Mate the closest thing you've done to making a counter argument is say "nuh uh!" Lol. And again, you're making baseless assumptions about me.

Why would I defend it when it hasn't been attacked?

You make a lot of assumptions about me based on nothing. Not a good look.

You sound angry.

Because you choose not to look. That's the whole point. You refuse to engage with anything.

You clearly don't care to listen to any of the heaps of evidence that points to the contrary. If you're not arguing with the intention of actually hearing anything your opposition is saying, why argue? Just like wasting time?

Right, point would be that the energy only funnels into a car when the space is occupied, else it goes into powering the building. Is it fantastical and cost prohibitive right now, sure, but it's an idea that could be implemented when it's less so. These technologies get significantly cheaper over time.

Or it could just be a nice fringe benefit. It doesn't have to fully charge your car, just a little trickle charge, enough to cover the trip there perhaps. I feel like it's be enough output to at least do that much, combined with being a shaded spot.

Pretty sure definitionally speaking, you're wrong, as evidenced above.

And weapons are tools. We've come full circle. Appeal to emotions all you want. That's all your argument boils down to. It's fuckin hilarious to me that you seem to think this argument is about whether or not guns are a good thing. That's NEVER been the argument here. Guns aren't good or bad, they're simply tools. Treat them with respect and seek actual understanding, and maybe we can actually effectively regulate them.

Well, three of them are construction workers, and one is a kid misusing a tool, is what you want me to say. If you want an example of what I'm talking about, though - three are white, and one is black. Three are facing left, and one is facing right. Three have their arms up, and one had their arms down. All of those are valid answers to your question. This is why definitions, agreeing on them, and sticking to them, are important.

There, you got my response, now go engage with my argument, instead of deflecting.

So do you not consider hunting for food productive? What about sporting purposes?

There's a very real reason I'm digging in on this. You can't just arbitrarily say a certain thing isn't what it clearly is, because it suits your purposes. A gun is still a tool, even if it's quite regularly misused. You lose nothing by classifying it as a tool, and by seeking to reclassify it as something else, you open the door to a host of legal fuckery.

Further, we regulate tools all the time, so it's not like saying it's a tool means we can't, or shouldn't, regulate firearms. Just look at cars. Definitely tools, and regulated to high hell. It's important to be specific, though, if we're proposing to regulate things. If you're not specific, you end up with dumb things like certain kinds of nail guns being regulated as firearms.

I'm not some crazy gun nut. I think there should absolutely be some more regulations on guns. I think they should make sense, though, and to do that you have to define your terms rigidly.