2186
2187

What is NOT a fun fact? (self.AskReddit)

airpilk が 投稿

並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ新着論争中古い順Q&A
あなたは単独のコメントのスレッドを見ています。

残りのコメントをみる →

[–]CommandoPro -1ポイント0ポイント  (9子コメント)

People take issue with that statement because there are plenty of guns that have been literally designed for things other than killing. I have plenty of target rifles designed from their very inception for target shooting. It's not much smarter to just label all guns as tools designed specifically to kill than it is to act like they're not a danger.

They're dangerous, but that doesn't mean they're all designed to be weapons, because they demonstrably are not.

[–]GamerKey [スコア非表示]  (4子コメント)

I have plenty of target rifles designed from their very inception for target shooting

What happens if a person ends up between you and the target when firing this gun "designed for target shooting, not to kill"?

[–]Toasiddy [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

What happens if a person gets in between a dart board and throwing darts?

What happens if someone's eye gets inbetween my sharpened pencil and a piece of paper?

The point is that while it can injure/kill someone, that wasn't its intended purpose when it was built.

[–]GamerKey [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

What happens if a person gets in between a dart board and throwing darts?

They usually receive a rather minor puncture wound.

What happens if someone's eye gets inbetween my sharpened pencil and a piece of paper?

Who puts their head on a desk while someone is trying to write on a piece of paper?

Someone mindlessly walking where they shouldn't is a lot more probable is all I'm saying.

The point is that while it can injure/kill someone, that wasn't its intended purpose when it was built.

It was invented for exactly that purpose. It doesn't lose its original functionality just because someone repurposed it.

[–]Homerpaintbucket [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

What happens if a person gets in between a dart board and throwing darts?

they get a small contusion that is treated with a topical antibiotic and a band-aid

What happens if someone's eye gets inbetween my sharpened pencil and a piece of paper?

They likely lose an eye.

The point is that while it can injure/kill someone, that wasn't its intended purpose when it was built

guns are by original intent designed to kill. Just because something has a small caliber or low capacity doesn't mean it is not a weapon.

[–]CommandoPro [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Nobody's debating the danger, just that it's incorrect to designate something's primary purpose as something other than the manufacturer's intention, as someone else seems to have pointed out.

[–]Homerpaintbucket [スコア非表示]  (3子コメント)

you realize you immediately responded in almost exactly the way I predicted right?

from me

when you point out to these people that that is what it is you often get responses along the lines of, "my gun has never shot anything but paper," or "my gun is set up for target shooting." They completely ignore the fact that from day one the main purpose of the thing was to kill something.

your response

I have plenty of target rifles designed from their very inception for target shooting.

come on man. put a little bit more effort into it than rephrasing my rendition of your argument. This is pretty much plagiarism.

[–]CommandoPro [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

You say their day one purpose is always to kill, and that isn't true.

Your argument gets that response because it's not always correct. Predicting the response to your argument doesn't say shit about your argument's validity, or the response's.

[–]Homerpaintbucket [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

Dude, do you think mankind developed weaponry to practice? Do you think that the recurve bow was invented because people wanted to hit a specific spot on a board at a distance and then thought, "hey ya know what? I bet we could kill some rabbits for dinner with this thing." Seriously, you need to read up on history. Weapony has been developed for thousands of years for one purpose: to kill. The fact that target shooting is fun doesn't change the fact that that's why they were developed.

[–]CommandoPro [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

You seem pretty upset - I'm well aware of history. I just don't agree with your concept that an item is always blanket defined by its first ever use, as if an item is unable to ever deviate or be designed under a different intention.

Why is a rifle that from its very inception is designed for target shooting purposes burdened with the intention of any other firearm? If I look at a sword, it's reasonably easy to say it was designed to kill as it was designed in an offensive capacity. The manufacturer intended it for that purpose. If I look at a piece of dining cutlery, it remains a knife where its primary design is not to kill but that doesn't negate its effectiveness at doing so. The manufacturer did not create it for the same purpose as the sword.

Take the .22 rifles used in Olympic sport. They're not designed to kill, they have been designed from the ground up to be effective sports rifles. How can you then say "Its primary purpose is to kill", when both its design and primary use is precisely not that?