Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Gun Control & RKBA

procon

(15,805 posts)

26. Your false equivalency analogy is deeply flawed.

Reply to beevul (Original post)

Wed Aug 24, 2016, 11:48 AM

Aug 2016

True = A gun is designed to kill. That it the primary purpose of the weapon.

False = A computer is designed to download and view porn. That is not the primary function of a computer. A computer processes data, any and all kinds of data, and for a multitude of tasks, not just porn.

There is no rational equivalency between a weapon and a computer.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

45 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

"A gun is designed to kill"... [View all] beevul Aug 2016 OP

Like I said in the thread in the group Duckhunter935 Aug 2016 #1

Just like a computer is designed... beevul Aug 2016 #2

Indeed so Duckhunter935 Aug 2016 #9

Depends on the gun doesn't it? Buzz cook Aug 2016 #3

"What was this gun designed to do?" beevul Aug 2016 #5

The intent of the user has nothing to do with the design of the device. Buzz cook Aug 2016 #11

It has EVERYTHING to do with it. beevul Aug 2016 #12

You're just being silly now. Buzz cook Aug 2016 #13

No, I'm saying your example doesn't apply. beevul Aug 2016 #15

Now you're talking argle bargle Buzz cook Aug 2016 #18

Clean your glasses. beevul Aug 2016 #19

2 things Buzz cook Aug 2016 #23

No, not 2 things. beevul Aug 2016 #24

" Lethality is generally in the aim, and generally not simply in the firearm." Buzz cook Aug 2016 #25

That is because "usage" is dependent on a human user. oneshooter Aug 2016 #27

So, your point is what? Buzz cook Aug 2016 #34

That is correct. beevul Aug 2016 #28

"Yes, a victim with gun shot wound to the foot is a dead person." Buzz cook Aug 2016 #35

Then don't label it a gun death. Assign it to malpractice. Nuclear Unicorn Aug 2016 #38

Um, the past is in the past. Buzz cook Aug 2016 #39

have you ever seen beergood Aug 2016 #16

Most weapons originated from the desire to feed/defend oneself. Vilis Veritas Aug 2016 #4

My copy/paste response to this insipid "argument": pablo_marmol Aug 2016 #6

A theory regarding the psychology behind this "argument": pablo_marmol Aug 2016 #7

No different than a knife or bow n arrow. JonathanRackham Aug 2016 #8

"Olympic shooting sports = sniper training?" beergood Aug 2016 #41

Mine are for saving lives... ileus Aug 2016 #10

whoa wait beergood Aug 2016 #14

Who cares? I have numerous guns - designed to kill, designed for sport, designed for jmg257 Aug 2016 #17

"when you need to punch holes in things." beergood Aug 2016 #20

Ha - nice! :) nt jmg257 Aug 2016 #21

My last use of a "killer" firearm Mugu Aug 2016 #22

that sounds beergood Aug 2016 #42

That would be correct. Mugu Aug 2016 #43

Your false equivalency analogy is deeply flawed. procon Aug 2016 #26

No, it really isn't. beevul Aug 2016 #29

Still flawed. procon Aug 2016 #30

Awful lot of people have concealed carry permits - 5.2% of population , plus numerous states jmg257 Aug 2016 #32

re: "A person using a computer poses no threat to me..." discntnt_irny_srcsm Aug 2016 #33

+1,000 pablo_marmol Aug 2016 #36

My update/paraphrase of an old saying discntnt_irny_srcsm Aug 2016 #37

Damn. That's good. Saving! NT pablo_marmol Aug 2016 #44

You're just full of assumptions, which is the problem, and the fatal flaw of the entire argument. beevul Aug 2016 #40

Message auto-removed Name removed Aug 2016 #31

"a computer is designed to download and view porn" Nuclear Unicorn Aug 2016 #45