Kenosha Shooter Kyle Rittenhouse

[Angrboda]

First of all, it's the 'genetic' fallacy, not the 'generic' fallacy.  And second, there was no charge that you had fallen afoul of it.  I asked if you could make an argument from the fact you noted without running afoul of the genetic fallacy because if you can't, then none of your conclusions from that fact are valid and any conclusions that you draw are non sequiturs.  I'm not even claiming that you can't make such an argument.  I simply challenged you to do so.  Instead, we get this nonsense in reply from you.  Is English your first language, or is there a language barrier here that I am unaware of there being?

1. Sorry i must have misunderstood you and i apologize for the misspelling 

2. I did make an argument that didn't do so . Simply pointing out the original use of fire arms was war was the only point i was trying to make  . And my only conclusion was stating that fact .Though i do admit to challenging notion that using something aside in a manor it was not intended by the designer does not necessarily make it a multi use item

3.And i don't think my reply was nonesense . The first part was a misunderstanding . The second part was simply sourcing my claim that fire arms were originally used for war 

4. I believe i have stated multiple times (though perhaps not under this account ) that english in not my first language or even my second .

I don't have significant doubts about your claim after your citation, but I do still have serious doubts that you can draw any relevant conclusions from that fact. Simply stating that something was once used for a specific, single use doesn't ineluctably lead to the conclusion that it is not now a multi-use item. On its own without additional support, that doesn't seem to follow. And despite my prompting you multiple times, you don't seem to be aware of that fact.