Sirsnuffles

I'll never wear another smart watch.

The laxer on it burnt a pin sized hole on my wrist that has scarred. This broke the straw for me, never again... Don't trust them at all.

Other than the above. Taking it on and off daily to charge. Having to update it constantly. Having notifications constantly (easy solve). Having to touch it to wake. They just aren't designed well.

I had a seiko watch that was nice, but I felt like wearing it daily would damage it.

If I were to get another one, it'd be either a durable mechanical watch, or a dress watch. Wish I'd kept the seiko over the bullshit smart watch replacement.

A boat and a submarine.

I'll see myself out.

Quick. Buy this dude a dog!

Software shouldn't be locked.

The manufacturer should stand by their products.

Products don't need constant updates.

There is a point to repair.

I'd double down and say that maybe we shouldn't be driving cars. There are other methods of moving from point a to point b.

This position isn't exactly practical, yet, but it is consistent.

The car has a number of safety mechanisms to prevent death. A gun does too - but, that is to prevent it's intended use.

The car is regulated to prevent death. Although, not nearly enough. We have licences, registration, regular maintenance and checks. That are enforced with fines, usually.

The car is designed to move people and things from point a to point b. That is it's function. There is a side effect of that function, that it can kill people.

If the cars manufacturer had installed a spiked bullbar in a line of new cars. I think it would be fair for litigation to be directed at that manufacturer to determine the function of that bullbar. Because it seems like the intention is to make it easy for people to kill people.

The guns function is to kill. Plain and simple. The manufacturer has the intention to make tools to kill.

The cars function is to drive. Plain and simple. The manufacturer has the intention to move people and things around.

Yup.

I'm not American. This has been standard procedure for the 3 countries I call home. You need a gun licence - and it's pretty stringently assessed.

I don't need to abide by American constitutional bullshit. There is no tap dancing from me.

Can't hurt their profit margins, of course they would say that.

What is the intention of designing something capable of firing a projectile at high velocity?

Seriously, this argument is so stupid. Let me try.

Im a manufacturer that cuts wood at a specific size with the intention to use it as a door. It can and usually is used as a door, but doesn't have to be.

It is a weapon. That is the intention of the tool.

A spade has the purpose of digging, just as the gun has the purpose of killing.

I'm not arguing about the proportion of guns that kill things or not.

I'm merely stating that the purpose of a gun, is to kill. Otherwise, they wouldn't.

Target practice, is practicing to kill.

I'm not American, I don't need to abide by your bullshit constitution.