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?
Okay now we’re getting somewhere. What definition of tool do you propose we use, that includes claw peen hammers and other “obvious” tools, but excludes firearms?
So do you not consider hunting for food productive? What about sporting purposes?
There’s a very real reason I’m digging in on this. You can’t just arbitrarily say a certain thing isn’t what it clearly is, because it suits your purposes. A gun is still a tool, even if it’s quite regularly misused. You lose nothing by classifying it as a tool, and by seeking to reclassify it as something else, you open the door to a host of legal fuckery.
Further, we regulate tools all the time, so it’s not like saying it’s a tool means we can’t, or shouldn’t, regulate firearms. Just look at cars. Definitely tools, and regulated to high hell. It’s important to be specific, though, if we’re proposing to regulate things. If you’re not specific, you end up with dumb things like certain kinds of nail guns being regulated as firearms.
I’m not some crazy gun nut. I think there should absolutely be some more regulations on guns. I think they should make sense, though, and to do that you have to define your terms rigidly.
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.
No. You obviously need help reading.
Do I, though? I’m pretty sure I read it right.
Not if you think a gun is a tool in the sense a claw hammer is
Okay now we’re getting somewhere. What definition of tool do you propose we use, that includes claw peen hammers and other “obvious” tools, but excludes firearms?
Noun, a device that aids in productive work.
Now my turn to ask a question, which one of these images is not like the other
So do you not consider hunting for food productive? What about sporting purposes?
There’s a very real reason I’m digging in on this. You can’t just arbitrarily say a certain thing isn’t what it clearly is, because it suits your purposes. A gun is still a tool, even if it’s quite regularly misused. You lose nothing by classifying it as a tool, and by seeking to reclassify it as something else, you open the door to a host of legal fuckery.
Further, we regulate tools all the time, so it’s not like saying it’s a tool means we can’t, or shouldn’t, regulate firearms. Just look at cars. Definitely tools, and regulated to high hell. It’s important to be specific, though, if we’re proposing to regulate things. If you’re not specific, you end up with dumb things like certain kinds of nail guns being regulated as firearms.
I’m not some crazy gun nut. I think there should absolutely be some more regulations on guns. I think they should make sense, though, and to do that you have to define your terms rigidly.