Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

oneshooter

(8,614 posts)
27. That is because "usage" is dependent on a human user.
Wed Aug 24, 2016, 12:30 PM
Aug 2016

The one item the anti's refuse to talk about, or even consider.

A firearm is dependent on a HUMAN to

Load
Aim
Fire

Since it is impossible for it to do these three item by itself.

Like I said in the thread in the group Duckhunter935 Aug 2016 #1
Just like a computer is designed... beevul Aug 2016 #2
Indeed so Duckhunter935 Aug 2016 #9
Depends on the gun doesn't it? Buzz cook Aug 2016 #3
"What was this gun designed to do?" beevul Aug 2016 #5
The intent of the user has nothing to do with the design of the device. Buzz cook Aug 2016 #11
It has EVERYTHING to do with it. beevul Aug 2016 #12
You're just being silly now. Buzz cook Aug 2016 #13
No, I'm saying your example doesn't apply. beevul Aug 2016 #15
Now you're talking argle bargle Buzz cook Aug 2016 #18
Clean your glasses. beevul Aug 2016 #19
2 things Buzz cook Aug 2016 #23
No, not 2 things. beevul Aug 2016 #24
" Lethality is generally in the aim, and generally not simply in the firearm." Buzz cook Aug 2016 #25
That is because "usage" is dependent on a human user. oneshooter Aug 2016 #27
So, your point is what? Buzz cook Aug 2016 #34
That is correct. beevul Aug 2016 #28
"Yes, a victim with gun shot wound to the foot is a dead person." Buzz cook Aug 2016 #35
Then don't label it a gun death. Assign it to malpractice. Nuclear Unicorn Aug 2016 #38
Um, the past is in the past. Buzz cook Aug 2016 #39
have you ever seen beergood Aug 2016 #16
Most weapons originated from the desire to feed/defend oneself. Vilis Veritas Aug 2016 #4
My copy/paste response to this insipid "argument": pablo_marmol Aug 2016 #6
A theory regarding the psychology behind this "argument": pablo_marmol Aug 2016 #7
No different than a knife or bow n arrow. JonathanRackham Aug 2016 #8
"Olympic shooting sports = sniper training?" beergood Aug 2016 #41
Mine are for saving lives... ileus Aug 2016 #10
whoa wait beergood Aug 2016 #14
Who cares? I have numerous guns - designed to kill, designed for sport, designed for jmg257 Aug 2016 #17
"when you need to punch holes in things." beergood Aug 2016 #20
Ha - nice! :) nt jmg257 Aug 2016 #21
My last use of a "killer" firearm Mugu Aug 2016 #22
that sounds beergood Aug 2016 #42
That would be correct. Mugu Aug 2016 #43
Your false equivalency analogy is deeply flawed. procon Aug 2016 #26
No, it really isn't. beevul Aug 2016 #29
Still flawed. procon Aug 2016 #30
Awful lot of people have concealed carry permits - 5.2% of population , plus numerous states jmg257 Aug 2016 #32
re: "A person using a computer poses no threat to me..." discntnt_irny_srcsm Aug 2016 #33
+1,000 pablo_marmol Aug 2016 #36
My update/paraphrase of an old saying discntnt_irny_srcsm Aug 2016 #37
Damn. That's good. Saving! NT pablo_marmol Aug 2016 #44
You're just full of assumptions, which is the problem, and the fatal flaw of the entire argument. beevul Aug 2016 #40
Message auto-removed Name removed Aug 2016 #31
"a computer is designed to download and view porn" Nuclear Unicorn Aug 2016 #45
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Gun Control & RKBA»"A gun is designed to kil...»Reply #27