lol. I think the new goal of this thread should be to come up with a completely objective language.

True intellectuals are never self-proclaimed are they.......

What I said flew over your head, didn't it?  You're taking what I said and making it seem like I'm trying to tell everyone to learn martial arts and that it defends against everything.  My point was that Martial Arts is typically used for self defense, but a handgun isn't usually used for, nor was it made for, self-defense.  Whether a handgun kills someone isn't all that dependent on the ammo as the ammo itself means nothing without the propulsion of the bullet itself.  Different ammo may move in deadlier ways, but the propulsion itself is definitely good enough to kill for the typical ammunition used.  It's also not as simple as how you put it, because if you put it into realistic terms a person holding a gun for self-defense is more than likely to kill an innocent person than if they did not have one at all.  Seems kind of obvious, but the way you're speaking seems like the only defense against someone with a weapon is to have a weapon yourself, or against a gun is to have a gun.  

Martial arts also can defend yourself against someone larger than yourself if you learn a martial art that isn't about the "offensive" like the ones that are popular in the media.  I'm not entirely sure how much you know about the martial arts yourself, but what I do know is that there are martial arts techniques that definitely work against those who are much bigger than oneself as I have seen a short old man giving an example of how he can subdue one much bigger than himself.  Martial arts may not be for everyone, though, is what he said.  Nowhere in my post did I say "everyone, learn martial arts for self-defense."  

The short old man gave an example of where he could do that.  He wasn't nessisairly fighting a bigger guy who was actualy trying to hurt him.  Or a bigger guy with a weapon, or a bigger guy with martial arts training.  The point is... guns are oddly democratizing... as there is the old saying "God created men, but Colt made them equal." 

And again, no Handguns weren't invented to kill people.

Additionally, Muskets were invented to kill people.   Handguns were invented afterwords for people to carry with them in every day situations to defend themselves from people with hand weapons like Swords.

Guns now a days have the propulsion levels they do, because those levels are more or less needed for protection.

Otherwise you end up with stituions like Andrew Jackson.   Who once when dueling let his opponent shoot him first.  Then while holding his wound, he aimd dead straight and killed the guy.

I think you overestimate how likely it is to be killed by a gun.

To quote Cracked

Actually ...

In real life, unless you're one of those dudes getting shot in the head or perfectly in the heart, you're probably going to make it if you can get medical attention. According to one doctor who has a little experience with these things, as long as your heart is still beating once they wheel you into the hospital, there is a 95 percent chance of survival.

Ninety-five percent! We'd think the fatality rate would be higher from getting shot with a damned paintball gun.

believe-most-people-survive.html#ixzz23YQvmTKP

It's not a matter of gun control or what works as self defense: a gun's primary purpose is to kill. It's made to ignite a bit of powder, propelling a hunk of metal into an object. why was this made? to kill other people. What people use it for is irrelevant, I could use one as a flashlight, it's still designed to kill.

It depends on the gun.  Pistols were made to disable.  Not kill... which is one of the reasons why they are relativly weak. 

Handguns could be a LOT more deadlier then they are.

Also, Play-Doh was invented while making a wallpaper cleaner.

I don't know anyone that would logically say that Play-Doh's primary purpose is to clean walls.

Trying to attach inventor intent to a products primary purpose is asinine since there are tons of inventions used primarily for reasons other then originally designed.

Normally I agree with you, but a Gun is a Gun, not a paintball marker.  Guns, on the worldwide scale, are still manufactured and sold with the primary intention of killing.  Wars, pirates, military, and criminals still buy them, and that's still their purpose.  When they start selling more rubber bullet ammo than typical rounds, then perhaps I'll respect your allegory, until then, Guns are still designed to kill.  Just becuase some people don't use them to kill and want to push that agenda, it doesn't change the fact that they were designed with murder in mind.  

I could use a cucumer as a dildo, but that doesn't mean it's not meant to be eaten.  (Well, it shouldn't be once it's been shoved up there, but the point doesn't matter.)  

As for the play-dough thing, the design of the substance has been altered greatly, guns still are to kill.  

the one think i learned is that more intelectual people (bigger iq) are happier because lets say they have the brains to solve there problems while non-intelectual (lesser iq) dont have that ability.

I don't actualy think eating a cucumber that's been up there would be scinetifically dangerous but i'm not an expert.  You could always wash it off as well.

Also, I'd GREATLY disagree that "A gun is a gun".    I mean, most cars are built for personal transport.  a freight truck however is designed for commercial transport, and a Go-Kart is designed for fun.  They're all cars.

On a world wide scale, everyone wants the rifles really, if anything you want a big gun in a place like Somalia so people are less likely to start shit.

You are right on. This site is one of the greats upon what you are talking about.