[Tempest09]

Actually, strictly speaking, nuclear bombs aren't designed to kill. They are designed to create a nuclear explosion, efficiently and accurately. It's the explosion that may be designed to kill. They can be used for non-lethal purposes, such as blowing up incoming asteroids, blowing apart earth for mining, or making really cool looking craters in the desert. Once again, it's only a tool, the use of which is up to the user.

Wow, you can mimic a post. How impressive.
Bad example though. A nuclear bomb would be akin to the bullet, which in this case, is designed to be lethal. The aircraft, or launch vehicle that delivers the payload, on the other hand, would be more like the gun.

However, let's run with your example for a moment. I believe fission and fusion are the words you were looking for in reference to a nuclear explosion. Now, let's see. Without fusion or fission, I believe not only are we left without nuclear weapons (which I happen to agree, we shouldn't need, except possibly to attempt to deflect an object in space bound for Earth), but we're also going to have to lose a multitude of power plants and all of the dependent synthesized radioactive materials used in the medical world. Well hell, since we obviously can't be trusted with it, neither can the rest of the universe, as, you know, there could be some aliens out there waiting to nuke us. So let's go ahead and ban that, universally. That means our sun, and every other star out there, is going to have to go too. Actually, since the atoms that make up your physical being once underwent such a process, why don't we ban them as well? I mean, we wouldn't want them lingering around either, just in case they end up being used to harm someone.

The next time you want to troll someone, reconsider. It's really not your forte.

[Shahada]

The next time you want to troll someone, reconsider. It's really not your forte.

I think the fact that you wrote a long involved response defending not only your original, ridiculous assertion that guns are "merely a tool" in response to someone saying they are designed to kill things, but also defending my extension of your position defending nuclear bombs as mere tools, says otherwise. Though I'd say it's less "trolling" and more just humorously illustrating the absurdity of your position. I don't really care a lot about guns either way, I'll just never stop thinking the gun-nut argument "guns aren't designed to kill people, they're just tools, like an electric chair or noose" isn't hilarious.

And by the way nuclear bombs and nuclear fission (fusion isn't applicable here, smart guy) are not the same thing and saying we should ban nuclear bombs is not in any way saying we should ban nuclear fission. Fission is the process through which the explosion is generated, not the weapon itself.

[Tempest09]

I think the fact that you wrote a long involved response defending not only your original, ridiculous assertion that guns are "merely a tool" in response to someone saying they are designed to kill things, but also defending my extension of your position defending nuclear bombs as mere tools, says otherwise. Though I'd say it's less "trolling" and more just humorously illustrating the absurdity of your position. I don't really care a lot about guns either way, I'll just never stop thinking the gun-nut argument "guns aren't designed to kill people, they're just tools, like an electric chair or noose" isn't hilarious.

And by the way nuclear bombs and nuclear fission (fusion isn't applicable here, smart guy) are not the same thing and saying we should ban nuclear bombs is not in any way saying we should ban nuclear fission. Fission is the process through which the explosion is generated, not the weapon itself.

Mmk pumpkin.

I would suggest you read up on the Teller-Ulam design and the hydrogen bomb. Fusion is indeed applicable. Check your facts.

[bellisaurius]

First they came for the racists, them they came for the facsists, then they came for the reasonable people, and then they came for me.

I'm for keepiing it from violent felons, and possibly for people with certain mental illnesses, but that's about it. Your beliefs shouldn't matter. If you couls join the military, you should be able to have a gun.

[Shahada]

Just for the record I don't really care about guns and am not arguing for them to be banned or severely restricted, though I'm fine with some regulations. I always have to make that disclaimer in these threads because I always end up arguing with the pro-gun people not because I strongly disagree with their position but because most of the usual pro-gun arguments use very poor and sloppy logic (see the guy earlier making the argument that handguns are not designed to kill things, the way any time there's a shooting tragedy the first response is "if the victim had a gun this wouldn't have happened!", etc). Guns aren't really that big a deal but the culture around it in the US is mostly built around macho power fantasies and the denial of those fantasies. Guns aren't the root of all evil but the way so many gun enthusiasts in the US will absolutely deny that guns have anything but completely positive effects is ridiculous.

And I know on a cognitive level most gun people will acknowledge that guns can be dangerous and are neither good nor bad, but their actions often tell a different story - when's the last time you saw a discussion like this where someone criticized widespread gun ownership and a pro-gun person did anything but completely deny even the possibility of widespread gun ownership having negative social effects?

[Sovereign]

Guns are not designed to kill. Guns are designed to fire bullets. Bullets are designed to deliver kinetic energy to a remote target. Certain bullets are designed to deliver kinetic energy most effectively to flesh, and some are designed to best deliver the energy to other materials. Some are even designed to explode. I personally carry jacketed hollow points. If I ever wind up in a confrontation that justifies lethal force, my opponent will likely be an unarmored human. Hollow points deliver kinetic energy most effectively to soft targets, so I use them.

Tell me: If a gun is designed to kill, is it malfunctioning if I shoot my adversary in the finger?

Edit: The OP story is a shame. If the kid is guilty, I hope he gets what he deserves. Suggesting idiotic ideas like testing for racism before gun sales won't solve the problem, though.

[Shahada]

Guns are not designed to kill. Guns are designed to fire bullets. Bullets are designed to deliver kinetic energy to a remote target. Certain bullets are designed to deliver kinetic energy most effectively to flesh, and some are designed to best deliver the energy to other materials. Some are even designed to explode.

Ignoring the fact that 99% of these discussions concern handguns, which are in fact designed to kill (or wound or hurt, if you want to continue being pedantic), this has already been covered and it's unbelievably stupid and silly. It's like saying the function of a fork isn't eating, it's to skewer and manipulate things. Yes, you're technically right, no, you're not making a relevant point.

I personally carry jacketed hollow points. If I ever wind up in a confrontation that justifies lethal force, my opponent will likely be an unarmored human. Hollow points deliver kinetic energy most effectively to soft targets, so I use them.

This is what I mean about gun culture in the US being tied to stupid macho bullshit. You're talking about it like some Counter-Strike player bragging about his load out, like you're in a video game where you can for the most part accurately anticipate conflict and violence and prepare accordingly. It's just a ludicrous and silly way to think and live that is completely disconnected from the reality of your day to day life. There is something infinitely absurd about some middle-class white person in the American suburbs thinking intently about what kind of bullets he needs to have in his gun so he can inflict the most damage on the inevitable day when he'll have to defend his overvalued McMansion and the sacred property inside of it.

[Sovereign]

This is what I mean about gun culture in the US being tied to stupid macho bullshit. You're talking about it like some Counter-Strike player bragging about his load out, like you're in a video game where you can for the most part accurately anticipate conflict and violence and prepare accordingly. It's just a ludicrous and silly way to think and live that is completely disconnected from the reality of your day to day life. There is something infinitely absurd about some middle-class white person in the American suburbs thinking intently about what kind of bullets he needs to have in his gun so he can inflict the most damage on the inevitable day when he'll have to defend his overvalued McMansion and the sacred property inside of it.

For the record, this is only your opinion in rant form. I'm not bragging, merely explaining the way I think about guns. It's not disconnected from reality; having a handgun could be very useful if I'm ever in a bad situation. The only "macho" here is in your mind.

I would also not defend my "McMansion" with my weapon, only my life or the lives of others. I don't think it's somehow terrible to plan for that occurrence. I hope it never happens. If it does, I'll be prepared. We've already had this discussion, regardless.

I'm glad to know my opinion and behavior gets you so worked up. lol

[Shahada]

For the record, this is only your opinion in rant form.

Obviously, I never claimed otherwise.

It's not disconnected from reality; having a handgun could be very useful if I'm ever in a bad situation.

Having an underground shelter with 5 years worth of unperishable food that's able to withstand a 500 megaton nuclear blast could also be very useful in a bad situation. Disconnected from reality? I guess that's for the individual to decide.

[Cover3]

What's ''proven racist''?, for all you know there is evidence about you being a racist on your computer, somwhere, just as there probably is in mine, I don't think it's a very feasible idea.

Having an underground shelter with 5 years worth of unperishable food that's able to withstand a 500 megaton nuclear blast could also be very useful in a bad situation. Disconnected from reality? I guess that's for the individual to decide.

What a ridiculous comparison, you must be living in Long Island...

Ignoring the fact that 99% of these discussions concern handguns, which are in fact designed to kill (or wound or hurt, if you want to continue being pedantic), this has already been covered and it's unbelievably stupid and silly. It's like saying the function of a fork isn't eating, it's to skewer and manipulate things. Yes, you're technically right, no, you're not making a relevant point.

Yeah, and you're not either, if you,re going to say a fork's function is to eat, then a gun's function is to target shoot, and defend oneself, not to ''kill'', you can kill anybody with perfectly respectable objects, that doesn't change the fact that if those are used for criminal or unjustified purposes, they're as good as a gun to 'kill'.