>>for what are guns designed for other than war?<<

There are guns specifically designed for sport shooting. There are guns specifically designed for hunting. There are guns specifically designed for self-defense. This topic is a dead horse and there are other, unrelated-to-war arguments made against gun bans. Topic's a dead horse. Stop beating it just because xeno childishly enjoys dead animal abuse. Gun-rights protecting a people from a tyrannical government, which is a significant argument against gun-bans, is NOT necessarily related to war in any way (sure, it is sometimes). I could explain it at some length as I usually do topics on which posters are denying the obvious truth, as I would to a young child, but I tire of that. If you really are a young child (as I'm sure a number of posters are), it's probably a good idea to read more and post less certain and argumentative posts. If you don't know the speed of light, it's more productive to ask than to argue that it's 700 mph because it's obviously really fast.

Gun rights allow a people to be less dependent upon their government. Gun-bans contribute to the pussification of peoples, as I discuss elsewhere, where they accept their betters' (government's) absolute control. The police have guns because they protect people! But you don't have a gun, because you're not allowed to protect yourself or your family. What am I talking about? Politics and philosophy. Though related to a free people protecting themselves, these ideas are clearly not discussing war.

This has been a dumb and embarrassing discussion (equivocation) from the start fueled by a juvenile poster who wants to argue a ridiculous position and makes posts about obvious truths. Yes, we discuss religion, economics and war because A) How we view/deal with them as a society effects everyone and B) people have very different ideas on how we should view/deal with them. Duh. We discuss social policy and other government/large organization topics for these same reasons.

"Climate change" is a political discussion almost everywhere. Al Gore and progressives (mostly democrats and socialists) argue for "climate change" legislation because it's tax, money, and control legislation. It has nothing to do with the environment. Nobody seriously makes that argument. Experts unanimously agree that proposed legislation will do nothing to even move in the direction of stated goals. Just as you can't expect to have a productive discussion on genetic research on this forum, you can't expect politicians to produce "climate" legislation that has anything to do with the environment. That would require them to have a real understanding of science or use real scientists' input. They know they're too smart to need real scientists. They find and fund the right scientists to support their legislation. They don't shape their powerful legislation around real science. How silly.

It takes education and intelligence to discuss those things and not embarrass oneself, You_Fool. This is something that a number of posters have never realized.