Okay, for the last time: A car is NOT the same thing as a gun.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

This discussion thread was locked as off-topic by SunsetDreams (a host of the General Discussion forum).

Yes, cars can hurt or kill, or put people in fear of being hurt or killed. Accidents happen. Vehicular homicide happens.

However, cars are not designed with the primary purpose to hurt or kill or put people in fear of being hurt or killed. The primary purpose of a car is to get someone from one place to another.

Guns, on the other hand, are designed with the primary purpose of hurting or killing or alternately putting people in fear of being hurt or killed.

No, I'm not arguing for a total ban on all guns, so please do not attempt to create a strawman for me.

What I am saying is that it is disingenous to claim that a guns are no more dangerous thing in society than a car. That is a lie repeated over and over from folks like the NRA and the like.

I expect to hear it from them. However, I don't expect it to here it from people on Democratic Underground.

[lapfog_1]

1. Some cares are built to put people in fear...

[Matt_in_STL]

2. I don't think that was built for fear

I think it was built because it had to be built.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

6. It was built to be loved.

[pnwmom]

3. Why shouldn't it be at least as hard to legally operate a gun as a car?

[cleanhippie]

5. Yeah, its really difficult to hop in a car and start driving, even without (GASP) a license!

[pnwmom]

12. There are penalties for driving without a license. There should be penalties

for operating a gun without a license.

[cleanhippie]

17. There ARE penalties for improperly using a gun.

Most often, doing so results in jail time.

[belcffub]

32. you only need the license to operate on public roads...

on my private roads/trails no license is required

[cleanhippie]

35. Correct.

I was merely pointing out the obvious flaw in pnwmoms argument that "licenses" prevent two things: jack and shit, and jack just left town.

[kctim]

4. You are correct

Owning and operating a car is a priviledge.
Keeping and bearing arms is a Constitutional right.

[cleanhippie]

8. Just to clarify..

Operating a car on public roads is a privilege.

[pnwmom]

15. As part of a "well-regulated militia." The Constitution doesn't rule out regulations. n/t

[cleanhippie]

18. And there are THOUSANDS of regulations in place already.

[pnwmom]

22. Quality is as important as quantity. There were no regulations,

unfortunately, that prohibited James Holmes from acquiring his assault weapons. It was all perfectly legal.

[cleanhippie]

30. Indeed it was.

What practical measures would you enact to prevent such an occurrence?

[pnwmom]

58. I would like to see a return of the Assault Weapon Ban that expired in 2004,

without the loopholes.

[hack89]

60. Considering that mass killings with "assault rifles" are the exception rather than the rule

how does this make you safer? He would have simply used a handgun. Do you support a ban on hand guns?

[Lizzie Poppet]

42. Not so.

The language of the amendment is NOT such that it restricts the RKBA to the subset ("militia&quot but instead ascribes it to the greater set ("the people&quot . This is pretty basic linguistic analysis, really...

[badtoworse]

7. You usually hear it in the context of product liability

The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act was passed because gun manufacturers were being sued for the illegal use of their products. The analogy to cars would be suing Ford or GM for the actions of a drunk driver. Where does the analogy break down?

Guns are weapons and sometimes they are used to kill. Unfortunately, there are times when it is necessary to do that for lawful reasons.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

13. I'm not denying they can't be used for lawful reasons.

However, the circumstances where one uses the primary purpose of a gun for a lawful reason pale in comparison to the circumstances where one uses the primary purpose of a car for a lawful reason. Hence, it is insulting to compare one to another and claim that the former is no more dangerous than the latter.

[badtoworse]

24. It depends on the context in which the comparison is made

Just comparing number of fatalities is meaningless. In the product liability, the analogy fits.

You're really talking about objective. intelligent discussion vs emotional blather.

[Bake]

9. Which one kills more people in this country every year?

Gotta ask that question.

Bake

[Tommy_Carcetti]

11. That's the wrong question to be asked.

The much better question is, which one's primary intended purpose is killed to kill more people every year?

And I think we know the answer to that.

[CTyankee]

10. well, you won't hear it from me. It's one of their stupidest arguments, amongst MANY...

[L0oniX]

14. YAwn zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

[Tommy_Carcetti]

20. Thank you for that wonderful use of bandwith. nt

[Clames]

29. Better use than your OP.

You must have missed some of the brilliant suggestions that have been made that guns should be registered and the owners licensed and insured the same way they do their cars. You are preaching to the wrong group.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

31. Curious as to your own thoughts then.

Is a gun no less a danger to society than a car?

That's not a hypothetical.

[Lionessa]

16. That may be but death is still death.

I don't see how you can make the argument that death by car is okay but death by gun isn't or visa versa.

If a thousand deaths a year makes one want to ban guns, then a thousand deaths a year by any other means should evoke the same response.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

21. Most deaths by cars are by accident. Most deaths by guns are not.

Intent and state of mind make a huge difference, wouldn't you agree?

[Lionessa]

34. No, I don't agree with either the premiss or the concept.

There are a lot of accidental gun injuries/deaths, so I'm not so sure about the "most", and intentionally vs. premeditated. Neither usually walked out of the house the morning and expected to shoot someone or kill someone with their carelessness with their car.

Death is death, it's of no consequence to the dead whether it was intentional or accidental. And apparently the courts mostly agree since sentencing can be quite similar.

Like cars guns should be licensed, registered, certified in handling and safety, and I'd even go so far as to say insured. But not banned. More people die from stuffing their faces with food and/or cigarettes and/or being poor, if we really cared about the mortality rate in the US, we'd be wise to focus on those, regardless of the recent gun drama.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

45. As I said in the OP, I'm not arguing all guns should be banned.

All I'm saying is that one of those two items should be treated with a greater deal of introspection than the other when it comes to their design and primary purpose.

[treestar]

52. We're talking about it being preventable

And the risk to be taken or the things to be sacrificed in preventing deaths from occurring.

There is social utility to driving and other activities. Gun owners mostly come up with self defense and "fun" as their reasons.

[hack89]

38. Drunk driving is more than an accident - depraved indifference is a crime. nt

[Tommy_Carcetti]

43. But typically drunk driving will not gather more than a manslaughter or VH charge.

Whereas malicious intentional use of a gun equals murder.

Murder charges involving a use of a vehicle are extremely rare. Murder charges involving use of a gun, by comparision, are not.

[hack89]

56. It is more complex than that

In the state of California, depending on the degree of recklessness and whether alcohol was involved, a person could be charged with progressively more serious offenses: vehicular manslaughter, vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated, gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated, or second-degree murder.

In the state of Georgia, vehicular homicide is more properly known as homicide by vehicle. It is defined, by statute, as the unlawful killing of another person using a vehicle. To be guilty of the offense, the perpetrator does not have to have an intent to kill, malice aforethought, or premeditation.[6]

First degree homicide by vehicle

This is a felony, that upon conviction will result in a sentence of between 3 and 15 years of imprisonment (or between 5 and 20 years for habitual violators), with no parole for at least 1 year. A homicide is first degree homicide by vehicle if the driver "unlawfully met or overtook a school bus; unlawfully failed to stop after a collision; was driving recklessly; was driving while under the influence of alcohol or drugs; failed to stop for, or otherwise was attempting to flee from a law enforcement officer; or had previously been declared a habitual violator".[6]

In the state of Louisiana, vehicular homicide is defined as the killing of a human being while operating a motor vehicle, or other means of conveyance, under the influence of alcohol and/or controlled substances. The minimum punishment is a fine of at least $2,000 (not more than $15,000), and 2–30 years in prison.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicular_homicide

Drunk driving can put you in jail just as long as shooting someone with a gun.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

59. Sure it can. I'm not arguing that with you.

But the issue that destroys the whole cars=guns analogy is the intended use of a product.

In law, there are warranty claims. And in considering a warranty claim, one must look to what that product's intended use is.

So if one files a warrant claim regarding a car, one could say that the intended use of the car was to drive from one place to another in a safe manner. If the person went beyond that intended use, it is a defense.

The intended use of a gun is to shoot an object, whether it be a live object or simulated object. The fulfillment of that intended use is the damaging of that object--whether it be a human being, deer, or paper cut-out.

There's no logical comparison between the two.

[hack89]

61. It is the misuse of a product that is at issue

tens of millions of gun owners use their guns for other purposes besides killing people.

My family entire shoots AR-15 in competitive target shooting.

[-..__...]

19. "for the last time"?

If only that were true... there's better odds of a Rush Limbaugh appreciation group being created here.

[nadinbrzezinski]

23. Not worth it

Last edited Fri Jul 27, 2012, 01:53 PM - Edit history (1)

I can't wait for the backlash at this point... it will come, it will come and precious lovers ain't gonna like it

[badtoworse]

26. Would you sue Ford if a drunk driver in an Explorer killed a bunch of people on the road?

In both cases, the fatalities were caused by the ILLEGAL use of a product.

[nadinbrzezinski]

37. Nope, not worth it

Last edited Fri Jul 27, 2012, 01:54 PM - Edit history (1)

[hack89]

39. Those were manufacturing defects. Big difference. nt

[badtoworse]

44. "They are exempt from ANY AND ALL LIABILITY, including, PRODUCT DEFECTS "

That is not true. See Wiki link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection_of_Lawful_Commerce_in_Arms_Act

[Lizzie Poppet]

47. That's simply not true.

&quot gun makers) are exempt from ANY AND ALL LIABILITY, including, PRODUCT DEFECTS"

That is simply false. Firearms manufacturers remain liable for injury caused by manufacturing defects, just like any other product. I'm not sure what would have led you to believe otherwise.

[nadinbrzezinski]

50. Nope, not worth it

[Lizzie Poppet]

54. I've read it. It does NOT protect against liability from injury caused by defects.

Take a look at the current FindLaw entry for product liability and firearms, too: http://injury.findlaw.com/product-liability/product-liability-and-guns.html

[-..__...]

55. Not just wrong... dead wrong...

Let me offer you a bit of friendly advice here... if you're really that intent and determined to take on the NRA, firearms manufacturers, 2nd amendment advocates, etc, it would benefit you immensely if you at least bothered to take the time and research/learn what the fuck you're talking about..

QUALIFIED CIVIL LIABILITY ACTION.—
(A) IN GENERAL.—The term ‘‘qualified civil liability
action’’ means a civil action or proceeding or an administrative
proceeding brought by any person against a manufacturer
or seller of a qualified product, or a trade association,
for damages, punitive damages, injunctive or declaratory
relief, abatement, restitution, fines, or penalties, or other
relief, resulting from the criminal or unlawful misuse of
a qualified product by the person or a third party, but
shall not include—




an action for death, physical injuries or property
damage resulting directly from a defect in design
or manufacture of the product, when used as intended
or in a reasonably foreseeable manner, except that
where the discharge of the product was caused by
a volitional act that constituted a criminal offense,
then such act shall be considered the sole proximate
cause of any resulting death, personal injuries or property
damage; or
(vi) an action or proceeding

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-109s397enr/pdf/BILLS-109s397enr.pdf



Otherwise you're just going to end up with egg on your face, just like this well known gun banner did...

[belcffub]

48. your making things up here

If someone is injured because of a defect in the product the gun maker can be sued.

They can't be sued because someone misused the gun.

[aikoaiko]

25. I'm glad to see that you understand the concept of analogy.

Its fair to point out the differences between the objects of the analogy, but that doesn't necessarily impact the analogy.

Furthermore, I would argue that primary purpose has very letter to do with whether or not something is more or less dangerous than something else. Its primary purpose might matter to you or not, but that has nothing to do with number of deaths?

[Tommy_Carcetti]

28. A failed analogy is not an analogy at all.

And guns=cars is a failed analogy.

Primary purpose matters. Intent matters. What we think while we are acting matters.

[aikoaiko]

33. If there any points of similarity then you can't really say its a failed analogy.

Primary purpose matters to you, but not necessarily to others.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

40. George Clooney and a golden retriever are both mammals.

Thus their shared mammalian qualities mean they are both equally talented in terms of acting.

That's an analogy, right?

[aikoaiko]

51. No, that's more of a bad syllogism

Back to ENG 101 for you.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

57. Oh please.

I'd like to see you argue to any English professor that a proper use of an analogy is trying to create some sense of equivocation based on most minuscule of similarities.

Oh, and have you seen the movie Air Bud? I do believe the main star of that movie just so happened to be a Golden Retriever. Which means that Golden Retrievers have just the same ability to headline a movie as Mr. George Clooney. Which under your logic--as an analogy, not a syllogism--means they both should be considered on the same page when it comes to acting abilities.

[justanidea]

27. Techincally speaking a guns main purpose

Is to fire a small metal projectile through the air at high speeds.

[ProgressiveEconomist]

41. To kill living beings or to help the insecure fantasize about killing people

[cleanhippie]

46. Oh, the hyperbole!

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

36. Context is everything.

Hurting or Killing (without context) is not inherently bad. Such actions can be used for defense/hunting or such actions can be used to commit crimes - same action & intent... but wildly different context and social impact. Cars can be used to transport people to hospitals... or they can be used to more effectively flee the scene of a crime. Context is everything.

And, just to be technically accurate, the purpose of a gun is to accurately propel bullets (not kill things). Cars drive... that is their sole purpose. Any mideed or abuse of that ability is the responsibility of the operator. Guns deliver kinetic energy... that is their sole purpose. Any mideed or abuse of that ability is the responsibility of the operator.

Fact of the matter is that, regardless of the inteded use of design, I think intent of design is irrelevent to an object's public reception. Some items were created with positive intent... only to go on and fuel more devestation than could have been imagined. The intent or design of an object does not matter, only the context of use.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

53. Intent and design is certainly not irrelevant.

And the primary purpose of a gun is to hurt, kill, or assault (legally defined as putting one in imminent fear of danger), regardless of whether it is self defense or not. Even if used for hunting, the gun's primary purpose is to kill. And yes, it could be used strictly for target practice, but target practice is nothing but a simulation of using a gun to hurt or kill. (Hence why you often see gun targets shaped in human form.)

And again, I'm not saying using guns for hunting or target practice is wrong, or that guns cannot be used in self defense, or that all guns should be banned.

The only thing I'm saying is that I'm fed up with the false assumption that the threshold of caution for guns is no different than it is for cars.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

62. They are both tools. Nothing more or less.

The intent of the user directly determines the items' impact on society.
The intent of an inventor or manufacturer is nearly irrelevent to the proper societal response to an object.

Yes, I have several items in my house that were designed only to kill - used legally and as intended, they bring me alot of comfort. So in the end, despite their intended use, they have a net positive benefit on the people in my house. My cars bring me nothing comfort and convenience... and again, they are used as intended and legally. Given the real world effects of each, whether designed to kill or transport, each is just a tool that brings me benefit/comfort.

In fact, if you want to argue that the maker's intent of cars and guns are wildly different... then go right ahead because I do agree with you. Nevertheless, I will still question the actual impact/importence of such proclamation. All the ideology, good karma and maker's intent in the world won't turn a gun, or a car, or anything else into more than what they actually are - tools. And in that respect, cars & guns (and any other tools) are the same.

[treestar]

49. I agree

and the regulation applied to vehicles is astounding when you consider how little is applied to having guns.

[SunsetDreams]

63. Locking

Discuss politics, issues, and current events. No posts about Israel/Palestine, religion, guns, showbiz, or sports unless there is really big news. No conspiracy theories. No whining about DU.

Please feel free to post this in Gun Control & RKBA

Thanks for understanding,
SunsetDreams
GD Host