I am not interested in your make believe. Sure there's some, but you seem to think everyone who disagrees with you are all the same. Every person is different.
You're hilarious. You seriously think back in the 1200's there were steak knives and baseball bats? Like they have anything at all to do with why weapons were invented. ... EARLIEST FIREARMS The origin of gunpowder is unknown, and may have occurred in China, Turkey, or Europe. The first record describing the combination of charcoal, sulphur, and saltpeter, to produce a rapidly burning or exploding powder is a coded writing by Franciscan monk Roger Bacon shortly before 1250 A.D. https://www.nramuseum.org/gun-info-research/a-brief-history-of-firearms.aspx
after debating anti gun leftists for going on five decades, one of their usual tactics is pretending that something designed as a weapon is more sinister than something designed for something else but often used as a weapon. They try to denigrate firearms-and those who own them-by constantly yapping that guns were designed as weapons/ no one denies that guns were originally designed as weapons but over the years, more and more firearms are intended purely for target shooting.
Steak knives were invented for the purpose of eating. A baseball bat was invented for the purpose of hitting a baseball. A hammer was invented to hammer nails. A nail gun was invented for nailing. A darning needle was invented for sewing. Milk bottles were invented to contain milk. Guns were invented to kill. You’re welcome for a brief history of why these things were invented.
intellectually dishonest argument STEAK knives, but then you talk about all guns Steak knives not intended as weapons. combat knives are target rifles not intended as weapons, military rifles are the first knives were invented as weapons the first clubs were invented as weapons the first spears were invented as weapons nowadays we have carving knives we have golf clubs we have track javelins
There's a video out there of a man who uses very light flat bands with no wrist brace and a full butterfly draw hitting a can at 100 yards with a 6 mm steel ball at velocities of up to 600 ft per second. I have taken two rabbits with the slingshot over the years. I set up a bed sheet in my yard tied only at the top and loose on the bottom. I hung a string with a small hook in the middle of the sheet just in front of it.... And hung an empty 12 oz can on the hook. I practiced until I could hit the can at least 7 out of 10 times at 20 ft and when I could do that I knew I could hit a rabbit in the head from the same distance. I did not go hunting rabbits until I was able to do that. I practiced with the same 44 lead ball that I cast for my cap and ball. The bed sheet acted as a bullet catch and the lead ball would harmlessly drop to the ground at the base of it. There is a city ordinance on the books here about no slingshot use within the city limits because I imagine sometime in the past they probably had a problem with kids going around breaking windows. I find the wrist braces completely unnecessary and impeding the natural flip and follow through that is required for accuracy with a slingshot
I love my Remmington 30-06 semi auto rifle. Which you know. So posting untruths intentionally is not a good debate tactic.
What does any of this matter as far as what they were originally designed to do? My point was they are not ALL designed for killing. It still makes no point and no difference.
Which specific gun is made to not kill? Even air guns can kill. I know as I’ve used mine to kill varmints.
I used to carry a slingshot to knock wounded quail or partridge out of trees-once a partridge hid in a thick fir tree. I couldn't see it but the dog handler got in the tree and could see the wounded bird-It took me three shots to knock it down because he spotted for me-like You're 6 inches high and 4 inches right-then 2 and 2 and then bang I hit it. In my indoor archery barn at home I have a sheet of ballistic cloth-for stopping arrows normally-hanging on a frame with Two Saunders SACO targets for slingshots btw they were much cheaper 5 years ago when I got them https://sausa.com/product/saco-2-dueling-bludgeon-target/
That is the point he continually ignores. Steak knives are not made for killing but can be used for that hammers are not made for killing but can be used for that same with tire irons, baseball bats, or hatchets and many guns are NOT MADE FOR KILLING but can be used for that this is what he has been denying for days.
that is the second time you have misspelled Remington so I have my doubts if you actually own one. I do recall you saying you want serious infringements on firearms you claim can facilitate mass murder so I have to see you as a gun banner even if you claim you own a weapon you constantly are unable to spell correctly
They think if they can hysterically and hyperbolically reference guns as designed for killing than they think it gives them more ground to ban them. Someone should probably notify them that in the grand scheme of things their argument is completely irrelevant
I find it hilarious-he keeps telling me he supports the second amendment, he opposes gun bans but he keeps repeating one of the favorite mantras of gun banners-guns were designed to kill-yeah they were 700 years ago but over the last 200 years, target firearms began to emerge and now many guns are not designed to be used against living targets.
They're not going to let a pesky thing like facts and logic get in the way of their hyperbolic arguments. That's how you know it's based on dishonest exaggeration because even after having been corrected they continue on.
You recall? Post them. Keep in mind, you have your own infringements. Something to do with some later amendments. You are a gun banner.
Have you had your English teacher tell you the difference between adjective, noun and verb? You are the grammar police? Doubtful. Given you don't know basic English like adjective noun or verb.