Originally Posted by
Six jours
I don't see why, but even if we accept the premise at face value, you still end up having to answer sticky questions about guns that were designed from the ground up to win competitons.
You keep saying it, but that doesn't make it true. A benchrest rifle, for instance, is designed, built, intended, whatever, SOLELY to be laid on a bench and fired at tiny paper targets. There is absolutely
nothing martial about it.
Guns were apparently around before anyone thought to point them at people. The Chinese developed the principle of ramming a charge of gunpowder (which they invented) into a tube and placing a projectile on top of it, to be fired into the air as a firework. If I wanted to be completely silly, I'd argue that that means it's wrong to call a gun a "weapon".
So you're misusing your "weapon"?
Yawn. Your stretches are beyond common logic.
Consider a firearm. Why was it built? By construction intent, I meant the gun, not an olympian's riflle, and when guns were first invented. When a rifle or handgun was first designed what was the purpose? We need not go back to things that might be construed as similar to guns. To fire a projectile that would kill, injure or maim. Shooting for target reasons and more specialized firearms may not be designed primarilly as weapons, but they are guns and what was the original purpose of a gun? And again, they are what 2% of manufactured guns? If you want to call those guns tools, I won't disagree, but the other 98% are clearly more weapon than tool. If you can't acknowledge that you ought to go back and retake stats and logic.
Again, I'm a gun owner, but this whole notion of guns being tools not weapons defies logic. It's the NRA's attempt to rebrand a gun's image in the populous and lawmaker. They take the term in use by the minority and try to apply it to the majority.