General Discussion

cleanhippie

(19,705 posts)

17. There ARE penalties for improperly using a gun.

Reply to pnwmom (Reply #12)

Fri Jul 27, 2012, 01:00 PM

Jul 2012

Most often, doing so results in jail time.

Cannot edit, recommend, or reply in locked discussions

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

63 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Okay, for the last time: A car is NOT the same thing as a gun. [View all] Tommy_Carcetti Jul 2012 OP

Some cares are built to put people in fear... lapfog_1 Jul 2012 #1

I don't think that was built for fear Matt_in_STL Jul 2012 #2

It was built to be loved. Tommy_Carcetti Jul 2012 #6

Why shouldn't it be at least as hard to legally operate a gun as a car? pnwmom Jul 2012 #3

Yeah, its really difficult to hop in a car and start driving, even without (GASP) a license! cleanhippie Jul 2012 #5

There are penalties for driving without a license. There should be penalties pnwmom Jul 2012 #12

There ARE penalties for improperly using a gun. cleanhippie Jul 2012 #17

you only need the license to operate on public roads... belcffub Jul 2012 #32

Correct. cleanhippie Jul 2012 #35

You are correct kctim Jul 2012 #4

Just to clarify.. cleanhippie Jul 2012 #8

As part of a "well-regulated militia." The Constitution doesn't rule out regulations. n/t pnwmom Jul 2012 #15

And there are THOUSANDS of regulations in place already. cleanhippie Jul 2012 #18

Quality is as important as quantity. There were no regulations, pnwmom Jul 2012 #22

Indeed it was. cleanhippie Jul 2012 #30

I would like to see a return of the Assault Weapon Ban that expired in 2004, pnwmom Jul 2012 #58

Considering that mass killings with "assault rifles" are the exception rather than the rule hack89 Jul 2012 #60

Not so. Lizzie Poppet Jul 2012 #42

You usually hear it in the context of product liability badtoworse Jul 2012 #7

I'm not denying they can't be used for lawful reasons. Tommy_Carcetti Jul 2012 #13

It depends on the context in which the comparison is made badtoworse Jul 2012 #24

Which one kills more people in this country every year? Bake Jul 2012 #9

That's the wrong question to be asked. Tommy_Carcetti Jul 2012 #11

well, you won't hear it from me. It's one of their stupidest arguments, amongst MANY... CTyankee Jul 2012 #10

YAwn zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz L0oniX Jul 2012 #14

Thank you for that wonderful use of bandwith. nt Tommy_Carcetti Jul 2012 #20

Better use than your OP. Clames Jul 2012 #29

Curious as to your own thoughts then. Tommy_Carcetti Jul 2012 #31

That may be but death is still death. Lionessa Jul 2012 #16

Most deaths by cars are by accident. Most deaths by guns are not. Tommy_Carcetti Jul 2012 #21

No, I don't agree with either the premiss or the concept. Lionessa Jul 2012 #34

As I said in the OP, I'm not arguing all guns should be banned. Tommy_Carcetti Jul 2012 #45

We're talking about it being preventable treestar Jul 2012 #52

Drunk driving is more than an accident - depraved indifference is a crime. nt hack89 Jul 2012 #38

But typically drunk driving will not gather more than a manslaughter or VH charge. Tommy_Carcetti Jul 2012 #43

It is more complex than that hack89 Jul 2012 #56

Sure it can. I'm not arguing that with you. Tommy_Carcetti Jul 2012 #59

It is the misuse of a product that is at issue hack89 Jul 2012 #61

"for the last time"? -..__... Jul 2012 #19

Not worth it nadinbrzezinski Jul 2012 #23

Would you sue Ford if a drunk driver in an Explorer killed a bunch of people on the road? badtoworse Jul 2012 #26

Nope, not worth it nadinbrzezinski Jul 2012 #37

Those were manufacturing defects. Big difference. nt hack89 Jul 2012 #39

"They are exempt from ANY AND ALL LIABILITY, including, PRODUCT DEFECTS " badtoworse Jul 2012 #44

That's simply not true. Lizzie Poppet Jul 2012 #47

Nope, not worth it nadinbrzezinski Jul 2012 #50

I've read it. It does NOT protect against liability from injury caused by defects. Lizzie Poppet Jul 2012 #54

Not just wrong... dead wrong... -..__... Jul 2012 #55

your making things up here belcffub Jul 2012 #48

I'm glad to see that you understand the concept of analogy. aikoaiko Jul 2012 #25

A failed analogy is not an analogy at all. Tommy_Carcetti Jul 2012 #28

If there any points of similarity then you can't really say its a failed analogy. aikoaiko Jul 2012 #33

George Clooney and a golden retriever are both mammals. Tommy_Carcetti Jul 2012 #40

No, that's more of a bad syllogism aikoaiko Jul 2012 #51

Oh please. Tommy_Carcetti Jul 2012 #57

Techincally speaking a guns main purpose justanidea Jul 2012 #27

To kill living beings or to help the insecure fantasize about killing people ProgressiveEconomist Jul 2012 #41

Oh, the hyperbole! cleanhippie Jul 2012 #46

Context is everything. OneTenthofOnePercent Jul 2012 #36

Intent and design is certainly not irrelevant. Tommy_Carcetti Jul 2012 #53

They are both tools. Nothing more or less. OneTenthofOnePercent Jul 2012 #62

I agree treestar Jul 2012 #49

Locking SunsetDreams Jul 2012 #63