterminate those lives.
Death and taking of life is simply a part of life, and we are inherent members of the food chain which perpetuates it, so it’s not productive to worry about every minuscule effect that every action has as a result.
Removed by mod
Hey, you’re right. I also use my butter knife for a lot of things other than butter, such as: brie, jelly, jam, nutella, spreading mayo, cutting my over-easy eggs, etc. Yeah, it turns out it’s useful for a lot more than just butter. It’s almost as if it’s a multipurpose tool that has many different and acceptable uses. I think you’re on to something.
I already replied to a similar comment hours before you posted this one. In summary, you are moving the goalposts of the specific comment chain I replied to, and in any case pretending these are not weapons designed to kill doesn’t strengthen your argument, it makes it look disingenuous.
If you want to argue in favor of gun rights, be as honest as the other guy. You are arguing for the right to kill people in specific situations. I’m not saying there isn’t some merit to that argument, I’m saying be honest about it, because this whole “nuh-uh they weren’t really designed to kill people” thing is dishonest and doesn’t serve your purposes.
Okay, you named six alternatives there to butter.
What are the six uses of your semi-automatic rifle that don’t involve the threat of killing people? Because I can think of two- target shooting and hunting. And neither of those require the sort of rifles or handguns used in most modern mass shootings.
Please define your new take in the interpretation of the word “sole”.
The actual sole purpose of what most people refer to as an “assault rifle” is just to be a modern, reliable, modular platform that can be customized to fit the needs and use cases of the owner. It’s good at that, and so it’s good at being customized for a lot of different uses.
The hunting argument you make is dumb. You would need to turn around and argue that any advancement of any produce anywhere that allows it to perform even marginally better than absolutely necessary needs to be undone. The fastest posted speed limit in the united states is 85mph, and yet every modern vehicle can exceed that by a lot…some of them by double. It doesn’t mean the sole purpose of the car is to break speed limits.
If you break it down by time used for any one specific purpose, then the primary use case of an assault weapon is to be stored in a box or a case, unused (that is what the vast majority are doing the vast majority of time). I would argue the primary purpose is synonymous to the use case of an insurance policy (something you have in case you need it but don’t actually ever use it). The next most common use (by time spent performing in the role) is to exist solely as a show-of-force without even being fired -and that seems to work pretty well because just imagining the appearance of one tends to get people upset and agitated. For the rifles that actually get used regularly, practice is another common use (using it to maintain proficiency with marksmanship skills) and also shooting for fun (which isn’t always/necessarily practice) is a common use case. In the past, I have used mine for both hunting and for protection against potentially dangerous wile animals while hiking through the vast wilderness of the pacific northwest - I personally don’t like the idea of having to mess around with a clumsy bolt action in the event I might need to fire multiple shots.
From the gun manufacturer’s perspective, the ‘sole purpose’ of “assault rifles” isn’t to “kill people as fast as possible”, it’s to: sell weapons and make profit. The “sole purpose” of a thing is defined by the user…and at least in the united states that means a lot of things other than killing people.
I didn’t say anything about purpose. I specifically said use. As did you. So that’s all irrelevant. You named six uses for a butter knife. You have not for a gun. I wonder why?
I don’t care whether you said “purpose” or not. RTFA - “sole purpose” came from the article, and that is what I my original top level comment was challenging.
Removed by mod
The list goes on…
First, let’s be clear about something…my originaal comment was challenging the article’s assertion that they only had a “sole purpose”. That’s their quote. If you believe that words still have meaning, then you should understand that “sole purpose” means “one and only one purpose”. So I don’t need to name 6 other purposes, I just need to name 1 other purpose. But I’m going to smash your naive challenge anyway and give you multiple.
From the perspective of the people who built them (the manufacturer), the “purpose” is to sell guns, not to kill as many people as fast as possible. They build what is popular and likely to sell.
For the vast majority of people that buy them, the sole purpose is to sit in a box or a case and never be used. People largely buy them the way they buy insurance policies. You buy an insurance policy because if you need it but don’t already have it then the consequences are catestrophic. So this is just people getting it before they need it hoping they never have to use it. The reality is that most people just buy them to have them without ever using them.
Recreational shooting (not to be confused with target/practice shooting). The modern AR15 is just a fun gun to shoot. This is one of the most common uses. What makes it so much fun? The action is usually very reliable, you can shoot a lot before having to change or reload magazines: It’s got the perfect amount of recoil - you can feel it but it’s pretty light. Ammunition, compared to other firearms, isn’t cheap but also isn’t super expensive, and it’s also a popular enough cartrige size that it isn’t hard to find. It’s lightweight and has great balance. It’s just a very fun gun to recreationally shoot.
Marksmanship and Training (target practice). This is another very common purpose. The AR is well suited to this because of how modular it is. As a platform, it can accommodate a large number of accessories and has a lot of options. Example: longer heavier barrels with more riflings for better distance accuracy, a wide variety of scopes and sighting devices, many options for different sizes and shapes of stocks to accommodate the needs of the owner.
Hunting (animals). This is a common use. It’s popular because it’s relatively light (which means it’s not a huge burden to carry it all day hiking/scouting), it’s a large enough caliber to be useful for a wide variety of hunting, and because of #4 above, it can be modified to fit the need of the hunter.
Defense (against potentially dangerous animals). This is a common use case for me. I do a lot of trekking in the mountainous wilderness of the pacific northwest. I do occasionally come across mountain lions, bobcats, black bears, and even occasionally bull elk/moose who can be aggressive toward humans during some parts of the year (like during mating season). I’ve never had to shot an animal in defense yet, but I have had to discharge a round on many occasions to de-escalate a close encounter.
Defense (against potentially dangerous people). Related to #6 above, an unfortunate part of the modern world affecting our beautiful wilderness and forests. While out experiencing our great natural wilderness, I have come across many illegal marijuana grows in the middle of our state and national forests. I’ve also come across many inactive or recently vacated meth operations and even one active one. You obviously don’t engage, and you get away as quickly and quietly as possible, but there is a very real threat to your own life when coming across something like this. I would not consider not being armed for these scenarios.
Show of force. Next to #2, this is probably the most common purpose. To be worn/carried and displayed as a show of force without ever actually being used. People go into a frenzied panic just at the sight of a modern AR15 (I mean, just look at you, your comments, and the comments of a lot of other people here just upset they exist). This is the actual most common use case and fate for a lot of these firearms…just carriedd and displayed as a show of force without ever being used to “kill as many people as fast as possible”.
Building/assembly. This is an aspect that a lot of people really enjoy - the building/tinkering aspects of the platform. There are so many internal parts and so many parts options, and a lot of people just like to start off with a registered lower receiver and then spend a lot of time thinking about the build, acquiring the parts and then building it out exactly as they intended…only to disassemble/reassemble for the pure enjoyment of it. It’s a bit like modle building, only instead of plastic or wood you have the feel of the metal, the sounds of the action moving andd sliding, the smell of the lubricating oil. This is a very common and popular use case and a lot of these are disassembled/reassembled more than they are fired. This one also appeals to me…probably thanks to all the time I spent in the US Marine Corps doing this and now it brings me a sense of nostalgia and is a very pleasant activity for me later in life.
Get back to me when a butter knife hurts someone from a range more than 50 feet. We’re not talking about butter-knife-to-paint-can people; we’re talking about “shoot the lock” types.
I’m surprised the ar15 is so light. My c7 was 7lbs.
Cutting eggs? What, you don’t have a chainsaw in the kitchen for that?
Interesting philosophical debate. Is it not for whatever I’m using it for, regardless of its designated purpose? If I have a lighter, and someone asks “what’s that thing for,” and I answer “lighting candles,” am I wrong because the bic was designed with tobacco smokers in mind? Would I have to have answered “to expend and ignite butane” to be correct? If I have a bottle of booze and someone asks what for, am I wrong if I say “Tom’s party” instead of “consumption and subsequent expellation?” I say that butter knife is “for opening paint cans.”
Also, do you have a designated
pooppaint knife, or do you use a random one every time? If it is designated I’d argue that is yet another reason to say it is for opening paint cans.The fact that I have found an alternative purpose for the butter-knife does not satisfy this phrasing from the comment you replied to:
My butter-knife was designed to cut and spread soft food that does not require anything sharper to work with. Those guns are designed and marketed to kill.
By the way, I’m not anti-2A nor anti gun. But I am anti-deflection, among other things. An AR-15 is designed to kill people. Pretending it’s not doesn’t strengthen your position, it makes your argument seem disingenuous.
An AR-15 is a completely modular rifle platform so that you can build it for your needs. Of which yes, building one for killing people is one. But it is definitely not the only one.
Oh well my actual argument is “some people need killin’ it’s called self defense.” But I’m more interested in if things are “for” something other than their designation if they’re being used for it and are now designated for it by it’s actual end user.
Thanks for your honesty.
For sure no problem. I’m definitely a proponent of the right to self defense, but also a proponent of imbibing on whatever substances please you so long as you don’t hurt others. Substances which may or may not make one interested in pondering on things like fate even concerning inanimate objects, I suppose.
Are you telling me this hammer is built for pounding lots of nails? I only use mine for pulling nails and securing staples that have come loose.