Weapons are tools, by strict definition, and there are legitimate uses for them. Besides, my point was that they should be regulated. In fact, because they are less generally useful than constructive tools, they should be regulated far MORE strictly.
Prove it. Prove that the majority of people think of a gun in the same way as they do a screwdriver
by strict definition,
Assertion without evidence
and there are legitimate uses for them.
I see we didn’t read what I wrote, only the first sentence of what I wrote.
Besides, my point was that they should be regulated. In fact, because they are less generally useful than constructive tools, they should be regulated far MORE strictly.
Mate, he’s right. First definition. “A handheld device used to aid in performing a task.” Any gun falls into that definition. But sure, get hung up on asking them to define every word in their statements, that’s a good way to not have to actually engage with the concept.
When I hire a task rabbit is that the same as hiring a hitman? When I open task manager should I see process “kill my cheating ex”?
But sure, get hung up on asking them to define every word in their statements, t
Did I do that? Yes or no question.
that’s a good way to not have to actually engage with the concept.
I am fine with engaging with the topic, I did so. He/she clung to definitions while I was blunt and pointed out that a gun is not a screwdriver and should be banned or regulated just like we do with any weapon.
It was always a definition argument. Oh and that wasn’t actually ironic just thought you would like to know.
Now instead of trying to score rhetorical points why don’t you answer literally any of the questions I asked in the previous comment. I know it’s vital to defend your BFF Rittenhouse but you don’t do a good job defending him when you don’t actually engage with what is being presented.
This whole tangent began because you asked for someone to prove that weapons are tools. Dictionaries report common usage of terms, and a gun absolutely, 100% meets the criteria for the top definition for “tool”. I’m literally giving you the information you asked for. If you didn’t want a definition for tool, why would you ask for someone to prove that a gun is a tool, one of the necessary steps of which is to agree on a definition?
Weapons are tools, by strict definition, and there are legitimate uses for them. Besides, my point was that they should be regulated. In fact, because they are less generally useful than constructive tools, they should be regulated far MORE strictly.
Prove it. Prove that the majority of people think of a gun in the same way as they do a screwdriver
Assertion without evidence
I see we didn’t read what I wrote, only the first sentence of what I wrote.
By generally you mean not even close to them yes.
It seems we can’t have a reasonable discourse here because you are ignoring basic definitions. Have a lovely day!
No you are pulling a libertarian. You defined a word that is used a particular way to mean what you want it to mean then declare victory.
You are not arguing step-by-step, you are bypassing.
Mate, he’s right. First definition. “A handheld device used to aid in performing a task.” Any gun falls into that definition. But sure, get hung up on asking them to define every word in their statements, that’s a good way to not have to actually engage with the concept.
Task =\= murder
When I hire a task rabbit is that the same as hiring a hitman? When I open task manager should I see process “kill my cheating ex”?
Did I do that? Yes or no question.
I am fine with engaging with the topic, I did so. He/she clung to definitions while I was blunt and pointed out that a gun is not a screwdriver and should be banned or regulated just like we do with any weapon.
Ironic that the first thing you jump to in defense of your previous point is a definition argument.
Hilarious that that argument is, again,flat out wrong.
something hard or unpleasant that has to be done
It was always a definition argument. Oh and that wasn’t actually ironic just thought you would like to know.
Now instead of trying to score rhetorical points why don’t you answer literally any of the questions I asked in the previous comment. I know it’s vital to defend your BFF Rittenhouse but you don’t do a good job defending him when you don’t actually engage with what is being presented.
This whole tangent began because you asked for someone to prove that weapons are tools. Dictionaries report common usage of terms, and a gun absolutely, 100% meets the criteria for the top definition for “tool”. I’m literally giving you the information you asked for. If you didn’t want a definition for tool, why would you ask for someone to prove that a gun is a tool, one of the necessary steps of which is to agree on a definition?
Keep going off, though.