you're just flipping it the opposite wrong way, just because I don't use something for its intended purpose doesn't change the intended purpose

guns were purpose-designed as killing machines, the fact that you can also shoot targets with them doesn't really change that... it's no mistake that many common paper targets are human or animal shaped

you could also shoot targets all the same with something designed to be non-lethal

whatever the justification, buying a gun carries on the behavior that has resulted in pretty much the most widespread trades of a lethal device in history... small arms trade worldwide is absolutely brutal

▲

JumpCrisscross 3 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

> you're just flipping it the opposite wrong way

I'm not. Rejecting a dichotomy doesn't mean endorsing its opposite. Guns are absolutely more dangerous than chatbots. But I don't think going off a narrow purpose concludes anything about this lawsuit.

	▲	2 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		[deleted]

▲

RoddaWallPro an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

I have a really hard time with this argument because I'm _positive_ 99.99% of bullets fired in the US are NOT being fired to kill things. So I see people this arguments and its like, hm, interesting. Interesting that the overwhelming vast majority of the use of this thing is NOT the use that you are claiming it is used for. Doesn't hold up.

	▲	XorNot an hour ago \| parent [-]
		The vast majority of bullets fired from most guns would be military training. And even the military would acknowledge that a lot of the bullets they fire in a war aren't really intended to kill people specifically either. And yet none of that makes this bizzare attempt to argue guns aren't designed and intended as lethal weapons any less ridiculous.