How do you reason with people like this?

[Atman]

The son of a FB friend of mine posted a rant the other about how he "deserved" his arsenal of legally-acquired weapons. He was in some sort of law-enforcement or security detail, and bragged that he never left the house without packing heat. He had "dozens" of various weapons and he "deserved them." His dad chimed in about how proud he was of his son. Apparently dad is a corrections officer or something.

Then dad posted some NRA support ad featuring a big black Dodge Charger, and a screed about the car, with its 400hp V8, was "specifically designed to kill innocent people" and therefore it should banned. The ad included the number of auto-related deaths annually.

Well, I couldn't help myself, and pointed out the ridiculousness of his statement, that the car was "specifically designed" to kill innocent people. Guns, however, are "specifically designed" to kill. That is their only purpose. As you might expect, the name calling from his circle of friends began quickly.

"Guns are only designed to fire bullets. It is people who do the killing!" Hell, how does one begin to argue with such a mindset? A car is "specifically designed to kill innocent people" -- not just people, mind you, but innocent people -- because it has a big engine, but guns are merely for shooting bullets. If that's the case, why does the dude pack a weapon 24/7? In case he gets the sudden urge to do some target shooting?

I'm not anti-gun, but people like this are frightening.

[Scootaloo]

1. By all means, ban cars; they're literally killing us all anyway...

Granted our deaths come in the form of an uninhabitable planet rather than metal ramming through our flesh (Well, for most of us) but, by all means; let's get back to horses and bicycles, I won't cry.

But do take the guns with 'em.

[freedom fighter jh]

6. +1.

[Neoma]

42. Trains...

There needs to be more of those things

[freshwest]

62. No, no! That's how they're gonna ship us off to FEMA! Glenn Beck says so!

Wingnuts are voting against public services and infrastructure project because they entertain such thoughts.

[Scootaloo]

71. And progressives vote against it because NIMBY

"But don't trains, like, make noise? That would so disrupt my zen"

[freshwest]

72. But not if they add them to side of the interstate, that's the plan. I guess.

[AverageJoe90]

67. O rly? Lulz.

Sorry, man, I just couldn't resist.

[Ilsa]

2. There isn't even a remote chance they'll

Change their minds, unless something horrible happens to them or someone they love, and even then, it's a longshot.

And these people can't argue logically if a car is "designed to kill innocent people."

We need to find a way to re-educate the next generation about whose "rights" vs prudence, and what they "deserve".

[PerpetuallyDazed]

3. I wonder how many people actually commit homicide by car every year.

And the numbers on guns being discharged for defense vs. guns discharged for murdering purposes. I think the crux of the argument is willfully ignored by these gun nuts; it's about certain people who shouldn't have access to guns. The majority of gun enthusiasts aren't willing to sacrifice their recreational use of high-powered ammo, large capacity magazines and semi-automatic weapons, even if it will make us safer in the long run.

[littlemissmartypants]

4. I had a friend that committed suicide by car.

He drove at high speed into the biggest tree in the county. He was a great guy. Peace. LMSP

[Chico Man]

98. Asphyxiation is common

Not sure if it is more common than suicide by gun, but is certainly seems more easily accessible.

[littlemissmartypants]

99. Helium hood. n/t

[Chico Man]

20. Umm

I think there are about 50000 vehicular homicides a year. More than gun related deaths. Just saying.

[drm604]

31. Do you have a cite for that?

That seems large.

[99Forever]

44. Of course it doesn't.

I pulled up some stats from a quick Google that show it to be complete bull shit. Took 5 secs.

[Chico Man]

50. Tell those affected by drunk drivers that their loss is bull shit

Guns are obviously more dangerous.

[99Forever]

56. You didn't just get it wrong.

You missed the mark by a factor of at least 20x.

Nobody, I repeat nobody, is in favor of drunk driving, except maybe the drunks doing it.

But there are LOTS of idiots in favor of putting more and more deadly weapons in the hands of people who shouldn't have them.


See the difference yet?

[Chico Man]

61. Do you realize how many people drive drunk?

And get away with it?

How many people speed, drive recklessly, or text and drive?

Like I said, I'm way more concerned about driving hazards than I am about some crazy person shooting up my daughters classroom.

And no-one, sans Nancy Lanza and a handful of other freaks is in favor of arming the mentally ill.

The vast majority of gun related deaths are gang/drug related and suicides. The occasional crime of passion and mass slaughter have been taking place since the dawn of man. I'm not going to live in fear of that.

[Skittles]

64. YOU DO LIVE IN FEAR

THAT IS THE FUCKING PROBLEM

[RetroLounge]

66. ^^^ THIS!

RL

[Skittles]

68. I'm putting that on on Ignore

we've always had mass murder, don'tcha know!!! OMG

[Chico Man]

83. Go for it

Bath school disaster was pretty bad

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster

[Chico Man]

84. No

But all caps does scare me.

[Atman]

32. The ad says 35,000 total, so that figure can't be right

If it was correct, the nutters surely would have used it.

[Chico Man]

43. Yeah it peaked out at about 50k

But this whole argument is completely worthless anyways.

To question the validity of death by vehicle compared to death by firearm is incredibly insulting to many affected by vehicle related deaths (especially those caused by negligence).

[drm604]

51. So basically any discussion of this is "incredibly insulting".

You dismiss the argument as worthless, then claim that it's insulting to innocent people, thereby avoiding the discussion all together and making your opponents seem insensitive.

I could do the same to your arguments, and it would be just as worthless a rhetorical tactic as when you do it.

You gave a figure. Back it up. Apparently you can't or you wouldn't try to divert the discussion.

[Chico Man]

54. Of course I can't back it up

I didn't cite it, and just threw it out there, "I think".

The figures are pointless in the discussion, LOTS of people die by vehicle. LOTS of people die via gun violence. LOTS more innocent people die by vehicle. That's why I'm far more concerned about the drunk driver than I am about the gun toting maniac.

[tabasco]

57. Need to see some figures and explanation

for your claim that "more innocent people die by vehicle."

Are victims of gun violence not innocent? Was the room full of first graders somehow to blame?

Really - no need to respond. You are clearly pulling shit out of your ass to foist an agenda.

Your postings indicate a lack of intelligence.

[Chico Man]

58. They found a guy outside my apartment shot in the head

The car was still running. do you think he was innocent?

Edit: by the way, his name was Pookie. Look it up: "Pookie Providence Shooting" on google.

I don't live there anymore.

[99Forever]

33. You have a some actual evidence of that?

Or did you just pull that factoid from your butt?

What you "think" really doesn't count.

Let's start here:

"In 2011 - the latest year for which detailed statistics are available - there were 12,664 murders in the US. Of those, 8,583 were caused by firearm"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/jan/10/gun-crime-us-state


Your move.

[Chico Man]

45. Is this really a game I'm playing?

What an insulting position to so many affected by vehicular related deaths.

32,000 deaths in 2011. I'm sure you'll claim checkmate. You WIN!

[99Forever]

46. Your claim was that there are 50,000 vehicular HOMICIDES a year.

More than gun HOMICIDES. That is precisely what YOU said. Clearly and provably a lie. In fact, it's not even close.

Your move, smart guy.

[Chico Man]

49. Like I said, you win

And I'm still far more concerned about some drunk driver mowing over myself and my kids than I am about some psycho entering my daughters first grade class with assault weaponry and gunning her down.

I'd be pretty dumb to think otherwise (unless I were a drug dealer.. then I'd be even dumber).

[99Forever]

52. Got any more strawman nonsense you care to toss out?

So far, about the only thing you've shown is your ability to say almost nothing of value.

[Chico Man]

53. almost nothing?

Well glad I was able to get at least something of value. I guess it was when I called you a winner.

[Skittles]

65. forget it 99: lost cause

very, VERY deep

[Chico Man]

86. Get some fresh air

This in an Internet discussion board after all.

[Zoeisright]

70. Vehicular homicides don't mean what you think they mean.

They mean that the person driving didn't have control of the car. That is NOT the same thing as someone who goes out with a gun intending to kill people.

That has to be the most stupid false equivalency ever.

[Scootaloo]

73. PerpetuallyDazed is the one who made the mistake by use of "homicide"

Homicide just means "someone was killed by someone else."

it's when you add motive, that it becomes murder, manslaughter, or justified, etc.

[neverforget]

92. Bullshit. There were 12664 murders in the US in 2011. Of those 8583 were gun deaths.

67.7% of all murders in 2011 were by guns.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/jan/10/gun-crime-us-state

[Chico Man]

93. Vehicular homicide is not murder

[littlemissmartypants]

5. A dead person is a dead person no matter how they die and

if one cannot mourn the dead and reflect on life's passing they have a problem.

[Frosty1]

7. Seems like an apples and oranges problem

"If the primary function of cars was to kill, there might be more power in this argument. Atomic bombs don't kill people. People who drop atomic bombs kill people. Therefore, there should be no restrictions on possessing atomic bombs. Knives seem to be half-way in-between. Knives can certainly be used as weapons, but most knives are tools used for cutting.



Cars can be fitted with devices that prevent intoxicated drivers from starting them. If guns could be fitted with a similar safety device (rage and "crazy" detector?), then the argument would have more merit. I'm afraid the genie is out of the bottle. There are over 300,000,000 guns in this country. Most gun owners are responsible, but the existence of many, many, many irresponsible gun owners makes the problem critical."

[GoCubsGo]

8. You can't.

You can't reason with people who are overwhelmed with fear, and overwhelming fear is why most of these people arm themselves like that. Your friend is too afraid to leave his home without a gun? It's got to suck to live in such constant fear all the time, especially when the things you fear the most don't even exist, or those which you are extremely unlikely to encounter.

[Maineman]

36. Start with fear, reinforce the fear with consistent actions of avoidance, or carrying a weapon...

and you develop a phobia. With a phobia toward the outside world, outside your own home, you have a mental health problem. I suggest that people who will not leave home without carrying a gun for protection have a mental health problem. (The best way to get over a phobia is to gradually confront your fear.)

Terms like gun nuts and crazies may be more accurate than we realize. Perhaps focusing on their mental health issues would help tame their psychological need to be gun-toting tough guys who identify with fictional characters from tv shows and movies. Maybe we could also ask them to grow up.

[caraher]

9. I saw that on Facebook

I think my FB friend got it from Drudge's site. There was so much illogic in the image that I wound up resorting to a one-word reply:

"Derp."

I think the answer is that you can't reason with them...

[RVN VET]

10. It's the Founders' Fault

They should have been astute enough to add "except for dumb asses who brag about their guns" to the end of the Second Amendment.

[d_r]

11. cars regulated

Have to be registered and have insurance and pass inspections have seat belts and airbags. Testing and engineering to improve safety. Have to pass a test a.nd have a license to drive. Can not go 100 mph down interstate society sets limits to protect others.

[exboyfil]

12. i have to agree

In a sane world you should not have a 30 round Bushmaster or a 400 hp Dodge Charger. Neither are necessarily dangerous in most individual's hands, but both carry additional risk that society has to bare if they are misused. (Same reasoning for real tight licensing restrictions on someone hauling a tanker car full of gasoline).

A tricked out .223 Bushmaster with a 100 round magazine and slide fire sets you back about $1,500.

A 400 hp Dodge Charger costs $35K

What other things are low expense, low complexity, and high lethality

Bombs take time to make - you can't get loaded up to kill in an afternoon or with one theft
Stealing a bulldozer or a tanker car full of gasoline can yield high lethality

[Fumesucker]

87. Additional risk?

The entire point of a gun is to kill people or animals, there is no other truly useful purpose for it, if I wanted holes punched in pieces of paper it would be much easier just to do it with a pencil or something like that right in front of me.

A car on the other hand is designed with a benign purpose, transportation of people and goods from point to point.

The gun is the product that kills when operated exactly as intended by the manufacturer.

[etherealtruth]

13. There is no reasoning with someone like that

I keep my FB circle of friends fairly small because I am not dealing with stuff like that.

Gun nutttery is a fetish ... there is no undoing that.

[H2O Man]

14. The question isn't

"how" you deal with them, it's "why" you deal with them. Attempt to make friends with good people.

[Atman]

34. He is an acquaintance we see during summer months

He's not a "friend" I hang out with. I never asked about his job or political views. It came up only as a result of Newtown. We both live in CT.

[thucythucy]

15. Attempting to convince such people is useless.

It's like arguing with a dyed in the wool homophobe about gay marriage.

The people we need to reach are the vast majority of the reasonable, including reasonable gun owners, who can be swayed and are being swayed to see the logic and tragic necessity of reversing the "any gun anyone wants anytime everywhere" mentality of the NRA.

As with homophobes, the more progress we make the more desperate and unhinged the gun lovers will become. And the more unhinged and unreasonable their arguments (re: NRA presser last Friday) the easier it will be to swing the vast middle in our direction.

[obama2terms]

16. I agree creepy!

What a creeper I'd steer clear of him!

[slampoet]

17. Start talking Suicide figures.

BTW - I've never seen a corrections officer who didn't know someone who killed themselves with a gun. I had a landlady who was a prison guard for decades and she could list 12 suicides w detail at the drop of a hat.

[dangin]

18. Jesus

Just keep asking them who Jesus wants to have assault weapons.

[Festivito]

19. Thank them for being in a profession that checks their mental and physical health,

trains them on how to use and not use guns, and, also, a profession that can train on how to safely secure his other weapons while he is away.

Law enforcement is oft a 24/7 job.

As to the car, suggest that we would need a horsepower to weight ratio that if exceeded would require a health card and log the same as vehicles over a certain weight do now.

[sulphurdunn]

21. You don't.

The gun nuts have made if perfectly clear that the mass slaughter of little children is not too high a price to pay so they can keep their deadly toys, nor are they averse to making thinly veiled threats of open insurrection to do so. They are mostly folks who have a whole lot of loose and missing screws.

[loyalkydem]

22. I don't try to engage these folks any more. I block them from my view

and I'm tired of people telling me I'm wrong. If i thought these folks would be open to hearing my view I would engage them but in EVERY case, I got called names for my position. This is my personal view

[lunasun]

77. +1

time & energy waster to even speak to these low life types imo

[geckosfeet]

23. These kinds intellectually dishonest arguments are being channeled via high bandwidth

from both sides and everyone in the middle right now. It is quite fascinating to observe. Emotions are getting the better of many.

Intellectually-honest and intellectually-dishonest debate tactics
(NOTE: Pardon the link to an obviously RW blog, but there ARE some interesting insights here. This link is far less objectionable than some of the links to the freepland cesspool that are frequently seen on DU.)

Here is another:
A List Of Fallacious Arguments

Almost all arguments consist of one intellectually-dishonest debate tactic after another. It is one of the reasons why our country has gotten so screwed up.

There are two intellectually-honest debate tactics:

1. pointing out errors or omissions in your opponent’s facts
2. pointing out errors or omissions in your opponent’s logic

[CanonRay]

24. It's the same selfish, tea party mindset

that is ruining the country.

[Iggy]

25. Why Bother??

"Those who live by the sword shall die by the sword".

There's all kinds of actual, recent events provding ample proof for the above. One being the recent case of the father who shot his son dead outside their home-- he thought his son was a robber.

One can only hope the gun "enthusiast" described above will blow his own nuts off while playing with his guns.. or maybe his foot.

[Skittles]

81. that's father's story STINKS

they're still investigating that "accident"
http://www.newstimes.com/policereports/article/Lawyer-Giuliano-case-headed-for-2013-4062437.php

[Iggy]

82. GOOD LUCK

proving the father shot his son intentionally.

any eye witnesses to the shooting??

[Skittles]

94. I know it would be hard to prove

but they are well aware the father's story makes no sense

[JanMichael]

26. You don't "reason" with them. You impose legislation that

makes rules and laws that they are forced to live with. I don't give a shit what they "think" about it.

[Gman]

28. They are in the alternate reality and you cannot reason

With them. I suggest you unsubscribe to their news feed so you won't see their crap. Click on Friends and click unsubscribe.

Or just unfriend them.

[BeyondGeography]

29. Leave the 47 percentney alone

[dvhughes]

30. You can't...but you arm yourself with this:

Good entry on this at KOS:

Anytime the suggestion of increased firearm regulations gains a little traction, the comparisons come out. Cars kill more people. Why don't we outlaw cars? Putting everyone on foot would save three times as many people as are killed by guns.
Of course, the answer is that we already restrict the use of Automobiles. In fact, Automobiles may be one of the most heavily regulated items in the nation.

[TreasonousBastard]

35. You can't argue with that-- it's a mindset...

that isn't open to rational thought. It's a specious argument that allows its owner to maintain his position when rational arguments won't support it. I don't remember what it's called, but I'm pretty sure it has a name that psychologists should recognize.

Anyway the car was invented to get you and your stuff from here to there. A bigger or more powerful car might be more lethal in some circumstances, but it's primary use is still to get you from here to there, if faster.

The gun was designed for lethality. It's primary purpose is to kill something-- food, enemies, dangerous animals... The size of the gun only increases its effectiveness and, again, does not change its purpose.

Simple, no?

[Vietnameravet]

37. There is a term for people like this

They are suffering from "rectal cranial inversion!"

[WhoIsNumberNone]

38. The NRA loves creating false equivilancies

Guns = Cars
Guns = Spoons

Shit like that.

[Skidmore]

39. LaPierre is hammering on that one on MTP now.

That is the official NRA position. We need to organize against them. Millions of us need to reclaim the union of our nation. We are not one another's enemies.

[JoePhilly]

41. See my post below yours for how I suggest we respond to that argument.

[JoePhilly]

40. Try this .... You need a license to drive car. In fact, you might need graded licensees depending

on what you want to drive. For instance, I can drive a car, but I can't drive an 18 wheeler. To do so, I need a special license.

So point out this fact, and then tell him you AGREE that people should need graded licensees for gun ownership, and that its a GREAT IDEA. And then thank him for the great idea!!!

And send HIS idea to everyone you know.

Then watch his head explode.

[n2doc]

47. Don't bother.

All I say is, "Bring t on". We live in a democracy, and if enough people decide to ban assault weapons, it will be done. We will fight for civility and a safer world. And if we win and they resist, they can go to jail or worse. Matters not to me.

There is no reasoning with these people. Brute force is all they respect.

[Evasporque]

48. a .223 assault weapon is designed to wound/kill people....

not gophers...

[Recursion]

75. Gophers and groundhogs are about the biggest thing you should hunt with them

Even coyotes are a little too big for a .223 to be reliable.

[ProfessionalLeftist]

55. Here's how I dealt with it

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022059803

[samsingh]

59. low intellience people

[treestar]

60. He doesn't deserve those guns

The rest of us deserve to have someone as crazy as he is unarmed. Who knows if he isn't the next one to snap? I'd start going head to head against them like that.

[jody]

63. "How do you reason"? Start with an open mind because you and they may be talking about quite

disparate things with different needs.

If that's not feasible, try to vilify the person and be sure and throw in a few curse words.

[Zoeisright]

69. You don't. You get them out of your life.

And preferably far, far away.

[WinkyDink]

85. EXACTLY. To me, OP's "question" is ridiculous!

[Atman]

101. I think your "comment" is ridiculous.

I don't just remove everyone from my live with whom I disagree. Remember, this was just a FB friend. The guy show said the most offensive stuff (the one who felt he "deserved" guns and always packed when he left the house) was his son. So my FB friend posted the sill Charger ad. For that I must remove him from my life? Wow. And you call my op ridiculous?

[ZombieHorde]

74. See if you can out do them, just to test their limits.

For example, agree with them, and then latter, assert your right to own vials of contagious diseases. Perhaps an HIV Super Soaker, a black plague mister, and a polio dart gun. Obviously those are silly, and probably wouldn't work very well, if at all, but you have the right to have them. There is nothing in the 2A that says your arms have to be practical. If they disagree with you, then ask why. If they do agree with you, then that is kind of funny. Win/win.

[patrice]

79. Yeah, anthrax ammo for those lovable guns. There's the ticket!

[AverageJoe90]

76. Simple answer for ya: In many cases, ya can't.

I mean, if somebody really, truly believes that a '60s muscle car, of all things, was designed to kill people on its own, and not a gun which fires projectiles at close to a thousand miles an hour, then, well......they're really not worth your time, IMHO.

[patrice]

78. Can you conceal a Dodge Charger and walk into a movie theater with it?

Can you stand hundreds, even thousands, of feet away from someone with your Dodge Charger and kill them from that distance?

Can a Dodge Charger be simply pivoted through as much as a 360 degree arc and kill everything in the sweep of that arc without moving any more than that?

How many Dodge Chargers can someone with an average income afford? Store? Maintain? How many can someone one use at the same time?

How well do Dodge Chargers get around without a road?

How many sources for the purchasing of Dodge Charger fuel are there? compared to ammunition?

How likely is it that a 2 year old can kill him/herself and/or others with a Dodge Charger?

[patrice]

90. History shows all sorts of things people have/could do, but, in the context of DU here & now, that

would not fall under the heading of "Gun Control", because, once again!, guns and Dodge Chargers are not the same thing, therefore their uses are not as similar as some people want us to think.

You don't handle a Dodge Charger carrying explosives the same way you would handle any one of a wide variety of guns. Access to explosives & their use is not as easy as ammunition. People with the ability to use guns are FAR more common than people who will drive your Dodge Charger on the mission you describe.

And if you're telling me that you, and those like you, neeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeed your gun in case you come across a Dodge Charger carrying explosives being driven into a school bus, I could live with that if the firepower you are trying to claim was not so inappropriate to the task. Assault weapons are for organized combat professionals to use in defense of the people's collective known as the state. And I personally do not find your non-assault weaponry all that problematic as long as my choices in regards to YOUR choice are respected by OPEN CARRY.

Concealed Carry mixes the "the good guys" with the bad guys and prevents me, and those like me, from having our rights to choose our associations, with either one of you "good" or bad, respected. You get your "right" to concealed carry & I don't get my right of free association, because I am kept in the dark by Concealed Carry.

Go ahead, buy a gun to protect us from Dodge Chargers carrying explosives, all that I ask is that the weapon you choose not create the possibilities of threatening circumstances to others. That means: #1. No assault weapons, because if you get to use your assault weapon for the purpose for which it exists and why you bought it in the first place, THAT's a situation in which a lot of people who had no chance whatsoever to make free decisions about actions and consequences, and that IS people all across this country when we're talking about the use of assault weapons, those people are DENIED their choices by you and your assault weapons. They suffer consequences, direct or otherwise, from YOUR BEHAVIORS that YOU did not allow them to choose. IOW, you fucked their rights for a PRIVILEGE that you did not earn. & 2. Non-assault weapons are okay as along as, once again, my, and those like me/our, FREE decisions about the fact that you or anyone else is carrying weapons are respected by means of OPEN CARRY. If I had my way, if you came into a mall in which I happened to be present, I would not consider it the slightest violation of your rights to carry that weapon, in fact I would consider it great respect for your right to carry, great augmentation of the 2nd Amendment, for your to enter that mall, in which I happen to be present, carrying your weapon extended above your head, so I can see you down the mall concourse and be allowed by FREE RIGHT as an American to make my OWN decisions and choices about that fact.

[Chico Man]

96. The problem is then..

How will we rid ourselves of these assault weapons?

Mass murderers are going to figure out whatever means possible to kill. Solving that issue goes far beyond gun control: it's really because our society is simply fucked for more reasons I can describe. The msnbc glorified documentary of Timothy McVeigh today is one such example.

East Access to weaponry is certainly an issue for suicide and crimes of passion. No doubt these instances would drop if we enacted tighter gun laws, but most of these are committed with non assault weapons anyways.

The vast majority of remaining instances arise out of unlawful activity to begin with, so I'm pretty sure tighter gun laws will have no affect there.

So perhaps there would be a slight decrease of gun related deaths with an assault style weapon ban.. But honestly I don't think it will make a big difference. Our society is collectively mentally ill, and I'm afraid things are just going to get more horrific. Thanks technology and 24hr news.

[tulsakatz]

80. he's just trying to make excuses....

he's trying to figure out why guns are not the problem....because (in his mind), if guns are the problem, they might try to take his guns away!!

A car is "specifically designed to kill innocent people" -- not just people, mind you, but innocent people -- because it has a big engine, but guns are merely for shooting bullets.

They did something similar on an episode of Mad Men....except that they were using it related to cigarettes. They said that when you get in in a car, you could have an accident. Accidents happen every day, nothing can be done to change that.....but you still have to get where you're going. To which the client said, "that's your argument? You're going to die anyway, die with us!"

That argument didn't work on Mad Men & it doesn't work now! True, auto accidents can happen to anyone but cars weren't built to kill people....but guns are!! Whether you're aiming at a target, an animal or a person, guns do one thing....shoot bullets!!

[ileus]

89. The FB post is wrong...neither the car or firearms are designed to kill.

Sure the car's 400hp is overkill for granny or soccer mom, but it's still a hoot to get on the skinny pedal at the right time and place. Same can be said for a 30 round mag dump at the range, not much use if you're shooting groups but a hell of a good time to pull out and plink away.

Firearms are designed to do one of three things. Save/protect lives when deployed in self defense, target shoot (100's of varieties), or hunt.

Any use that cause innocents harm is misuse, and like any device can and does get misused just like the 400hp charger.

[cali]

95. I'm sorry, but that's just silly

Guns were invented to kill. That is their primary use in the world today. The purpose of a car is transportation.

I'm not particularly anti-gun but I am particularly anti-bullshit. And you just slung a load of it.

[ibegurpard]

91. you don't

you find people who can have reasonable discussions and come up with reasonable solutions and you work around the nuts.

[Initech]

100. A .233 caliber assault rifle isn't designed to kill people but a Dodge Charger is???