I'm sure DIA isn't any busier than whatever airport Alabama has.

Well, I have mentioned before that a visit to the local gun range often leaves me shaking my head. So, yes, people are stupid.

That said, my understanding is, the majority of firearms confiscated by TSA are in carry-on bags and are either in locked cases or have a trigger lock. No, that does not excuse their ignorance of proper procedures, but, it isn't like the majority of people had the firearm on their physical person.

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

Some people are just plane dumb but smart people do make dumb mistakes now and then.

Two years after I graduated college, our school's baseball coach was caught with a pistol in the airport when flying down to spring training with the team. He grabbed a bag to pack and didn't realize he left the pistol in there when he went to the range the day before.

He was pretty well known in the region and judge slapped him with a few hundred dollar fine. Basically everyone in the courtroom knew it was a complete accident and he had no intention to harm anyone.

Guy was not dumb, just make a dumb mistake.

I have lost my swiss army knife multiple times because I forget I have it get to the xray machine and when I am emptying my pockets its too late, into the bin it goes. I would suspect some of these people just forgot they had the pistol strapped on or in the bag. Risk of having pistol and being injured by it vs successful self defense likely doesn't favor self defense as you say.

---

They constantly try to escape from the darkness outside and within
Dreaming of systems so perfect that no one will need to be good T.S. Eliot

I'm sure that it's true that lots of these people just forgot they had their weapon on their person or in their bag. However, that's like saying, "I don't have evil intentions, I'm just too stupid or careless with my deadly registered firearm to keep track of where it is."

Seriously? Forgot you had a pistol in your duffel bag? Forgot you were wearing a pistol? If you can't keep track of your firearm, I'm not sure you deserve to keep one.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

I think this happens in the vast majority of cases.

My brother and I were just flying out to LA for a deposition. I sail through and I see his bags getting scanned over and over. Dumbass has a giant pocketknife we use as a letter opener in his bag. And then he has a leatherman style tool hanging from his computer bag. He just didn't realize those were on/in his bags.

I was kind of irritated and trying to get them to do a cavity search. But they see this stuff so often they didn't even flinch. They just directed him to the kiosk where he needed to fill out the stuff to get it mailed back to him.

---

I'm beginning to think that we are much more fucked than I thought.

Human brains are on auto pilot as much half the time. Pair that with getting up early and having to deal with the crap show that is the airport and I can see how it could happen, even though it seems crazy.

Source: https://www.psychologytoday.com/...nearly-half-the-time

Yep, few years back lost my Leatherman, I couldn't find it for six months. Loved that tool. TSA found it!

I wonder how much the TSA ends up fining people for doing this. Looks like they can fine up to about $10K but I'll bet most people get let off because it was a "mistake."

So far in my life I've known two people who have been shot accidentally by pistols. I know no one who has used a firearm in self defense.

That's the argument I always find odd, that people need a gun so they can defend themselves in case of an attack. I read that in 2012 in the U.S., there were 1,200,000 violent crimes (8,850 gun homicides) where having a gun could have been justified. In that same year, there were 259 shootings of criminals by a gun owner in what was classified as self defense.

There are good arguments for allowing guns (ie. the Constitution) but the idea that the best way to stop a bad guy with a gun is to have a good guy with a gun is just a catchy slogan. People's perception of what they would do to defend themselves or their family is a lot different when reality strikes.

http://www.politico.com/...leck-response-115082

https://www.cnsnews.com/...tant-crime-deterrent

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

I know youre joking with the pinko commie barb, but you know that depite losing one of my great loves to a gun, im not anti gun. If i didnt have kids in the house, id own one. Im a pretty great shot, and i enjoy target shooting. Theforge and i were supposed to have a competition once but he chickened out. Used work as an excuse. I think its because he didnt want to lose to a pinko commie anti gun nut.

---

who's smarter than you're? i'm!

Forgetting a Swiss Army knife (or not knowing you can't bring your own bottled water) is one thing. But someone forgetting they had a gun in their bag? It's no wonder there are so many accidental shootings.

---

"Human existence is based upon two pillars: Compassion and knowledge. Compassion without knowledge is ineffective; Knowledge without compassion is inhuman." Victor Weisskopf.

I was kidding, and I didn't really mean to cast you into any camp on this issue. BUT huge revelation in your post. IMO, you are now the Chuck Norris -- the ultimate badass -- of the forum for having called out Forgie and him backing down.

---

________
It doesn't really matter what Phil is saying, the music of his voice is the appropriate soundtrack for a bicycle race. HTupolev

Witty pun or terrible spelling?

---

How does Danny Hart sit down with balls that big?

Can you cite a reference for the 259 Self-Defense shootings? That number starkly contrasts the 500,000 - 3 Million self-annual defense "uses" from the CDC report. Perhaps the discrepancy is due to the fact that the gun is not even fired during the vast majority of self-defense "uses", where just presenting it was sufficient.

"defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year." - CDC report

Also, from the same report:

"Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was "used" by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies."

Source: 2013 CDC gun study (commissioned by the Obama administration): http://www.nap.edu/...id=18319&page=R1

---

---

"100% of the people who confuse correlation and causation end up dying."

How often do you shoot?

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

Aside from this, pistols are fairly heavy aren't they? When you pick up your bag do you not notice that it has something on the heavy side in it?

When I pick up my weekend bag I notice if there is something in it that throws off the weight distribution of the bag.

Sometimes I leave my flashlight in a side pocket. I always notice that it's there the next time I pick up the bag.

---

How does Danny Hart sit down with balls that big?

Personally, I would think one would notice. But, if you are in a hurry ... maybe ...

I'm not sure why people don't have dedicated range bags. I am never worried about forgetting a handgun. They go from my range bag to my safe (after cleaning) every time. What I would be worried about is live ammo. Very easy for some of that to get loose and fall into the bottle of a bag, get "lost" in a pocket, etc. The only thing that every carries my firearm or ammo is my range bag. [Unless I am traveling w/ a handgun, in which case it goes in a TSA approved lock-box and is declared with my check-in bags].

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

Is travelling with ammo banned as well?

Pure ignorance question, is ammo dangerous without the gun?

---

How does Danny Hart sit down with balls that big?

Ammo cannot be in your carry-on bag, only your checked bag. Likewise, you cannot carry-on any magazine or any part of a gun (like just the slide, just the frame, etc.). All of these items much be in your checked bag and declared to the airline.

Not really. In theory, yes. In theory, it could go off under exceptional conditions, but the changes are slim.

The idea is to prevent a number of people from bringing in a single element of a gun to be assembled in the plane.

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

nope, terrible spelling...

About as much in a year as theforge shoots in a month! We did have a friendly challenge set up here in minneapolis when he used to come here for work, but he had to cancel because his company sold their local business.

Im not an expert marksman, im just a really good shooter for someone who never does it. Everyone has natural talents, thats mine i guess. Im sure there are people here who are better.

---

who's smarter than you're? i'm!

Sometimes I leave my flashlight in a side pocket.

And here I was, thinking you were just glad to see me.

Even an empty shell casing will get you an immediate appointment with the TSA supervisor.

---

************************
#WeAreTheForge #BlackGunsMatter

"Look, will you guys at leats accept that you are a bunch of dumb asses and just trust me on this one? Please?" BarryP 7/30/2012

I completely agree. Also, if people are too dumb or stupid to drive a car without getting into an accident they shouldn't be allowed to have one. DUI? Confiscate car and no license forever. Texting while driving? Same thing. Driving your Tesla 10mph over the speed limit? Gone forever.

Methinks that you are viewing this example differently because a firearm is involved. I don't think you should.

People are dumb with their responsibilities sometimes...err...a lot.

---

----------------------------------------------------------------

My training

Except we are not talking about someone having an accident with a gun while using it in a lawful place. We are talking about a device that many states require be locked up and that's mere presence in certain areas is expressly forbidden and illegal.

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

This is how toddlers end up killing people. Amazing that people can be so careless.

Also, most cars are designed for transporation, most guns are designed to kill. Theres a clear reason why they are treated differently, even though both are dangerous.

---

who's smarter than you're? i'm!

That's pinko commie talk right there.

---

How does Danny Hart sit down with balls that big?

I didn't want to engage in hyperbole, but, I almost cited the example of jingling car keys in front of a toddler to distract them or stop them from crying and ask whether it would be fine to do the same with a Glock 19 ...

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

Dude, thats how you raise boys to be men!

---

who's smarter than you're? i'm!

Yes, people are dumb with their responsibilities. When they're dumb with simple day to day things, thats fine. When they're too dumb or irresponsible to keep track of where their firearms are located, they shouldn't keep firearms.

It's not difficult. It's a weapon. You take it out of your lockbox, take it to the range, shoot, bring it home, clean it, put it away. You don't leave it in a duffle bag for some unspecified amount of time so that you forget it was there and accidentally take it to the airport. If you're carrying on your person, and you're so unaware of it that you forget you're carrying, then you're not paying enough attention, and you're not safe.

If you don't understand this, then I'd suggest you don't take the responsibility of owning and carrying a weapon seriously enough.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

Of all the guns in the US, how many have actually killed a person? (Not counting military, police, or suicides) vs How many cars have actually killed someone?

I dunno. That doesnt detract from my point though.

---

who's smarter than you're? i'm!

Why on earth would you exclude militaryx police, or suicide when talking about gun deaths?!? Why not exclude vechicles driven for work too? Then the rates would drop substabtially just like they would with all the guns you want to exclude from the figures.

This covers rates per population, not rates per gun or vehicle.

Motor vehicle traffic deaths
Number of deaths: 33,736
Deaths per 100,000 population: 10.6



All firearm deaths
Number of deaths: 33,594
Deaths per 100,000 population: 10.5

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/injury.htm

---

who's smarter than you're? i'm!

Just pointing out the fallacy of the guns are designed to (only) kill, since the vast majority don't. And as your stats point out, cars kill as many people as guns, so it seams they are quite adept at killing, so it could be claimed that they are designed to kill, but also happen to function well as transportation also.

Thats not what i said. I said..



Because they are. Im betting everyone in the lr (and elsewhere) will agree with that, except for you, apparently.



What i wrote is not a fallacy, but ironically, what you wrote is. Its a non-sequitur. Just because something isnt used for X, does not mean it wasnt designed to do X. By your logic, nuclear weapons arent designed to kill since most do not.

Nearly all of the guns in existence are designed to kill.

---

who's smarter than you're? i'm!

How many cars have actually killed someone?

Cars don't kill.

Veganerd already ripped apart the first part of your post, but the rest is trash as well. Sure, it could be claimed that cars are designed to kill, but only by an idiot. Cars kill a lot of people because of the sheer number of people using cars and the amount of time they’re using them in close proximity to each other.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

 



No. 100% no. No way in hell everyone in the LR (or elsewhere) agrees with that. I would say that most democrats agree with you said. I would say that most libertarians don't. I would say that most republicans don't.

Guns are not designed to kill. They are designed to sling lead at a target under a specific set of circumstances. Guns are a tool and like most tools it can be used to kill.

My firearms are designed to compete in their various disciplines (bullseye, 3 gun, PRS, etc). They have not, and hopefully will never, be used to kill someone unless in self defense.

The fact that you think "everyone" thinks guns are designed to kill shows your ignorance about firearm design and use. This failure to understand and outright fear of firearms are the fundamental reasons why "Anti gunners" and "Gunners" will never agree.

---

----------------------------------------------------------------

My training

No. 100% no. Most cars are not designed for transportation at all. Are Porsche 911's designed for transportation? No, they are designed as a status symbol and for people to be able to drive VERY FAST and illegally. There is no reason, whatsoever, to own a street legal Porsche other than to drive faster than is safe.

If you think cars are designed for transportation than we would all be driving around a Camry or a Pickup. Cars are toys/tools just like firearms which can be used/misused under different (albeit sometimes overlapping) circumstances.

As I mentioned...people are dumb about their responsibilities. This applies to firearms and cars.

---

----------------------------------------------------------------

My training

No, when people are dumb with simple day to day things it's not fine. Plenty of folks die at the hands of simple day to day things. A white supremacist fuck plowed his car into an innocent protester in Charlottesville. A 6 year old kid figured out how to back his moms car over his kid brother a few months back here in Utah. Lots of very, very bad things happen every year with day to day objects (more than lives lost by assault weapons) and don't even get me started by lives lost by misuse of greasy foods.

No, firearms are not only meant to be taken out of a lockbox to the range and brought home and put back into the lockbox. A statement like this shows a clear misunderstanding of the use and design of firearms as it pertains to most firearm owners and especially CCW holders.

I take the responsibility of owning and carrying a weapon very seriously. Most do. Unfortunately sometimes people do stupid things. Firearm owners included.

Want proof? Resurrect the darwin thread. Stupid people are everywhere.

---

----------------------------------------------------------------

My training

Listen dummy. Is your car designed to move? Thats TRANSPORTATION.

---

who's smarter than you're? i'm!

Driving a Porsche 911 at 100+ mph down a highway is not simple TRANSPORTATION. It's illegal, reckless and murder if you happen to hit someone.

It's a tool. Tools can be misused. People are dumb. I suggest you stop hating tools and start hating the tools that misuse them.

---

----------------------------------------------------------------

My training

Its pretty clear you are trolling...im willing to give you the benefit of doubt.

---

who's smarter than you're? i'm!

Yes. Totally trolling.

Suggest you go back to your hatred of inanimate objects while we all move on to more important issues.

---

----------------------------------------------------------------

My training

You’re either trolling, or you’re too dumb to understand that inanimate objects, when made by men, still have a designed purpose. Whether a rifle issued to a Soldier is ever used to actually kill someone doesn’t have fuck all to do with whether it was designed to kill someone.

Automobiles are designed by people to transport. They may also be designed to transport fast, or in luxury, or in style, but the basic purpose is transportation. Likewise, the basic purpose of most firearms is to shoot a person or animal, injuring or killing them.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

Cars don't kill people. People kill people.

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

No. 100% no. The basic purpose of more firearms is to hit a target for sporting purposes. Like a PSA handgun, PRS rifle, over/under shotgun, or most recreational firearms the basic purpose is to hit a target for sporting purposes and not to kill somebody. If you take umbrage with weapons meant for hunting then I suggest you state that fact clearly for all to see.

The fact that you think most firearms are meant to shoot people or animals shows your ignorance about the design and use of most firearms.

I suggest before you start opining on the use/misuse/regulation of firearms that you learn about their actual use/misuse. (edited to "of" firearms from "if" firearms

---

----------------------------------------------------------------

My training

Agreed. People are dumb.

---

----------------------------------------------------------------

My training

I completely disagree with this. You had a lot of good points in this thread, but you completely lost it on this one. There are many ways I could explain to you why this statement is completely wrong, but, I will use images instead to illustrate the biggest reason you are wrong.

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

hahahaha

---

who's smarter than you're? i'm!

Lets add up the target firearms and the killing ones. Which pile is bigger? Based on sheer numbers of guns made.

---

who's smarter than you're? i'm!

You are absolutely, positively wrong. Most guns are designed for and used as range toys.

EDIT TO ADD: If this were not the case, places like Glockstore, RockYourGlock, CheaperThanDirt, Apex Arms, Rainier Arms, DSG Arms, Damage Industries, Zev, Lone Wolf, Blacklist Industries, Wheaton Arms, Advanced Armament, KKM, Pew Pew Tactical, Ghost Arms, Midwest Industries, etc., etc., etc., would be out of business rather than a multi-billion dollar business.

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

Each of these images portray firearms that are used by white supremacists and law enforcement officers to shoot POC, right? What did I win?

---

----------------------------------------------------------------

My training

You're just plain incorrect. And your continuing inability to separate how something is used from what it was designed for doesn't speak well to your ability to tackle the subject matter at hand.

I have no problem with firearms for hunting, or for self defense, or for law enforcement or the military. I'm simply not naive enough to misunderstand the reason those weapons exist, and the purpose for which they were designed.

And I don't really feel like, after more than 20 years of military service, I really need you to tell me to learn about the use of firearms.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

Dude, im pretty sure im right. Think about it, The highest produced guns in the world were designed for war. For example, The ak7 tops the list for the most produced gun of all time.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/...st-produced_firearms

---

who's smarter than you're? i'm!

You are not right. You are talking about volume produced, not number designed.

Assume there were only 10 different gun designs in the world. Assume only 1 was the AK and the rest were range toys. Assume 1 million AKs were made and the other 9 designs only produced 100k combined. Using your logic, most guns were designed to kill. But that isn’t the case. Only 1 gun was designed to kill out of 10. This is the logical fallacy you are attempting to use. You said “designed,” not “manufactured.” That is false.

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

Really surprised by that given that I suspect almost everyone deals with vehicles regularly whereas most people don't have much of anything to do with guns. I figured vehicle death rates would have dwarfed firearm rates.

Here is what i said



Im specificically talking about VOLUME. most guns belong to the killing category. Youre talking about different types, im not, and i made that clear when i said to put them into 2 piles, pile all the guns in existence, into 2 piles, kiling, and target guns, which pile is larger?



Not 1 ak7 or 1 m16 ro represent all, i literally mean every fucking gun. Every ak7, every m16, every biathlon gun, every target pistol...etc. one of those two piles is larger. Which is it?

---

who's smarter than you're? i'm!

Sweet mental gymnastics.

---

How does Danny Hart sit down with balls that big?

And here we go. This is the point of the debate were veganerd, being proven wrong, moves the goal posts. This is the primary reason no one can take seriously a discussion with you.

Here is what you said in Post 29: "Also, most cars are designed for transporation, most guns are designed to kill. Theres a clear reason why they are treated differently, even though both are dangerous."

You doubled down in Post 38:

"What i wrote is not a fallacy, but ironically, what you wrote is. Its a non-sequitur. Just because something isnt used for X, does not mean it wasnt designed to do X. By your logic, nuclear weapons arent designed to kill since most do not.

Nearly all of the guns in existence are designed to kill."


You used the word "designed" multiple times. You even distinguished between "used" and "designed." Now it appears you want to clarify your position. Ok. I will accept your clarification.

You and I can agree the AK47 is the most produced firearm in the world. But, then you and I have to agree (1) that is only one of thousands of designs of firearms, (2) there are very few actual AK47s in the hands of civilians, (3) there are hardly any AK47s (not variants, actual AKs) in the US, and (4) outside of war zones and military troops, the AK does not really exist.

So, now you want to claim the majority of guns currently or recently manufactured were done so "to kill." Well, I could split hairs, but, if we want to discuss that, ok. Given the sheer volume of military rifles produced each year, yes, in raw numbers, we can agree.

However, we have been talking about guns in US airports being carried in by civilians. The discussion then moved to responsible gun ownership by US citizens. The discussion then moved to firearm use by US civilians. Given that context and your repeated use of the word "designed," you are wrong.

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

Sorry, but on this one, it's you who is really squirming to try to avoid the conclusion veganerd was making. It was absolutely clear that veganerd wasn't talking about the majority of firearm variants, but rather the number of firearms total. And while yes, an AK-47 is just one type of gun, each one of them that is produced carries the same design.

We were talking about the sheer number of guns vs the sheer number of automobiles. We were talking about the designed purpose for the two categories of items. The vast majority of automobiles were designed with the purpose of transportation. Likewise, the vast majority of firearms were designed with the purpose of injuring or killing an animal or person. If you need someone to spell out that these statements include the caveat "were designed or share a common design" then I'd suggest you're just making things more difficult than they need to be.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

I moved no goalposts. I made a statement. Im tellibg you what i meant by that statement. I showed you my quote where my meaning was clear. You simply inserted a meaning into my argument that i didnt.

I said most gun, meaning adding up all the guns. Its quite a common way to speak and understand. People do it all the time with little issue.

Lets change the subject matter to illustrate...

"Most corn grown in the us is not grown to feed people"

Do you have a problem with this statement?

---

who's smarter than you're? i'm!

He's a lawyer. He's pouncing on one word to lawyer you. He can't help himself.

---

How does Danny Hart sit down with balls that big?

Cars arent made for transpotation, theyre made to turn wheels!

---

who's smarter than you're? i'm!

No, we are not. Words have meaning. Context has meaning. He tried to claim all guns were "designed" to kill. There are thousands of gun designs. The majority of those designs were not created with the intent of the firearm to kill. That is a fact. If that were the case, we would not have multiple calibers, compact designs, different grips, different sights, etc., etc.

You know military weapons, no doubt. You absolutely are not familiar with the civilian firearm market.

If you want claim the majority of guns manufactured are for military purposes, I would agree. That was not what he was saying, however. Several people on this thread understood that. You and veganerd were saying one thing and thinking another.

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

No. I am responding to the claim he made. Words have meaning. The order of words have purpose. Context dictates the meaning.

It never ceases to amaze me the limitations on people's ability to express themselves via written word.

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

"Grown" is akin to "manufactured." "Grown" is not akin to "designed." If you were to say most corn "designed" in this country is not "designed" to feed people, that would have a different meaning than most corn "grown" in this country is not "grown" to feed people.

I am dumbfounded by the inability of so many to articulate a point via the written word.

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

They are just a tool to hurl tons of metal down long stretches of fake smooth rock. How you use them is up to you.

---

I'm beginning to think that we are much more fucked than I thought.

Here's some Kleenex for when you're done stroking your statutory-interpretation-applied-to-the-LR-for-the-sake-of-winning-an-argument boner.

An Indy car is not made for transportation. A NASCAR car is not made for transportation. Rally car, drag racer, demolition derby, show car, restored classic car, etc. are not made for transportation. If one were to say "all cars are made for transportation," one would be wrong.

You are a lawyer. You know words have meaning. You also should be familiar with logical fallacies and poor articulation via the written word.

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

Or people could simply articulate themselves properly rather than trying to bastardize their words once they are backed into a corner.

But, I'll still take your Kleenex.

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

 
Yes, words have meanings. He didn't say most gun designs have the purpose of killing. He said most guns. It's you who is inserting this extra wicket for him to jump through.


Well, I'm not so sure it is a fact, and since nobody has offered any list of all firearms designs and which were designed to kill or injure, I suspect you don't either, and are just blowing smoke.


Sure we would. Are you seriously trying to say that we don't have multiple calibers of guns that are all designed to kill? Multiple types of sights for weapons designed to kill? Of course we do. The existence of variation in design (by itself) doesn't imply anything about whether the designed purpose is for killing or target shooting.


You don't, quite frankly, have any clue what I'm familiar with, but that shouldn't stop you from declaring what you think you know.


I'm happy with that claim, but that doesn't invalidate or replace the original claim.


Nope. We said what we meant, and you and stal mounted a tortured defense of firearms, for really no reason other than to argue.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

 
Here's some Kleenex for when you're done stroking your statutory-interpretation-applied-to-the-LR-for-the-sake-of-winning-an-argument boner.


[/quote]

Or people could simply articulate themselves properly rather than trying to bastardize their words once they are backed into a corner.

But, I'll still take your Kleenex.[/quote]
Cool. You never know, that "ohh...ohh...ohh - TEXTUALISM!!!!!" moment can sneak up on the best of us ;)

Now youre inserting the word "all" when i said "most"

Btw. Racecars are designed for transportation too. Theyre designed to transport the driver from the start line to the finish line very fast.

---

who's smarter than you're? i'm!

Sure they are. They're made for transporting a driver around a race track. They are further designed to do so at as fast a speed as possible. They replaced the previous object used to transport racers around track,...the horse. And the horse replaced transporting yourself by foot. Etc.

Now there are certainly some cars that aren't designed to actually transport anyone, because they're made as showpieces without functioning motors or suspensions, or whatever. It's never wise to declaratively state that 100% of anything meets a particular narrow definition, because there is almost always an exception.

Of course, that's not what we're really dealing with in this thread.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

You know, I was just yanking your chain, not even your's exactly. But now you have gone too far. :)

Yes they are. You haven't defined transportation properly. It all references back to the definition of transport.

trans·port
verb

tranˈspôrt/

1. 
   1.
   take or carry (people or goods) from one place to another by means of a vehicle, aircraft, or ship.
   

Race cars of all sorts take someone from one point to another.

Restoring a classic car does not change what its original design goal.

Not sure what a 'show car' is exactly. If it is like a show motorcycle that is never meant to be ridden then you may have found one.

Are 'demolition cars' actually a type of their own or a repurposed vehicle? Even if they are specifically designed they are designed to move people from one place to another for as long as possible.

None of the above should be taken seriously nor taken as an invitation to argue in anything other than jest as I am not invested enough in the original topic to fight.

---

I'm beginning to think that we are much more fucked than I thought.

Even show cars are fundamentally designed for transportation. The owners might paint them up, change body lines, etc, and they may never actually use them for transportation, but their underlying design remains. A body, wheels, an engine,...they are designed for transportation.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

If you arent picking a side then you are chosing the side of the oppressor! 😉

---

who's smarter than you're? i'm!

Nope. He said:

Post 29: "Also, most cars are designed for transporation, most guns are designed to kill."

Post 38:

"What i wrote is not a fallacy, but ironically, what you wrote is. Its a non-sequitur. Just because something isnt used for X, does not mean it wasnt designed to do X. By your logic, nuclear weapons arent designed to kill since most do not.

Nearly all of the guns in existence are designed to kill."

There is big difference and you should be able to see it.


Nope. That is a fact. First and foremost, a pistol is not an offensive weapon. You know this. Every Glock was not "designed to kill" anymore than every FBI agent is equipped with a Glock "to kill." Nearly every pistol was designed as a defensive weapon and deterrent. Then we have entire classes of guns like the Walther P22 and the Browning 1911-22 that were specifically designed as entry-level training firearms. We have categories of AR variants like those from Faxon Arms that were designed and manufactured for 3-gun competitions. Etc., etc.

Of course we don't. The .22 was never intended to be an offensive killing round. What you are saying is akin to saying all ammunition was designed to kill. Ridiculous. Range ammo was not designed (or manufactured) to kill. Could it? Sure, but that is not its design. That's why we have hollow point and other defensive rounds, which are designed to kill (or at least incapacitate).



I am merely going off the evidence you have provided over the years, which is quite compelling.



Nope. Veganerd made a false statement, which was pointed out. Then he doubled down on that false statement and again was called out. So he tried again with "what I meant was..." That's fine. But, quit trying to argue your first point was valid. Just admit that was wrong, was not what you meant, and go on.

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

I was not referring to you with this response. I never claimed you said "all." I realize you said "most."

Race cars are not meant to "transport" the driver.

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

No, they are not. Teams are permitted to switch drivers during races. The purpose is to move the vehicle around the track at a high rate of speed, not to transport the driver or anything else. That may be done by remote control some day.

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

What are they meant to do?

---

who's smarter than you're? i'm!

If forced to choose, I choose the side that has bacon. I guess you lose. (If you give me Faken Bacon I will kick your ass.)

---

I'm beginning to think that we are much more fucked than I thought.

Teams are permitted to switch drivers during races. The purpose is to move the vehicle around the track at a high rate of speed, not to transport the driver or anything else. That may be done by remote control some day.

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

But today they transport a driver. And even without a driver a viable argument could be made that they are still transporting 'goods' of some sort ( at least much more viable than arguing they aren't designed to transport a driver today). Changing the person out for another person does not change the purpose of the car.

In 10,000 years this is going to be all that can be found of the internet. That further civilization will be quite confused that we had so much time on our hands that we would argue about whether or not race cars were a means of transportation.

---

I'm beginning to think that we are much more fucked than I thought.

Youre being silly, but i still like you.

---

who's smarter than you're? i'm!

The driver is merely a component of the car. Saying the "purpose" of the racecar is to "transport" the driver is like saying the purpose of a racecar is to transport the steering wheel around the track.

No, it isn't.

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

Who gets the trophy? The driver or the steering wheel?

---

who's smarter than you're? i'm!

I still like you as well, but, it must be hell inside your head ...

I'll say the same to you - claiming the "purpose" of a racecar is to "transport" the driver around the track is like saying the purpose of the racecar is to transport the steering wheel around the track. No, it isn't.

Ricky Bobby should have taught everyone that the car has to cross the finish line, not the driver. The driver is irrelevant and is merely a component of the car. Thus, the winner of an auto race is not the driver to first cross the line. It is the car.

The opposite can be said about a triathlon during which the bike transports the racer. The racer must cross the line first to win and the racer uses the bike for transportation, rather than being a mere component of the object that must cross the finish line.

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

Irrelevant to the discussion. If the driver crossed the finish line outside the car, the driver would not be the winner.

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

Someone needs to go to the rule book because I don't know. If the driver falls out and the car crosses the line without him, does the car win?

---

I'm beginning to think that we are much more fucked than I thought.

At which point the car is transporting a separate driver. Regardless, the car has to transport a driver. The cars don't drive themselves, at least not yet.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

I certainly see the difference between what he said, and the tortured meaning you're trying to ascribe to his words.



Whether a pistol is an offensive weapon or not is irrelevant. Nobody claimed that all or most guns were offensive.

Again, until you can provide a list of all variants of firearm and show that more of them were designed specifically to shoot at paper and not animals or people, then you're claiming facts not in evidence counselor.


You're mistaken on your history. The .22 round was designed back in 1850s for rifles and Smith and Wesson's first pistol. It was a small game and self defense round, long before it became the choice for target shooting.


That's not akin to what I'm saying, since I'm not claiming "all" anything, and since I pretty carefully crafted my assertion to include kill and/or injure.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

LOL! Yeah, just like the race car is "transporting" the steering wheel!

Ha! Ha! Ha!

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

Can you win the race if the driver falls out? Will the result be the same if the steering wheel or any other part of the car falls out?

And in the event of a crash, what part of the car crossing the line counts? Google is letting me down. I'm betting it is the part that has the driver in it, not the part with the steering wheel if they are separate.

These are burning questions that must be answered.

---

I'm beginning to think that we are much more fucked than I thought.

This thread has become one of the dumbest threads that I can remember.

Congrats to JSA for ruining the internets.

---

How does Danny Hart sit down with balls that big?

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

You didnt convince the jury, but you gave it a valiant effort!

---

who's smarter than you're? i'm!

Looking at results Edwards didn't get credit for finishing. He should have carried the steering wheel across.

If he came sliding across in just the seat does it count? Given that he didn't get credit I assume it has to be under power of the car.

I also wonder how much money this question has cost me.

---

I'm beginning to think that we are much more fucked than I thought.

LOL! I'd like to see the reaction you get from an F1 or NASCAR driver when you tell them they're basically the same as a steering wheel!

Ha! Ha! Ha!

You really get ridiculous when you take your crazy pills.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

I don't cater to the lowest common denominator and it doesn't get any lower than BLeP.

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

LOL! They are a component of the car and the driver crossing the finish line without the car does not win.

Ha! Ha! Ha!

This thread isn't going to well for you!

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

Yeah! Yeah! Ricky Bobby wins! You'll never see anything like that in a hundred lifetimes. lt was completely illegaI and in no way will count, but that was something.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

I don't think that would count. After all, the "purpose" of a race car is to "transport" the wheels, and the seats, and the fuel tank, and the ...

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

Wow, you're really taking a detour to stupidville today.

The person is not a component of the car anymore than the person is a component of a firearm. One is a driver (drives the car - not a part of the car) and the other is a shooter (fires the weapon - not a part of the firearm).

That's ok. We all know you get in these moods occasionally where your hormones just won't allow you to abandon a ridiculous argument no matter how tenuous the thread you've attempted to establish.

Is there a full moon? Or maybe you're on your period?

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

In a race car, the person IS a component of the car. If the person leaves the car, the person is disqualified from the race. The race is measured by the car crossing the finish line, not the driver.

Your lack of knowledge on this topic is only paralleled by your lack of knowledge of the civilian firearms market. Much like that discussion, you find yourself backed into another corner and your muskrat-like tenacity is not only admirable, but cute and scrappy!

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

Ruh, roh...

JSA and slowguy are having a condescension-off.

---

How does Danny Hart sit down with balls that big?

Slowguy can go pretty low. I think he is only about 5' 6". But he is a scrappy little fellow!

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

Nope. JSA is so far off the ledge now, he's on his own.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

Looks like I won.

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

Thanks for keeping the conversation going. ;-)

It's amazing how some people can believe such a ridiculous premise as 'guns are designed to kill'. And their out sized, emotional response to any challenge to that premise belies their cognitive dissonance on the subject.

If they can't understand that most guns are designed for multiple purposes, from hunting to target shooting, to competitions, etc, then they are obviously using the 'guns are designed to kill' idea to paint all gun owners as (potential) killers and therefore are worthy of ridicule and more. Much like the labeling of people as racist, sexist, nazis.

Who here is making emotional arguments?

---

who's smarter than you're? i'm!

#notme

Do you think that guns are not designed to kill?

---

who's smarter than you're? i'm!

No

Did you mean to contradict yourself?

---

who's smarter than you're? i'm!

No

This is pretty silly. I'm one of the guys here telling the obvious truth, which is that firearms are, by and large, designed to kill or injure. I'm also now more than 20 years into a military career, shoot regularly, shoot reasonably well, and have no particular problem with hunting or self defense gun ownership.

Guns are tools. It's helpful to know what your tool was meant to do. It's ridiculous to shut your eyes and cover your ears and deny what your tool was designed to do just because you're afraid that some anti-gun person will try to make fun of you for it.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

What exactly is the point of saying guns are designed to kill?

Kill what? For the sake of argument, I'll stipulate that my AR15 and 1911 are both designed to kill people.

Who or what is my pump action .22 Remington Fieldmaster designed to kill? Rabbits?

Who or what is my double barrel .410 designed to kill? Doves?

Who or what is a Beretta Silver Pigeon Over-Under designed to kill? Sporting clays?

Who or what is a Benelli MP90S designed to kill? Olympic bulls-eye targets?

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

Well in this thread, the point was to draw a distinction between cars and firearms, in the context of a dunce post comparing driving a car over the speed limit or getting into an auto accident with failing to maintain accountability for your firearm to the point where you get to the airport having forgotten you have a pistol in your baggage.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

Like you said, guns are tools, and are designed to expel a projectile (or multiple projectiles). What the user tries to hit with those projectiles is up to the user.

The intended purpose of most legally purchased guns is hunting, target shooting, competitions, or just collecting. Even most home defense purchases are made in the hope that they are never used for that purpose.

Like I said, they are multi purpose tools, and most of those non-lethal purposes are random things people came up with that the designers didn't think about. As mentioned, there are plenty of guns that are designed for specific sporting/competitive purposes (air rifles, biathlon rifles, etc), and while they could probably still kill a person, it certainly isn't their purpose.

Saying guns are designed to kill, is like saying pickup trucks are designed to haul drywall. It's just one of the many things you can do with it.

I'm not seeing it.

Let's say I forget that I have a bag of fireworks in my carry-on. Is that somehow less of a problem than forgetting that my gun is in my bag, because fireworks are designed for oohs and ahs, and not "to kill"?

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

I don't know that it's useful to build a full hierarchy of all possible offenses, but surely forgetting that you have explosive materials in your bag is also not great.

Ownership of certain dangerous things requires more exercise of responsibility. If you have a bottle of poisonous or toxic liquid, you have to be careful of where and how you store it. If you have explosive materials, you have to maintain accountability of them and exercise more responsibility regarding where and how you store them. The same concept goes for firearms, and it's astounding and saddening that any supposed gun ownership advocates would argue others.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

Not for nothing, but you keep listing hunting as if it doesn't involve injuring or killing. I have to say, you might be doing it wrong.

That said, when you add hunting back into the "injure and /or kill" category, I think it's fairly obvious that the majority of firearms are produced and purchase by people or organizations that intend to use them for those purposes. Either military and law enforcement agencies who intend to use them (when legally required) to shoot people, criminals who intend to use them illegally to shoot or at least threaten to shoot people, citizens who intend to use them (if legally permissible and only if required) to defend themselves by shooting people, or by hunters who intend to use them to shoot game.

There's nothing wrong with most of those uses (except the illegal ones).


The purchasers intend use doesn't change what the weapon was designed to do. If I buy an AK-47 just because I think it looks cool and I want to paint it gold and hang it on my wall, that doesn't change the fact that it was designed to shoot people.


Of course that's true, but it doesn't represent the majority of firearms.


No. It's like saying pickup trucks are designed to transport people in the cab and goods of some sort in the bed. That's what they are designed to do. People may do other things with them, but that's what they were designed for.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

Ownership of certain dangerous things requires more exercise of responsibility.

Absolutely agree. I have no problem with that. I have no problem, whatsoever, with the idea that owning a gun carries responsibility for handling it safely.

But yeah, that applies to other dangerous things, like, say, cars. It does not matter that a car is designed to transport people or things, and not "to kill." Cars are dangerous.

There's really no point in saying that "guns are designed to kill" other than to appeal to emotion, and it isn't even really true. And what something is "designed for" often has little to no bearing on how dangerous it is, and how that thing should be handled in a responsible manner.

The same concept goes for firearms, and it's astounding and saddening that any supposed gun ownership advocates would argue others.

It would be astounding if it happened, but it hasn't happened, so I'm unastounded.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

A couple of people in this thread remarked that forgetting you have a firearm in your bags is just a simple mistake. And Veganerd's response about guns being designed to kill was in response to a post that created the analogy between losing accountability for your firearm, and speeding by 10mph over the limit or having been involved in a car accident.

Yes, car ownership also requires added responsibility. I don't have any problem with that. That's why we have licensing requirements, all sorts or laws governing their use, and lots of legal penalties for violating those laws.

If you misuse your automobile sufficiently egregiously, I think you shouldn't drive anymore. If you can't maintain accountability for your firearm, I don't think you should own a firearm anymore. I don't think those are controversial ideas.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

A couple of people in this thread remarked that forgetting you have a firearm in your bags is just a simple mistake.

Because it can be, and often is. Just like forgetting to set the parking break can be just a simple mistake.

Saying, "I can understand how someone could make that mistake," is not the same thing as saying people have no responsibility in the matter.

And Veganerd's response about guns being designed to kill was in response to a post that created the analogy between losing accountability for your firearm, and speeding by 10mph over the limit or having been involved in a car accident.

And I'm still not seeing the point. We seemed to agree just a minute ago that the operative factor was the dangerousness of something- a gun, a car, whatever, and not what the object was "designed to do."

How many people have been killed because someone left their firearm in a carry-on bag, and how many people have been killed because of speeding?

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

Ok, forget it. Gun accountability isn't that big a deal.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

Its not an appeal to emotion anywhere in this debate. Ita a simple fact. Most guns are designed to kill. The most produced guns of all time are designed to kill on the battlefield. Hunting guns are designed to kill animals in nature. Etc.

Its as much of an appeal to emotion as saying cars are designed for transportation.


Unless it was designed to to something dangerous.


I think most people would say that dangerous things should be handled responsibly.

---

who's smarter than you're? i'm!